By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

There has been, of late, a vast proliferation of Jewish organizations, dinners and dinner honorees. The proliferation of these three has in turn given birth to a new phenomenon called “Dinner Honoree Ad Chiseling.” It goes something like this:

“Yes, I would like to put in a full page color ad for the honoree, but I can’t pay the regular price.”

“Okay look. I can give you the full page for $700 instead of $1000.”

“No. Can’t do that. I will give you $300 but you have to give me two seats too.”

“Fine. But don’t tell anyone.”

“Sure.”

THE PROHIBITION

The prohibition known as Gneivas Daas, is about fooling or deceiving others in physical practice. Is putting in a $1000 ad, but only paying $300 considered Geneivas Daas?
The Gemorah in Chullin (94a) cites Shmuel as saying that the prohibition applies to everyone.
The Gemorah in Chulin 94a cites a Braisah which discusses four examples given by Rabbi Meir of things that are forbidden on account of the issue of Gneivas Daas:

• It is forbidden to repeatedly invite someone to a meal when you know that he will refuse.

• It is forbidden to repeatedly offer gifts when you know that he will refuse.

• It is forbidden to appear to up a new barrel of wine (when one is actually opening it for a previous sale) unless one informs him of the real reason he has opened it [the underlying issue is that the wine will not last as long now that the barrel is open and it is a big favor to the guest, much like opening a brand new bottle of Blue Label would be nowadays].

• It is forbidden to offer someone oil from an empty flask to anoint oneself when one knows full well that the person will refuse it. If, however, he is offering the oil to show (others – Rashi) his fondness for the person it is permitted.

We see, therefore, that Gneivas Daas is violated even if there is a non-financial deception – in other words even if the honoree is not getting less money. The prohibition of deceiving is a clear out and out prohibition according to all opinions. According to the Sefer Yereim and the Ritvah it is a biblical prohibition. According to the SMaK the prohibition is derabanan. But all hold that it is a full blown prohibition.

There is a fascinating Shaarei Teshuva (3:181) which states that the leniency of “Mutar l’shanos mipnei haShalom, sometimes it is permitted to tell a white lie to maintain peace” does not apply to Gneivas Daas. Gneivas Daas is an important and essential value in Torah Judaism.

AN ILLUMINATING GEMORAH

The Gemorah in Rosh HaShana 26b records the following incident:
[Someone came and said,]

“John Doe blanked me!” [The word that he had used was, “keva’a.”]

Levi did not understand what that man was saying to him. He did not know the meaning of the word, “kava’a.”

He went and asked the meaning in the Beis Midrash. They said to him: That man said to you: He robbed me, as it is written: “Will a man rob [hayikba] G-d?” (Malachi 3:8).

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: Had I been there in Levi’s place, I would have tried to uncover the meaning of the word in a different way. I would have said to him: “How did he keva’a you?

With what did he keva’a you? And why did he keva’a you?” And from his answers I would have understood on my own what was being said.

We see from this Gemorah that Rava of Barnish was suggesting a type of deception of sorts that would not be considered a prohibition of Gneivas Daas.

The operative definition of non-financial “Gneivas Da’as” according to the TaZ (Yore Deah 120:11) is where the deceiver receives a benefit of favor. It is where the person being deceived would feel that they owe you something. In Hebrew this term is called, “yachzik lo tovah.” Since the deception here may involve someone doing someone else a favor – it may be considered Gneivas Daas. The same would be true both in this Gemorah in Rosh HaShana.

IS IT LYING?

In regard to the verse (Shmos 23:7) in Parshas Mishpatim of “midvar sheker tirchak – stay away from a false matter,” there is a three way debate as to how we understand this pasuk. The Chofetz Chaim rules in his Ahavas Chessed that there is an out and out prohibition to lie. This is in accordance with the view of some Rishonim. Other Rishonim hold that the verse is merely good advice, but not halacha. A third opinion holds that it is applicable to judges adjudicating law. Generally speaking, the view of the Chofetz Chaim is normative halacha.

But here, there is no actual lie being said – it is just that the person placing the ad is misleading the other. The Targum Unkelus, according to the Sefer Be’er Moshe, translates the verse as meaning – regarding falsehoods look at it as something disgusting to stay far away from.

It could be, however, that everyone knows that it is being done – so it may not be a violation of midvar sheker tirchak.

EVEN FURTHER

Perhaps the person placing the ad cannot afford it, and doing this is a form of lying mipnei hashalom.

The Gemorah in Yevamos 65b is the source for the idea of lying for the sake of Shalom. The Gemorah cites Rabbi Eelaah in the name of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar derives this principle – that one may “change” to maintain the peace from the fact that the brothers told Yoseph that Yaakov their father had instructed them to tell Yoseph to forgive their sin against him. In fact, Yaakov did not leave any such instruction.

Rav Nosson even goes further – it is not just that permission is granted – it is even a Mitzvah! How do we know this? Because Hashem instructed Shmuel the prophet to lie to Shaul the king by telling him that he was bringing something to slaughter to Hashem. In fact, Shmuel was going to anoint Dovid as king in his stead.
It seems that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Nosson are not in agreement with each other but are actually arguing. Rabbi Elazar says that one may lie for the sake of peace. Rabbi Nosson says that it is a Mitzvah to do so.

The Eliyahu Rabbah OC 156 understands this Gemorah in this way too – that they are taking opposite positions.

Do we pasken, rule, like Rabbi Nosson? The Chofetz Chaim (Hilchos Rechilus 1:14) rules that we do rule that it is a Mitzvah. He is not alone. The Rif in Yevamos and in Bava Metziah 13a quotes our Gemorah and clearly rules in accordance with Rabbi Nosson. The Rosh in Yevamos 6:21 also rules like Rabbi Nosson and the Ohr Zaruah BM 3:63 does so as well.
So we see that not only may it be permitted in such case, when there is a Mitzvah to perform, Rav Nosson holds that it is a Mitzvah and it looks like we rule in accordance with Rav Nosson.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions may be vastly different. These ads depend upon the situation. If the person chiseling can afford it – it may be a genaivas daas. If he cannot – it may be a Mitzvah.
One last thought: There is another understanding of the verse. MiDvar Sheker – Regarding something that is a lie – tirchak – you will become distant – that is you will end up being distant from Hashem – Whose signet ring is truth. The goal of our life here on earth is to do Hashem’s Will and emulate Him to the greatest extent that we can.

The author can be reached at [email protected]