by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Yesterday, expelled congressman George Santos was in court in Central Islip for a status conference for a possible plea deal on nearly two dozen fraud charges including wire fraud, identity theft, campaign finance violations and other crimes.  He was expelled from Congress on Dec. 1st, 2023.

During the conference, the judge noted that there were an astonishing 1.3 million discovery material documents that the defense has to review.

How is he currently supporting himself?  Apparently, he hires himself out for messages on a website called Cameo where he recently upped his fee from $75 to $500 a message. Speaking with CBS New York’s Marcia Kramer after he was expelled, he said, if you can believe him, that  he made more in seven days on Cameo than he did during his time in Congress.

The two questions that pertain to our halachic analysis are as follows:

1.  Are gentiles also commanded in the laws of Gneivas Daas – deceiving others?
2. Can a Jew engage George Santos’s services on Cameo to send some sort of a video message to another?

In response to the first question, the Ritva in Chulin 94a indicates that a Gentile is included within the concept of all matters of theft because when the Torah discusses the prohibition of theft it does not say that it applies only to Jews (by using the words “Ish Ba’Amiso”). The Ritva then quotes the Tosefta in Bava Kamma 7:3 that lists different types of theft and includes Gneivas Da’as (deception) as a form of theft.

Most authorities understand the aforementioned Ritva as not only prohibiting a deception to be perpetrated against a Gentile but also for a Gentile to perpetrate a deception on another. Furthermore, the Yereim and the SMaG both cite Bereishis 31:26 where the word “Geneivah” – a theft, refers to a form of Gneivas Da’as. So, our conclusion is that normative Halacha would understand the prohibition of Gneivas Da’as as applying to Gentiles as well and it would be prohibited for this Gentile politician to deceive the public.

As far as the second question, engaging this former politician, that depends. Engaging a person does not necessarily mean that one is giving a “Hechsher” on him (i.e. accepting his behavior). For example, we find that Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi engaged in various discussions with Antoninus – even though he was a murderer. However, in this case, the depth and the frequency of lying and deception is so extensive, that the Jewish community should avoid having anything to do with him.

The author can be reached at [email protected]