Talk:Geneivat da'at

A fact from Geneivat da'at appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,305 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the geneivat da'at principle in Jewish law has been used to forbid false advertising, insider trading, cheating on the Regents exams, and the failure to cite secondary sources?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

Don't be deceived...[edit]

This article was started with the best of intentions. I didn't see many uses of the term within wikipedia, but I'm wondering if that's an oversight. Anyway, it would be good to find articles that should mention the concept. HG | Talk 14:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a technical term in halachic discussions, and would not normally be part of encyclopedia content. Even in the Talmud, its use is not particularly common. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

There are several pages on the topic in Encylopedia Talmudit.

In the Bar-Ilan database, there are 123 (with yod) and 18 (w/o yod) documents that use the term directly. Most of the usage is among the rishonim and later. Hilchot De'ot 2:6 is one of the earliest and most important sources using the phrase (no yod in Bar Ilan). (See also Tur YD 117, Beit Yosef YD 65 and 228). Shulchan Aruch ha-Rav has geneivat da'at as part of a subheading w/ona'at devarim. Kitzur Sh"A 63:4. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should cover ona'at devarim in this article. Bar Ilan lists 111 sources. Slightly less than geneivat daat, though it may be broader and has earlier refs. HG | Talk 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ona'at devarim is a completely unrelated concept. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they certainly are unrelated in many respects. One involves leaving a false impression and the other means causing mental anguish verbally. I'd be glad if we had 2 different articles on them. Still, they do constitute 2 of the basic laws relevant to the ethics of deception (sheker a third) and sometimes a deceptive act violates both prohibitions. Sorry for mixing it up. HG | Talk 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other basic laws relevant to deception. Sheker is the most obvious one - don't lie; that is both a civil and an ethical law. Ona'ah (without the "devarim") is certainly relevant, and the Talmud has some interesting rulings on how the Sages sometimes went to extreme lengths to stop merchants overpricing their wares (e.g. allowing multiple women to bring one sacrificial dove together after giving birth because the doves were overpriced). JFW | T@lk 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

I removed a footnote that lists the number of times GD is mentioned on the Bar Ilan CD-ROM. That is interesting, but that source is not exhaustive. More important is the fact that Geneivat Da'at is prohibited by the Shulchan Aruch. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think counting responsa falls under WP:NOR. But that is a minor point. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with your deletions here. The Bar-Ilan is a highly respected source and a standard reference; it isn't exhaustive but it is extensive and reliable. You'd be welcome to qualify the data (e.g., footnote), but I see no reason to delete the information. There is no original research involved here by counting up the number of documents, any more than if we listed the documents themselves.

Similarly, I don't see why you deleted Aaron Levine's cases study. He's a highly regarded scholar, the source is reliable, and the info is relevant. You're most welcome to bring in other examples or cases, esp to help fill out the picture, but why delete my initial efforts to begin that picture? HG | Talk 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info[edit]

Perhaps I should put this here before adding to the table, to allow JFW or others to express concerns.

From Activist Business Ethics in Judaism p.52 Jacques Cory:

[Meir] Tamari finds analogies between gneivat daat‚ defacement of knowledge‚ as stated in the Halakhah and modern business‚ such as misrepresentation of financial results to the minority shareholders as compared to those presented to insiders‚ such as actions of investment bankers‚ auditors and consultants in favor of the majority shareholders‚ insider trading‚ award of shares and warrants to executives in order to induce them to carry on resolutions to the benefit of the majority shareholders‚ takeover bids where the minority shareholders are forced to sell their shares at prices fixed by the management and majority shareholders‚ and so on.

"Ethical Investing from a Jewish Perspective". Mark S. Schwartz, Meir Tamari, Daniel Schwab. Business and Society Review 112 (1) , 137–161 "A religious version of social or ethical investment has been in existence for thousands of years. Ethical investment based on Jewish doctrine, for example, has maintained the same ethical principles for over 3,500 years. ... Parallel to these obligations was the insistence on the fulfillment of contracts and fiduciary obligations that required that other peoples’ funds given to one for investment or safeguarding be subject to Judaism’s moral and ethical teachings and obligations. 16 /fn/16. For example, shomrim, lo tonu, gneivat da’at."

"Where damage is caused as a result of certain corporate activities transgressing Jewish law, Jewish investors would be obligated to avoid investing in such companies. Examples include monetary damage arising from fraud, oppression, deceptive advertising, competition that is not based on any economic efficiency or benefit to the wider society, or activities that cause physical harm to people including the sale of illicit drugs or cigarettes, or spiritual harm caused through the sale of hard and soft core pornography, which stimulates sexual actions that are not permitted by Jewish law. Companies would be obligated to abide by a full disclosure policy that includes reporting defects or shortcomings in goods and services supplied, or in financial reporting. 50/fn/50. That is, based on Gneivat Da’aat and Mekach Ta’ut."

I'll submit more later... Thanks, HG | Talk 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Tamari. Al Chet: Sins in the Marketplace has section on GD, pp.73ff.

He explains ShA HM 228.6 (selling meat to gentiles as if kosher) and gives modern example of packaging that leaves impression of more numerous or larger goods for sale. Cites Sefer Yaatzu Hasidim onright/wrongs ways to sell or purchase (i.e., haggle). Also, he notes that liability doesn't occur merely with sale, but with the statement. Also, that false impression is wrong even when not done deliberately or knowingly. Also: "one should refuse to benefit from creating a false impression, even by otherwise legitimate actions." p.76 Rashin on Mak 24a and BB 88a. (Source: 1996 Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 1568219067)

Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem "Discounted from what?"

"Q. Our mail-order firm sells discount merchandise. When there is a standard price (e.g. a catalogue or suggested retail price) we tell the customer the discount from that price. When there is no standard price, can we estimate the discount from a fair store price? A. In all of our dealings we are forbidden from deceiving others, leading them to believe they obtain a benefit from someone beyond the person's actual effort. Such deception is called geneivat data, literally "stealing judgment". When people are improperly informed, their judgment is not exercised freely. Leading others to believe they obtained a discount when in fact they pay a normal price would definitely be an example of geneivat daat."

Reform responsa example. Don't use subterfuge to transfer assets to children and thereby shield assets from a nursing home (so as to appear poor and require gov't or Jewish communal assistance) even if it's legal. Mark Warshofsky p.308 Jewish Living: A Guide to Contemporary Reform Practice 2000 Union for Reform Judaism, ISBN 080740702X. He's referrring (per p466) to Walter Jacob, Question and Reform Jewish Answers, #91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HG (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:naming conventions (use English)[edit]

I restored the opening edit in lede that this is a Hebrew term, some users may think it is Aramaic, and relinked to the wiktionary entries for the two component Hebrew nouns. Aside from this, as with all foreign-language term titled articles on en.WP, has WP:EN been followed here? For example, has anyone checked that the JE 1911 and EJ 1971 articles are titled in English or Hebrew for this topic? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check the Aramaic text in Chullin if that really is the first use? Added Category Aramaic words and phrases. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Aramaic. It is Tannaitic Hebrew, using words that are readily found in Tanakh. On what basis would you say that it is Aramaic? JFW | T@lk 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the title of the article is Hebrew, but the article claims that the first use is in the Babylonian Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. But a significant proportion of the Babylonian Talmud is in Tannaitic/Mishnaic Hebrew. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't the Hebrew sections of the Talmud later than the Amoraic-Aramaic and Geonic-Aramaic sections? This sounds as though it's a 2CE sourced section. Odds are the section would be in Aramaic. (He says without access to check..) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the other way round. The parts of the Talmud that originate from Mishnaic/Tannaitic times (2nd century) are in Hebrew, while the contributions of the Amoraim and Rabbeinu Sevorai are mostly in Aramaic. Yes, Shmuel was Babylonian-born, but much of what he taught (as well as his disputes with Rav) are in Tannaitic Hebrew. JFW | T@lk 11:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I stand corrected. Do we have any way of checking (a link?) that this cited section is actually in Hebrew not Aramaic, and the term does not occur in Aramaic sections also? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to take my word for it. The Talmud is mostly free flowing text, and there are certainly no pointers that say which bit is in Hebrew and which is in Aramaic. The quote is on folio 94, 9th line, last word of the line: "D'amar Shmuel, assur li-g'nov da'ath ha-berioth ve-afilu da'atho shel oveid kochavim". JFW | T@lk 14:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff, thanks. I'm quite happy to take your word for it. Would you care to upload that as a ref into the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think uploading a widely available text is good use of anyone's time. This is the full text of BT tractate Chullin. About halfway the page is the text of our folio (דף צד, א). Depending on your screen settings, on the fourth line is the text "דאמר שמואל אסור לגנוב דעת הבריות ואפילו דעתו של עובד כוכבים". This is the text of our interest. This (PDF) is the entire English translation of tractate Chullin (page 313 contains the material in question). JFW | T@lk 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you object then if I uploaded the line? If this was an article on a German or Spanish foreign language term it would be normal to not just have the English translation of the first recorded use, but also the original German or Spanish. In this case also it seems appropriate to note the grammar - that the phrase occurs not as a noun construction but as a negative verbal imperative. Is that okay? The objective being to increase utility and accessability for the non-Hebrew reading users of en.Wikipedia.

Btw, are you aware of whether "theft of the mind" is covered in JE or EJ? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object if you upload a piece of text, but it might be not be a suitable image for inclusion into the text (there's no precedent for that). In the Talmud, the term is introduced in the fashion I stated; every subsequent mention in as "geneivat da'at". I am unaware of relevant entries in EJ or JE. JFW | T@lk 03:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geneivat da'at. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]