Deception and False Impressions: The Prohibition of ‘Geneivat Da’at’ in Social and Commercial Life (Chullin 94a)
Daf Yomi yesterday covered the folio containing the passage discussed in this piece.
This sugya examines the prohibition of geneivat da’at,1 misleading another person by creating a false impression even when no direct financial loss is involved. Its opening rule is attributed to Shmuel: deceiving people is prohibited, including deceiving a non-Jew. The Talmud notes that Shmuel did not state this principle explicitly. It was inferred from an incident in which he instructed his attendant to compensate a non-Jewish ferryman and then became angry at the way the attendant carried out the instruction. Abaye explains that the attendant gave the ferryman a tereifa chicken while presenting it as properly slaughtered meat. Rava explains that Shmuel intended the ferryman to receive undiluted wine, while the attendant gave him diluted wine. Under either interpretation, the objection concerns the false impression created for the recipient.
The sugya then expands the principle through a series of baraitot dealing with hospitality, gifts, trade, and public social gestures. R’ Meir prohibits repeatedly urging a person to accept an invitation when the inviter already knows that the invitation will be declined. He similarly prohibits offering an excessive gift when he knows that the recipient will not accept it. These acts appear generous, but the apparent generosity costs the offerer nothing. The prohibition therefore concerns the manufactured appearance of goodwill.
A related case involves opening a wine jug in honor of a guest when the jug has already been sold to a shopkeeper and would have been opened regardless. The host may do so only if he informs the guest of the true circumstances. Likewise, one may not offer oil from an empty container while relying on the assumption that the other person will decline. The decisive issue is the gap between the social message conveyed by the act and the actor’s actual commitment.
The same rule governs gifts brought to a house of mourning. A visitor may not carry a nearly empty wine jug in a way that makes it appear full, and may not fill the jug with water to conceal how little wine it contains. The baraita nevertheless permits the gesture when a public gathering is present and the purpose is to honor the mourner before the community. This qualification shows that an outward display is not automatically deceptive. Its status depends on what the observers reasonably understand the gesture to represent.
The sugya also applies the prohibition to commercial transactions. A seller may not present a sandal made from the hide of an animal that died naturally as though it were made from the hide of a slaughtered animal. The baraita gives two reasons: the purchaser is misled about the quality of the product, and the hide may present a physical danger. Here deception overlaps with both economic harm and safety concerns.
Another baraita prohibits sending a jug of wine with a layer of oil floating on top, since the recipient may assume that the entire jug contains oil. The Talmud attaches a tragic anecdote to this ruling, emphasizing that apparently minor misrepresentations can cause consequences far beyond the deceiver’s immediate intention.
The final section turns from deception to control over food placed before guests. Guests may not transfer their portions to the host’s children without permission. Although the food has been served to them, the host may have allocated it according to limited household resources. An incident set during a famine illustrates the danger of disregarding that allocation. R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov concludes that three lives were lost because guests gave their food to the host’s child without authorization.
Taken together, the cases define a broad law of truthful social conduct. The prohibition includes false impressions created through speech, gifts, invitations, packaging, hospitality, and silence. It applies even where the recipient suffers no immediate monetary loss and even where the actor technically states nothing false. The central concern is whether one person intentionally induces another to form an inaccurate judgment about the actor’s generosity, the quality of an item, or the nature of a transaction.
Outline
Intro
The Passage
Shmuel - Deceiving any person, including a non-Jew, is prohibited
Shmuel’s prohibition against deceiving a non-Jew was inferred from an anecdote
... Anecdote involving Shmuel’s attendant and a ferryman
Abaye - Shmuel’s attendant gave the ferryman a tereifa chicken while presenting it as properly slaughtered meat
Rava - Shmuel requested that the ferryman receive undiluted wine, but the attendant gave him diluted wine
R’ Meir - A person may not repeatedly invite someone while knowing that the invitation will be declined, nor offer excessive gifts while knowing they will not be accepted; A person may not pretend to open wine especially for a guest when the wine has already been sold, unless the guest is informed; One may not offer oil from an empty container
Baraita - A visitor may not bring a nearly empty wine jug to a mourner in a manner that makes it appear full, nor disguise its emptiness by filling it with water; It is permitted when the public gesture is intended to honor the mourner before the community
Baraita - One may not sell a sandal made from the hide of an animal that died naturally as though it came from a slaughtered animal, both because this misleads the purchaser and because the animal hide may present a danger
One may not send a wine jug with oil floating on top (so that the recipient mistakes it for a jug of oil)
An incident illustrates the severe consequences that such deception can cause - the host committed suicide from shame
Guests may not give their portions to the host’s children without the host’s permission
An incident during a famine illustrates the disastrous consequences that can follow from doing so - the hosts committed suicide from shame
R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov - Three Jewish lives were lost because guests gave their food to the host’s child without permission
Appendix - An Anecdote of Mar Zutra’s Mistaken Assumption and the Limits of the Prohibition of Geneivat Da’at (Chullin 94b)
Mar Zutra b. Naḥman encountered Rava and Rav Safra, and mistakenly assumed that they had traveled to greet him
Mar Zutra b. Naḥman asked why Rava and Rav Safra had exerted themselves to travel so far to greet him; Rav Safra clarified that they had not known Mar Zutra b. Naḥman was coming, adding that they would have exerted themselves even more had they known
Rava criticized Rav Safra for correcting Mar Zutra, since the clarification caused him disappointment; Rav Safra argued that remaining silent would have allowed them to mislead Mar Zutra; Rava responded that Mar Zutra had misled himself (because they had made no deceptive statement, they were not obligated to correct his assumption)
The Passage
Shmuel - Deceiving any person, including a non-Jew, is prohibited
[...]
אמר שמואל:
אסור לגנוב דעת הבריות,
ואפילו דעתו של גוי.
[...]
Shmuel said:
It is prohibited to deceive people,
and even to deceive a non-Jew.2
Shmuel’s prohibition against deceiving a non-Jew was inferred from an anecdote
והא דשמואל,
לאו בפירוש איתמר,
אלא מכללא איתמר.
And the Talmud qualifies that this ruling of Shmuel was not stated explicitly;
Rather, it was stated by inference,
i.e., it was inferred based upon the following incident:
... Anecdote involving Shmuel’s attendant and a ferryman
דשמואל הוה קא עבר במברא,
אמר ליה לשמעיה:
״פייסיה למבוריה״,
פייסיה,
ואיקפד.
Shmuel was once crossing a river in a ferry [mavra].
He said to his attendant:
Compensate3 the ferryman with an appropriate gift.
The attendant compensated him,
but Shmuel became angry (איקפד) with his attendant.
Abaye - Shmuel’s attendant gave the ferryman a tereifa chicken while presenting it as properly slaughtered meat
מאי טעמא איקפד?
אמר אביי:
תרנגולת טרפה הואי,
ויהבה ניהליה במר דשחוטה.
The Talmud asks: What is the reason that Shmuel became angry?
Abaye said:
The compensation that the attendant gave the ferryman was a chicken that was a tereifa,
and he gave it to him as though it were a slaughtered, kosher chicken.
Rava - Shmuel requested that the ferryman receive undiluted wine, but the attendant gave him diluted wine
רבא אמר:
אנפקא אמר ליה (לאשקויי) [לאשקוייה],
ואשקייה חמרא מזיגא.
[...]
Rava said:
Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine for drinking in an anpaka, i.e., a utensil that holds 1/4th-log and which was generally used for undiluted wine,
but he gave him diluted wine for drinking.
According to both Abaye and Rava, Shmuel was upset that his attendant deceived the non-Jew ferryman.
[...]
R’ Meir - A person may not repeatedly invite someone while knowing that the invitation will be declined, nor offer excessive gifts while knowing they will not be accepted; A person may not pretend to open wine especially for a guest when the wine has already been sold, unless the guest is informed; One may not offer oil from an empty container
תניא,
היה רבי מאיר אומר:
אל יסרהב אדם לחבירו לסעוד אצלו,
ויודע בו שאינו סועד,
ולא ירבה לו בתקרובת,
ויודע בו שאינו מקבל.
ולא יפתח לו חביות המכורות לחנוני,
אלא אם כן הודיעו.
ולא יאמר לו סוך שמן מפך ריקן.
[...]
§ Apropos the prohibition against acting deceitfully, the Talmud cites other statements on this topic.
It is taught in a baraita that
R’ Meir would say:
A person may not importune4 another to eat with him, making it seem as though he genuinely wants his company,
but in reality he entreats him only because he knows that the other will not eat with him, i.e., will not accept the invitation.
And similarly, one may not send another person many gifts
when he knows that the other will not accept them.
And one may not open jugs of wine for a guest if they have already been sold to a storekeeper,
unless he notifies the guest beforehand that the jug had been sold.
And he may not say to another: Anoint yourself with oil, and place an empty jug before him with the knowledge that he will not attempt to anoint himself.
[...]
Baraita - A visitor may not bring a nearly empty wine jug to a mourner in a manner that makes it appear full, nor disguise its emptiness by filling it with water; It is permitted when the public gesture is intended to honor the mourner before the community
תנו רבנן:
לא ילך אדם לבית האבל,
ובידו לגין המתקשקש.
A baraita states:
A person may not go to a house of mourning
with a wine jug5 in his hand that is mostly empty and where the small amount of wine rattles (מתקשקש) about,
because the mourner will think that his visitor is bringing him a full jug of wine.
ולא ימלאנו מים,
מפני שמתעהו.
ואם יש שם חבר עיר –
מותר.
And he may not fill up that jug of wine with water,
because he thereby misleads6 the mourner into thinking he has brought him a full jug of undiluted wine.
But if there is a crowd of people [ḥever ir] and the guest wants to honor the mourner in their presence --
it is permitted.
Baraita - One may not sell a sandal made from the hide of an animal that died naturally as though it came from a slaughtered animal, both because this misleads the purchaser and because the animal hide may present a danger
תנו רבנן:
לא ימכור אדם לחבירו סנדל של מתה בכלל של חיה שחוטה,
מפני שני דברים:
אחד –
מפני שמתעהו,
ואחד –
מפני הסכנה.
A baraita states:
A person may not sell to another a sandal made from the hide of an animal that died of natural causes as though it were a sandal made from the hide of a healthy animal that was slaughtered.
This is prohibited due to two factors:
One,
because he misleads the customer into thinking that the leather is of higher quality than it really is;
and another,
because of the danger7
One may not send a wine jug with oil floating on top (so that the recipient mistakes it for a jug of oil)
ולא ישגר אדם לחבירו חבית של יין
ושמן צף על פיה.
And furthermore a person may not send a jug of wine to another
with oil floating at its mouth,
such that the recipient thinks that it is a jug of oil.
An incident illustrates the severe consequences that such deception can cause - the host committed suicide from shame
ומעשה באחד ששיגר לחבירו חבית של יין
ושמן צף על פיה,
והלך וזימן עליה אורחין,
ונכנסו,
מצאה שהיא של יין,
וחנק את עצמו.
There was an incident involving a certain individual who sent a jug of wine to another
with oil floating at its mouth,
and that recipient, thinking it was a jug of oil, went and invited guests to share it with him,
and the guests arrived8
When the host went to bring them oil, he found that it was a jug of wine rather than oil,
and in his shame at not having oil for them, he hanged9 himself and died.
Guests may not give their portions to the host’s children without the host’s permission
ואין האורחין רשאין ליתן ממה שלפניהם לבנו ולבתו של בעל הבית,
אלא אם כן נטלו רשות מבעל הבית.
The baraita continues:
And guests are not permitted to give some of the food that is placed before them to the son or to the daughter of the host
unless they first receive permission from the host.
An incident during a famine illustrates the disastrous consequences that can follow from doing so - the hosts committed suicide from shame
ומעשה באחד שזמן שלשה אורחין בשני בצורת,
ולא היה לו להניח לפניהם אלא כשלש ביצים.
And there was an incident involving a certain individual who invited 3 guests during years of famine (בצורת),
and he had enough to place only 3 egg-bulks before them.
בא בנו של בעל הבית,
נטל אחד מהן חלקו ונתנו לו,
וכן שני,
וכן שלישי.
The son of the host came,
and one of the guests took his portion and gave it to the host’s son.
And similarly the 2nd guest gave his portion to the host’s son,
and similarly the 3rd guest.
בא אביו של תינוק,
מצאו שעוזק אחד בפיו ושתים בידו,
חבטו בקרקע
ומת.
The father of the child came
and found that his son was holding (עוזק) one egg-bulk in his mouth and two in his hand.
The father became so angry with his son for taking all the food that he hit the son to the ground,
and the son died from the hit
כיון שראתה אמו,
עלתה לגג ונפלה ומתה,
אף הוא עלה לגג
ונפל ומת.
When his mother saw what had happened,
she ascended to the roof and fell down to the ground and died.
And when the father saw that both his son and his wife were dead he also ascended to the roof
and fell down to the ground and died.
R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov - Three Jewish lives were lost because guests gave their food to the host’s child without permission
אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב:
על דבר זה --
נהרגו שלש נפשות מישראל.
R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov said:
For this matter of giving food to the child of the host --
3 Jewish souls were killed.
Appendix - An Anecdote of Mar Zutra’s Mistaken Assumption and the Limits of the Prohibition of Geneivat Da’at (Chullin 94b)
Mar Zutra b. Naḥman encountered Rava and Rav Safra, and mistakenly assumed that they had traveled to greet him
[...]
מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן הוה קאזיל מסיכרא לבי מחוזא,
ורבא ורב ספרא הוו קא אתו לסיכרא,
פגעו אהדדי.
הוא סבר לאפיה הוא דקאתו,
[...]
Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, was going from the city of Sikhra to the city of Bei Meḥoza,
and at the same time Rava and Rav Safra were going to Sikhra.
They met10 each other,
and Mar Zutra b. Naḥman thought they were coming out to greet him.
Mar Zutra b. Naḥman asked why Rava and Rav Safra had exerted themselves to travel so far to greet him; Rav Safra clarified that they had not known Mar Zutra b. Naḥman was coming, adding that they would have exerted themselves even more had they known
אמר להו:
למה להו לרבנן דטרוח ואתו כולי האי?
אמר ליה רב ספרא:
אנן לא הוה ידעינן דקאתי מר,
אי הוה ידעינן --
טפי הוה טרחינן.
[Mar Zutra b. Naḥman] said to [Rava and Rav Safra]:
Why did the Rabbis exert themselves and come all this way to greet me?
Rav Safra said to [Mar Zutra b. Naḥman]:
We did not know that the Master [=Mar Zutra b. Naḥman] was coming;
if we would have known --
we would have exerted ourselves more.
Rava criticized Rav Safra for correcting Mar Zutra, since the clarification caused him disappointment; Rav Safra argued that remaining silent would have allowed them to mislead Mar Zutra; Rava responded that Mar Zutra had misled himself (because they had made no deceptive statement, they were not obligated to correct his assumption)
אמר ליה רבא:
מאי טעמא אמרת ליה הכי,
דאחלישתיה לדעתיה?
אמר ליה: והא קא מטעינן ליה!
איהו הוא דקא מטעי נפשיה.
Rava said to Rav Safra:
What is the reason that you said this to Mar Zutra b. Naḥman?!
By telling him that we were not coming to greet him you upset him.
Rav Safra said to Rava: But if I would not have said so we would have misled him.
Rava responded: Mar Zutra misled himself, since we never said we were coming to greet him.
גנבת דעת - literally: “theft of the mind”.
On the biblical origins of this term - where “heart” (לב) is used instead of “mind” (דעת) - see Hebrew Wikipedia ibid., section “גנבת דעת במקורות“.
However, compare my “Proclus and Rabban Gamliel: A Philosophical Exchange on Idolatry and Civic Spaces Outside of Aphrodite’s Bathhouse (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:4)“, section “Appendix 1 - The Talmud on Whether Rabban Gamliel Deceived Proclus (Avodah Zarah 44b)“.
In general, see my extensive discussion in “A Preliminary analysis of stories of deception in the Talmud“.
פייסיה - literally: “appease”.
יסרהב - yesarhev.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “סִרְהֵב”:
(Saf’el of רהב; compare סָרַב)
[to be imperious,] to order, urge, press.
Bava Kamma 32b:23 - כשרבו מְסַרְהֵב בו לצאת (Manuscript Munich: מְסָרֵב) - “when his master (the smith) had strictly ordered him to leave the smithy”
Chullin 94a:10 - אל יְסַרְהֵב אדם בחבירו (not לחבירו), see סָרַב.
And ibid., entry “סַרְהֵב”:
Aramaic same
1) to press, hurry; (neut. verb) to hasten, be quick.
Aramaic Targum to Esther 7:7 (Hebrew text עורה).
Targum of II Chronicles 26:20 (Hebrew text מהר).
and frequently.
Berakhot 47a:12 - הוה קמְסַרְהֵב ואכיל - “he hastened his meal” (in order to say grace with them).
Shabbat 10a:3-4 - הוה קא מסרהב רבי ירמיה - “Rabbi Yirmeya hurried” (his teacher to adjourn).
Chullin 7b:6 - מְסרְהִיבְנָא - “I am in a hurry”
and elsewhere.
2) to be rebellious.
לגין - lagin - cognate with Greek lắgēnos (“flagon; pitcher; flask”).
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “לָגִין”, sense #1:
1) bottle, a vessel smaller than כַּד and larger than כּוֹס.
Mishnah Tevul Yom 4:4 - לגין … ומלאהו וכ׳ - “a lagin which requires sunset to be clean (see טָבַל) and which was filled out of a cask containing tithes” (intended for Terumah); Eruvin 36a:17; Yerushalmi ibid. 3, 21b bottom of page (correct accordingly).
Tosefta Ohalot 5:10; Oholot V, 4; Chagigah 22b Manuscript Munich: (ed. לוגין); Chagigah 26a:4 - לגין טמאין (read טמא).
Mishnah Avodah Zarah 5:1 הניח … לְגִינוֹ וכ׳ - “the non-Jew put his wine bag on it”
Tosefta Terumot 7:16 - לגין שהניחו (ed. Zuckermandel שהניחן, correct accordingly all the suffixes in the sentence);
and elsewhere.
Plural: לְגִינִים, לְגִינִין.
Tosefta Demai 8:22, sq.
Mishnah Kelim 30:4 - לגינין גדולים - “large flasks” (of glass).
Mishnah Kelim 16:2 בית הלגינין - a case of wickerwork for flasks; Tosefta Keilim Metsia 5:13 בית הליגונין (correct accordingly).
Tosefta Keilim Metsia 6:8 בית הלגינין … של עץ a wooden flask case.
Beitzah 15b:10 - הללו בעלי לגינין - “these are people counting their wine by laginin” (less rich than the בעלי כדין, but wealthier than the בעלי כוסות).
Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 161 - שבלְגִינוֹת - “(the water) in the bottles”
On the source in Beitzah 15b, see my “Pt1 Study, Eating, Divine Credit, and the Gifts of Shabbat and Holidays: R’ Eliezer’s Yom Tov Lecture, the Debate over Festival Joy, and the Economics of Sacred Time (Beitzah 15b-16a)“, section “Anecdote - R’ Eliezer rebukes groups leaving his day-long Yom Tov lecture; staying is “eternal life,” eating is “temporary life” “, and see my notes there.
And see my general discussion on the terms for used for wine containers in an extended note in “Pt1 Permissibility of Jewish Wine in the Hands of Non-Jews: Ten Talmudic Cases Explored (Avodah Zarah 69b-70b)“, on section “Story: Non-Jew Enters House with Jewish Wine, Locks Door, but Visible Through Crack“.
On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “תעי”:
(Biblical Hebrew; see טָעָה)
[to move to and fro,] to be lost, go astray; to err.
[…]
Hif’il: - הִתְעָה to lead astray.
Sanhedrin 55a:13 - מה אילנות … המַתְעֶה את חבירו מדרך וכ׳ - “if in the case of trees (that have been worshipped) … the Law says, destroy, burn, and exterminate: how much more does this apply to a man who leads his neighbor from the way of life to the way of death!”
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 624:1 - וּמַתְעֵהוּ מדרך וכ׳ (different interpretation in Sifra Kedoshim, Parah 4, chapter 10).
Lamentations Rabbah introduction (פתיחתא) (Rabbi Yoḥanan 1) -ונביאי … שהִתְעוּ אותי וכ׳ - “the false prophets …, who led me astray from the way of life etc.”
and elsewhere.
Steinsaltz explains:
because of the danger involved, as it is possible that the animal died from a snakebite and the poison seeped into the part of the animal’s hide from which the sandal is made.
Compare the common Talmudic concern about snake venom in water, and see my extended discussion in “Pt1 Uncovered Liquids and Ritual Boundaries: Gentile Wine and the Risk of Snake Venom (Avodah Zarah 30a-31b)“.
נכנסו - literally: “entered”.
חנק - literally: “choked”. Compare Wikipedia, “Capital punishment in Judaism“, section “Punishment by strangulation“, and ibid., “Suicide by hanging“, section “Ancient Rome“.
Compare the Talmud’s story of Haman’s daughter committing suicide due to shame, in my “Pt2 The Humiliation of Haman: The Dramatic Talmudic Elaboration of the Biblical Verse of Haman Carrying out King Ahasuerus’s Orders to Honor Mordecai (Esther 6:11-12; Megillah 16a)“, section “Haman’s daughter threw feces onto her father’s head, and then committed suicide“.
The typical form of suicide in the Talmud is jumping from a roof, see ibid., and the next section here, and my “Tales of Temptation: Sages’ Encounters with Roman Noblewomen (Kiddushin 39b-40a)“, section “Rav Kahana“, and my note there.
פגעו.
This Aramaic verb has the connotation of “happened to meet, encountered” (compare the Hebrew senses of this verb in Hebrew Wiktionary, which have the sense of “attack”). On this word, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “פְּגַע I”, sense #1:
1) to meet.
Aramaic Targum to Proverbs 17:12 (Hebrew text פגוש).
Aramaic Targum to Proverbs 29:13 (Variant פגיחו); and elsewhere.
Bereishit Rabbah 36, beginning: פגע ביה שידא וכ׳ the demon Shemadon met him;
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 61:9; Vayikra Rabbah 5 פגע ליה וכ׳ (correct accordingly).
Bava Kamma 99b:18 - פַּגְעוּ ביה … גברא - Rabbi Kahana and Rabbi Asi met that man.
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:12:10 - יאות עביד דלא פגע ביה - “he did right not to connect himself with that man”
and frequently.