Geneivas Daas 8
This week we continue discussion of cases where there is no prohibition of
geneivas daas. We said last week that if a person deceives himself, there
is no prohibition of geneivas daas. Rashi explains this law by saying that
if one doesn’t say or do anything that suggests that he did something for
his fellow, rather he acts normally, and his fellow imagines that he did it
for him, there is no prohibition of geneivat daat. In fact, we see from the
Gemara, that he should not tell him the truth because it will only cause him
pain.
There was a story in which a person made a Brit Mila on Purim, and called
his son Mordechai. After a short amount of time, the person received a
check from an uncle who thought that the man had named the boy after the
uncle’s brother, who had died childless. As a sign of his gratitude, the
uncle gave a check to the man. This is another example of a person
deceiving himself. (However, there is a question as to whether the man can
keep the money because the uncle gave it to him because he incorrectly
thought that the man had named the baby after his brother). Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein ruled that the father did not have to tell the relative that he
did not name the child after his brother, since the relative is deceiving
himself. However, as mentioned, the issue of actually keeping the money he
sent is less straightforward and in such a situation, one should ask an
Orthodox Rabbi for guidance.
