LEV399 Concerning the giving of advice, we have been taught in Toras Kohanim (Kedoshim 2:14): "'Do not place an obstacle before a blind man' [this verse] [and this refers] to one who is blind in this matter.… When a person is approached for advice, whether regarding something that he takes a personal interest in or something that does not relate to him at all, he is obligated to adhere to pristine truth [and to present it] with clarity. The Torah knows very well how swindlers operate, and we are not dealing with fools whose harmful advice is well-known and obvious, but with clever people who are wicked, who give advice that appears to be truly beneficial but in actuality is not in the other party's interest to his detriment – and for the benefit of the one who is giving the advice. Because [of this concern] they said: "Although you might say,' I am giving him good advice,' this is something that is known only to you.…" How many times do people fail in these transgressions daily as their lust for profit lures them onward? In Scripture the severity of their punishment has already been spelled out (Devarim 27:18): "Cursed is he who misleads an undiscerning person." By contrast, the responsibility of an honest person is such that when someone comes to him for advice he must give him the same advice that he would himself follow, having no other end in mind, immediate or distant, than the benefit of the one who has come for the advice. And if it should happen that he sees himself as standing to lose by such advice, he should reveal this to the other party if he is able to, and if he cannot, he should excuse himself and not give any advice. Either way he should not offer advice whose end result will not be beneficial for the one who is seeking advice, unless that person is ill-meaning in his intent. In that case it is certainly a mitzvah to deceive him, and it has already been stated (Tehillim 18:27): "And with the crooked be cunning," and [the episode of] Chushai Ha'arki demonstrates this (see Shmuel II 17:5-14).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV402 Even in today's non-Jewish world, there is a concept of immoral advertising. The classic example of this is "bait and switch," where a product is advertised at a ridiculously low price in order to get people into the store. When they arrive, this salesperson indicates that the sale products have been sold out and then proceeds to sell the customer another similar, more expensive product. The immorality of this practice is patent because the owner never really meant to sell the original product and usually will have just a few, if any, available in the first place. This ruse actually lures many people to the store and some do buy other products at higher prices (which they never would have purchased had they not been lured into the store). From a Jewish perspective, the reason this scheme is immoral and illegal involves the violation of several principles. The verse in Leviticus (19:36) commands a Jew to have just and accurate weights and measures. Playing on the word "hin" in the verse, which is an amount, the Talmud (Bava Metzia 49a) says that your "hen", your "yes," should be just and truthful. This implies that if you promise something, you're not permitted to intentionally violate that promise. Thus, misleading through "bait and switch" is clearly forbidden. In addition, according to some commentaries, this type of action clearly violates the prohibition of "putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person" [this verse], which also forbids misleading a prison intentionally. Hence, any type of advertising that intentionally misleads people seems to be forbidden. This general concept, which most clearly defines whether advertising is legitimate or not, is called geneivat daat. Technically translated as "stealing a person's thought," this idea suggests that intentionally misleading a person or misrepresenting the truth is a clear violation of proper Jewish practice.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV405 Rashi (commentary on this verse) says that the "simple" meaning of this verse is referring to the infraction of intentionally giving bad advice to someone. By purposefully misleading a person in a situation in which the person is "blind," the counsel becomes a "stumbling block" and the adviser has sinned.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV400 [Continued from [[DEUT1152]] Deuteronomy 22:8 bloodguilt AMJV 118] …the safety of a home is a prime principle in Judaism, mandated by Jewish law. The Talmud expands upon this obligation of a person who owns a home. Not only must any stationary, permanent obstacle that is part of the structure of the house be protected, but even protecting a non-stationary object (like a gun) or anything located in the house that may pose a danger is also the responsibility of the homeowner. Thus, it is forbidden for a Jew to leave around the house a dangerous dog or a faulty ladder, as a possible danger (Bava Kama 15b). This would be analogous to leaving a gun lying around the house and not in a special safe (under lock and key). Judaism also prohibits endangering others even outside the home, as it forbids placing a stumbling block before a blind person, which is interpreted by all the commentaries not only in the physical sense but also metaphorically [this verse]. Therefore, it is forbidden to endanger anyone else, and maximum safety must be ensured. Why the Jewish stress on safety? Judaism is a religion of peace and tries to ensure a peaceful living, says the Talmud (Gittin 59b).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV401 A salesperson is not expected to be objective and impartial, and the customer knows that the product description, even if accurate, will also be one-sided. But a sales person who says something like "I advise you to take out this plan" or "This plan really suits your needs" is putting on the hat of the expert adviser; such advice need to be completely objective. We learn this from the verse, "Do not put a stumbling block before the blind." Rashi explains that this refers to someone who is "blind" to the bias of the advisor: "Do not advise someone to sell his field and buy a donkey if your true intention is to acquire the field for yourself." In general, sales people need to avoid giving advice. Aside from the fact that it is almost impossible to maintain the proper objectivity, sales people are not always experts on the merchandise they sell, and often they are not really qualified to provide advice.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV403 Q: My publication has a major advertiser who buy space every week. For the coming week, he provided copy that reads like an objective public interest article and asked me to type-set like a regular article. Is this ethical? A: The intense competition in the communications media is leading to the creation of innovative new media categories like infotainment and edutainment. One of the most popular categories, and also one of the most ethically problematic, is the so-called advertorial. An advertorial is an advertisement carefully written and type-set to have the look and feel of news or of an editorial opinion piece. The ethical problem here is that the reader believes he is getting information or advice which is unbiased, while the true motive for presenting the content he sees is commercial. According to Jewish law, this practice runs afoul of the strict prohibition against concealing a conflict of interest when giving advice. The Torah tells us [this verse]. According to Jewish tradition, this refers to anything that would incline a person to blindly act against his or her own best interest.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV404 Q: Some businesses in my area are run on a "Cash-only" basis. Can I patronize these businesses, or is this encouraging tax evasion? A: There are three possible answers to your question: 1) It's fine; paying taxes is the proprietor's responsibility, not yours. 2) It's all right to patronize these businesses but demand a receipt so that you are not encouraging deceit. 3) You should boycott dishonest businesses. Which answer is correct? All three. It depends on the exact situation. Jewish law distinguishes three levels of cooperation with wrongdoing and prohibits anything that would abet wrongdoing. The three levels, in decreasing order of gravity, are: 1) Enabling a transgression. If the transgression could not take place without your participation, you are enabling the wrongdoing to take place. This is categorically forbidden by the biblical injunction, "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind." (this verse). Our tradition explains that this refers primarily to a spiritual stumbling block, which causes someone to transgress. 2) Abetting a transgression. This means that you take an active role in the unethical activity, but if you didn't do it, someone else would. 3) Condoning a transgression. Normally, we are obligated to protest wrongdoing. Whenever we remain silent and even benefit from it, we may seem to be condoning it. The ethical status of condoning depends on the degree of identification we show with our participation as well as our ability to make an effective protest; these factors vary according to the situation. In short, Jewish tradition urges us to exercise moral leadership and take responsibility for the moral progress of the world. This means that we cannot shirk responsibility when our actions encourage wrongdoing. But we should not jump to the conclusion that we should immediately boycott or even turn in the suspected tax evader. An equally important principle of Jewish tradition is that we should give others the benefit of the doubt, as the very next verse tells us, "Judge your neighbor favorably." (Leviticus 19:15) And certainly it is not a mitzvah to be a busybody. Therefore, Jewish law states that even if someone may seem to be involved in wrongdoing, we do not have to scrutinize his or her activities if a favorable interpretation is reasonable, even if it is less than probable. ... Thus, if the cash basis of the business has a reasonable explanation besides tax evasion, we do not need to scrutinize the proprietor's motivations.… However, if a permissible explanation is quite improbable, or if the seller admits right out that he is trying to evade taxes, then we must avoid helping. In this case, explain that you will be able to patronize the business only if you can obtain a proper receipt. In some cases it would be necessary to avoid the business altogether. This is because of an additional problem called marit ayin, or giving the appearance of wrongdoing. If the business in question is well known as one that evades taxes and others can easily see that you are patronizing the business but do not know that you are demanding a receipt, then you could be giving the impression of abetting the seller's subterfuge. In this case it would be proper to find a way to publicize your insistence on a receipt, or to avoid the place of business altogether.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV409 See [[EXOD863]] Exodus 23:8 bribe MEIR 38-41

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV406 See [[EXOD837]] Exodus 23:7 falsehood MEIR 213-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV407 See [[EXOD838]] Exodus 23:7 falsehood MEIR 277-81

SHOW FULL EXCERPT