22 Jul AI-GENERATED DEEP FAKES AND HALACHAH

Seeing is believing,
until that too is taken
away from us. The
rapid development of
artificial intelligence
(AI) has produced
powerful new tools,
among them the ability
to create “deepfakes,” which are highly
convincing but entirely fake images,
audio recordings or videos of real people.
A politician may appear to endorse a
controversial policy, a rabbi might seem
to utter heretical ideas or a teacher could
be seen acting inappropriately but it is
all through manipulated media. These
synthetic creations are increasingly
difficult to distinguish from reality and pose
serious ethical and halachic questions, and
paradoxically might also offer a solution to
a difficult social problem.
I. Libelous Content
Let us begin with the most obvious victim:
the individual whose likeness is misused.
If a deepfake attributes scandalous or
false words to a person, this constitutes
classic hotza’as shem ra, false speech. Rav
Yisrael Kagan (20th cen., Russia) quotes
Onkelos (Lev. 19:16), who translates “Do

not be a talebearer” as “lo seichol kurtzin.”
Rashi (ad loc.) explains that this refers
to the way gossippers motion with their
eyes. Even indirect gossip, even mere
motioning without any words, qualifies
as forbidden lashon ha-ra (Chafetz Chaim
1:1:8 n. 13). As it says in Mishlei (Prov.
6:12-13), “A base person… winks with his
eyes, scrapes with his feet, points with his
fingers.” Lashon ha-ra does not have to be
actual words. Posting an image or a video
accusing someone of a misdeed constitutes
forbidden speech, even if it is not verbal.
Hurtful content goes further. Posting a
video that hurts someone’s feelings or
damages someone’s reputation is a form
of attack. This is biblically prohibited as
ona’as devarim, hurtful and damaging
speech (Bava Metzi’a 58b). You may think
that this only applies to a verbal insult or
attack–after all, “devarim” means words.
However, the Torah (Lev. 25:17) merely
says “lo sonu” and does not differentiate
between methods of delivering this harm.
When someone is portrayed doing or saying
something inappropriate through a deepfake
video, it violates their reputation and causes
social, professional and emotional harm.
Even if the victim is ultimately vindicated,
the damage may already be irreversible.

II. Theft of a Likeness
There is also the question of
image rights. Do I have halachic
control over my likeness? Rav
Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (20th
cen., Israel) did not object to
people being photographed
without consent, arguing that
it causes no tangible damage
(Salmas Chaim, no. 475). In
contrast, Rav Menashe Klein
(20th cen., US) contends that
unauthorized photography may
be prohibited because a person’s
image has commercial and
personal value. He notes that celebrities
sell their likenesses, and therefore, using
someone’s image without permission
can constitute a form of theft (Mishneh
Halachos 7:117). Rav Simcha Yonah Klein
(cont., England) follows Rav Sonnenfeld’s
view but adds an important caveat: even the
lenient view forbids publicizing damaging
images (Piskei Ha-Mishpat 363:14).
Rav Shlomo Aviner (cont., Israel) takes a
more fundamental approach, invoking the
verse, “ve-ahavta le-rei’acha kamocha”
(Lev. 19:18), which means that you must
treat others as you would wish to be
treated (Shabbos 31a). If a person finds it
offensive or degrading to have his picture
used without consent, that alone may be
grounds for objection (Piskei Shlomo,
vol. 3, pp. 146-147).
A deepfake is not merely a picture but a
full impersonation, crafted to deceive and
often to defame. The halachic violations
here are compounded: falsehood,
humiliation, possible theft and an affront
to human dignity.
III. Misleading the Public
While the subject of the deepfake suffers
personal harm, halachah also recognizes
the broader concern of deceiving the
public. The Talmud (Chullin 94a)
prohibits geneivas da’as, deception.
Rashi explains that misleading someone,
even without causing financial loss, is
forbidden. Even pretending to do someone
a favor, when you really did it for personal
reasons, is forbidden. Rambam (Mishneh
Torah, Hilchos De’os 2:6) offers other
examples of deceptions that fall under

this prohibition. The Torah says, “mi-
dvar sheker tirchak, stay far away from

falsehood” (Ex. 23:7). We are forbidden
not just to lie but even to approach the
point of generating falsehood.
Beyond personal injury, deepfakes
pose broader communal dangers. When
a large audience sees a fabricated
video of a community leader making a
controversial statement or a public figure

endorsing a problematic idea, they are
victims of falsehood. The consequences
can reverberate in practical decisions and
personal attitudes. In the past, we have
seen disinformation sway public debates.
Deepfakes could do the same on a much
larger scale.
The implications are troubling. The erosion
of trust in public communication affects
not only our perception of individuals but
also our confidence in halachic, political,
educational and journalistic institutions.
When people begin to question the
authenticity of everything they see, even
genuine content becomes suspect. That
social instability undermines public
discourse. While a defamed individual
suffers acutely, the collective deception
may be more insidious. It destabilizes
communal norms and damages the integrity
of public discourse.
IV. A Silver Lining
Despite these serious concerns, the
deepfake phenomenon may inadvertently
contain a silver lining. Deepfakes might
ultimately prompt society to think more
critically about information. As people
grow aware that images, videos, and audio
can be manipulated, they may become more
discerning: Who recorded this? Where was
it published? Has it been verified?

This shift could lead to a decline in so-
called citizen journalism, i.e. social media

reporting, and a resurgence of serious
journalism. Media outlets that engage
in careful fact-checking, apply editorial
oversight and maintain transparent
sourcing may gain renewed relevance. In
an environment dominated by outrage and
virality, credibility may once again become
a competitive advantage.
For years, media has been pulled by the
gravity of outrage and speed, chasing
clicks and engagement at the expense of
accuracy. The deepfake crisis may reverse
that trend by incentivizing credibility over
virality. In doing so, it would return media
to its original mission: not to provoke, but
to inform; not to inflame, but to illuminate.