Bava Metzia 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

But

the opposite is more reasonable!

For when the one who consecrated the offering is not liable for its responsibility, the consecrated property is more aptly called “the sacred property of the Lord” than property for which the one who consecrated it is liable. And according to the Gemara’s present assumption—that liability applies only where the phrase “and he deals falsely with the Lord” is applicable—one should be liable for a sacrifice brought for a false oath in the case of sacred property for which he is not liable, more than in the case of property for which he is liable!

He said to him: Remove it!

If so, I will remove this from my Mishna and will no longer teach it.

He said to him: No!

Do not remove this matter from your Mishna; rather, you must correct it and teach it in a different form. For the assumption you made—that the verse “and he deals falsely with the Lord” teaches that one becomes liable to bring a sacrifice for a false oath only with regard to sacred property—is incorrect.

Rather, the verse comes to teach that liability applies only to denying, under oath, an obligation toward an ordinary person, and not toward Heaven—that is, where the phrase “and he deals falsely with his fellow” is applicable. However, the verse also includes sacred property for which one is liable, so that its status is like that of ordinary property.

And

this is what he is saying: With regard to sacred property for which he is liable, he is liable,

because

it was included by “with the Lord

and he deals falsely,”

so that it is considered as though it were ordinary property.

But with regard to sacred property for which he is not liable, he is exempt, since it was excluded by “with his fellow

and he deals falsely.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who sells a Torah scroll, a pearl, or an animal is not subject to ona’a:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who sells a Torah scroll is not subject to ona’a, because there is no limit to its value.

And likewise, one who sells

an animal or a pearl is not subject to ona’a, because a person wishes to match them.

One who purchases an animal seeks an animal suitable to be paired with another animal that he owns, so that he can yoke them together as a pair to plow or pull a wagon. He specifically seeks an appropriately matched animal, because a weak animal yoked together with a healthy animal will harm

the healthy one.

Likewise, with regard to a pearl, he needs to match it with another pearl set together with it.

Therefore, they are not subject to ona’a when the seller charges an excessive price for them.

They said to him: But everything,

including other things,

is something a person wishes to match.

And Rabbi Yehuda

held:

These are important to him, whereas those are not important to him.

And to what extent

are they not subject to ona’a?

Ameimar said:

Until the ona’a reaches

the value of the item itself,

that is, up to twice their price.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Even

one who sells a horse, a sword, and a shield

in

the

time of

war is not subject to ona’a, because they contain the means of preserving life:

Mishna:

Just as

the prohibition of

ona’a is stated with regard to buying and selling, so

the prohibition of

ona’a is stated with regard to verbal mistreatment.

The Sages learned this in the Gemara from the verse: “And you shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God” [Leviticus 25:17].

What constitutes verbal mistreatment?

A person may not say to him

—to a seller—

“For how much,

what is the price of

this item?” when he has no desire to purchase it.

And likewise,

if

his fellow was

a penitent, he may not say to him: “Remember your earlier deeds!”

And it is prohibited not only to remind the penitent himself of the deeds of his ancestors,

but even

if he is the son of converts, one may not say to him: “Remember the deeds of your ancestors!”

As it is stated

[Exodus 22:]

“And a convert

you shall not wrong, and you shall not oppress.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught: It is stated [Leviticus 25:17],

“

You shall not wrong one another

but you shall fear your God.”

The

prohibition of

verbal mistreatment is what the verse is discussing.

From where

do you say

that this verse is discussing

the

prohibition of

verbal mistreatment?

Or perhaps it

is discussing

only the

prohibition of

monetary mistreatment!?

When it says

[Leviticus 25:14],

“When you sell property to your fellow, or buy from your fellow’s hand,

you shall not wrong one another,”

monetary mistreatment has already been stated.

What, then, do I establish,

for what purpose was

“You shall not wrong one another”

stated? It must be

the

prohibition of

verbal

mistreatment

that the verse is discussing.

And the beraita explains:

How so?

If

his fellow was

a penitent, he may not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds,”

or

if he was the son of converts, he may not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors.”

And likewise,

if

his fellow was

a convert who came to study Torah, he may not say to him

: How can

a mouth that ate unslaughtered animals, animals with forbidden defects, creeping things, and crawling things

come to study Torah that was stated by the mouth of the Almighty?

If suffering was coming upon him,

upon his fellow, or

if illnesses were coming upon him, or if he was burying his children, he may not say to him as his friends said to Job

when he was afflicted [Job 4:6]:

“Is not your reverence your folly, your hope, and the integrity of your ways

[if you truly feared the Lord, this would have been your hope],

Remember, please, who ever perished while innocent

[if you were innocent, you would not have perished].”

If donkey drivers,

those who lead donkeys, were

seeking

to purchase

grain from him, he may not say to them, “Go to so-and-so, who sells grain,” and

he

knows about him

—about that particular person—

that he has never sold

grain, and if they come to him to purchase grain, he will be embarrassed by this.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may also not fix his eyes upon the merchandise

as though he intended to purchase it

when he has no money

and cannot purchase it. By making it appear to other people that he intends to purchase the item, he may cause them to refrain from buying it, thereby causing the owner a loss.

For the matter is entrusted to the heart,

and a person knows for himself whether his intention is to purchase or to cause the owner a loss. Therefore, the verse concludes: “You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God,” teaching that one must fear the One who knows thoughts, for He knows whether a person’s intention is good or not.

And

likewise,

every matter

—whether a mitzva or a prohibition—

entrusted

to the heart,

which depends upon the intention of the heart,

has the phrase “but you shall fear your God” stated with regard to it.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: The prohibition of

verbal

mistreatment is greater than the prohibition of

monetary

mistreatment.

For in this case,

verbal mistreatment,

it is stated

[Leviticus 25:] “

You shall not wrong one another,

but you shall fear your God,” whereas in that case,

monetary mistreatment,

“but you shall fear your God” is not stated.

And Rabbi Elazar says: The prohibition of verbal mistreatment is greater than monetary mistreatment, because

this

[verbal mistreatment]

affects

his person, whereas that affects his money.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: In this case,

monetary mistreatment,

restitution is possible. But in that case,

verbal mistreatment,

restitution is not possible.

A tanna taught before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who whitens the face of his fellow in public is as though he spills blood.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

You have spoken well, for I see in the one

who was spoken of disparagingly

that the redness departs,

the red color disappears from his face,

and whiteness comes

in its place.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West,

in Eretz Yisrael,

with regard to what are they vigilant,

taking care not to stumble?

Rav Dimi said to him:

Rav Dimi said:

With regard to whitening the face,

humiliating another.

Because

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three.

And we raised an objection: Does

everyone

descend to Gehenna

enter your mind!?

Rather, say

that this is what Rabbi Ḥanina said:

Everyone who descends to Gehenna

ultimately

ascends

and departs from it,

except for three

sinners

who descend

to Gehenna

and do not ascend

from there.

And these are: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, one who whitens the face of his fellow in public,

and one who gives his fellow a derogatory nickname.

And we challenge this: The severity of the sin of one who

gives

his fellow a name lies in the fact that he humiliates him. If so,

it is the same as

the sin of

whitening

his fellow’s face in public. Why, then, were the one who gives a derogatory name and the one who whitens another’s face counted as two separate sins!?

And we answer: The prohibition against giving one’s fellow a derogatory name is not solely because of the humiliation suffered by the person who receives it. Rather,

even though

he has already

become accustomed to the name,

and is habituated to it so that his face does not whiten, nevertheless, if the one giving the name intended to humiliate him, he does not ascend from Gehenna. We learned in tractate Shabbat [56a]: Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that David sinned in the matter of Bathsheba is merely mistaken, as it is stated: “And David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him.” The Gemara explains that everyone who went out to the war of the House of David wrote a bill of divorce for his wife , and David did not violate the prohibition against a married woman.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: