Bava Metzia 58b — the Talmud in English

But behold,

the opposite is more reasonable!

For when the one who consecrated [the offering] is not liable for its responsibility, the sacred offerings are more aptly called “the sacred things of the Lord” than offerings for which the one who consecrated them is liable for their responsibility. And according to the Gemara’s present assumption, that the liability applies only in a case in which we read “against the Lord, and he denies,” the consecrated offerings for which he is not liable for their responsibility should require a guilt-offering for an oath more than those for which he is liable for their responsibility!

He said to him: Remove it!

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

He said to him: No!

Do not remove this matter from your Mishna; rather, you must correct it and read it differently. For the assumption you made—that the verse “against the Lord, and he denies” comes to say that one becomes liable for a guilt-offering for an oath only concerning sacred offerings—is not correct.

Rather, the verse comes to say that the liability applies only to denial under oath concerning an ordinary person, and not concerning Heaven; that is, in a case in which I read “against his fellow, and he denies.” However, the verse comes and includes also consecrated offerings for which he is liable for their responsibility, so that their law shall be like the law of ordinary property.

And

this is what it says: Concerning consecrated offerings for which he is liable for their responsibility, he is liable,

because

they were included by “against the Lord

and he denies,”

to be considered as though they were ordinary property.

And concerning those for which he is not liable for their responsibility, he is exempt, for they were excluded by “against his fellow

and he denies.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Also, one who sells a Torah scroll, a pearl, or an animal has no onaa [overcharging]:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Also, one who sells a Torah scroll has no onaa, because there is no limit to its value.

And likewise, one who sells

an animal or a pearl has no onaa, because a person wishes to pair them.

One who purchases an animal searches for the animal suitable to be paired with another animal that he has, so that he may harness them together as a pair, to plow or to pull a wagon. He specifically searches for a suitable animal, because a weak animal that will be paired with a healthy animal will harm

the weak one through the healthy one.

And likewise concerning a pearl, he needs to match it with another pearl set together with it.

Therefore, there is no onaa concerning them when the seller takes an excessive price for them.

They said to him: But surely everything,

also with regard to other things,

a person wishes to pair.

And Rabbi Yehuda

held:

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

And how much

shall there not be onaa concerning them?

Ameimar said:

until the overcharging is

up to their value,

that is, up to twice their price.

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

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

a shield

in

the time of

war has no onaa, because human life depends upon them:

Mishna:

Just as

the prohibition of

onaa was stated with regard to buying and selling, so

the prohibition of

onaa was stated with regard to words.

And 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 is verbal onaa?

A person shall not say to him

—to a seller—:

“For how much,”

what is the price of

this object?—when he does not wish to purchase it.

And likewise,

if

his fellow was

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

And it is forbidden not only to the penitent himself to mention the deed of his fathers,

but also

if he is the son of converts, he shall not say to him: “Remember the deed of your fathers!”

As it is stated

[Exodus 22]:

“And a convert

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

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 onaa is what the verse is speaking about.

From where

do you say

that this verse deals with the

prohibition of

prohibition of

verbal onaa?

Or perhaps it does not

deal

except with the

prohibition of

monetary onaa!

When it says

[Leviticus 25:14]:

“And when you sell a sale to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow,

you shall not wrong one another,”

monetary onaa has already been stated.

What then do I establish,

for what purpose was

“You shall not wrong one another”

stated?

You are compelled to say that it concerns the

prohibition of

verbal

onaa

that the verse is speaking about.

And the beraita explains:

How is this so?

If

his fellow was

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

or

if he was the son of converts, he shall not say to him, “Remember the deed of your fathers.”

And likewise,

if

his fellow was

a convert and came to study Torah, he shall not say to him:

how did

a mouth that ate carcasses, forbidden animals, creeping things, and crawling things

come to study Torah that was stated from the mouth of the Mighty One?

If afflictions were coming upon him,

upon his fellow, or

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

when he received afflictions [Job 4:6]:

“Is not your fear [of God] your folly, your hope, and the integrity of your ways

[if you were truly God-fearing, this would be your hope],

remember, please, who being innocent ever perished

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

If donkey drivers,

those who lead donkeys,

were seeking

to purchase

grain from him, he shall 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

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: Also, he shall not fix his eyes upon the merchandise

as though he intended to purchase it,

when he has no money

and cannot purchase it, because by appearing to other people as though he intends to purchase the object, it is possible that they will refrain from purchasing it, and the owner will thereby suffer a loss ,

For the matter is entrusted to the heart,

and he himself knows whether his intention is to purchase or to cause the owner a loss. Therefore, it is stated at the end of the verse, “You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God,” to tell you: Fear the One who knows thoughts, for He knows whether a person’s intention is for good or not.

And

likewise

every matter

—a mitzva or a matter of prohibition—

entrusted

to the heart,

which depends upon the intention of the heart,

has stated concerning it, “but you shall fear your God” .

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

verbal

onaa is greater than the prohibition of

monetary

onaa ,

for this,

verbal onaa,

is stated concerning it

“

You shall not wrong one another,

but you shall fear your God,” whereas this,

monetary onaa,

does not have stated concerning it, “but you shall fear your God.”

And Rabbi Elazar says:

The prohibition of verbal onaa is greater than monetary onaa, because

this

[verbal onaa]

is in his body, whereas this is in his property.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said: This,

monetary onaa,

can be returned. But this,

verbal onaa,

cannot be returned.

A tanna taught before Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak: Anyone who whitens the face of his fellow in public is as though he sheds blood.

He said to him

—Rav Nahman—:

You have spoken well, for I see him

—the one of whom they spoke disparagingly—

the red departs,

the red color departs from his face,

and the white comes,

the white color comes in its place .

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West,

in the Land of Israel,

in what are they careful,

what do they take care not to stumble in?

He said to him

—Rav Dimi:

In whitening the face,

in humiliation,

because

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

And we raised an objection to this: But does

everyone

descend to Gehenna

enter your mind!?

Rather, say

that this is what Rabbi Hanina said:

Everyone who descends to Gehenna

ultimately

ascends

and departs from it,

except for three

transgressors,

who descend

to Gehenna

and do not ascend

from there.

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

and one who gives his fellow a bad name.

And we raise an objection: Is not the severity of the sin of

giving

his fellow a name in that he humiliates him? If so,

this is

that same sin of

whitening

the face of his fellow in public. Why, then, were giving a name and whitening the face counted as two separate transgressions!?

And we answer: The prohibition of giving his fellow a name is not only because of the shame of the one who is called by it. Rather,

even though

he has already

become accustomed to his name,

and has become accustomed to this name and his face does not whiten, nevertheless, if the one giving the name intended to whiten his face, he does not ascend from Gehenna. We learned in tractate Shabbat [56a]: Rav Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who says that David sinned in the matter of Bathsheba is nothing but mistaken, as it is stated: “And David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him.” And 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 transgress the prohibition concerning a married woman.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: