Bava Metzia 58

נשבעין לגזברין ואם לאו נשבעין לבני העיר ובני העיר שוקלין אחרים תחתיהן נמצאו או שהחזירום הגנבים אלו ואלו שקלים הם ואין עולין להם לשנה הבאה

the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers that they did not misappropriate the coins. If the collection of the chamber was not yet performed, the lost or stolen shekels remain the property of the residents of the city. Therefore, the agents take an oath to the residents of the city. The residents of the city then contribute other shekels in place of the original shekels. If the original shekels were then found or the thieves returned them, both these, the original shekels, and those, the replacement shekels, assume the status of consecrated shekels and belong to the Temple. But the two half-shekels that they contributed this year do not count to absolve them from their obligation to contribute the shekels for the following year. This mishna teaches that an unpaid bailee does take an oath concerning consecrated property, contrary to the mishna here.

אמר שמואל הכא בנושא שכר עסקינן ונשבעין ליטול שכרן אי הכי נשבעין לגזברין לבני העיר מבעי ליה אמר רבה נשבעין לבני העיר במעמד גזברין כי היכי דלא נחשדינהו ואי נמי כי היכי דלא לקרו להו פושעים

Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with paid bailees, and the purpose of the oath is not to exempt them from their liability to pay for the theft. Rather, they take an oath that they performed their task properly, in order to collect their wages. The Gemara asks: If so, is this phrase accurate: They take an oath to the treasurers? The tanna should have taught: They take an oath to the residents of the city, from whom they are claiming their wages. Rabba said: They take an oath to the residents of the city in the presence of the treasurers, so that the treasurers will not suspect that the residents of the city did not contribute their shekels at all. Alternatively, the agents take an oath that they executed their mission properly, so that the Temple treasurers will not call them negligent.

והא נגנבו או שאבדו קתני ושומר שכר בגניבה ואבידה חיובי מיחייב והכא נמי נהי דשלומי לא משלמי אגרייהו מיהא לפסיד

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna: And the coins were stolen or were lost en route, and paid bailees are liable to pay in cases of theft and loss? And here too, when safeguarding consecrated property, although paid bailees do not pay for the theft, as a paid bailee is exempt, let them at least forfeit their wages, as their responsibility to safeguard the money includes preventing theft and loss.

אמר רבה נגנבו בלסטים מזויין אבדו שטבעה ספינתו בים

Rabba said: When the tanna says that they were stolen, the reference is to a case where the item was stolen by armed bandits. When he said that they were lost, the reference is to a case where the agent’s ship sank at sea. Since the shekels left his possession through circumstances beyond his control, this is considered an unavoidable accident, for which a paid bailee is exempt.

רבי יוחנן אמר הא מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר קדשים שחייב באחריותן יש להן אונאה ונשבעין עליהם

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Consecrated items for which one bears responsibility to replace them are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and therefore one takes an oath concerning them.

התינח עד שלא נתרמה התרומה משנתרמה התרומה קדשים שאינו חייב באחריותן נינהו דתניא תורמין על האבוד ועל הגבוי ועל העתיד לגבות

The Gemara asks: This works out well if the contribution of the chamber had not yet been collected into the baskets. At that stage, residents of the city bear responsibility to replace the shekels, and that is why Rabbi Shimon deems the agent liable to take an oath. But if the shekels were lost or stolen once the contribution of the chamber had been collected, the shekels are tantamount to sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility, and the residents of the city should be exempt, as it is taught in a baraita: One collects shekels in the Temple chamber with the intention of fulfilling the obligation for those coins that are lost on the way, and for those that are collected but did not yet arrive, and for those that are destined to be collected in the future. Apparently, the residents of the city no longer bear responsibility for the shekels.

אלא אמר רבי אלעזר שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שלא יהו בני אדם מזלזלים בהקדשות

The Gemara concludes: Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This oath of the agents is a rabbinic ordinance, instituted so that people will not treat consecrated property with contempt. If they knew that there is no oath, they would neglect to safeguard the shekels properly.

נושא שכר אינו משלם רמי ליה רב יוסף בר חמא לרבה תנן נושא שכר אינו משלם ורמינהו השוכר את הפועל לשמור את הפרה לשמור את התינוק לשמור את הזרעים אין נותנים לו שכר שבת לפיכך אין אחריות שבת עליו

§ The mishna teaches: A paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama raises a contradiction before Rabba. We learned in the mishna: A paid bailee does not pay. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One who hires a day laborer to watch the red heifer to ensure that it is not disqualified, to watch the child to ensure that he remains ritually pure from birth in order to draw the water mixed with the ashes of the heifer, or to safeguard the seeds for the barley that will be used in the omer offering, does not give him wages for Shabbat. Therefore, if the items that the day laborer was entrusted to watch were lost on Shabbat, financial responsibility for their loss on Shabbat is not incumbent upon him, since he is not a paid bailee on that day.

היה שכיר שבת שכיר חדש שכיר שנה שכיר שבוע נותנין לו שכר שבת לפיכך אחריות שבת עליו מאי לאו לשלם

The baraita continues: But if he was a laborer hired for a week, hired for a month, hired for a year, or hired for seven years, the one who hired him gives him wages for labor performed on Shabbat as well. Therefore, if the items were lost on Shabbat, financial responsibility for their loss on Shabbat is incumbent upon him. What, is it not that he is liable to pay for the loss he caused? As the list of the items being safeguarded includes consecrated items, this baraita apparently rules that a paid bailee bears responsibility for consecrated property.

לא להפסיד שכרו אי הכי רישא דקתני אין אחריות שבת עליו הכי נמי דלהפסיד שכרו ומי אית ליה שכר שבת והא קתני אין נותנין לו שכר שבת אשתיק

The Gemara rejects this: No, the ruling of the baraita stating that the bailee is responsible is only with regard to forfeiting his wages because he was derelict in safeguarding the items with which he was entrusted. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama asks: If so, in the first clause of the baraita, which teaches that financial responsibility for their loss on Shabbat is not incumbent upon him, is this also with regard to forfeiting his wages? But does he have wages for the work he did on Shabbat? But isn’t it taught that one does not give him wages for Shabbat? Clearly, the reference is to responsibility to pay for the safeguarded items themselves. Rabba was silent, unable to answer.

אמר ליה מידי שמיע לך בהא אמר ליה הכי אמר רב ששת בשקנו מידו וכן אמר רבי יוחנן בשקנו מידו

Rabba said to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama: Have you heard anything with regard to this? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him that this is what Rav Sheshet says: The ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a case where the laborers made a commitment to the one who hired them to take responsibility for the items, and they performed an act of acquisition with the one who hired them to reinforce that commitment. And likewise Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a case where the laborers made a commitment to the one who hired them to take responsibility for the items, and they performed an act of acquisition with him.

רבי שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן יש להן אונאה ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין להן אונאה תני תנא קמיה דרבי יצחק בר אבא

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility to replace them are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and those for which one does not bear responsibility to replace them are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba with regard to the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It is derived from the verse: “If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or has oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21).

קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב שאני קורא בהן בה׳ וכחש ושאינו חייב באחריותן פטור שאני קורא בהן בעמיתו וכחש

In that baraita, it is taught: For an oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility, one is liable to bring an offering for taking a false oath, as I apply the phrase “against the Lord, and deals falsely.” And for an oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility, one is exempt, as I read in their regard: With his neighbor, and deals falsely. That reading indicates that even one who deals falsely in matters related to the Lord, e.g., sacrificial animals, is liable to bring an offering for a false oath.

אמר ליה כלפי לייא

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Isn’t it the opposite [kelapei layya]?

איפכא מסתברא אמר ליה איסמיה

The opposite is reasonable. An oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility is considered to be a matter related to the Lord even more than an oath concerning a sacrificial animal for which one bears responsibility, as in the latter case it is owned by the person in some respects. The tanna said to him: Should I delete this baraita because it is corrupted?

אמר ליה לא הכי קאמר קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב דאיתרבו מבה׳ וכחש ושאינו חייב באחריותן פטור דאמעיט מבעמיתו וכחש

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba said to him: No, this is what the baraita is saying: For an oath taken concerning sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility, one is liable to bring an offering for a false oath, as it is included due to the phrase “against the Lord, and deals falsely.” It is derived from this that one is liable for taking a false oath even with regard to an item which belongs, to a certain degree, to the Lord. And with regard to sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility, one is exempt, as it is excluded by the phrase: With his neighbor and deals falsely. It is derived from this that one is liable to bring an offering for a false oath only if it pertained to property that belongs to a layman, i.e., his neighbor, but not for an item that belongs completely to God, as is the case with regard to sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility.

רבי יהודה אומר אף המוכר ספר תורה מרגלית ובהמה אין להם אונאה תניא רבי יהודה אומר אף המוכר ספר תורה אין לה אונאה לפי שאין קץ לדמיה בהמה ומרגלית אין להם אונאה מפני שאדם רוצה לזווגן

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, a pearl, or an animal, those items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, it is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as there is no limit to its value. It is the Torah of God, which is priceless. An animal and a pearl are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation because a person seeks to pair them. An animal is paired with an animal of similar strength so that they can be yoked together to work in the field. A pearl is paired with a similar pearl to fashion jewelry. Since there is a need to obtain a specific variant of these items, one is not particular about the price.

אמרו לו והלא הכל אדם רוצה לזווגן ורבי יהודה הני חשיבי ליה והני לא חשיבי ליה ועד כמה אמר אמימר עד כדי דמיהם

The baraita continues: The Rabbis said to him: But isn’t it the case that with regard to every item, a person seeks to pair them with similar items under certain circumstances? According to your explanation, the halakhot of exploitation would never apply. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda respond to that question? He claims that these are significant to a person, but those are not significant to him. In other words, it is particularly important to find a precise match for an animal and a pearl. The Gemara continues to analyze Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. And up to how much can one deviate from the value of items for which exploitation does not apply, as Rabbi Yehuda is clearly not saying that any deviation is acceptable? Ameimar said: One can deviate up to double their value.

תניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אף המוכר סוס וסייף וחטיטום במלחמה אין להם אונאה מפני שיש בהן חיי נפש

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Even in the case one who sells a horse, or a sword, or a helmet [veḥatitom] during wartime, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, because they then have the capacity to preserve life, and a person is willing to pay any price for them.

מתני׳ כשם שאונאה במקח וממכר כך אונאה בדברים לא יאמר לו בכמה חפץ זה והוא אינו רוצה ליקח אם היה בעל תשובה לא יאמר לו זכור מעשיך הראשונים אם הוא בן גרים לא יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך שנאמר וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו

MISHNA: Just as there is a prohibition against exploitation [ona’a] in buying and selling, so is there ona’a in statements, i.e., verbal mistreatment. The mishna proceeds to cite examples of verbal mistreatment. One may not say to a seller: For how much are you selling this item, if he does not wish to purchase it. He thereby upsets the seller when the deal fails to materialize. The mishna lists other examples: If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deeds of your ancestors, as it is stated: “And a convert shall you neither mistreat, nor shall you oppress him” (Exodus 22:20).

גמ׳ תנו רבנן לא תונו איש את עמיתו באונאת דברים הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר באונאת דברים או אינו אלא באונאת ממון כשהוא אומר וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך הרי אונאת ממון אמור הא מה אני מקיים לא תונו איש את עמיתו באונאת דברים

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It is written: “And you shall not mistreat [tonu] one man his colleague; and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 25:17). The tanna explains: The verse is speaking with regard to verbal mistreatment. The baraita proceeds: Do you say that it is speaking of verbal mistreatment [be’ona’at devarim], or perhaps it is speaking only with regard to monetary exploitation [be’ona’at mammon]? When it says in a previous verse: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand, you shall not exploit [tonu] his brother” (Leviticus 25:14), monetary exploitation is explicitly stated. How then do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall not mistreat one man his colleague”? It is with regard to verbal mistreatment.

הא כיצד אם היה בעל תשובה אל יאמר לו זכור מעשיך הראשונים אם היה בן גרים אל יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך אם היה גר ובא ללמוד תורה אל יאמר לו פה שאכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים בא ללמוד תורה שנאמרה מפי הגבורה

How so? If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deed of your ancestors. If one is a convert and he came to study Torah, one may not say to him: Does the mouth that ate unslaughtered carcasses and animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot], and repugnant creatures, and creeping animals, comes to study Torah that was stated from the mouth of the Almighty?

אם היו יסורין באין עליו אם היו חלאים באין עליו או שהיה מקבר את בניו אל יאמר לו כדרך שאמרו לו חביריו לאיוב הלא יראתך כסלתך תקותך ותם דרכיך זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד

If torments are afflicting a person, if illnesses are afflicting him, or if he is burying his children, one may not speak to him in the manner that the friends of Job spoke to him: “Is not your fear of God your confidence, and your hope the integrity of your ways? Remember, I beseech you, whoever perished, being innocent?” (Job 4:6–7). Certainly you sinned, as otherwise you would not have suffered misfortune.

אם היו חמרים מבקשין תבואה ממנו לא יאמר להם לכו אצל פלוני שהוא מוכר תבואה ויודע בו שלא מכר מעולם רבי יהודה אומר אף לא יתלה עיניו על המקח בשעה שאין לו דמים שהרי הדבר מסור ללב וכל דבר המסור ללב נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך

Likewise, if donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all. He thereby causes the donkey drivers and the would-be seller anguish. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even cast his eyes on the merchandise for sale, creating the impression that he is interested, at a time when he does not have money to purchase it. Verbal mistreatment is not typically obvious, and it is difficult to ascertain the intent of the offender, as the matter is given to the heart of each individual, as only he knows what his intention was when he spoke. And with regard to any matter given to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 25:17), as God is privy to the intent of the heart.

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי גדול אונאת דברים מאונאת ממון שזה נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך וזה לא נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך ורבי אלעזר אומר זה בגופו וזה בממונו רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר זה ניתן להישבון וזה לא ניתן להישבון

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Greater is the transgression of verbal mistreatment than the transgression of monetary exploitation, as with regard to this, verbal mistreatment, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” But with regard to that, monetary exploitation, it is not stated: “And you shall fear your God.” And Rabbi Elazar said this explanation: This, verbal mistreatment, affects one’s body; but that, monetary exploitation, affects one’s money. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: This, monetary exploitation, is given to restitution; but that, verbal mistreatment, is not given to restitution.

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק כל המלבין פני חבירו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים אמר ליה שפיר קא אמרת דחזינא ליה דאזיל סומקא ואתי חוורא אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי במערבא במאי זהירי אמר ליה באחוורי אפי דאמר רבי חנינא הכל יורדין לגיהנם חוץ משלשה

The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three.

הכל סלקא דעתך אלא אימא כל היורדין לגיהנם עולים חוץ משלשה שיורדין ואין עולין ואלו הן הבא על אשת איש והמלבין פני חבירו ברבים והמכנה שם רע לחבירו מכנה היינו מלבין אף על גב דדש ביה בשמיה

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone descends to Gehenna? Rather, say: Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: That is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: