Quotation for Bava Metzia 116:14

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן

monetary wrongs are already dealt with. Then to what can I refer, ye shall not therefore wrong each other? To verbal wrongs. E.g., If a man is a penitent, one must not say to him, 'Remember your former deeds.' If he is the son of proselytes he must not be taunted with, 'Remember the deeds of your ancestors. If he is a proselyte and comes to study the Torah, one must not say to him, 'Shall the mouth that ate unclean and forbidden food,14 abominable and creeping things, come to study the Torah which was uttered by the mouth of Omnipotence!' If he is visited by suffering, afflicted with disease, or has buried his children, one must not speak to him as his companions spoke to Job, is not thy fear [of God] thy confidence, And thy hope the integrity of thy ways? Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent?15 If assdrivers sought grain from a person, he must not say to them, 'Go to so and so who sells grain,' whilst knowing that he has never sold any. R. Judah said: One may also not feign interest in16 a purchase when he has no money, since this is known to the heart only,17 and of everything known only to the heart it is written, and thou shalt fear thy God.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 17. Man cannot know whether one's intentions are legitimate or not, since they are concealed, but God knows (Rashi). [This beautiful phrase [H] which, were certain critics of Pharisaism right, ought never to have been on Pharisaic lips (Abrahams, I. Studies on Pharisaism, Second Series, p. 116), may also denote matters left to ethical research and conviction, which cannot be mastered, weighed or determined by will, but by a delicate perception, fine tact and a sensitiveness of nature. V. Lazarus, The Ethics of Judaism, I, 122 and 292.] ');">18 R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Verbal wrong is more heinous than monetary wrong, because of the first it is written, 'and thou shalt fear thy God,' but not of the second. R. Eleazar said: The one affects his [the victim's] person, the other [only] his money. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: For the former restoration is possible, but not for the latter. A tanna recited before R. Nahman b. Isaac: He who publicly shames19 his neighbour is as though he shed blood. Whereupon he remarked to him, 'You say well, because I have seen it [sc. such shaming], the ruddiness departing and paleness supervening.'20 Abaye asked R. Dimi: What do people [most] carefully avoid in the West [sc. palestine]? — He replied: putting others to shame.21 For R. Hanina said: All descend into Gehenna, excepting three. 'All' — can you really think so! But say thus: All who descend into Gehenna [subsequently] reascend, excepting three, who descend but do not reascend, viz., He who commits adultery with a married woman, publicly shames his neighbour, or fastens an evil epithet [nickname] upon his neighbour. 'Fastens an epithet' — but that is putting to shame! — [It means], Even when he is accustomed to the name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he experiences no humiliation, nevertheless it is very reprehensible when the intention is evil. — It is noteworthy that apart from these three — which are obviously stated in a heightened form for the sake of emphasis (V. Tosaf.) the idea of endless Gehenna is rejected. Cf. M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Lie, pp. 145 seq. 'Nor do we believe in hell or in everlasting punishment … If suffering there is to be, it is terminable. The idea of eternal punishment is repugnant to the genius of Judaism.' ');">22 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name:

Responsa Chatam Sofer

Behold here we have [issues related] to monetary laws and laws of exploitation. And the latter is primary, since he in any case verbally exploited his fellow. And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said in Bava Metzia 58b regarding the parameters of the negative commandment, “Do not exploit,” “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.” And the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4 rules [like this]. And the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said with precision that one who said [this] to donkey drivers who regardless had come to a city to purchase grain, so no loss was caused to them, except that they requested that he inform them who sells [grain] and he mocked them with his words - violates the negative commandment of “Do not exploit.” And they judged accordingly in the beginning of Pesachim 3b about the Aramean who came up [and tricked the Jews] to eat from the Pesach sacrifices, etc. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteirah [who thwarted the Aramean’s trickery, by misleading him] knew that it was not considered mocking; otherwise he would have been in violation of “Do not exploit.” Here too, [even] had the rabbi, Rabbi Michael, lived in the village and the shochet mocked him to the point that he came to the synagogue to do the circumcision and found that there was no boy there to circumcise, he would have [still] violated this negative commandment. And our Sages were stringent about this over there, to the point that they likened it to worshiping idols (Bava Metzia 39a): “[There are] three [sins before whose transgressors] the curtain [between the world and the Divine Presence] is not locked (meaning, their sins reach the Divine Presence).”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse