Quoting%20commentary for Bava Metzia 121:18

ולוקמה ברבית ואונאה ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין דבר הלמד מעניינו

And were there a prohibition in the Divine Law against overreaching only, [I might reason,] that is because he [the defrauded] does not know [of his loss], to be able to pardon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the injury remains permanently. But in robbery and usury the victim's forgiveness may wipe it out. ');">¹⁷</span> Now one could not be deduced from another: but cannot one be derived from the other two? — Which could be [thus] deduced? Should the Divine Law omit the prohibition of usury, that it might follow from these [robbery and fraud]? [But I would argue,] The reason why these are [forbidden] is because they lack [the victim's] consent:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in fraud, though the money is given of one's free will, still he does not consent to be defrauded. ');">¹⁸</span> will you say [the same] of usury, which is [taken] with his [the debtor's] consent? And if the Divine Law omitted the injunction against overreaching, that it might be deduced from the others, [I would argue:] The reason why the others are [forbidden] is because commerce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'buying and selling'. ');">¹⁹</span> is not carried on thus!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by robbery or usury. But overcharging is sometimes a normal incident in trade, i.e., when one is particularly in need of an article, he may knowingly overpay. ');">²⁰</span> — But the Divine Law should not have stated the prohibition of robbery, and it would have followed from the others. For what objections will you raise: as for interest, that it is an anomaly? Then let overreaching prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That robbery is prohibited, the prohibition against overreaching not being anomalous. ');">²¹</span> [Should you argue,] As for fraud, [the reason of the prohibition] is that he [the victim] is in ignorance thereof, and cannot pardon: then let interest prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The interest charge is known to the debtor and yet is forbidden. ');">²²</span> And thus the argument revolves: the distinguishing feature of one is not the distinguishing feature of the other, and vice versa. The characteristic common to both is that he robs him. So also may I adduce [actual] robbery [as prohibited]! — I will tell you: That indeed is so. Then what is the need of an injunction against robbery? In respect of withholding the payment of a hired worker. But [the prohibition against the] withholding of such payment is explicitly stated: <i>Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy</i>!&nbsp;… at his day thou shalt give him his hire!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 14f. ');">²³</span> — To teach that he [who withholds payment] transgresses two negative precepts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one quoted and the one against robbery making the offender liable to a twofold penalty of lashes. [The same answer could not apply to robbery itself, as robbery does not carry with it the penalty of flogging. V. Mak. 17a (Tosaf).] ');">²⁴</span> Then let it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The superfluous injunction against robbery. ');">²⁵</span> be referred to interest or fraud, that [in their case] two negative commands are transgressed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., instead of saying that it intimates an additional injunction against withholding the wage of a hired worker. ');">²⁶</span> — It is a matter deduced from its context,

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Metzia 121:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.