Bava Metzia 58: Lost Items, Responsibility, and the Danger of Verbal Mistreatment

We had learned in our last Mishna that an unpaid bailee is not responsible for items in his/her care that are lost or stolen.  Today's daf begins with a detailed analysis of how this might be true.  The rabbis dispute each others' opinions and then attempt to justify their points of view by suggesting that the Mishna was assuming something.  For example, perhaps one of the alternate arguments was actually discussing a paid bailee and thus the argument cannot apply to our Mishna.  

We learn, through this discussion, about some of the halachot of that time. Our last Mishna also taught that a paid bailee does not pay for items that are stolen or lost.  One of my favourite teachings of today's daf is that a day labourer paid to guard/watch a consecrated item would not be paid for work on Shabbat, but a labourer hired weekly or monthly or even yearly would be responsible for a loss of that item on Shabbat, as their salary covers their work over all days of the week.  The rabbis question whether or not people can be paid for work on Shabbat when we are not supposed to work on Shabbat, and yet some work is required.  

We continue to follow this halacha - when I sang in a professional synagogue choir, where the majority of our work was done on Shabbatot and chagim, our paycheck reflected our work over the course of a number of weeks in total rather than the specific hours worked on Shabbat.

Much of these teachings regarding ona'a require us to not deal falsely with our neighbours.  We had learned earlier that three things were not subject to the halachot of ona'a: the sale of a Torah scroll, of a pearl, or of an animal.   The rabbis agree that there can be no price set on a Torah scroll, as it holds the words of the Lord which are priceless - thus ona'a cannot reasonably apply, for one-sixth of infinity is difficult to measure.  But the pearl and the animal?  The rabbis suggest that these things are often sold in pairs, as jewelry is designed in pairs, and animals of the same size are sold in pairs to ensure that they are yolked together properly.  The rabbis extend this idea and suggest the sale of horses, swords and helmets are not subject to the laws of ona'a in times of war.  This is because they preserve life, which is priceless.

Another Mishna is introduce in amud (b).  It teaches that the halachot of ona'a apply to statements, or verbal exploitation.  The examples listed in our Mishna are:

• One cannot ask for the price of an item if he does not wish to purchase it because it upsets the seller who expected payment
• One cannot say to another person who is a penitent: "Remember your earlier deeds"
• One cannot say to the child of converts: "Remember the deeds of your ancestors."  This would transgress Exodus (22:20): "And a convert shall you neither mistreat, nor shall you oppress him"

The Gemara's first proof for the importance of be'ona'at devarim, verbal mistreatment Leviticus (25:15):  "And you shall not mistreat one min his colleague, and you shall fear your G-d, for I am the Lord your G-d".  Next, it quotes Leviticus (25:14): "And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague's hand, you shall not exploit his brother".  These verses connect monetary mistreatment with verbal mistreatment.

The Gemara goes on to describe a number of things that should not be said to the child of a convert, including: 

• Does the mouth that ate unslaughtered carcasses and animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months and repugnant creatures and creeping animals come to study Torah that was stated from the mouth of the Almighty?

And one cannot say to a person who is ill or one who has lost a child that their misfortune is due to their insufficient fear of G-d.  The Gemara mentions those who taunted Job in this way.

Next, the Gemara teaches that one cannot mislead a donkey driver who is looking to purchase grain.  Steinsaltz's translation includes these words: "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 when he spoke.  And with regard to any matter given to the heart, it is stated, "And you shall fear your G-d" (Leviticus 25:17), as G-d is privy to the intention of the heart".

The rabbis go on to argue about whether or not monetary restitution is allowed in cases of verbal mistreatment.  They say that a baraita taught "Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood".  The change in one's facial colour after the blood rushes away during humiliation proves this point.  Rav Dimi answered Abaye's question about Eretz Yisrael: Jews there are particularly vigilant in their restraint from humiliating each other in public.  Were that this were the case today!

Finally, our daf teaches that all people who descend to Gehenna eventually ascend, except for three people: one who has intercourse with a married woman, one who humiliates another in public, and one who calls another person a derogatory name.  The first transgression is both against G-d and another person. The second two are similar, but it is argued that when a person becomes accustomed to being called a name and takes that name on as his own, he is no longer humiliated by the name-calling.  Thus these are separate transgressions.

Today's daf may have been the most heartening daf I have read in my four-plus years learning daf yomi.  The rabbis' concern about minimizing humiliation is beautiful, especially when they sometimes humiliate each other in the study hall.  To be cruel to another person is a transgression treated with great seriousness.