Algorithmic Pricing

(14) When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.

(3)The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silverma’afrom the twenty-four silverma’ain a sela, or one-sixth of the transaction. Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? He may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative who is more familiar with the market price of merchandise. If more time has elapsed he can no longer return the item, as the assumption is that he waived his right to receive the sum of the disparity. The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silverma’afrom the twenty-four silverma’aof a sela, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced, as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfonsaid to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were, with the previous ruling, and they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna with regard to both rulings.

(4)Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Just as the halakhot of exploitation apply to a layman, so do the halakhot of exploitation apply to a merchant. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant, as he is an expert in the market price of merchandise. The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the other: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me.

(5)How much can the sela coin be eroded through usage, and its use in a transaction at its original value will still not constitute exploitation? Rabbi Meir says: The accepted depreciation is four issar, which is a rate of one issar per dinar, or one twenty-fourth of a dinar. And Rabbi Yehuda says: The accepted depreciation is four pundeyon, which is a rate of one pundeyon per dinar, or one-twelfth of a dinar. And Rabbi Shimon says: The accepted depreciation is eight pundeyon, which is a rate of two pundeyon per dinar, or one-sixth of a dinar.

(6) The mishna continues: Until when is it permitted for one to return a worn coin once he realizes that it is defective? In the cities [bakerakim], one may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show it to a money changer, who is an expert in matters of coins. In the villages, where there is no money changer, one may return it only until Shabbat eves, when people purchase their Shabbat needs. Although these are the limits of how much a coin must be eroded in order for there to be exploitation, if the one who gave the coin to the aggrieved party recognized it, he must accept it back from him even after twelve months have passed no matter how little the erosion affected its value. And he has only a grievance against him, as the Gemara will explain. And one may give the slightly eroded coin for use in the desacralizing of second-tithe produce and he need not be concerned, as one who would refuse to accept a slightly eroded coin is merely a miserly soul, while the coin is in fact valid for any use.

(7)The measure of exploitation is four silverma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela. And the smallest monetary claim in court for which a plaintiff can obligate a respondent to take an oath is two silverma’a. And the smallest monetary admission for which that respondent takes the oath is an admission that one owes at least the value of one peruta. On a related note, the tanna adds that there are five halakhic situations involving perutot: The admission to part of a claim must be that one owes at least the value of one peruta, and a woman is betrothed with the value of one peruta. And one who derives benefit of the value of one peruta from consecrated property has misused consecrated property and is liable to bring an offering, and one who finds an item that has the value of one peruta is obligated to proclaim that he found it. And with regard to one who robs from another an item that has the value of one peruta and took an oath to him that he robbed nothing, when he repents and seeks to return the stolen item he must take it and follow its owner even to Media. In that case, he may not return the item by means of a messenger; he must give it directly to its owner.

(8) In this mishna, as in the previous one, the tanna enumerates several halakhot that share a common element. There are five halakhic situations where one-fifth is added to the value of the principal, and these are they: A non-priest who eats either teruma, or teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the first tithe and gives to a priest, or teruma of the tithe of demai, or ḥalla, or first fruits; in each of these cases, he adds one-fifth when paying restitution to the priest who owned the produce. And one who redeems his own fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce adds one-fifth. One who redeems his own consecrated property adds one-fifth. One who derives benefit worth one peruta from consecrated property adds one-fifth. And one who robs the value of one peruta from another and takes a false oath in response to his claim adds one-fifth when paying restitution.

(9)These are matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation even if the disparity between the value and the payment is one-sixth or greater: Slaves, and documents, and land, and consecrated property. In addition, if they are stolen, these items are subject neither to payment of double the principal for theft nor to payment of four or five times the principal, if the thief slaughtered or sold a stolen sheep or cow, respectively. An unpaid bailee does not take an oath and a paid bailee does not pay if these items were stolen or lost. Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to sacrificial animals for which one bears responsibility to replace them, they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as this responsibility indicates a certain aspect of ownership. And those for which one does not bear responsibility to replace them, they are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they have no fixed price. The Rabbis said to him: The early Sages stated that only these items listed above are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation.

(10)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).

(11)One may not intermingle produce bought from one supplier with other produce, even if he intermingles new produce with other new produce and ostensibly the buyer suffers no loss from his doing so. And needless to say, one may not intermingle new produce with old produce, in the event that the old produce is superior, as with grains, since intermingling lowers its value. Actually, they said: With regard to wine, they permitted one to mix strong wine with weak wine, because one thereby enhances it. One may not intentionally mix wine sediment with the wine, but one may give the buyer wine with its sediment; the seller is not required to filter the wine. One who had water mix with his wine may not sell it in the store, unless he informs the buyer that it contains water. And he may not sell it to a merchant, even if he informs him of the mixture, as, although he is aware that there is water mixed with the wine, it will be used for nothing other than deceit because the merchant will likely not inform the buyer that it is diluted. In a place where they are accustomed to place water into the wine to dilute it and everyone is aware of that fact, one may place water in the wine.

(12) The prohibition against mixing different types of produce applies only to an individual selling the produce of his field. By contrast, a merchant may take grain from five threshing floors belonging to different people, and place the produce in one warehouse. He may also take wine from five winepresses and place the wine in one large cask [pitom], provided that he does not intend to mix low-quality merchandise with high-quality merchandise. Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper may not hand out toasted grain and nuts to children who patronize his store, due to the fact that he thereby accustoms them to come to him at the expense of competing storekeepers. And the Rabbis permit doing so. And one may not reduce the price of sale items below the market rate. And the Rabbis say: If he wishes to do so, he should be remembered positively. One may not sift ground beans to remove the waste, lest he charge an inappropriately high price for the sifted meal, beyond its actual value; this is the statement of Abba Shaul. And the Rabbis permit doing so. And the Rabbis concede that one may not sift the meal only from the beans that are close to the opening of the bin to create the impression that the contents of the entire bin were sifted, as this is nothing other than deception. One may neither adorn a person before selling him on the slave market, nor an animal nor vessels that he seeks to sell. Rather, they must be sold unembellished, to avoid deceiving the buyer.

The Gemara now analyzes Rav Yehuda’s calculation: Subtract thirty-six pitchersful that were sold for six dinars each, with which he recoups the purchase price of the barrel. Twelve pitchersful remained for him. Subtract eight pitchers full, which is one-sixth of the total amount, as that is the measure absorbed in the barrels. Four pitchersful remained as profit for Rav Yehuda. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say that one who profits from the sale of matters related to one’s existence may not profit more than one-sixth? One can infer that it is permitted for one to profit up to one-sixth. But according to the calculation, Rav Yehuda’s profit was much lower. Why did he not sell the oil at a higher price? The Gemara answers: There are the barrel and the sediment to account for. These remain in his possession, as he purchased the barrel and all its contents for six dinars, and they supplement the profit. The Gemara challenges: If so, once the barrel and sediment are taken into account, the profit is greater than one-sixth. How did Rav Yehuda profit beyond the permitted amount? The Gemara answers: There is the payment for his exertion, as he sold the oil, and there is the payment for tapping, as a craftsman is needed to install a tap in the barrel. When those payments are included in the calculation, the profit is precisely one-sixth. § The mishna teaches: If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment. If they were stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it impossible that the cask did not absorb any oil at all, even if it was saturated? Rav Naḥman says: It is with regard to casks coated with pitch that the tanna’imtaught the mishna, and if the cask is old and coated with pitch it does not absorb anything. Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is not referring to casks coated with pitch, once they are saturated they are saturated, and no more oil is absorbed. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells refined oil to another all the days of the year, this buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundredlog, as that is the standard measure of sediment. Abaye said: When you analyze the matter, you will find it necessary to say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment that settled at the bottom of the barrel with the clear oil and sell the mixture. And according to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment with the clear oil. The Gemara elaborates. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment, and that is the reason that the buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment and sell it to you, couldn’t I mix it and sell it to you? Now too, accept upon yourself the deduction due to sediment. The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: If you had mixed sediment into the oil, it could have been sold for me to another. Now what will I do with it? The sediment cannot be sold on its own, and I will suffer a loss. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a buyer who is a homeowner, not a merchant. He needs oil for his own use, and filtered oil is preferable for him, as his use of the oil is facilitated by removal of the sediment. The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment with the oil for me, it is an indication that you renounced your rights to it to me.The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that one can presume renunciation, and therefore the buyer cannot presume that the seller renounced his right to receive the standard price, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 77b): If one sold the yoke [tzemed] to another, he did not sell the cattle to him. Literally, tzemed means the yoke that holds the animals together [tzamud] while plowing. It can be understood as referring to the two animals held together by the yoke. If one sold the cattle to another, he did not sell the yoke to him. The sale is limited to the literal meaning of what he said. The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The money informs the scope of the sale. Based on the price, one can determine what is included in the sale. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your tzemed for two hundred dinars, the matter is well-known that a yoke does not cost two hundred dinars, and he certainly meant the cattle. And the Rabbis say: The money is not a proof, as it is possible that one of the parties renounced part of the sale price. The Gemara concludes its elaboration of the statement of Abaye: According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment, and this is the reason that the buyer does not accept that the seller deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the buyer says to him: If you wished to mix sediment and sell it, would it be permitted for you to do so? Now too, I do not accept that deduction. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is permitted to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer does not accept the deduction, as the buyer said to the seller: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment for me, apparently you renounced that sum to me. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is prohibited to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer accepts the deduction, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment, it is prohibited for me to mix it for you, and if you do not accept the deduction, I earn nothing from this sale. That is unacceptable according to the maxim: One who buys and sells at the same price, is he called a merchant?It is taught: The legal status of both one who buys and one who deposits oil with regard to residue [piktim], e.g., olive pits floating on the oil, is the same. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With regard to residue? If we say that this is teaching: Just as the buyer does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue, so too, the one who deposits the oil does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue when he returns the oil and is required to return the full amount deposited with him, this is difficult. But let the bailee say to the owner: What shall I do with your residue?Rather, it is teaching: Just as the one who deposits the oil accepts the residue when his oil is returned to him, so too, the buyer accepts the residue with the oil he purchases. The Gemara asks: And does the buyer accept upon himself a deduction for residue? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages stated that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, as the buyer accepts upon himself a deduction for a log and a half of sediment without residue?The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as thisbaraita, in which it is taught that the buyer accepts residue, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Tishrei, when olives are harvested, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Tishrei. In Tishrei, due to the substantial supply, the price is lower, and immediately after the harvest the oil is murky. Thatbaraita, in which it is taught that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Nisan, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Nisan, as in Nisan both the buyer and the seller assume that the oil is refined. MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits a barrel with another, and the owners did not designate a specific place for the barrel to be stored in the bailee’s house, and the bailee moved it and it broke, if it broke while still in his hand, there is a distinction: If he moved the barrel for his purposes, he is liable to pay for the damage. If he moved the barrel for its own purposes, to prevent it from being damaged, he is exempt. If, after he replaced the barrel it broke, whether he initially moved it for his purposes or whether he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt. But if the owners designated a specific place for the barrel, and the bailee moved it and it broke, whether it broke while still in his hand or whether it broke after he replaced the barrel, if he moved it for his purposes he is liable to pay, and if he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt.GEMARA: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: When a thief returns an item that he stole, we do not require the knowledge of the owner for the item to be considered returned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case of one who steals a lamb from the flock or a sela from the purse, he should return it to the place from which he stole it, and it is unnecessary to inform the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:

from the letter vav that begins the verse: “And it shall come to pass [vehaya], if you shall hearken diligently” (Deuteronomy 28:1), until: “To serve them [le’ovdam]” (Deuteronomy 28:14), which ends with the letter mem. And he cursed them with twenty-two letters, from the letter vav that begins the verse: “But it shall come to pass [vehaya], if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 28:15), until: “And no man shall buy [koneh]” (Deuteronomy 28:68). This verse ends with a letter heh, which comes just before vav in the alphabet. Starting with a vav and ending with a heh encompasses the twenty-two letters of the alphabet. § The mishna teaches that in a place where they were accustomed to measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it; and where they are accustomed to heap it, one may not level it. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing halakhot: One may not balance with precision; and one may not heap it; with market inspectors [ba’agardamin]; and with a litra; three; and ten; fulcrum; weights; a thick leveler; you may not do; one may not do.The Sages taught: From where is it derived that one may not level a measuring vessel in a place where they are accustomed to heap it and that one may not heap it in a place where they are accustomed to level it? The verse states: “A perfect weight” (Deuteronomy 25:15), which indicates that one must use whatever is considered a perfect measuring vessel in that locale, as this ensures that there is no deception or trickery. And from where is it derived that if the seller said in a place where they heap: I am hereby leveling and am willing in exchange to reduce the price for you, or said, in a place where they level: I am hereby heaping and am willing to increase the price for you, that the court does not listen to him? The verse states: “A perfect and just weight you shall have” (Deuteronomy 25:15). The addition of the term “just,” beyond the requirement that the weight be “perfect,” teaches that one must keep his weights in a just manner, i.e., that employed by the people of that locale. The Sages taught: From where is it derived that one may not balance a scale so that it will balance with precision [me’ayyenin] in a place where they are accustomed to let the scales tilt a handbreadth for the benefit of the buyer, and that one may not let the scales tilt a handbreadth in a place where they are accustomed to balance with precision? The verse states: “A perfect weight” (Deuteronomy 25:15), which teaches that the weight must be considered perfect in that locale. And from where is it derived that if a seller said, in a place where it is the custom to let the scales tilt a handbreadth: I am hereby balancing with precision and am willing to reduce the price for the buyer; or, in a place where it is the custom to balance with precision: I am hereby letting the scales tilt a handbreadth and am willing to increase the price for the buyer, that the court does not listen to him? The verse states: “A perfect and just weight” (Deuteronomy 25:15), which teaches that the just way of acting is to weigh in accordance with the practice in that locale. Rav Yehuda of Sura says a homiletic interpretation of the phrase: “You shall not have in your house diverse measures” (Deuteronomy 25:14): “You shall not have in your house” means that you will become a pauper, who has nothing in his house. What is the reason for this? It is due to the fact that you used diverse measures, buying with a large vessel and selling with a small one. The phrase: “You shall not have in your purse diverse weights” (Deuteronomy 25:13), is interpreted in a similar fashion: “You shall not have in your purse,” i.e., you will become a pauper, who has nothing in his purse. What is the reason for this? It is due to the fact that you used diverse weights. But if you possess only “a perfect and just weight,” then “you shall have” wealth. Likewise, if you possess only “a perfect and just measure,” then “you shall have” wealth. § The Sages taught that the phrase: “You shall not have,” teaches that the court appoints market inspectors to supervise the accuracy of measures. The Gemara infers: But the court does not appoint market inspectors for supervising market prices. The Gemara relates: The house of the Nasi appointed market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices. Shmuel said to his student, the Sage Karna: Go out and teach them that one appoints market inspectors for supervising measures but one does not appoint market inspectors for prices.Karnawent out and taught them that one appoints market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices.Shmuel, hearing what he had done, said to him: What is your name? He replied: Karna.Shmuel said: Let a horn [karna] emerge in his eye. A horn, i.e., a growth of flesh, emerged in his eye. The Gemara asks: AndKarna, in accordance with whose opinion did he hold, which led him to disregard his teacher’s statement? He held in accordance with that which Rami bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One appoints market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices, due to swindlers, to prevent people from using smaller measures or from selling at a steep price while falsely claiming that they are selling superior-quality merchandise. The Gemara discusses several halakhot related to the cases of the mishna. The Sages taught: If the buyer requested from the seller a litra of a specific item, he weighs for him using a litra weight. If he asks for half a litra, he weighs for him using a half-litra weight. If he wants one-quarter of a litra, he weighs for him using a quarter-litra weight. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? What is this baraitateaching us? The Gemara explains: It teaches that one sets weights until this amount, one-quarter of a litra, but not less. If a buyer asks the seller to weigh a smaller amount for him, his request is not granted. Furthermore, the Sages taught: If the buyer requested from him three-quarters of a litra, and there is no weight equal to this amount, the buyer may not say to him: Weigh for me three units using a quarter-litra weight, one by one, so that the seller lets the scales tilt by a handbreadth as he measures each quarter-litra weight. Rather, he weighs the merchandise all at once, as he places a litra weight on one pan of the scale, and places on the other pan of the scale a quarter-litra weight together with the meat that is being sold. The Sages likewise taught: In a case where the buyer requested from the seller ten litra of merchandise, the buyer may not say to him: Weigh for me each litraone by one, and let the scales tilt each time, as on every occasion that the seller does this the buyer receives more than that for which he paid. Rather, he weighs all the merchandise at the same time and lets the scales tilt once for all the merchandise. § The Sages taught: The fulcrum of a scale must be suspended in the air so that the point the lever goes through it is at a distance of three handbreadths from the ceiling, and the pans of the scale must be three handbreadths above the ground. And the scale’s lever and cord, from which each pan is suspended, must be twelve handbreadths long. And the fulcrum of a scale of wool-weavers and glassmakers must be suspended in the air at a distance of two handbreadths from the ceiling, and the pans of the scale must be two handbreadths above the ground. And its lever and cord must be nine handbreadths long. And the fulcrum of a scale of a storekeeper and of a homeowner must be suspended in the air at a distance of one handbreadth from the ceiling, and the pans of the scale must be one handbreadth above the ground. And its lever and cord must be six handbreadths long. And the fulcrums of small scales [turtanei] used for weighing gold and silver must be suspended in the air at a distance of three fingerbreadths from the ceiling, and the pans of the scales must be three fingerbreadths above the ground. The tanna continues: But with regard to its lever and cord, I do not know their required length. Since the function of each type of balance scale is mentioned with the exception of the first type, the Gemara asks: And that large balance scale, which is mentioned first, for what is it used? Rav Pappa says: It is a balance scale for blacksmiths, who weigh heavy pieces of metal. Rabbi Mani Bar Pattish says: Just as the Sages said with regard to the prohibition of the scales that one may not use a scale that does not meet the criteria listed in the baraita, so too they said that this applies with regard to their ritual impurity. In other words, if the cords and pole are not attached in the proper manner, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity as part of the scale. The Gemara asks: What is this statement teaching us? We learned in a mishna (Kelim 29:5): With regard to the rope from which the scales are suspended, if the balance scale belongs to a storekeeper or to homeowners it must be one handbreadth in length for it to be susceptible to ritual impurity. Why, then, is the statement of Rabbi Mani Bar Pattish necessary? The Gemara answers: Although the mishna in tractate Kelim discusses the rope from which the scales are suspended, it was still necessary for Rabbi Mani Bar Pattish to mention the halakha with regard to the scale’s lever and cord, which we did not learn about in that mishna. § The Sages taught: One may not prepare weights of tin [ba’atz], nor of lead, nor of a metal alloy [gisteron], nor of any other types of metal, because all of these deteriorate over time and the buyer will ultimately pay for more merchandise than he receives. But one may prepare weights of hard rock and of glass.The Sages further taught: One may not prepare the leveler, used to remove the excess from the mouth of a vessel, from a gourd, because it is a light material and does not level effectively, thereby causing a loss for the seller. And it may not be made of metal, because it weighs down and removes too much of the merchandise, leading to a loss for the buyer. But one may prepare it from the wood of an olive tree, or of a nut tree, or of a sycamore tree, or of a boxwood tree, which are of medium weight. The Sages taught: One may not prepare the leveler in such a manner that one of its sides is thick and one other side is thin, because in such a case the two sides will not level equally. Furthermore, one may not level all at once, by a single quick movement, as one who levels all at once acts in a manner that is bad for the seller and good for the buyer, because he removes less of the excess than one who levels in the regular fashion. And conversely one may not level little by little, i.e., with several slow movements, as this is bad for the buyer and good for the seller.Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said with regard to all these halakhot: Woe to me if I say them, and woe unto me if I do not say them. If I say them, perhaps swindlers will learn new methods of cheating of which they were previously unaware. And if I do not say them, perhaps swindlers will say: Torah scholars are not well versed in our handiwork. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: DidRabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai decide to say these halakhot in public or did he not say them? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: He said them, and he said them on the basis of this verse: “For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them; but transgressors stumble over them” (Hosea 14:10). § The Gemara further discusses weights and measures. The Sages taught: “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure [bammidda], in weight, or in measure [uvamesura]” (Leviticus 19:35). The baraita defines these terms: “In measure [bammidda],” this is referring to measuring land, teaching that in order to measure land in a just manner one may not measure for one person in the summer when the measuring rope has become dry and short, and for one other individual in the rainy season, when the measuring rope is wet and limp, and therefore stretches more. “In weight” means that one may not cover his weights in salt, as salt erodes the weights, causing a loss for the buyer. “Or in measure [bamesura]” means that one may not cause liquid he is measuring to foam by pouring it speedily, as this results in a loss for the buyer, who receives less of the liquid than the amount for which he paid. The Gemara notes: And it can be inferred by means of an a fortiori inference that if in the case of a mesura, which is a measure equivalent to merely one thirty-sixth of a log, the Torah was particular that one must measure honestly, so too, a fortiori, one must be careful in the case of one hin, and a half-hin, and a third-hin, and a quarter-hin, which is twelve log, and one log, and a half-log, and a quarter-log, and a half-tomen, i.e., one-sixteenth of a kav, and even an ukla, a smaller unit, as defined below. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to keep in his house a measure that is too small or too large relative to its supposed volume or weight, and this is the case even if he does not measure with it but simply uses it as a chamber pot for urine. Rav Pappa said: We said this prohibition only with regard to a place where measures are not stamped with the government’s seal, which confirms that the measure is accurate. But in a place where the measures are stamped, if the buyer does not see the seal he would not take the merchandise. Since they could not be used dishonestly, one is permitted to utilize these measures for other purposes. And in a place where measures are not stamped as well, we said that it is prohibited to keep these measures in one’s house only in a place where they do not inspect measures to see if they are fit for use. But if they do inspect measures, we have no problem with it.The Gemara comments: And that is not so; one is never permitted to keep incorrect measures in his house, as sometimes it happens that one measures at twilight, when people are hurried, and consequently it happens that the buyer takes the merchandise despite the fact that it was measured with an incorrect measure. This is also taught in a baraita: A person may not keep in his house a measure that is too small or too large, even if it is used as a chamber pot for urine. But he may prepare measures in accordance with the established format: Measurements of a se’a; a tarkav, which is three kav or one-half of a se’a; and a half-tarkav, which is one and one-half kav; and a kav; and a half-kav; and a quarter-kav; and a tomen, which is one-eighth of a kav; and a half-tomen;and an ukla. And how much is an ukla? It is one-fifth of a quarter of a kav. And in the case of liquid measures, one may prepare a hin, which is twelve log; and a half-hin, or six log; and a third-hin, or four log; and a quarter-hin, three log; and a log; and a half-log; and a quarter-log; and an eighth-log; and an eighth of an eighth-log, and this, the last mentioned, is a kortov.The Gemara asks: And let one also prepare a measure equal to two kav. The Gemara answers that this measure is not used, lest people come to mistake it for a tarkav, which is three kav. The Gemara observes: Apparently, people err by one-third of a measure. If that is so, one should also not prepare a measure equal to a kav, as people may come to mistake it for a half-tarkav, which is equal to one and one-half kav. Rather, this is the reason that one may not prepare a two-kav measure: That people might come to mistake it for a half-tarkav, which is equal to one and one-half kav. The Gemara again suggests: Apparently, people err by one-quarter of a measure. If that is so, one should also not prepare measures of a half-tomen, which is one-sixteenth of a kav, and an ukla, which is one-twentieth of a kav. Since they differ by only one-fifth, there is a concern that people might mistake one measure for the other. Rav Pappa said: People are well-versed in small measures and can distinguish between them. The Gemara continues: If people err by one-quarter of a measure, then since one may prepare a measure equal to four log, one-third of a hin, let one not prepare a measure equal to three log, one-quarter of a hin. The Gemara answers: Since these measures were used in the Temple, the Sages did not decree that they not be used. The Gemara asks: In the Temple as well, let the Sages decree that they should not be used, in case the two measures are mistaken for each other. The Gemara answers: The priests who serve in the Temple are vigilant and would not commit this error. § Shmuel says: If the residents of a certain place want to change the standard of their measures and augment them by a certain fraction, they may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, and they may not increase the value of a coin by more than one-sixth of its previous value. And one who profits from his sales may not profit by more than one-sixth. The Gemara analyzes these statements. When Shmuel said: They may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, what is the reason for this? If we say it is because doing so causes market prices to rise, the same concern should apply to raising the prices by one-sixth, and therefore this should also not be allowed. Rather, you will say that the prohibition is due to concern for exploitation; and they may increase the measures only by up to one-sixth, so that there will not be nullification of the transaction, as the transaction is nullified only when the disparity is more than one-sixth of the value of the item. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed. A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the details of the item are easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction. Rather, the prohibition is so that there will not be a loss suffered by the merchant, who might not realize that a new standard was issued, and sell in accordance with the old standard. Since a merchant usually enjoys a profit of one-sixth of the value of an item, if the standard is not increased by more than this amount he will not suffer a loss, as at worst he will forfeit his profit margin. This Gemara notes: This explanation is also difficult, since even if the aim is to ensure that there will not be a loss for the merchant, does he not need to earn a profit? There is a well-known adage in this regard: If you buy and sell without making any profit, will you be called a merchant? A merchant must profit from his sales; therefore, if this decree was instituted for the protection of merchants, the Sages should have ensured that they earn a profit. Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: The prohibition is not based on logical reasoning. Instead, Shmuel found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: “And the shekel shall be twenty gera; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your maneh” (Ezekiel 45:12). According to this verse, the combination of all of these numbers, sixty shekels, is equivalent to a maneh. This is problematic: How can a maneh consist of sixty shekels? Since each biblical shekel is equivalent to four dinars, if a maneh is equal to sixty shekels, a manehis two hundred and forty dinars. But a maneh is actually equal to twenty-five shekels, which is one hundred dinars. Rather, one can learn from the verse three matters: Learn from it that the sacred maneh was doubled, so that it equaled fifty dinars, not twenty-five. And furthermore, as Ezekiel stated that the maneh will be sixty dinars, not fifty, learn from it that a community may increase measures, but they may not increase them by more than one-sixth. And learn from it that the one-sixth is calculated from the outside, i.e., it is one-sixth of the final sum, which is one-fifth of the previous sum. The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa bar Shmuel instituted a new measure of three kefiza, which is equal to three log. The Sages said to him: But doesn’t Shmuel say that one may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth? You have added one-third, as there already exists a measure of a half-kav, which is the equivalent of two log. Rav Pappa bar Shmuelsaid to them: I instituted a new measure. He sent the measure to Pumbedita, and they did not accept it; he sent it to the city of Paphunya, and they accepted it and called it the measure of Pappa.§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions: Hoarders of produce; one may not hoard; and one may not export; and one may not earn a profit; twice from the sale of eggs; they sound the alarm; and one may not leave.The Sages taught: Hoarders of produce, who drive up prices by causing a shortage of available goods, and usurers, and those sellers who falsely reduce their measures, and those who raise market prices by selling for more than the accepted price, about them the verse states: “You that would swallow the needy and destroy the poor of the land, saying: When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell produce? And the Shabbat, that we may set forth grain? Making the measure small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances of deceit” (Amos 8:4–5). And it is written: “The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their works” (Amos 8:7). The Gemara asks: Hoarders of produce, such as whom? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Such as Shabbtai, the hoarder of produce, who would buy and hoard large amounts of produce and later sell it at a high price. The Gemara relates: Shmuel’s father would sell produce during the period of the early market price, when produce is cheap, for the early market price. His son Shmuel acted differently, and would keep the produce and sell it during the period of the late market price, when produce is expensive, for the early market price. They sent a message from there,Eretz Yisrael: The practice of the father is better than that of the son. What is the reason for this? A market price that has been eased and starts out low will remain eased, with little increase over the course of the year. Therefore, one who makes produce available at the beginning of the season, like Shmuel’s father, aids people during the entire year. By contrast, a market price that starts out high, because people are not making their produce available at the market, is not easily lowered. Rav says: A person may turn his own kav into a storeroom, i.e., he may hoard the produce of his own field and sell it only at a later stage, without violating the prohibition of hoarding produce. This is also taught in a baraita: One may not hoard produce of items that contain an element of basic sustenance, such as wines, oils, and flours, but in the case of spices, such as cumin and pepper, it is permitted. In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to one who buys that produce from the market to resell later; but with regard to one who brings in produce from his own field, it is permitted for any type of produce. The baraita continues: And it is permitted for a person to hoard produce in Eretz Yisrael for these three years: The year preceding the Sabbatical Year, the Sabbatical Year, and the year that follows the Sabbatical Year, because the land lies fallow during the seventh year, the Sabbatical Year, and the produce of the sixth year must last through these three years, until near the end of the eighth year. And in years of drought one may not hoard even a kav of carobs, because he thereby brings a curse on market prices, as everyone is fearful of selling and even a small fluctuation in supply can cause a significant rise in prices. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who was living in Eretz Yisrael, said to his servant Fuga: Go and hoard produce for me for the coming three years: The year preceding the Sabbatical Year, the Sabbatical Year, and the year that follows the Sabbatical Year. § The Sages taught: One may not export produce from Eretz Yisrael if it consists of items that contain an element of basic sustenance, such as wines, oils, and flours, because this causes them to become more expensive in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits export in the case of wine, because this lessens licentiousness in Eretz Yisrael. And just as one may not export these types of produce from Eretz Yisraelto outside of Eretz Yisrael, so too one may not export them from Eretz Yisrael to Syria, as Syria is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael in this context. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasipermits the export of produce from the northernmost province [mehiparkheya] of Eretz Yisraelto the southernmost province of Syria. The Sages taught: One may not earn a profit in Eretz Yisrael by buying and reselling items that contain an element of basic sustenance, such as wines, oils, and flours, because this causes their price to rise. Rather, those who grow the produce should sell them in the markets, without recourse to a middleman. The Sages said of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that he would earn a profit through the sale of wine and oil. With regard to wine, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who says that it is permitted to export wine from Eretz Yisrael despite the fact that this causes it to become more expensive, as drinking wine leads to licentiousness. With regard to oil, in Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s locale oil was common; consequently, there was no concern that its price would rise if it were not sold directly to the consumer. The Sages taught: One may not earn a profit twice from the sale of eggs. Mari bar Mari said: Rav and Shmuel disagree about the meaning of that statement. One said it means that the seller may not charge double the price he paid for the eggs. And one said that one merchant may not sell to another merchant; rather, the merchant who buys from the owner of the eggs must sell directly to the consumer. § Apropos price fluctuations, the Gemara cites a baraita. The Sages taught: A community sounds the alarm and gathers in public prayer for merchandise [perakmatya] whose price has dropped. And even on Shabbat it is permitted to cry and plead, even though one may not pray for his personal needs on Shabbat, as this hardship affects the entire public. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The baraita is referring specifically to merchandise that serves as the basis of the local economy, such as linen garments in Babylonia, and wine and oil in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yosef said: And thathalakha, that public prayer is recited even on Shabbat, applies only when the merchandise was reduced in price and stood at such prices that goods that had been worth ten are currently selling for six.The Sages taught: One may not leave Eretz Yisraelto live outside of Eretz Yisraelunless the price of two se’a of grain stood at a sela, which is double its usual price. Rabbi Shimon said: When does this exception, permitting one to leave Eretz Yisrael under certain circumstances, apply? It applies when one is unable to find produce to buy, as he has no money. But when one has money and is able to find produce to buy, even if the price of a se’a of grain stood at a sela, he may not leave.And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would likewise say: Elimelech and his sons Mahlon and Chilion were prominent members of their generation and were leaders of their generation. And for what reason were they punished? They were punished because they left Eretz Yisraelto go outside of Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated concerning Naomi and Ruth: “And all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: Is this Naomi?” (Ruth 1:19). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Is this Naomi”? How does this indicate that her husband and sons were punished for leaving Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yitzḥak says that the women said: Have you seen what befell Naomi, who left Eretz Yisraelfor outside of Eretz Yisrael? Not only did she not escape tribulations there, but she lost her status entirely. And Rabbi Yitzḥak also says with regard to this passage: That very day when Ruth the Moabite came to Eretz Yisrael, the wife of Boaz died, i.e., from the moment of their arrival the possibility was created for Ruth’s eventual marriage to Boaz. This explains the adage that people say: Before the deceased dies, the person who will next be in charge of his house arises, as in this case Boaz’s new wife, Ruth, arrived as his previous wife died. Apropos the story of Ruth the Gemara adds: Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: The judge Ibzan of Bethlehem (see Judges 12:8–10) is Boaz. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara explains that this comment is in accordance with the other statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: Boaz prepared one hundred and twenty feasts for his children at their weddings. As it is stated, concerning Ibzan: “And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years” (Judges 12:9). The verse indicates that he had sixty children. And at each and every wedding he prepared for his children, he made two feasts, one in the house of the father of the groom and one in the house of the father-in-law of the groom. And he did not invite Manoah, the future father of Samson, whose wife was barren (see Judges 13:2) to any of them, as he said: It is not worth inviting him; he is a sterile mule, how will he pay me back?Manoah will never invite me in return, as he has no children. A Sage taught: And all of the children of Ibzandied during his lifetime. And this explains the adage that people say: Why do you need the sixty, the sixty children that you beget during your lifetime? Go to the trouble and beget one who will be more diligent than sixty. This adage refers to Boaz, who had sixty children who died, and yet his last child, born from Ruth, is his glory, as King David was born from this line. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing statements that Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said that Rav said: Melech; Abraham; ten years; when he died; and He alone was exalted. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: With regard to Elimelech, andBoaz’s father, Salmon, and So-and-so, the unnamed relative who was a closer relative to Elimelech than Boaz (Ruth 4:1), and Naomi’s father, all of these are descendants of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, the head of the tribe of Judah (see Ruth 4:20–21 and Numbers 2:3). The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this statement? He is teaching that even in the case of one who has the merit of his ancestors to protect him, this merit does not stand for him when he leaves Eretz Yisraelto go outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Elimelech died on account of this sin. And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: The mother of Abraham was called Amatlai bat Karnevo. The mother of Haman was called Amatlai bat Orevati. And your mnemonic, to ensure that the two are not confused for one another, is that a raven [orev] is impure, and in this manner one remembers that Orevati is the grandmother of the impureHaman, while a sheep [kar] is pure, which indicates that Karnevo is the grandmother of the pureAbraham. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava continues: The mother of David was named Natzvat bat Ada’el. The mother of Samson was named Tzelelponit, and his sister was called Nashyan. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference as to what their names were? The Gemara answers: It is important with regard to an answer for heretics who inquire into the names of these women, which are not stated in the Bible. One can reply that there is a tradition handed down concerning their names. And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: Our forefather Abraham was imprisoned for ten years, because he rejected the idol worship that was accepted in his land. He was imprisoned for three years in the city of Khuta, and seven years in Karddu. And Rav Dimi of Neharde’a teaches the opposite, that he was imprisoned seven years in Khuta and three in Karddu. Rav Ḥisda said: The small passage of Khuta, this is Ur of the Chaldeans (see Genesis 11:31). And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: On that day when our forefather Abraham left the world, the leaders of the nations of the world stood in a line, in the manner of mourners, and said: Woe to the world that has lost

(1) It is forbidden for a seller or a purchaser to take unfair advantage of a colleague, as Leviticus 25:14 states: "When you sell an entity to your colleague or purchase an entity from a colleague, one man should not take unfair advantage of his brother."
Even though such a person transgresses a negative commandment, he is not punished by lashes, because the funds can be returned. Whether the person intentionally deceived his colleague or did not know that this transaction involved taking unfair advantage, he is obligated to pay the unwarranted gain.

(2) How much unfair gain must there be in a transaction for the one who profits to be required to return it? An even sixth.
What is implied? If a person sold an article worth six zuz for five, or for seven, or one worth five zuz for six, or one worth seven zuz for six, it is considered to be unfair gain. The transaction is completed, and the person who profited is required to return the entire amount of unfair gain to the one who suffered the loss.

(3) If the unfair gain was even the slightest amount less than that - e.g., the person sold an article worth sixty dinarim for fifty dinarim and a p'rutah, he is not required to return anything. For it is common for people to waive any loss less than one sixth of the article's value.

(4) If the unfair gain was even the slightest amount more than one sixth - e.g., one sold an object worth 60 dinarim for 50 minus a p'rutah, the transaction is nullified. The purchaser may return the object without the transaction being completed at all.
The person who took the unfair gain, however, is not entitled to retract if the purchaser desires and seeks to maintain possession of the article, even though the transaction is nullified. The person who received the unfair gain is not obligated to return it unless the unfair gain exceeds a p'rutah. If the unfair gain was exactly a p'rutah, he is not obligated to return it, because the laws of ona'ah do not apply with regard to a p'rutah.

(5) Until when does the purchaser have the right to demand the return of the unfair gain or the nullification of the transaction? Until he has time to show the article to a merchant or to a relative. If he waits longer, even if he purchased an article worth 100 zuz for 200, he may not nullify the transaction.

(6) With regard to whom does the above apply? To a purchaser. For the article he purchased is in his possession, and it is common for him to show it to others.
The seller, by contrast, always has the opportunity to demand the return of the unfair gain. Needless to say, this applies with regard to the nullification of the sale. For he does not know the correct price of the article he sold until he sees a comparable article being sold. Accordingly, if the merchandise was a standard article that does not vary -e.g., peppers, or the like - he is given merely the time it takes to check the current market price.

(7) Similarly, if it is known that an article comparable to the one he sold came into the seller's possession, he realized that he had erred regarding the initial sale, but he did not protest, he can no longer protest, for he has already waived his claim.

(8) Just as the laws of ona'ah apply with regard to an ordinary person, so too, they apply with regard to a merchant, although he is knowledgeable concerning prices.
Just as the laws of ona'ah apply with regard to produce and animals, so too, they apply with regard to coins.

(9) What is implied? If a golden dinar was valued at 24 silver dinarim, and it was exchanged for 20 dinarim or 28 dinarim, the unfair gain must be returned. If the unfair gain was more than that, the exchange is nullified. If it is less than that, it is considered as if the other party waived his right to that money.

(10) Similarly, if a sela was lacking a sixth of its weight, and sela'im were being exchanged by number, rather than by weight, the unfair gain should be returned.

(11) Until when is the recipient obligated to return a dinar or a sela'im? In large cities, the amount of time necessary to show the coin to a money-changer. In villages, where a money-changer is not frequently found, until the end of the week. The rationale is that only a money-changer recognizes sela'im, whether they are lacking, and their worth.
Similar concepts apply with regard to sellers of books, and sellers of gems and pearls. The purchaser has the right to retract if the seller took unfair advantage of him until he has time to show the article he purchased to a merchant who is expert in such matters, wherever such an expert may be found. For not everyone is expert in the appraisal of such matters.
Therefore, if there was no expert available in that country, and after a considerable amount of time the purchaser took the object to another place, or an expert came and stated that the price was in error, the purchaser may retract.

(12) The following rules apply when a person gives a sela that is lacking in weight to a colleague. Should he be able to identify it, even after twelve months, the recipient may return it. If it will be accepted as currency, albeit with difficulty, the recipient may not return it after a lengthy time has passed, unless the giver accepts it as an expression of commitment beyond the measure of the law.

(13) The following rules apply in a situation where a person sold a colleague an article worth four zuz for five. As mentioned above, ordinarily, the transaction would be nullified. In this instance, however, before the purchaser had the opportunity to show the article to a merchant or to a relative, its price rose to seven zuz. The purchaser has the right to retract, and not the seller. For the purchaser will tell the seller: "If you had not taken unfair advantage of me, you would not have the right to retract. Now, because you have taken unfair advantage, do you think you should have the right to retract? Should a sinner receive reward?"

(14) Similarly, if one sold an object worth five zuz for four, and then its value decreased to three, the seller has the right to retract and not the purchaser. For the seller will tell the purchaser: "By deceiving me, you did not gain the right to retract."

(15) If a person sold an article worth five zuz for six, and before the purchaser had the opportunity to show the article to a merchant, its value increased to eight, the seller is obligated to return the zuz of unfair gain. For the transaction is completed and the seller is obligated to reimburse the purchaser for the unfair gain. When the article increased in value afterwards, it increased in value while in the possession of the purchaser.
Similarly, if a person sold an article worth six zuz for five and its value decreased to three, the purchaser is obligated to return the zuz of unfair gain. For the transaction is completed, and the article decreased in value while in the possession of the purchaser.

(1) When a person exchanges one article for another, or one animal for another, the laws of ona'ah do not apply. This is true even when he exchanges a needle for a necklace, or a lamb for a donkey. This person may desire the needle more than the necklace.
When, however, a person exchanges produce for produce, the laws of ona'ah do apply, regardless of whether the produce is evaluated before the sale or after the sale.

(2) When a person purchases an article with coins without measuring their number, volume or weight - e.g., he took a handful of coins and said: "Sell me your cow for these" - this is considered an exchange. The transaction is completed, and the unfair gain must be returned, as explained above.
This law also applies if someone purchases fruit without measuring its number, volume or weight for a sela or two. The transaction is completed and the unfair gain must be returned. When a homeowner sells his personal belongings, the laws of ona'ah do not apply. For a man would not sell his personal belongings unless he were offered an exorbitant amount of money.

(3) Although a person tells a colleague, "We are completing this transaction on the condition that you do not hold me responsible for the unfair gain," the laws of ona'ah apply.
When does the above apply? When the statements are made without being explicit. In such an instance, the other party does not know how much money he is forgoing in favor of his colleague. Needless to say, this is the law when one tells the other: "We are completing this transaction on the condition that there is no ona'ah involved," for ona'ah is involved.
If, however, one explicitly mentions the amount of unfair gain, the laws of ona'ah do not apply, because all conditions that are accepted by both parties are binding in cases of financial law.

(4) What is implied? If the seller tells the purchaser: "I am selling you this article for 200 zuz although I know it is worth only 100. I am selling it to you on the condition that you do not hold me responsible for the unfair gain," the laws of ona'ah do not apply.
Similarly, if the purchaser tells the seller: "I am purchasing this article from you for a maneh although I know it is worth 200. I am purchasing it from you on the condition that you do not hold me responsible for the unfair gain," the laws of ona'ah do not apply.

(5) When a person buys and sells in a faithful manner, the laws of ona'ah do not apply.
What is implied? The seller tells the purchaser: "I purchased this article for such and such, and I am making this and this amount of profit," the laws of ona'ah do not apply.

(6) When a person buys and sells in a faithful manner and purchases many different utensils and garments in one lot, he should not calculate and sell the inferior items in a faithful manner, and the superior items according to their value. Instead, he should sell either the entire lot in a faithful manner, or the entire lot according to its value.
The seller may include the cost of porters, donkey drivers and his lodgings in the cost of the article. He may not, however, add his own wages as a worker to the cost. Instead, he must say: "I am taking this and this amount as profit," and be specific about that amount.

(7) The laws of ona'ah do not apply with regard to a gentile. This is implied by Leviticus 25:14, which states: "When you sell an entity... or purchase an entity..., one man should not cheat his brother."
If a gentile takes unfair advantage of a Jew, he is required to return the unfair gain according to our laws. Dealings with a gentile should not be more severe than dealings with a fellow Jew.

(8) The laws of ona'ah do not apply with regard to the following objects: landed property, servants, promissory notes and consecrated property. Even if one sells one of these entities that is worth one thousand zuz for one zuz, or an entity worth one zuz for one thousand zuz, the laws of ona'ah do not apply.This is derived from Leviticus 25:14, which states: "Or when you purchase an entity from the hand of your colleague." "From the hand of indicates that the verse is referring to an article whose ownership is transferred from hand to hand, thus excluding landed property. And this also excludes servants, for an association has been established linking the laws governing them to those governing landed property. It also excludes promissory notes, since one is not purchasing the note itself. It merely serves as proof of the obligation it records.
"Your colleague" excludes consecrated property.

(9) When does the above apply? When one sells one's own property. When, by contrast, an agent makes the slightest error with regard to the value of either movable property or landed property, the transaction is nullified.
It appears to me that the same laws apply to a guardian entrusted with the property of orphans. If he makes the slightest error with regard to the value of either movable property or landed property, the transaction is nullified. He is not considered comparable to a court, because he is merely one individual.

(10) The following laws apply when a court sells either movable property or landed property belonging to orphans, and errs. If they erred with regard to less than one sixth of the value of the object, it is considered as if the unfair gain is waived, as is the law with regard to an ordinary person. If they erred with regard to one sixth, the transaction is nullified.
If the court did not desire to nullify the transaction, but instead have the unfair gain returned, they may. For the legal power of an ordinary person should not be greater than that of a court.

(11) It appears to me that if a court sold landed property or servants belonging to orphans at an unfair price, selling entities worth 100 zuz for 200, the purchaser cannot retract. For the legal power of an ordinary individual should not be greater than that of orphans. Similarly, if a guardian of orphans sells landed property or servants at an unfair profit, the purchaser cannot retract because of the unfair profit, as is the law with regard to an ordinary individual.

(12) When brothers or partners divide movable property, they are considered like purchasers. If there is unfair gain less than one sixth of the article's value, the transaction is completed, and there is no need to return anything. If the unfair gain exceeds one sixth, the transaction is nullified. If it is an even sixth, the transaction is completed and the unfair gain must be returned.
If the involved parties made an agreement to divide the property according to the evaluation of judges, and the judges erred with regard to a sixth or more, the division is nullified. For when judges who make an evaluation reduce or increase the value of an article by a sixth, the transaction is nullified.

(13) Livestock, pearls, a sword, and a Torah scroll are considered like other movable property, and the laws of ona'ah apply to transactions involving them. There are no entities in which the laws of ona'ah do not apply, except the four entities mentioned by our Sages. And even with regard to these entities, this is true provided the person is buying or selling his own property, as we have explained.

(14) Just as the laws of ona'ah do not apply to the purchase of landed property, so too, these laws do not apply to the rental of landed property. Even if one rents a large hall for only one dinar a year, or a small coop for a dinar a day, the laws of ona'ah do not apply.

(15) When a person hires a worker to work for him - whether with regard to movable property or with regard to landed property - the laws of ona'ah do not apply. It is as if he is purchasing him for that time, and the laws of ona'ah do not apply with regard to servants.

(16) There is an unresolved doubt in the following situation. A person hires a contractor to sow a field, the contractor claims to have sowed it in a proper manner, and witnesses testify that the contractor sowed fewer seeds than are supposed to be sown. We are unsure whether the laws of ona'ah apply because of the seeds, or whether these laws do not apply because of the land.
Therefore, the funds should not be expropriated from the defendant, nor is he required to take anything but a Rabbinic oath, because of the connection the dispute has to landed property.

(17) The laws of ona'ah apply with regard to the rental of a utensil or an animal. For rental is considered to be a sale for a day. Thus, if there is an unfair gain of one sixth or more - regardless of whether this unfair gain is taken at the advantage of the owner or the person who rents the article - the unfair gain must be returned. This applies even when a lengthy period of time has passed since the transaction.

(18) It appears to me that the laws of ona'ah apply with regard to a contractor.
What is implied? A person agreed to weave a particular garment for ten zuzim, or to sew a particular cloak for two zuzim. If there is unfair profit involved, the laws of ona'ah apply. Either the contractor or the owner of the garment may always retract as a seller may.

(1) We have already explained that if a person buys and sells in a faithful manner, saying "This is the extent of profit that I am making," the laws of ona'ah do not apply. Even if he says: "I purchased the article for a sela, and I am selling it for ten," this is permitted.
Nevertheless, the court is obligated to regulate prices and appoint officers of the law, so that people at large will not be able to reap whatever profit they desire. Instead, the court should regulate that a person should earn only a profit of a sixth. A seller should not profit more than a sixth of his investment.

(2) When does the above apply? With regard to articles on which our lives depend - e.g., wine, oil and fine flour. With regard to herbs - e.g., costus, frankincense, and the like - by contrast, a set limit is not established by the court. The seller may take any measure of profit he desires.

(3) Profit may not be taken twice when selling eggs. The first merchant who sells them may take a profit, and the person who buys them from him must sell them at cost.

(4) It is forbidden to do business in Eretz Yisrael with articles on which our lives depend. Instead, one person should bring from his produce heap, and another person should bring from his produce heap, so that they sell cheaply. In places where oil is abundant, it is permitted to do business with oil.

(5) Produce on which our lives depend should not be stored for the future in Eretz Yisrael or in any place that is predominantly inhabited by Jews, for this causes anxiety for the Jewish people.
When does the above apply? When a person purchases such produce in the market place. When a person stores his own produce, he may store the kav that he possesses.

(6) It is permitted to store produce during three years: the year before the Sabbatical year, the Sabbatical year and the year following the Sabbatical year.
In a year of drought, one should not store even a small measure of carobs, because one brings a curse on the market prices. Whoever causes prices to rise or who stores produce in Eretz Yisrael or in a place primarily inhabited by Jews is likened to one who lends money at interest.

(7) When does the above apply? With regard to produce on which our lives depend. It is, however, permitted to store spices like cumin and pepper in Eretz Yisrael and to transport them from place to place like other herbs.

(8) We may not take produce on which our lives depend - e.g., wine, oil and fine flour - from Eretz Yisrael to the diaspora or to Syria. Nor may such produce be taken from the domain of one king to the domain of another king in Eretz Yisrael.

(9) The inhabitants of a city are permitted to establish fixed prices for any commodities they desire, even meat and bread. They may establish conditions stating that anyone who violates these guidelines will be punished in such and such a fashion.

(10) Similarly, craftsmen in a specific profession may establish provisions and agree that one should not work on the day on which another is working or the like, and that anyone who violates these guidelines will be punished in such and such a fashion.

(11) When does the above apply? In a city where there is not a distinguished sage to correct the conduct within the city and improve the ways of its inhabitants. If, however, there is such a distinguished sage, a condition established by craftsmen is not effective without the ruling of the sage.
They may not punish or inflict loss on anyone who does not accept their stipulation, unless that stipulation was made with the consent of the sage. Whoever causes a colleague a loss because of a stipulation that was not made with the consent of the sage is liable to pay.

(12) Just as the prohibition against ona'ah applies with regard to business transactions, it applies with regard to speech, as Leviticus 25:17 states: "A person should not abuse his colleague, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord"; this refers to verbal abuse.

(13) What is implied? If a person is one who has repented, one should not say: "Remember your initial deeds." If a person is a descendant of converts, one should not tell him: "Remember your ancestors' deeds."
If a convert comes to study the Torah, one should not tell him: "Should a mouth that ate meat from animals that were not ritually slaughtered and that were trefah come and study the Torah that was given by the Almighty?"
If a person was afflicted by illness and suffering or he is forced to bury his children, one should not speak to him in the manner that Job's friends addressed him Job 4:6-7: "Your fear of God was for your own security.... Can you recall anyone who was innocent who perished?"

(14) If donkey drivers are seeking grain, one should not tell them: "Go to so and so," if one knows that this person has never sold grain.
If a question regarding a point of knowledge was raised, one should not ask a person who has never studied that field of knowledge: "How would you answer this question?" or "What do you think about this matter?" The same applies to other matters of this like.

(15) Whoever abuses a convert, whether in financial transactions or verbally, transgresses three prohibitions, as Exodus 22:20 states: "Do not abuse a convert..." this refers to verbal abuse- "and do not oppress him" - this refers to taking unfair financial advantage of him.
This teaches that anyone who verbally abuses a convert transgresses three negative prohibitions: "A person should not abuse his colleague," and "One man should not take unfair advantage of his brother," "Do not abuse a convert."

(16) Similarly, if a person oppresses a convert and takes unfair financial advantage of him, he transgresses three negative prohibitions: "A person should not abuse his colleague," "One man should not take unfair advantage of his brother," and "Do not oppress him."

(17) Why does a person transgress the prohibition against verbal abuse when he takes unfair financial advantage of a convert, and the prohibition against taking unfair financial advantage if he verbally abuses him? Because the Torah uses the word ona'ah with regard to both these prohibitions, without being more specific, and repeats these two prohibitions with regard to a convert explicitly: "Do not abuse" and "do not oppress him."

(18) Verbally abusing a person is more severe than taking unfair advantage of him financially. For the latter can be repaid, while the former can never be repaid. The latter involves only the person's possessions, while the former involves his person.
And with regard to verbal abuse, Leviticus 25:17 states: "And you shall fear your God," for the matter is one of feelings. With regard to all matters of feeling, the Torah states: "And you shall fear your God."
Whenever a person cries out because of verbal abuse, he is answered immediately, as implied by the conclusion of the above verse: "...I am God."