Rav Yosef bar Chama Speaks to His Son; also, Homiletics and Genre
Two quick and unrelated points.
(1) First, our gemara has Rav Yosef bar Chama pose a contradiction to Rabba. On Bava Metzia 58a:
נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא לְרַבָּה: תְּנַן, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם, וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת הַפָּרָה, לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת הַתִּינוֹק, לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים – אֵין נוֹתְנִים לוֹ שְׂכַר שַׁבָּת, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אַחְרָיוּת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו.
§ 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.
Maybe because of the relationship between the two, the English rendered it as “before Rabba”. Regardless, “And the Gemara raises a contradiction” isn’t right - it is Rav Yosef bar Chama who does so. Neither is in the original Rav Steinsaltz Hebrew commentary.
While our printed Vilna Shas has this contradiction posed to Rabba, earlier printings, both Soncino and Venice, have this posed to Rava.
So too most other manuscripts on Hachi Garsinan (e.g. Cremona, Florence 8-9, Hamburg, Escorial, Vatican 117), though there are occasional differences in Rav Yosef bar Chama, like “bar Lachma” with the lamed then erased, or omitted “bar Chama”. Vatican 115 has Rabba, but also has Rav Yosef bar Sama.
Note that Rav Yosef bar Chama is the father of fourth-generation Rava, so this interaction is compelling, less so if it is his contemporary third-generation Rabba. Rava falls silent, but then his father provides the answer.
Later in the interaction, Rav Yosef bar Chama cites third generation Rav Sheshet. Indeed, Rav Sheshet, as well as Rav Nachman, was Rav Yosef bar Chama’s teacher.
(2) Secondly, in Bava Metzia 58b, we are introduced to Onaat Devarim, and the Mishnah states that it is equivalent to Onaat Mamon.
מַתְנִי׳ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאוֹנָאָה בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, כָּךְ אוֹנָאָה בִּדְבָרִים. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: בְּכַמָּה חֵפֶץ זֶה? וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח. אִם הָיָה בַּעַל תְּשׁוּבָה, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: זְכוֹר מַעֲשֶׂיךָ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִם הוּא בֶּן גֵּרִים, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: זְכוֹר מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ״.
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).
The maggid shiur in today’s chabura quoted Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, who in his online daf yomi shiur grappled with the language of the Mishnah, saying kesheim and kach. That implies that these are roughly equivalent. Yet, in the ensuing gemara, we see that onaat devarim, verbal mistreatment, is much, much worse.
He answers what he answers, but I would pause before taking the Amoraim’s statements of the relative severity entirely literally. We often need to appreciate genre, there may be a homiletic point they are trying to drive home.
Within the Mishnah, the kesheim / kach is trying to address people’s dismissal, thinking that theft, which is concrete and quantifiable, is a real issue, but human interaction and hurting feelings is not such a big deal. They therefore have a derasha.
[And the derasha may indeed be a real derasha; however, look at many of the Tosafot commentaries in the surrounding pages, discussing derashot either in the gemara or in Sifrei, where they conclude that despite the form of derivation, such as miut, or kelal ufrat, it is actually rabbinic and an asmachta be’alma. But let us say that it is a legitimate Biblical prohibition tied in to these words.]
In the gemara, it seems much harsher, e.g.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: גָּדוֹל אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים מֵאוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן, שֶׁזֶּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְזֶה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: זֶה בְּגוּפוֹ וְזֶה בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: זֶה נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן, וְזֶה לֹא נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן.
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.
But consider this as something in a mussar shmuz, delivered to people who don’t take the interpersonal bein adam lachaveiro seriously, and it needs to be creatively expanded in that audience’s minds, about how it is actually worse. It is the same thing as the Mishnah — the same purpose, at least.
But, taking it literally might not be the best idea, if there are concrete repercussions. Consider the statement going onto the next daf:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיָּבוֹא עַל סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים. It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public.
Sorry, I don’t really believe that that is the case, that in a pragmatic case, a real life trolley problem, if there is a 50 / 50 chance that I am engaging in adultery, vs. embarrassing someone, they are really saying that bechor bemiut hara, choosing the less bad path, is that I should engage in that possible adultery. Despite the derasha used to reinforce the idea. Rather, they are trying to build up the evil nature of embarrassing another, in the audience’s minds.
This gemara also discusses how one who calls another a nickname never arises from Gehinnom. I discussed this in a prior post, about genre, and two girsaot in the Rambam. See here:
Essentially, I think the correct girsa is this:
כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אֲנָשִׁים אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנִינוּ - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְיֵשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת קַלּוֹת מֵאֵלּוּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁהָרָגִיל בָּהֶן אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא•, כְּדֵי•* לְהִתְרַחֵק מֵהֶן וּלְהִזָּהֵר מֵהֶן
The Rambam states that there are actual sins for which loses one’s share in the world to come. There are other lighter ones for which one actually doesn’t, but the Sages said that one who regularly engages in them similarly loses his share in the world to come. And this isn’t true, but they said this (homiletically) in order to distance people from engaging in this sort of behavior.
That said, of course, don’t embarrass others in public! That is a bad thing to do, and one who does so is being an awful person. Hashem does not want to conduct ourselves in such an odious manner, even if technically speaking, it does not reach the sin level specified in the gemara.