Onaat Devarim

Bava Metzia (4:10) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 months ago

In the fourth perek we learnt about the prohibition of onaah -- fraud. The Mishnah (4:10) teaches that there is another type of onaah that relates to words and the Mishnah brings three examples. The first is if someone asks the price of product from a merchant when he has no interest in purchasing that product. The second is if he reminds a baal teshuva of his past misdeeds. Finally, if someone draws the attention of a child of converts to his parent's roots. We shall try to understand this Mishnah.

The Gemara derives the prohibition of onaat devarim from the pasuk that discusses monetary onaah. The Shaarei Teshuva explains the meaning of the common term onaah is causing suffering or tormenting. He cites the pasuk, "ve'achalti et mona'yich et besaram" -- "I will feed your tormentors their own flesh" (Yeshaya 49:26). Understanding onaah in that way leaves room for an even further expanding understanding of the prohibition.

The Rambam (Mechira 14:14) rules that one would violate this prohibition if a posed a question in matters of chochma to someone that would be not able to answer it. The Magid Mishneh explains that even though this case is not listed explicitly, it is a logical corollary.

The Ohr Sameach explains that this case is found in Bava Batra (81b), where R' Shimon ben Elyakim asked R' Eliezer the reason behind a debate between R' Meir and the Chachamim. R' Eliezer respond, "this is a matter that the Rishonim did not present an explanation, and you ask me in the Beit Hamidrash to embarrass me". This would imply that it stems from the embarrassment caused.

Interestingly however, when the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (CM, Onaah 28) also cites this halacha, he explains that it is prohibited due to the anguish caused in the victim's heart, even if he did not speak disparagingly, calling him names or embarrass him. In other words, the damage done in the inner world is what underlies this prohibition. That is why he explains that if one spoke lashon harah or cursed his friend, aside from the violating the prohibition those things entail, one would also transgress onaat devarim.

Let us return to our Mishnah. What is wrong with asking a shopkeeper from the price of a product if he has no intention of buying the product. The Meiri explains that the issue is that since the "purchaser" does not disclose that he really has no interest purchasing the product, the seller will continue to reduce the price assuming it is part of some negotiation. An observer might then step in at that lower price causing the seller to suffer a financial loss. It would seem that the issue is his cause another a loss through his words. That is indeed how the Meira explains "onaah be'devarim" -- causing another a loss through is words. That is indeed how some understand the position of the Meiri

Nevertheless, that Meiri adds that even if there was no one else in the store at the time, he would still violate "onaat devarim". That is because he took the attention of the store owner and caused him disappointment having thought he was going to make a sale.¹

Indeed, we find that the Meiri understands that the there are two additional categories of onaah. Onaah be'devarim and onaat devarim. Even within onaat devarim however, we have found that it is broken into two types. There is the more direct pain caused (embarrassing) and the deeper indirect distress that can be caused.

Indeed, this explains the necessity for the three examples brought in our Mishnah. The first case regarding the shop keeper is where his speech could have caused direct loss. The second relating to the baal teshuva is where one embarrasses him drawing his attention to his past misdeeds. And the final case, relates the distress he might cause, when highlighting his ancestry, for which he is not to blame.

¹ This understanding of onaat devarim appears to align with the understanding of onaat devarim presented above in the name of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav. Nevertheless, when the Shulchan Aruch HaRav brings this case, he provides a different explanation. He explains that the issue is the pain the storekeeper will feel later, once he understands that the "customer" only intended to mislead him.

Download