Fw: Dvar Torah from the Rosh HaYeshiva - Parshas Behar Bechukosai – 5785

Sent from AOL on Android

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Rabbi Moshe Revah" <htcnews-htc.edu@shared1.ccsend.com>

To: "mates57564@aol.com" <mates57564@aol.com>

Cc:

Sent: Thu, May 22, 2025 at 4:02 PM

Subject: Dvar Torah from the Rosh HaYeshiva - Parshas Behar Bechukosai – 5785

Parshas Behar Bechukosai – 5785

Dear Yeshiva Family: Understanding the Halachah of Ona'ah: When Pricing Goes Too Far In this week's parshah, the Torah introduces the prohibition of Ona'ah—taking financial advantage of someone in business, most commonly by overcharging (or underpaying) for an item. The Three-Tiered System of Ona'ah Chazal classify Ona'ah into three clear categories based on how far the sale price strays from the fair market value: Exactly a Sixth Off: If the discrepancy between the sale price and the fair price is exactly one-sixth—say, selling a $60 item for $50 or $70—this is a classic case of Ona'ah. The sale is valid, but the difference must be returned to the party who was shortchanged. Less than a Sixth: If the price difference is less than a sixth—such as selling that $60 item for $55—we say mechilah (the wronged party is assumed to forgive the small difference), and the sale stands with no adjustments. More than a Sixth: If the discrepancy exceeds a sixth—say, the item was sold for $45 or $75—then bitul mekach applies: the sale is null and void, and the item must be returned. To keep things simple, we'll stick with the example of a $60 item being sold for too little (which constitutes Ona'ah against the seller), but of course, the halachos apply equally in the opposite direction—where the buyer is the one being overcharged. A Debate in the Gemara: Introducing Shtus Maos The Gemara in Bava Metzia (49b) presents a machlokes between Rav and Shmuel about an additional variable called shtus maos—the idea of calculating a sixth not from the value of the item, but from the amount of money being paid. For example: If a $60 item is mistakenly sold for $51.40, then while that may not cross the one-sixth threshold based on the item's value, it is a one-sixth discrepancy based on the money paid (since one-sixth of $51.40 is $8.60, and $51.40 + $8.60 = $60). According to Rav, we ignore this metric—shtus maos has no impact. But Shmuel argues that even a discrepancy of one-sixth based on the money given is enough to trigger the halachos of Ona'ah—and the extra money must be returned. A Second Metric, Not a Contradiction Importantly, Shmuel is not disputing the original three-tier system based on the item's value (shtus mekach). Rather, he's adding a second layer of evaluation: we now have to assess the discrepancy from the perspective of the money being paid as well. So, whether someone sells a $60 item for $50 (a sixth off the item's value) or sells it for $51.40 (a sixth off the money paid), Shmuel holds that the sale is valid—but the discrepancy must be corrected by returning the excess or deficit. Even though by shtus mekach the underpayment of $51.40 would not yet qualify as Ona'ah, shtus maos kicks in and says it does. According to Shmuel, either metric can independently obligate one to fix the sale price. When the Metrics Clash: What Happens in the "Middle Ground"? A key question raised by many Rishonim is how to deal with cases where the two measurements—shtus mekach (a sixth of the item's value) and shtus maos (a sixth of the money paid)—yield conflicting results. For example: suppose someone sells a $60 item for $51. According to shtus mekach (which calculates the discrepancy based on the value of the item), this is less than a sixth off, so the sale should stand with mechilah. But according to shtus maos (which calculates based on the money paid), it's already more than a sixth—since one-sixth of $51 is $8.50, and the gap between $60 and $51 exceeds that—so the sale should be nullified as bitul mekach. This kind of case—where one metric points to mechilah and the other to bitul mekach—places us in a halachic "gray area." Two Views in the Rishonim The Rishonim offer several approaches to this dilemma: One Unified Range (No Middle Ground) Some Rishonim[1] understand Shmuel to be redefining the entire range. According to this view, Shmuel's sixth spans from one-sixth below the item's value ($50) to one-sixth below the money paid ($51.40). Any price in that band (e.g., $51) falls under the new category of ona'ah: the sale stands, but the discrepancy must be corrected. In this view, there's no contradiction between the two rubrics—they merge into a broader zone where Ona'ah applies. Shtus Mekach Remains Primary (Rema's Approach) However, many Rishonim[2], including the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 227:3, rule that Shmuel was not redefining the framework, but simply adding a second metric. According to this understanding, if a price discrepancy falls into conflicting categories—mechilah by shtus mekach, but bitul mekach by shtus maos—we follow the shtus mekach calculation and uphold the sale. In other words, when the two metrics clash, shtus mekach is considered the authoritative standard, and shtus maos only adds stringency when it aligns. A Logical Challenge: The Trouble with a "Magic Number" The Magid Mishneh and the Pnei Yehoshua raise a powerful question: how can we justify a system in which a person pays $51 for a $60 item and the sale is valid—but if he pays $51.50, which is actually a smaller discrepancy, the sale is considered invalid unless he pays the full $60? It seems counterintuitive. If $51 is close enough to be forgiven, then $51.50—which is even closer—should certainly be acceptable. To explain that there is a magic number of 'a sixth' and if you happen to land on it you must return the overpayment is difficult[3], for nowhere in the Torah is a shtus (a sixth) enshrined as a divine measurement. The concept of mechilah—that people naturally forgive small discrepancies—is inherently subjective. It's about what's in the mind of the seller: he's willing to overlook a minor underpayment. So how can we say that someone is moichel at $51 but not moichel at $51.50? How can a greater underpayment be forgiven, but a smaller one be considered unacceptable? The entire logic behind mechilah is that certain differences are too small to litigate. If that's the case, how could we turn around and say that smaller discrepancies are not overlooked? Digging Deeper: What Is the Logic Behind Shtus Maos? To address the problem raised by the Magid Mishneh and Pnei Yehoshua, we can step back and ask a more fundamental question: What is the underlying sevara behind Shmuel's position? Why does he introduce the shtus maos rubric at all? After all, it would seem that the only meaningful number is the correct price of the item itself. If someone underpays or overpays based on the item's value, we can evaluate that fairly and determine if it qualifies as Ona'ah. So why do we need to look at the money paid as a new perspective? A Second Problem: Inconsistent Calculations This leads to a second issue. By shtus mekach (a sixth of the item's value), the definition of a discrepancy is symmetrical. For a $60 item, Ona'ah applies whether it is sold for $50 or $70—a $10 difference either way. But with shtus maos, the math becomes uneven and seems inconsistent: Underpayment: If the buyer pays $51.40, that's a discrepancy of $8.60, which is one-sixth of the amount paid. Overpayment: But if the buyer pays $72 for that same $60 item, the discrepancy is $12—since one-sixth of $72 is $12. How can the same item require different standards depending on whether the buyer overpaid or underpaid? Why should shtus maos tolerate a larger margin of error in one direction over the other? These difficulties push us to look more deeply into what Shmuel is actually trying to teach us. A Deeper Understanding of Shmuel: Two Perspectives on a Single Sale The key to resolving all the earlier questions lies in a deeper understanding of Shmuel's opinion. This insight is beautifully presented in the sefer Pischei Erez on Bava Metzia and is also quoted in the Otzar Iyunim section of the Mesivta edition. Shmuel is not merely introducing a second, unrelated rubric. Rather, he is offering a broader, more nuanced way of viewing every transaction. In every sale, there are two sides to the exchange: An item being sold in return for money, and Money being given in return for the item. Typically, we focus on the first angle—was the item sold at a fair price? But Shmuel teaches us that we must also be willing to flip the perspective and ask: Was the money exchanged for a fair return in goods? This means Shmuel is not really introducing a second set of halachos—he is applying the same one-sixth rule, but from both perspectives. Whether you're selling an item or selling your money in exchange for that item, the threshold for mechilah, Ona'ah, or bitul mekach remains: Less than a sixth – the discrepancy is forgiven (mechilah). Exactly a sixth – the sale stands, but the discrepancy must be corrected. More than a sixth – the sale is void (bitul mekach). By allowing both vantage points—the item and the money—to serve as the basis of evaluation, Shmuel creates flexibility in how we assess a transaction. This explains why a discrepancy might sometimes be calculated from the value of the item and other times from the amount of money paid. Back to Our Questions This model answers the inconsistencies we raised earlier: Why does shtus maos seem to tolerate different margins depending on overpayment vs. underpayment? Because we are recalibrating the "sixth" based on which side of the transaction we're viewing as primary. If we view the money as the "item" being given in exchange for goods, then its one-sixth will naturally scale depending on how much money is being paid. Why does Shmuel consider shtus maos at all? Because he sees money not just as a means of payment, but as an object being traded. And once it's part of the exchange, its value is subject to the same rules. So, according to this understanding, there really is only one rubric—but two valid angles from which to apply it. That's the brilliance of Shmuel's approach: it's consistent and symmetrical, yet flexible enough to capture the full dynamics of a sale. Resolving the Magid Mishneh's Question: No Contradiction Left Behind We can now return to the question of the Magid Mishneh and answer it beautifully in light of our deeper understanding of Shmuel. The key insight is that a sale can be evaluated from two legitimate perspectives: From the side of the item being sold, or From the side of the money being paid. In cases where these two views yield contradictory outcomes, we must determine how to proceed. For example, consider a $60 item sold for $51: According to shtus mekach (a sixth of the item's value), this is less than a sixth, so the sale should stand with mechilah. But from shtus maos (a sixth of the money paid), one-sixth of $51 is $8.50, and the discrepancy is greater than that, suggesting the sale should be invalid (bitul mekach). In such cases—where the two perspectives (shtus mekach and shtus maos) yield conflicting results—we follow shtus mekach, the classic and primary metric. This is because even Shmuel agrees that the fundamental way to view a transaction is as an item being sold in exchange for money. That is the default halachic framework. Therefore, if a $60 item is sold for $51—where shtus mekach indicates mechilah but shtus maos would demand bitul mekach—we uphold the sale. Shmuel's chiddush is that when possible, we may also view the transaction from the money's perspective. But where this secondary perspective creates a direct conflict, it is set aside, and we return to viewing the sale as an exchange of an item for its price.  However, if we can apply both perspectives simultaneously without contradiction, we do so. For example: If the item is sold for $51.50, then: From the shtus mekach side, it's still less than a sixth, so the sale stands. From the shtus maos side, the discrepancy is exactly a sixth, so the sale stands, but the buyer must pay the difference. Since both angles align to allow the sale to stand (with some adjustment), we retain the sale and correct the underpayment. Likewise, consider a $60 item sold for $72—an overcharge of $12: Shtus maos says that $12 is exactly a sixth of $72, so the sale is valid but the overpayment must be returned. But shtus mekach views $72 as a discrepancy of more than a sixth over the item's value and would call for bitul mekach. Here, too, we can preserve the sale by returning the excess $12. Once the buyer is refunded, he has effectively paid the fair market value of $60 and it no longer requires a nullification of the sale. No contradiction remains, and both rubrics are satisfied. But when a true contradiction arises—where one side demands bitul mekach and the other says mechilah—we cannot keep both. In those cases, we follow shtus mekach as the overriding standard. Wow! Have an amazing Shabbos!! Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva, HTC - Beis HaMidrash LaTorah mrevah2@touro.edu ____________________________________ [1] See Shitah Mekubetzes and the Ritva in the name of Rabbeinu Yehuda. [2] Rambam Mechira 12:2, Ritva himself among many others. [3] As the Taz (227:1) does, but the Achronim reject this answer for the reason stated. HTC  Hebrew Theological College is a member of Touro University and a partner with the Jewish United Fund in serving our community

Hebrew Theological College | 7135 N. Carpenter Road | Skokie, IL 60077 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice