What we do see is that the issur of taking אונאה is not dependent on the obligation to return the overcharged amount. That raises the question as to why there is no lashes for taking אונאה because its a לאו הניתן לתשלומין, we find the issur even without the need to return the money? The Even Haezel explains that לאו הניתן לתשלומין is a din in the לאו. The לאו is defined as a לאו which is a monetary לאו and therefore there is no punishment of lashes attached to it.
The Torah never mentions explicitly that one must return אונאה that was taken from the buyer. So how do we know that one must return the additional charge? The Pnei Yehoshua Bava Metziah 56a explains that the additional charge is considered stolen goods and therefore must be returned. The difficulty is that according to the Pnei Yehoushua every case of אונאה should become bittul mekach for the stipulation of the sale price is null and void?
Rav Chayim (Mechirah Ch. 15) says that the price tag still stands, and the money is considered to be payment for the object that was purchased; the money that must be returned is a separate obligation that the Torah imposes. It is still unclear where do we see the Torah imposes such an obligation?
No comments:
Post a Comment