All manner of misrepresentation is also forbidden, no matter who is affected thereby. On this point, Maimonides says:

It is forbidden to cheat anybody in buying or selling or to deceive anybody, be he Goy or Israelite. In this respect they are one and the same. If he knows that the thing sold has a flaw he must inform the seller of it; it is even forbidden to delude anybody by words. (For instance, to attribute to the goods a quality or an origin which they do not possess. Nöldeke and Wünsche.) Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Mechirah XVIII, 1; N. and W. 57.

And it is forbidden to deceive anybody, including a Goy; thus, for instance, one must not sell the flesh of an animal torn by wild beasts as the flesh of a slaughtered one and not a shoe (of leather) from an animal torn by wild beasts for a shoe (of leather) from a slaughtered one. Maimonides, ibid. Deoth 11,6; N. and W. 58.

The Shulchan Aruch is no less explicit:

It is forbidden to cheat anybody in buying or selling or to deceive anybody.

If, for instance, there is a flaw in the goods, one must inform the seller of it; and even if it be a Cuthean, he (the Israelite) must not sell the flesh of an animal torn by wild beasts under the presumption that it is of a slaughtered one. It is also forbidden to delude anybody into the belief that one, does anything on his account without this being the case. For instance: One must not press anybody to dine with him if one knows that he is not going to do it. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228, 6; N. and W. 59.

Nöldeke and Wünsche remark thereon:

Not only explicit deception by words is forbidden in such things, but the Israelite seller must not even sell the flesh of an animal torn by wild beasts as the flesh of a killed one, if it looks like flesh of a slaughtered one, and if it is to be assumed that it is the flesh of a slaughtered one.

A saying of an Amora (a teacher of the Talmud) runs thus: Robbing an Akum is forbidden, and short weight is like unto robbing, thus it says in Baba Metsia beginning of c. V. (Folio 61 b). And in Yalkut on Tsav end of § 404 I have found a story which, according to Tanna de be Eliahu, says that somebody reported that he had unrighteously treated an Akum in measuring dates which he had sold him. Thereupon he had bought oil for the whole sum, but the jug broke, and the oil flowed out. Then I said (quoth the Rabbi), Blessed be God, who is no respecter of persons! The Scripture says (Lev. 19,13). Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour neither rob him. Robbing an Akum,

then, is (also a real) robbery. Beër Hagolah on Choshen Mishpat 231; N. and W. 60.

In agreement with this are these passages in Chullin 94a, Baba Metsia 50b on the authority of which Maimonides, Mehirah XVIII, rules:

The seller is liable for defects and flaws of the object which the buyer did not recognize, of which he knew nothing when buying. The sale is void, even if the seller realizes the flaw after some time, after a year. If there is a permanent defect in the object he bought, the buyer may insist on the total cancellation of the bargain (actio redhibitoria), if the defect is easy to remedy he may demand a reduction of the price (actio quanti minoris). From this it follows that the fraudulent deception and overreaching by false measure and weight or by concealing of flaws, or by unduly praising the quality are forbidden also in dealing with a Goy. Notwithstanding these plain ordinances, Justus writes (Law 29): It is forbidden to the Jew to cheat his neighbour, and it is, indeed, considered a fraud if the damage amounts to the sixth part of the value; the cheater is bound to make good the damage. But this only holds good in the intercourse with a Jew: cheating a Christian is permitted, and therefore there is no question of restitution, for there is no overreaching an Akum (Christian), because Scripture says: Ye must not deceive your brother. The brother, of course, is the Jew, the Akum (Christian) is 'worse than a dog'.

In confirmation of which he quotes Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat §227, 1 and 2, taken from the Talmud Baba Metsia p. 49. This is partly invention, partly forgery. The theme is the Law on Onaah.

IV. The Law of Onaah.

When genuine goods in due quantity have been given, the price, notwithstanding proper measure and weight, may still be too high or too low; i. e. the buyer is overcharged or the seller squeezed. This is not cheating. If proper measure and weight have been given, if defects have not been concealed, if the goods have not been unduly praised (which in itself is forbidden by the religious law), overcharging, according to present day notions, is no fraud. The laws of the Talmud and the rabbis brand overreaching by too high or too low prices as “Onaah”, as an injury.

Rabba says: The rule is: In case the overcharge amounts to less than a sixth part (of the value) the sale holds good; in case of the overcharge be more than a sixth part, the sale is void. In case (of overcharging) by a sixth part (the buyer) has acquired (the goods), but he (the overreaching party) must make restitution of the overcharge (of the unfair profit).

(Nöldeke and Wünsche add: This refers to both the buyer and the seller, for there may be overreaching on either side, as Mishna Baba Metsia 4, 4 expressly states. The provision of the sixth part of the value as the limit of overreaching is met with in the Mishna.)

Both parties (may cancel the sale) if the one overcharged has shown the goods to a merchant or relative (who has told him that he was overcharged). Baba Metsia 50b; N. and W. 74.

Nöldeke and Wünsche add: As to the conditions of restitution the discussion proceeds further, as for example:

If somebody transacts a sale on the understanding that he is not to be responsible for an overreaching, the overreached party has still the right to demand restitution. Baba Metsia 9 a.

The Shulchan Aruch lays down these rules:

§ 1. It is forbidden to overreach anybody whether he be buyer or seller; whoever overreaches, whether buyer or seller, violates a prohibition.

§ 2. How much must the overreaching amount be so as to become liable to restitution? A sixth part of the value. If, for instance, one has sold a commodity worth six (florins) for five or one worth seven for six or one worth five for six or one worth six for seven this is overreaching (in the first two cases, of course, on the part of the buyer, in the two others on the part of the seller. Nöldeke and Wünsche).

The transaction is indeed valid, but the overreaching party is obliged to make restitution of the overreaching (the unfair profit) and to give back everything to the overreached one.

§ 3. If the overreaching was less than the sixth part, if, for instance, one sold a commodity worth seventy for sixty and a peruta (something less), he is not liable to restitution, for what is less than a sixth part is generally overlooked. Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 227, 1-3; N. and W. 75.

Jewish law, then, takes equity much more into account than the Roman which, only in cases of the injury amounting to half the value, allows the injured to cancel the transaction and to get damages. It is evident that such provisions presuppose mutuality and can be carried out only if both parties, the buyer and the seller, are subject to and protected by the same law.

If the buyer on the score of the price having been exorbitant may cancel the transaction, the seller also, if he is the injured. party, must have means to be righted. But if one of the contracting parties is not subject to the Rabbinical law and cannot be compelled to conform to its provisions, he cannot be allowed to profit by its benefits, because reciprocity is lacking.

This is a matter of commonsense. The Talmudists, however, as is their way, supported it by the Bible. In the ordinance "And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", the original word for "neighbour" is "rea"; but in the ordinance "And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another" (Lev. 25, 14) the original word for neighbour, viz. "amith" is interpreted to mean "is with you", i. e. is subject to the same law.

The reader is left to judge Justus' Law 26 in the light of these facts.

And it is permitted to take interest (of the Goy), for it is written (Deut. 23, 21), Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury"; also overreaching, for it is written (Lev. 25, 14), And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another, and thus we find above (fol. 55 a) the interpretation (of "neighbour" to mean) "who is, with thee, bound by the Torah". Baba Metsia 61 a; N. and W. 73.

Nöldeke and Wünsche add:

The technical meaning of "overreaching" (see Nrs. 74 and 75) is limited, for it covers only the cases of selling too dear or buying too cheap. If the law of "Onaah" is not to lead to grave complications, it can only be applied where both parties are subject to the same law.

Notwithstanding this, Maimonides (Mishna Commentary on Kelim 12, 7) denounces every sort of fraud and explicitly overcharging ("Onaah") also in dealing with Gentiles.

In those places where gold and silver coins are counted, not weighed, it is forbidden to keep a gold or silver coin wanting a sixth part or more of its (full) weight; it must be cut up in pieces; still less (is it permitted) to pay it to or cheat a Goy with it. As to the opinion of the many (Jews), even among the prominent ones, that it is permitted in dealing with Goyim, this is void and a false view. God the

Most High says in his constant (unchanging) revelation of him who sells himself to an idol worshipper or to an idol as is evident from the interpretation of the passage, "and he (the Israelite who has sold himself to a stranger) reckon with his buyer". (Lev. 25, 50.) Now the learned ones (blessed be they) have said, One might think that he is allowed to settle with him in the lump; that is why it says, "he shall reckon", that is, let him settle accounts accurately and precisely (Baba Kamma 13 b). "He may settle in the lump" might mean that he is allowed to befog and cheat him. That is why they said, "If the Torah speaks like this about a Goy who is thy dependent, how much more does it apply to a Goy who is not thy dependent; again, if divine law is so strict about settling with a Goy, how much more with an Israelite." Similarly fraud, craft, all sorts of tricks, delusion and deceit towards the Goyim are forbidden. They (the learned ones)) have said, "It is forbidden to misrepresent anything to anybody including the Goy" (Chullin 94 a), how much more in a case which might be followod by the desecration of the Divine Name so as to make the sin greater, and man might acquire evil aptitudes in all these vilenesses which the Most High abhors, together with those who practise them, as he says, For all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God (Deut. 22, 5), that is, everybody who commits such offences. Maimonides, Mishna Commentary on Kelim 12,7; N. and W. 76.1

V. Other Injunctions against Deception

in Business.

Baba Metsia 60 b: An implement must not be polished up and burnished, particularly must not an old one be made fraudulenty to look like new.

Similarly, the sale of adulterated wine and adulterated corn is simply forbidden. Different sorts were not to be mixed together (Mishna Baba Metsia 4, 11). It was permitted to mix dry wine with mild because it is an improvement, but if the wine had been mixed with water the buyer had to be informed of this (ibid.). When goods were exhibited for sale the inferior specimens were not permitted to be removed from the upper layer so as make the goods look better than they actually were (ibid. 4, 12).

(1) In Shulchan Aruch it is explicitly stated that the Law of Onaah is applicable only in dealing with actual idol worshippers. This disposes of Dinter I. c. p. 27.