Now we'll go back to the laws of ona'ah (overreaching) that we were discussing earlier in the Perek (chapter). We learned that if something is sold for one-sixth above or below its market value, the person who was taken advantage of, either the buyer or the seller, could demand a refund for the amount above the market value. Here we'll talk about things to which the laws of ona'ah do not apply. The Mishnah says: These are the things that are not subject to the Halachot (laws) of ona'ah when they are sold, and therefore a refund is not issued if demanded. Canaanite slaves. If a Canaanite slave is sold for too high or too low a price, the party who was taken advantage of cannot demand a refund. An IOU document allows the person who owns it to collect a debt. Basically, a debt that is sold could be sold for less or for more. There's no ona'ah when it comes to that. Ha-karkaot, land. Land can also be sold for higher or lower than its market value, by more than one-sixth. The hekdeshot, something that belongs to hekdesh. If the Beit HaMikdash (Temple) owns something and wants to raise money for the temple treasury by selling it, that too can be sold for higher or lower than its market value. If a one-sixth difference exists in these items, the wronged party cannot demand his money back or a refund. We learn all of these things from the Pesukim (verses); they are Gezeirat HaKatuv (decree of Scripture), and therefore, that is the halakha (Jewish law).
There are other halakhot that don't apply to these items we listed above. If they're stolen and the person is found, he doesn't have to pay a double payment when returning the item; he doesn't have to pay double the item's amount. If he steals a sheep or an ox and either steals or slaughters them, then he would not have to pay four or five times the payment for them. An unpaid Shomer, who was given one of these items and was responsible for watching it, would usually have to swear if it was stolen. Here, he does not have to swear specifically that he wasn't negligent in watching it. Someone who's a paid Shomer, who would normally have to pay when something was stolen or lost from him, would not have to pay in this scenario. We again learn all this from the pesukim themselves.
Rabbi Shimon argues with what we said earlier, that ona'ah doesn't apply to hekdesh. He makes a distinction and says that ona'ah doesn't apply to certain types of hekdesh. Rabbi Shimon says, “Kodashim shehu chayav be'achrayutan yesh lahen ona'ah”—animals that were stolen, sanctified, to be brought as sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash, which a person would be responsible for. In other words, if they're lost, it would be his responsibility to replace them. The laws of ona'ah apply to him because, since he's responsible for it, it's as if it's his property. Therefore, he owns it. The Torah's exclusion would not apply to it. The Torah only excluded it if it was property of the Beit HaMikdash. But here, since it's his responsibility to replace it if it gets lost, it's not considered to be property of the Beit HaMikdash, but property of that person who's sanctifying it, the real owner. Therefore, if a person would not be responsible to replace the item if it's lost, the laws of ona'ah would not apply to him in regard to this item, because he would not be responsible to replace it if it was lost.
Rabbi Yehuda wants to expand on where ona'ah does not apply. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even somebody who sells a Sefer Torah for a very high price, or an animal for a very high price or a very low price, either one, or a pearl, the laws of ona'ah do not apply. In these unique scenarios, a person would sometimes be willing to pay a very high price for them, way beyond market value. A Sefer Torah is priceless. It's a beautiful way to say it. No value could be put on a Sefer Torah. Therefore, a person would pay anything for it. There's no actual market value for a Sefer Torah. The same applies when it comes to paying a high price for an animal or a pearl. Maybe it goes well with something that he already has. Maybe he has an animal that would fit perfectly with this one in terms of plowing together, or a matching pearl. Maybe he would need it for jewelry. Therefore, there's no ona'ah on these items.
Amru lo, Chachamim (Sages) told Rabbi Yehuda, lo amru ela et elu: No, Chachamim told him, when we knew, what items were excluded from ona'ah, only those four items. Those are the four items we originally stated above that do not have ona'ah: slaves, shtarot contracts, karkaot land, and hekdesh, sanctified items. So they said the list Rabbi Yehuda tried to expand is not included. They would say that a person could rationalize about any item and say that it pairs well with something he already has. Therefore, the few items that Rabbi Yehuda also tried to exclude are a slippery slope. You could include anything else in that as well. Therefore, Chachamim decided not to include what Rabbi Yehuda also tried to say the laws of ona'ah do not apply to. So therefore...