(Mishnah): A Shomer Chinam does not swear...

Contradiction (Mishnah): if people of a city made Sheluchim to take their (half-)Shekalim to the Mikdash, they were stolen or lost:

If they were stolen or lost (Tosfos; Rashi - if they were taken to Beis Din) after the Terumah was taken (i.e. some of the Shekalim in the chamber in the Mikdash were taken to buy the communal Korbanos from Nisan until Shavuos), the Sheluchim swear to the Gizbarim. (We will explain that the Terumah 'covers' Shekalim en route to the Mikdash, therefore, the people of the city need not send more. This contradicts our Mishnah, which exempts a Shomer Chinam from swearing!)

If not ((Rashi - the Gizbar found out that) they were lost before Terumah was taken), the Sheluchim swear to the people of the city (and they must send more Shekalim).

If the coins were found or the thieves returned them, both those Shekalim and the replacements have the Kedushah of Shekalim (they can be used for communal Korbanos). The people of the city are not exempt from giving Shekalim the next year.

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, the Sheluchim were hired. They must swear in order to receive their wages.

Question: If so, (also in the Reisha) they should swear to the people of the city (who hired them)!

Answer (Rabah): (In the Reisha,)They swear to the people of the city when the Gizbarim are present, to avoid suspicion, or so people will not think they were negligent.

Question: A Shomer Sachar is liable for theft or loss!

Granted, regarding Hekdesh they are exempt, but they should not be paid!

Answer (Rabah): It was Ones. Armed robbers stole them, or they were lost on a boat that sank.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah is R. Shimon, who says that Ona'ah applies to Kodshim that have Achrayus. Likewise, a Shomer Chinam swears about them.

Objection: Granted, if they were lost before Terumah was taken, there is Achrayus (more Shekalim must be given in place of them);

However, if they were lost after Terumah was taken, there is no Achrayus. Why do the Sheluchim swear?

(Beraisa): Those who take the Terumah intend that these are Terumah (also) from: Shekalim that were sent and (unknowingly) lost, Shekalim that are en route to the Mikdash; and Shekalim that will later be given. (Anyone who gave such a (half-)Shekel has a share in the Korbanos.)

Answer #3 (R. Elazar): The oath is mid'Rabanan, lest people treat Hekdesh lightly.

(Mishnah): A Shomer Sachar need not pay.

Contradiction (Rav Yosef bar Chama - Beraisa): If Hekdesh hired Reuven (for a certain wage each day) to guard a red heifer, a child or crops, he is not paid for Shabbos, therefore, he is not responsible for what happens on Shabbos;

If he was hired for the week, month, year or Shemitah cycle, he is paid for (the whole period, including) Shabbos, therefore, he is responsible for Shabbos.

Suggestion: This means that he must compensate for any losses on Shabbos.

Answer (Rabah): No, it means that if a loss occurs on Shabbos, he is not paid for Shabbos.

Question (Rav Yosef): The Reisha taught that he is not responsible for Shabbos. This cannot mean to lose his wages, for he is not paid for Shabbos!

Rabah: I cannot answer. Did you hear an answer?

Answer (Rav Yosef citing Rav Sheshes; also, R. Yochanan): The case is, he made an acquisition obligating himself to pay if there will be a loss.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): Ona'ah applies to Kodshim that have Achrayus, but not to Kodshim without Achrayus.

(A Tana (one who recites Beraisos)): (If one swore falsely about) Kodshim that have Achrayus, he is liable, for this is considered "ba'Shem v'Chichesh";

He is exempt for Kodshim without Achrayus, for this is considered "v'Chichesh b'Amiso."

Question (R. Yitzchak bar Aba): Just the contrary! (One is less liable for Hekdesh than for property of people.)

The Tana: I will no longer recite the Beraisa (there is a mistake in the text).

R. Yitzchak: It is not mistaken. It means like this: one is liable for Kodshim with Achrayus, for this is included from "ba'Shem v'Chichesh";

He is exempt for Kodshim without Achrayus. This is excluded from "v'Chichesh b'Amiso."

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Ona'ah does not apply to a Sefer Torah, animal or pearl.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Ona'ah does not apply to a Sefer Torah, because it is priceless. It does not apply to an animal or pearl, because people want (and willingly pay extra for) a good match of animals or pearls;

Chachamim: People want a good match for everything!

R. Yehudah: These are more important to people than everything else.

Question: Up to how much is there no Ona'ah?

Answer (Ameimar): It is until double their value.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): Also if one sells a horse, sword or shield in wartime, Ona'ah does not apply, for one's life depends on them.

(Mishnah): Just like Ona'ah in a sale is forbidden, also verbal Ona'ah (affliction) is forbidden:

One may not ask the price of an item if he does not intend to buy it;

One may not say to a sinner who repented 'remember your prior deeds!'

One may not say to a convert's son 'remember your ancestors' deeds!', for it says "v'Ger Lo Soneh v'Lo Silchatzenu."

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Lo Sonu Ish Es Amiso" forbids verbal Ona'ah.

Question: Perhaps it forbids Ona'ah in a sale!

Answer: "V'Chi Timkeru Memkar..." discusses Ona'ah in a sale.

One may not say to a sinner who repented 'remember your prior deeds!'

One may not say to a convert's son 'remember your ancestors' deeds!'

One may not say to a convert who wants to learn 'your mouth ate forbidden foods. Will it learn Torah, which was given from Hash-m?!'

One may not speak to one suffering afflictions (or sickness or whose children died) the way Iyov's friends spoke to him - "Mi Hu Naki Ovad".

If donkey-drivers ask one for grain, he may not direct them to one whom he knows does not sell;

R. Yehudah says, one may not ask about buying something if he lacks money to buy it;

One himself knows whether he intends to pain another. Regarding all such matters, it says "v'Yareisa me'Elokecha."

(R. Yochanan): Verbal Ona'ah is worse than deceit in a sale. It says "v'Yareisa me'Elokecha" regarding the former, but not regarding the latter.

(R. Elazar): Verbal Ona'ah is worse, for it afflicts the person himself, not just his property.

(Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani): Verbal Ona'ah is worse, for it cannot be returned (undone).

(A reciter of Beraisos): If one whitens a person's face (makes him blush), this is like bloodshed.

Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Yes! Afterwards, the redness fades and the face turns white again.

Question (Abaye): What are people careful about in Eretz Yisrael?

Answer (Rav Dimi): They are careful not to make people blush.

(R. Chanina): Everyone goes to Gehinom, except for three...

Interjection: This cannot be!

Correction: Rather, everyone who goes to Gehinom leaves, except for three: one who has Bi'ah with another man's wife, one who makes someone blush, and one who coins a derogatory nickname for someone.

Question: Giving a bad nickname is included in making him blush!

Answer: If the person is already used to the name, he does not blush. (Even so, he does not leave Gehinom. Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Teshuvah 3:14) - this includes one who calls him by a name that someone else gave to him.)