הלכות חובל ומזיק

When a person injures a colleague, he is liable to compensate him in five ways: the damages, his pain, his medical treatment, his loss of employment and the embarrassment he suffered. All these five assessments must be paid from the highest quality of property that he owns, as is the law with regard to payment for damages.

What is meant by "the damages"? If a person cuts off the hand or the foot of a colleague, we theoretically consider the injured colleague as a servant being sold in the market place and evaluate his value before the injury and his value afterwards. The person who caused the injury must pay the depreciation in value.
This is alluded to in Exodus 21:24: "An eye for an eye." The oral tradition interprets תחת, translated as "for," as an indication that the verse requires financial recompense.

The Torah's statement Leviticus 24:20: "Just as he caused an injury to his fellowman, so too, an injury should be caused to him," should not be interpreted in a literal sense. It does not mean that the person who caused the injury should actually be subjected to a similar physical punishment. Instead, the intent is that he deserves to lose a limb or to be injured in the same manner as his colleague was, and therefore he should make financial restitution to him.
This interpretation is supported by the verse, Numbers 35:31: "Do not accept a ransom for the soul of the murderer." Implied is that no ransom may be paid for a murderer alone, but a ransom may be paid for causing a loss of limb or other injuries.

Thus, the statement Deuteronomy 25:12 with regard to a person who injures a colleague and causes him damage, "Do not have compassion," means "Do not have compassion in evaluating the amount he is required to pay." You should not say, "He is poor and did not intentionally mean to injure him; therefore, I will have mercy upon him. For this reason, it is written: "Do not have compassion."

How do we know that the intent of the Torah's statement with regard to the loss of a limb, "An eye for an eye," is financial restitution? That same verse continues "a blow for a blow." And with regard to the penalty for a giving a colleague a blow, it is explicitly stated Exodus 21:18-19: "When a man strikes his colleague with a stone or a fist... he should pay for his being idled and for his medical expenses." Thus, we learn that the word תחת mentioned with regard to a blow indicates the necessity for financial restitution, and so one can conclude that the meaning of the same word with regard to an eye or another limb is also financial restitution.

Although these interpretations are obvious from the study of the Written Law, and they are explicitly mentioned in the Oral Tradition transmitted by Moses from Mount Sinai, they are all regarded as halachot from Moses. This is what our ancestors saw in the court of Joshua and in the court of Samuel of Ramah, and in every single Jewish court that has functioned from the days of Moses our teacher until the present age.

What is the source that teaches that a person who injures a colleague must pay independently for the pain that he caused? With regard to a maiden who has been raped Deuteronomy 22:29 states that payment is imposed: "because he oppressed her." the same law applies to anyone who causes a colleague bodily pain. He is required to give him financial recompense for the pain he caused.

What is the source that teaches that he is liable for the embarrassment suffered by the victim independently? Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states: "... And she extends her hand, grabbing his private parts. You must cut off her hand." The same law applies to anyone who embarrasses another person.

A person who causes embarrassment is not liable unless he acts intentionally, as implied by the phrase: "And she extends her hand." If, by contrast, a person embarrassed a colleague without intent, he is not liable. Therefore, if a person who was sleeping or the like embarrassed a colleague, he is not liable.

A man is considered mu'ad at all times - whether acting intentionally or unintentionally, whether asleep or awake or intoxicated. If he injures a colleague or damages a colleague's property, he must always reimburse him from his choicest property.
When is a person who causes damage while asleep required to make restitution? When they both went to sleep at the same time, and one turned over and injured his colleague or tore his garment. If, however, a person was sleeping and a colleague came and lay down next to him, only the one who lay down afterwards is considered mu'ad. If the person sleeping injures the one who came afterwards, he is not liable.
Similarly, if a person places a utensil next to a person who is sleeping, and the one who is sleeping breaks it, he is not liable. For the one who placed the article down was the one who was mu'ad and who acted with negligence.

If a person fell from a roof because of an ordinary wind and caused damage, he is liable for four assessments, but is not liable for the embarrassment he caused. If he fell because of an exceptional wind, he is liable only for the injury, but not for the other four assessments. If, however, he turned over so that he would fall on a person to soften the blow he would receive, he is liable even for the embarrassment he caused. For whenever a person intentionally causes injury, he is liable for the embarrassment he caused, even though he did not have the intent of embarrassing the other person.

When two people injure another person at the same time, they are both liable and they divide the assessment between themselves. If one of them acted intentionally and the other acted unintentionally, the one who acted unintentionally is not liable for the embarrassment that was caused.

If a person intended to embarrass a minor and instead embarrassed an adult, he is required to pay the adult what he would pay for embarrassing a minor.
If a person intended to embarrass a servant and instead embarrassed a free man, he is required to pay the free man what he would pay for embarrassing a servant.

If a stone was placed in a person's bosom - regardless of whether he had never known about it, or he had known about it and forgotten it - and when he stood up, the stone fell and caused damage, he is liable only for the injury, but not for the other four assessments.
Similarly, if he intended to throw a stone two cubits, and he throw it four cubits and it caused an injury, or if he caused an injury while sleeping, he is liable only for the injury, but not for the other four assessments.

Whenever a person injures a colleague, he is liable for the five assessments. Even if a person enters a colleague's domain without permission and the owner injures him, the owner is liable. For he has permission to remove the intruder from his domain, but he does not have permission to injure him.
If, however, the person who entered bumps into the owner and is injured, the owner is not liable. If the owner bumps into him and is injured, the person who entered is liable, for he entered without permission.
If they both had permission to be in that domain, or neither had permission to be in that domain, and one bumps into the other and is injured, neither is liable.

In all of the situations to be described, the person who caused the injury is liable for four assessments, but not for the embarrassment he caused: He was chopping wood in the public domain, and a piece of wood took flight and caused injury in the private domain. He was chopping wood in a private domain and caused injury in a public domain. He was chopping wood in a private domain and caused injury in another private domain. A person entered a carpenter's store - whether with permission or without permission - and a block of wood was propelled and hit him in the face.

Just as an evaluation is made with regard to death, so too, an evaluation is made with regard to damages.
What is implied? If he strikes a colleague with a small stone that is not large enough to cause injury, or a small sliver of wood and causes an injury that this article is not ordinarily capable of causing, he is not liable. This concept is alluded to by Exodus 21:18, which speaks of "a man strik(ing) a colleague with a stone or a fist" - i.e., an entity that is capable of causing injury. He is, however, liable for the embarrassment that he caused. [For even if he merely spat on his colleague's person, he is liable for the embarrassment that he caused.
Accordingly, the witnesses have to know the article that caused the injury. This article should be brought to the court, and an evaluation is made concerning it, and a reckoning.
If the article that caused the injury was lost and the person who caused the injury claims: "It was not sufficient to cause the injury. The injury occurred because of forces beyond my control," and the person who was injured claims: "It was sufficient to cause the injury," the person who was injured should support his claim with an oath and collect his due, as will be explained.

A metal object is never evaluated to see whether it can cause injury. Instead, we assume that it can, for even a small needle is capable of killing and surely of causing injury.
When a person throws a stone, and afterwards another person extends his head out from a window and is struck by it, the one who threw the stone is not liable at all. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:5, which speaks of the head of an axe coming loose and "strik(ing) a colleague." This excludes one who causes himself to be stricken.