It is forbidden for a person to injure anyone, neither his own self nor another person. Not only a person who causes an injury, but anyone who strikes in strife an upright Jewish person, whether a minor or an adult, whether a man or a woman, violates a negative commandment, as Deuteronomy 25:3 states: "Do not continue... to flog him." One may conclude that if the Torah adjures us against adding to the blows due a sinner, surely this prohibition applies with regard to striking a righteous person.
It is even forbidden to raise up one's hand against a colleague. Whoever raises a hand against a colleague, even though he does not hit him, is considered to be a wicked person.
When a person strikes a colleague with a blow that does not warrant a p'rutah to be paid in recompense, he should receive lashes. For there is no financial penalty to be exacted for transgression of this negative commandment. Even if a person strikes a servant belonging to a colleague with a blow that does not warrant a p'rutah to be paid in recompense, he should receive lashes. This penalty is required because a servant is obligated to perform certain mitzvot. If a gentile strikes a Jew, he deserves capital punishment, as implied by Exodus 2:12 : "He turned to and fro... and struck the Egyptian."
🚫 No Striking
It is forbidden to injure anyone — oneself or another. Striking any upright Jewish person in strife violates a Torah negative commandment derived from "do not continue to flog him" (Deut. 25:3) — a fortiori, one may not strike the righteous. Even raising a hand without striking marks a person as wicked. A blow worth less than a perutah triggers lashes (since there is no monetary penalty to substitute). A non-Jew who strikes a Jew deserves capital punishment.
4/8
Rabbinic Enforcement: The Oath for the Injured Party
Our Sages imposed a penalty on foolish and violent men, and gave a person who was injured [the following privilege. His word is accepted when he takes an oath while holding a sacred article that another person caused him such and such an injury, and he is awarded the appropriate damages. This applies provided there are witnesses. What is implied? Two people testify that the injured person entered the domain of the accused whole and left after being injured, but they did not see the injury being inflicted. Although the accused claims not to have inflicted the injury, since the injured person claims that he did, the injured person is given the prerogative of taking an oath and collecting the money due.
When does the above apply? When the injury was located in a place where the person could have inflicted it upon himself, or a third person was there whom the injured person could have instructed to strike him to implicate the accused. If, however, a third party was not present, and the injury was in a place that the injured could not have inflicted upon himself - e.g., he was bitten between his shoulders and the like - he may collect the appropriate payment without an oath.
If the person who caused the injury admits causing it, he is liable to pay all five assessments. For there are witnesses that the injured person entered the accused's domain of sound body at the time of the quarrel and departed with an injury. If, however, there are no witnesses there at all, the injured person states: "This person injured me," and the accused admits doing so, he is not liable for the assessments for damages and the pain. He is, however, liable for the assessments for unemployment, embarrassment and medical attention, because of his own admission. For this reason, if he denies causing the injury, he can free himself of liability by taking a Rabbinic oath.
Why should a person pay these three assessments on the basis of his own admission? The assessments for unemployment and medical attention represent a financial obligation and are not considered to be k'nasot. For if he does not reimburse the injured person for them, he will have caused him to forfeit the money he spent on medical treatment and the money he lost through unemployment. And with regard to embarrassment, it was when he admitted before the court that he caused the injury, that he brought about the embarrassment. For when an injury is caused in private, a person is not caused any embarrassment. It is his admission before the court that embarrasses him.
From this one can conclude that there is no difference with regard to the embarrassment assessment, whether that assessment is due him because he caused the person to be embarrassed in the presence of others, or it is due him because he made an acknowledgement in the presence of others of the embarrassment he caused. Therefore, a person is liable for an embarrassment assessment because of his own statements.
🤲 Oath & Enforcement
To counter violent men, the Sages granted the injured party the right to swear with a sacred object and collect — provided witnesses saw him enter whole and exit injured. If the injury is in a place the victim could not self-inflict (e.g., a bite between the shoulders), he collects without an oath. Voluntary admission without witnesses: the injurer pays shevet, ripui, and boshet on his own admission — but not nezeq or tza'ar, which are k'nasot. Embarrassment paid via admission is real, since the admission itself in court creates new embarrassment.
5/8
Atonement, Forgiveness, and the Difference Between Personal and Property Harm
A person who damages a colleague's property cannot be compared to one who injures his physical person. When a person who damages a colleague's property pays him what he is obligated to pay him, he receives atonement. In contrast, when a person injures a colleague's physical person, paying him the five assessments is not alone sufficient to generate atonement. Even if the person who caused the injury sacrifices all the rams of Nevayot, he cannot generate atonement, nor is his sin forgiven until he asks the person who was injured to forgive him.
It is forbidden for the person who suffered the injury to be cruel and not to forgive the one who caused the injury. This is not the course of behavior for a descendant of Israel. Instead, since the person who caused the injury asks and pleads of him for forgiveness once or twice, and he knows that he has repented from his sin and regrets his evil deeds, he should forgive him. Whoever hastens to grant forgiveness is praiseworthy and is regarded favorably by the Sages.
🙏 Forgiveness Required
Paying all five assessments for bodily harm does not achieve atonement — unlike property damage. The injurer must seek forgiveness from the victim; the victim is obligated not to be cruel and should forgive after genuine repentance. Whoever hastens to forgive is praiseworthy. By contrast, damaging property achieves full atonement upon payment alone — bodily injury carries moral weight beyond financial settlement.
There is another difference between the damages to an individual's physical person and to his property. If a person tells a colleague: "Blind my eye..." or "Cut off my arm, and you will not be liable," he is liable for the five assessments. The rationale is that it is well known that a person does not genuinely desire this. When, by contrast, a person tells a colleague: "Tear my garment..." or "Break my jug, and you will not be liable," he is not liable. If, however, he did permit him to damage his property, but did not stipulate that he would not be liable, he is obligated to pay for the damages.
When does the above apply? When first the person entrusted the articles to the person who destroyed them as a watchman - i.e., he borrowed them or was entrusted with them for safekeeping. In such a situation, if the owner told the watchman to break it or rip it, and the watchman did so, the watchman is liable to pay for the damages, unless the owner explicitly stipulated that the watchman would not be held liable. When, however, the owner of an article tells a colleague: "Take this utensil and break it," "Take this garment and rip it," if the other person follows the instructions he was given, he is not liable.
When a person tells a colleague: "Break a utensil belonging to so and so, and you will not be liable," and the listener follows these instructions, the listener is liable financially. It is as if he told him: "Blind so-and-so's eye, and you will not be liable." Although the person who caused the damages is liable to pay, the person who gave him the instructions is considered to be his partner in the transgression and a wicked person. For he caused a blind man to stumble, and supported a person who committed a transgression.
📋 Consent and Instigation
Saying "blind my eye — you'll be exempt" does not exempt the injurer, since no one truly consents to bodily harm. But "tear my garment — you'll be exempt" does free him for property damage. If the owner entrusted an item to a watchman and says "break it," the watchman is liable unless told "on condition you are exempt." One who instructs another to damage a third party's property is morally complicit — a partner in the transgression — even though the actor is technically the liable party.
7/8
🎓 Key Principles
Chapter 5
✋
Even Raising a Hand Is Forbidden Jewish law considers a person who raises his hand against another a wicked person — physical aggression is condemned even before a blow lands.
💬
Admission Creates New Embarrassment A voluntary confession in court that one caused an injury is itself an act of shaming the victim — and therefore generates its own boshet liability.
❤️
Money Alone Cannot Atone for Bodily Harm Paying all five assessments is necessary but insufficient — the injurer must seek and receive forgiveness from the person he harmed.
🔗
Instigators Share in the Sin One who orders another to damage a third party's property is spiritually complicit in the transgression — enabling sin is itself sinful.