Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/380

Paragraph 1- If one tells another to rip his clothing or break his barrel on the condition that he is exempt, he would be exempt. There are those who say that even he did not explicitly make the condition that he would be exempt but he said other things that imply as much, such as where he says to break his barrel and the other asks if it is on the condition that he would be exempt, and the owner responds “no,” we would say that he was asking “no” as a question, and he would be exempt. If the owner did not say on the condition he be exempt, he would be liable, even though he gave him permission to destroy. When is this true? Where the vessels came to his possession originally as a watchman, such as where he borrowed them or the were deposited with him. If they did not comes to his possession as a watchman, however, once the owner says break this vessel and be exempt or tear this garment, and he did so, he would be exempt, even though he didn’t say on the condition he is exempt. See more in Siman 382 regarding these laws. If one tells another to throw a maneh to the seat and he will be liable to him, there are those who say he is liable and there are those who say he would be exempt.

Paragraph 2- If one tells another to break so and so’s vessels on the condition that he would be exempt, and he broke it, he would be liable. Although the party that broke is liable, the person that told him is his partner in sin and is wicked because he caused the blind to stumble and he strengthened the hand of the sinner.

Paragraph 3- If one was pursuing another to kill him, or to rape one of the forbidden relations, and he broke vessels, he would be exempt, regardless of whether they were the victim’s vessels or the vessels belonged to someone else, because he is liable for death since one who pursues another has given himself up for death, and thus is exempt from paying. If the victim broke the pursuer’s vessels he would be exempt so that the pursuer’s money not be more strict than his life. If the vessels belonged to another, he would be liable, because one who rescues himself with another’s possessions is liable. See above 359:4. If one pursued the pursuer to rescue the victim, and broke vessels, he would be exempt, regardless of whether they belonged to the pursuer or someone else, in order that we not prevent someone from rescuing another.

Paragraph 4- If a boat was about to sink because of the heaviness of its load, and one person got up and lightened the load and cast it into the sea, he would be exempt because the load is as if it is pursuing them to kill them, and he has done a great mitzvah by casting the load and saving them. There are those who say this only applies where the load was more than it should be, in which case the load is a pursuer. If the load was not more than it should be, however, and a wave comes to sink them, they would be required to pay, and we would appraise based on the load and not the money. Even if he only cast one person’s load, everyone would pay. If one brought a donkey on to the boat and it was jumping on the boat and was going to sink it, and one came and threw the donkey in the river, and it was the practice to bring donkeys on the river, the party that threw it would be required to pay. If it was not the practice, he would be exempt because the donkey would then be considered a pursuer. The same applies to anything similar. This seems to me to be the primary view.