Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/386

Paragraph 1- We rule like Rabbi Meir who would judge cases of indirect damage. Only a person would be liable for indirect damage. Everyone agrees an animal would be exempt. Thus, if one pushes another’s coin until it falls into the sea, he would liable, even if he did not lift it. Similarly, if one diminishes the other’s coin and removed its form, he would be liable, even if nothing was missing. If one sells a loan document to another and then waives the loan, in which case the loan would be waived, he must pay the buyer, as was discussed in Siman 66.

Paragraph 2- Similarly, if one burns another’s loan document, he would be required to pay the entire debt that was documented, even though the actual document has no value, because he has caused a loss of money, so long as the tortfeasor admits that the document was verified, it stated such and such, and because he burned it the creditor would not be able to collect the debt. If he does not believe the victim, however, he would only be required to pay for the value of the paper. This is referring to a case where there are no witnesses who know that much was written in the document because if there were witnesses he would not be liable for anything because they will make him another document, as was discussed in Siman 41.

Paragraph 3- Similarly, if one throws a vessel from on top of the roof and there were pillows or blankets underneath so that if the vessels were to fall they would not break, and someone went ahead and removed the pillows and blankets and the vessels struck the ground and broke, the party that removed the pillows and blankets would be liable. The same applies to anything similar. There are those who say that such a case would be “grama,” and he would be exempt. Similarly, where one pushes the coin of another or diminishes its form, it is “grama.” Thus, even if one threw a vessel from on top of the roof and there was pillows and blankets, and that same person went ahead and removed the pillows and blankets, he would be exempt, because he is not liable for throwing them since they were not destined to break and that which he removed them was just a “grama.” If a scribe wrote a document and wrote 100 instead of 200, if one damages another with his advice or if a third party returned a document that he should not have returned, they would be exempt because it is only a “grama.” We would, however, place a shmuti on him until he removes the damage. The same is true in all cases of “grama.” There are those who say that in any “grama” case if it is something that is common and frequent, the tortfeasor would be required to pay as a fine. Thus, there are those who write that if Reuven sold an item to a gentile and Shimon comes and tells the gentile that it is not worth that much, Shimon would be required to pay him. It is possible that such a person has the status of a snitch who would be liable. If Reuven lent a gentile on collateral, and Shimon comes and tells the gentile he will lend him for less, and he returns Reuven’s money, he would be exempt because it is “grama.” He would, however, be called wicked. See earlier 156:5 regarding the law of one who picks up another’s wallet. See above Siman 292.

Paragraph 4- If one threw vessels from on top of the roof and there were no pillows or blankets underneath, and while they were in the air someone came and broke them with a stick, the party that threw them is liable and the party that broke them is exempt, because we view the vessels as broken from the time they were thrown.