Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/420

Paragraph 1- One is prohibited from striking another. If he does so, he violates a negative commandment, as the verse states, “lest you shall add.” If the Torah is concerned with striking a wicked person more than he deserves for his wickedness, all the more so is it concerned with striking a righteous person. If lifts his hand to strike another, even if he does not hit him, he is called wicked. See below 412:13. For the laws of a man striking his wife see Even HaEzer Siman 154, where there is an ancient excommunication against one who hits another and they would need to void the excommunication in order for him to be counted for a quorum of 10. As soon as he agrees to be adjudicated, we would void the excommunication, even if the victim does not agree.

Paragraph 2- If one strikes another with a blow that does less than a perutah of damage, he would receive lashes, because there is no monetary obligation. Even if he strikes a gentile-slave he would receive lashes, because the slave is obligated in keeping the commandments.

Paragraph 3- If one strikes another, he is liable for five categories: damage, pain, medical expenses, lost work and embarrassment, assuming the blow was one that contained all five. There are those who say the tortfeasor must also pay for the additional food needed while the victim is sick above that what he eats while he was healthy. It seems to me that this is included as part of medical expenses. If only four categories are applicable, he will pay four. If there were three, he will pay three. If there were two, he will pay two. If there was one, he will pay one.

Paragraph 4- How so? If one cut off another’s hand, or leg or finger, or removed one of his limbs, he would be required to pay for all five categories.

Paragraph 5- If one struck another on his hand, and it weakened but will ultimately recover, of if he hit him on the eye and it was damaged but will ultimately heal, there is no damage and the tortfeasor would only pay him for the other four categories.

Paragraph 6- If one struck another on the head, and it weakened, there is no damage or lost work. The tortfeasor would only pay him for the other three categories.

Paragraph 7- If one struck another in a place that is not visible, and no other person could see it, he would only pay for the pain and medical bills.

Paragraph 8- If one struck another with the towel in his hand, with a document or with something similar, the only relevant category is embarrassment. There are those who say this is only in a visible place.

Paragraph 9- If one burnt another on his nail with a skewer, in a place where it will not bruise nor interfere with his ability work, he would only pay for damage. If it was in a visible place, he would be liable for embarrassment.

Paragraph 10- If one gave another potion to drink or he smeared the potion on him, and it changed the victim’s skin, he would only pay for the medical expenses.

Paragraph 11- If one brought another into a room and closed the door on him and interfered with his ability to work, he would only pay for his lost wages. If he was already in the room and he just closed the door preventing him from leaving, however, it is indirect damage and he would be exempt.

Paragraph 12- If one shaved another’s head, he would only pay for his embarrassment. If he smeared it with a cream that destroyed the hair to the point that it will not grow back, he is liable for all five categories, because he is pained from the cream. He pays the lost work because he is able to dance and show off his head while dancing, and while he recovers he is unable to perform such work.

Paragraph 13- If one removes a limb from another that does not grow back, he is liable for all five categories. Even if he knocked out a tooth he is required for everything, because it is impossible that his mouth was not hurt for a moment. Although the tooth cannot be healed, the flesh of the tooth requires healing.

Paragraph 14- Even if one only caused a loss of the size of barley from another’s flesh, he would be liable for all five categories, because flesh does not revert; a scab takes it place. Thus, if one strikes another and tears his flesh and blood comes out, he would be liable for all five categories.

Paragraph 15- How do we calculate the five categories? With respect to damage, if a limb was lost or he received a bruise that will not heal, we view it as if he were a slave and we calculate how much he would be worth if he were being sold in the market before the bruise and how much his value depreciated after the bruise, and the tortfeasor will pay the difference. If he is a craftsman, such as where he would pierce precious stones and his hand was cut off, we evaluate the damage as is. If his leg was cut off, however, where it does not damage him that much, we evaluate the damage as if he was not a craftsman.

Paragraph 16- How do we calculate pain? If the victim had his finger cut off, we would evaluate how much a person would pay to cut off his finger with a sword versus cutting it off with medicine in a case where the king had decreed he have his finger cut off with a sword, and the tortfeasor would pay the difference. In a case where there is only pain, we would evaluate a case where the king decreed to burn his finger with a spit on his fingernail or something similar, and how much he would pay not to receive such pain.

Paragraph 17- How do we calculate lost work? If no limb was lost and the victim just got sick and was bed-ridden, or his hand was injured and will ultimately heal, the tortfeasor would pay him his lost work for each day, at the value of an idle worker from the work he cannot perform. If he lost a limb, such as where the tortfeasor cut off his hand, he would pay for the value of his hand, which is the damage, and for the lost work we would view him as if he watched cucumbers and we would see what the wages are for someone who watches cucumbers, and we would make a calculation based on all the days he was sick, and the tortfeasor would pay that amount. Similarly, if his leg was cut off, we would view him as if he was the guard at an entrance. If his eye was blinded, we would view him as one who grinds the mill. The same applies to anything similar. This is only for a standard person who is not a craftsman. If he is a craftsman, however, and he can continue his work after he is no longer sick, we would evaluate the lost work based on the work he cannot perform while sick.

Paragraph 18- How do we evaluate medical costs? We estimate how many days it will take for the victim to heal from this sickness, and how much money he will need, and the tortfeasor gives it immediately. We do not obligate him to give the victim daily. This was instituted for the benefit of the tortfeasor. The same applies to lost work. We evaluate the cost and have him pay immediately. If the sickness got worse and continued for longer than originally calculated, the tortfeasor will not have to pay any additional amount. Similarly, if the victim healed immediately, he would not receive less than what the original calculation was.

Paragraph 19- If the tortfeasor says he does not want to take advantage of this regulation, but he will pay for his medical costs daily, we would listen to him. If they did not set a total amount and he was paying the daily cost, and he grew blisters because of the blow or the wound reopened after it had healed, he would be required to heal it and pay for his lost work. If the blisters occurred not as a result of the wound, he would not be required to pay for his medical costs or lost work.

Paragraph 20- If the victim violated the doctor’s instructions, and the sickness got worse, the tortfeasor is not required to heal him.

Paragraph 21- If the tortfeasor offered to heal the victim himself or says he has a doctor that will heal him for free, we would not listen to him. Rather, we would bring an expert doctor who will heal him for payment.

Paragraph 22- If the tortfeasor says he will bring him a doctor from far who will take a small amount, the victim can say the doctor in his location would be more careful so as not to ruin his reputation.

Paragraph 23- If the victim said to give him the medical costs and he will heal himself, the tortfeasor can say that he may not heal himself properly and people will forever call me a person who damages.

Paragraph 24- How do we calculate embarrassment? It all depends on the person who embarrassed and the person who was embarrassed. One cannot compare receiving embarrassment from a lower person to receiving embarrassment from an older and more respected person, in that the embarrassment is more from a lower person. The same applies to the person being embarrassed. The greater his prestige, the more his embarrassment is. One who degrades a Kohen would be a higher level of embarrassment than one who degrades another person.

Paragraph 25- If one yelled in another’s ear and made him deaf, he would be exempt under human law and liable under biblical law. If he took hold of his ear and blew into it and made him deaf, or if he hit his ear and made him deaf, he would pay for the entire value of the ear if the victim is not a craftsman. If the victim is a craftsman and can still perform his work, we would evaluate how much his value went down and the tortfeasor would pay him.

Paragraph 26- If one blinded another’s eye and the court did not calculate the damage, and he then cut off his hand and the court did not calculate, and he then cut his leg and the court did not calculate, and he then made him deaf, because the court did not yet calculate for each incident, the tortfeasor would pay for the value of everything. He is required to pay for the pain, medical bills and lost work of each one, but we would calculate everything together. If they did calculate for each incident, and they then calculated for everything, the victim could only collect for the value of everything. If the victim seized the damage for each limb and the value of everything, we would not remove it from him. We already discussed in Siman 388 that there are those who disagree and hold that seizure would not be effective.

Paragraph 27- When the court collects the four categories for the victim, we do not give the tortfeasor any time. If the only thing he did was embarrass him, however, we would give him time given that he did not cause the victim any loss of money.

Paragraph 28- Just as we appraise for death, so too do we appraise for damages. How so? If one hits another with a small pebble that does not have the ability to damage or with a small wooden splinter, and the bruise the victim received is not fit to be made by such items, the tortfeasor would be exempt, because the verse states, “with a stone or a fist,” which are things that are fit to cause damage. He would, however, be liable for just embarrassment because even one who spits on another is liable for embarrassment. Thus, the witnesses must know what he damaged with. They would bring the item he damaged with to court so that the court could calculate with it and judge accordingly. If the item was misplaced and the tortfeasor says the item did not have the ability to injure and the victim says it did, the victim would swear and collect.

Paragraph 29- No appraisal is needed for iron. Even a small needle is fit to kill. It goes without saying that it is fit to damage. This is only true with something like a needle, which is sharp. If something damaged because of its weight, however, and it was not at all sharp, we would appraise it just like we would other things.

Paragraph 30- If one threw a stone, and after it was released from his hand another stuck his head out and was hit by the stone, the thrower would be exempt from everything, because the verse states, “and it found his friend,” which excludes a case where the friend found it himself.

Paragraph 31- If one injures himself, although it is not permitted, he would be exempt. If others injure him, they would be liable.

Paragraph 32- If one scares another, even if he gets sick from the fright, the tortfeasor would be exempt under human law and liable under heavenly law, so long as he did not touch him, such as where he shouted at him from behind, he appeared to him in the dark or something similar. Similarly, if he yelled in the other’s ear and made him deaf, he would be exempt under human law and liable under heavenly law. If he grabbed his ear, blew into it and made him deaf, or if he touched him or pushed him at the time that he scared him, or if he grabbed the other’s clothing, he would be required to pay.

Paragraph 33- If the victim says he was made deaf, his eye was blinded and he cannot see or he cannot hear, he would not be believed because we have no way of confirming the matter, and perhaps he is fooling us. He cannot collect the damage until he is checked a long time after and has been established as losing his eyesight or hearing, and only then will the tortfeasor have to pay.

Paragraph 34- If one embarrasses a naked person or someone who was in the bathhouse, he would be exempt. If wind came and lifted someone’s garments and he appeared naked, and another came and added to the removal of his clothing, he would be liable for embarrassment. The embarrassment would not, however, be as much as someone who embarrasses another who is not naked at all. Similarly, if one lifted his clothing to go down to the river or he came up from the river and another embarrassed him, he would be liable. It would still not be as much as one who was embarrassed while dressed.

Paragraph 36- If one embarrassed another while he was sleeping, and the victim died in his sleep and never was aware of the embarrassment, the inheritors would not collect the embarrassment. If they seized it, we would not remove it from them. There are those who say he is exempt.

Paragraph 36- If one who was sleeping embarrassed another, he would be exempt.

Paragraph 37- If one embarrasses a fool, he is exempt. If he embarrasses a deaf-mute, convert, slave or minor whom is humiliated if others humiliate him, he would be liable, but one cannot compare one who embarrasses a minor to one who embarrasses an adult, one who embarrasses a slave to one who embarrasses a free person or one who embarrasses a deaf-mute to one who embarrasses a sane person.

Paragraph 38- If one spits at another, he is liable. If he spit on his clothing or embarrassed him with words, however, he would be exempt. The court of each locale and each time period should set guidelines as they see fit. There are those who say they should excommunicate him until he appeases the embarrassed party. There are those who say they would give him mardus lashes. If one defames another, it is included in embarrassing with words. If one is pestering another and says “I am not an apostate” or “I am not a sinner”, even if he doesn’t say “like you,” it is as if he said “like you.” If one tells another, “you are acting like an illegitimate child” or “you are like an illegitimate child,” it is no effect. There are those who disagree and hold that if he says “you are like an illegitimate child,” it is as if he called him illegitimate. If he says, “you are lying like an illegitimate child until you can prove your words” or something similar where he makes this condition, however, it is of no effect. If one tells another, “you are disqualified,” there are those who say he can explain his words to mean he is disqualified due to familial ties and it was not intended as a form of embarrassment. There are those who disagree. If one speaks ill on the deceased, he must accept upon himself fasting, repentance and a monetary fine, as the court sees fit. If he is buried near him, he should go to his burial spot and ask for forgiveness. If he is far from the burial spot, he should send an agent there. If the party that embarrassed denies embarrassing and it was a case where he embarrassed the deceased, they would place a cherem on the testimony. They would not do this for other cases of embarrassment, however. It seems that everything depends on the perception of the court. See above 87:25. If one calls another, an “informer, the son of an informer,” and only that person himself is an informer, he would be exempt. The same would apply where one calls another who is wicked and the son of someone righteous, “wicked the son of wicked.” If one calls another a slave or illegitimate and it is accurate, he would be exempt. If he cannot prove his claim, however, even if he heard others speak this way, that would not exempt him.

Paragraph 39- Although one who embarrasses another with words does not have to pay back, it is a serious sin. One who curses, blasphemes or embarrasses the nation is just a wicked fool who is haughty. Whomever whitens the face of a valid Jew with his words has no portion in the world to come.

Paragraph 40- The law of one who verbally embarrasses a Torah scholar is discussed in Tur Yoreh Deah 243:7.

Paragraph 41- There are many types of blows where there is degradation and a little pain, but no damage. The Rabbis have already provided a set amount for such blows. Anyone who strikes another with one of these below would pay that set amount. All of these are penalties, and the sum includes the value of the pain, embarrassment, medical expenses and lost work. Regardless of whether the victim needs it to heal or not, the tortfeasor would pay it. How much does he pay? One who kicks another with his foot would pay five selaim. If he hit him with his knee he pays three selaim. If he clenched a fist like he was holding a bundle and he hit the other with his hand while clenched, he would pay 13 selaim. If he struck another with his palm, he would pay a sela. If he slapped him on his face, he would pay 50 selaim. If he slapped him with the back of his hand, he would pay 100 selaim. Similarly, if he grabbed him by the ear or pulled out his hair, or spit at him and the spit reached the victim, he would pay 100 selaim. He would pay this amount for each incident. For example, if he kicked the other four times, even if they were one after the other, he would pay 20 selaim. If he slapped him on the face twice, he would pay 100 selaim. The same applies for the rest. There are those who say that although the Gemara states that if one calls another illegitimate he would receive 40 lashes, there are places that do not have this custom and we would follow the custom. It seems to me that the same would apply for the aforementioned cases.

Paragraph 42- All of the aforementioned selaim are referring to provincial coinage, which only has 1/8 silver, and is equal to three meah, because each meah weighs 16 barley-strips of refined silver, which is one “utmoni.”

Paragraph 43- When is this true? In the case of a respectable person. With respect to one who is low-class and not concerned about all these matters or anything similar, however, he would only receive what the judges see fit. There are those who say these sums are only for embarrassment and pain, but for medical expenses and lost work, he would collect whatever is appropriate under the circumstances.

Paragraph 44- How we collect for injuries and penalties today is discussed in Siman 1.