THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW
Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean

Lesson # 326 (Assaults, part 4) • Unintended Assaults and Requesting Divine Intervention Against Another

We are discussing other examples of the liability or non-liability of Reuven for unintended assaults on Shimon.

A few more examples:
m) In all cases of self-defense, Beth Din will examine if Shimon protecting himself against Reuven, used more than the requisite amount of force. Beth Din, when determining whether Shimon used excessive force, will also have to take into account the fact that Shimon was faced with danger and could not possibly have thought of all of the ramifications of his actions. Once Beth Din has determined how Shimon’s response was commensurate with the original attack, the compensation that Shimon must then make is applied only up to four categories of payment and not to humiliation, since self-defense is akin to a person striking someone else inadvertently.

Similarly, if while they are fighting, Reuven calls Shimon a mamzer, this is not grounds for Shimon to be compensated for humiliation. Likewise if Reuven calls Shimon a thief and Shimon responds that Reuven is a mamzer, this is a somewhat automatic verbal response and neither has liability for humiliation.

n) Reuven and Shimon have begun a wrestling match. Reuven throws Shimon to the ground and in doing so blinds Shimon’s eye and Reuven is not hurt. Reuven is free of liability. Shimon contributed to his own injuries by engaging in the wrestling match and he assumes the risk of injury.

o) Reuven and Shimon are in a non-friendly fight, both having started the fight simultaneously. If Reuven injures Shimon, Reuven is liable. Although Reuven did not intend to hurt Shimon, Reuven is liable because his actions border on “inadvertence close to intentional”.

p) While fighting, both Reuven and Shimon are hurt. If Shimon’s injuries are greater than Reuven’s, Reuven must pay the difference between their injuries to Shimon for up to all five categories of damages. If Reuven started hitting Shimon first and then Shimon defended himself, Reuven is liable for all of the injuries he caused and Shimon has no liability for Reuven’s injuries. The same applies if Reuven commenced to hit Shimon and Shimon then hit Reuven intentionally. If Reuven’s wife intervened and tried to stop Shimon from hitting Reuven and Shimon hit Reuven’s wife, Shimon is still free of liability.

q) Reuven splits wood in a public street and a piece of wood flies onto Shimon’s property and injures Shimon. Or Reuven is chopping wood on his own property and a piece flies off into the street and injures Shimon; or Reuven is chopping wood on his own property and a piece flies off and injures Shimon on Shimon’s property. In each of these instances, Reuven is liable for up to four categories of damages. Excluding humiliation, since the act was “inadvertent bordering on intentional”.

r) Reuven splits wood in a secluded place and Shimon happens to pass by. Shimon is injured by a flying piece of wood. Reuven is not liable for the categories of pain, healing, humiliation and loss of income, since the act was not “inadvertent bordering on intentional”. Reuven is liable for injury since the injury was not entirely accidental.

s) Shimon enters Reuven’s carpentry shop, whether with or without permission, and a piece of wood flies off the plank that Reuven is working on and injures Shimon. Reuven is liable for up to four categories of damages and not for humiliation. He is liable since it is anticipated that customers will enter Reuven’s shop; he is liable whether or not he knew that Shimon had entered his shop. There is an opinion that Reuven is not liable unless he knew that Shimon had entered his shop.

t) Reuven is seated and a stone is resting in his lap; he is not aware of it or he was aware and has forgotten about it. Reuven stands up and the stone falls and injures Shimon. Reuven is liable for the category of injury since the occurrence is not entirely accidental. He is not liable for the other four categories since it is not at all intentional.

u) Reuven intends to throw a stone four yards and it travels eight yards and injures Shimon. Reuven is liable for injury and is not liable of the other four categories of damage.

With these examples we have concluded the liability of Reuven for untended assaults insofar as it covers the category of injury, one of the five categories of damages in case Reuven causes injuries to Shimon from an assault. We shall now discuss the other four categories of damages caused by an untended assault.

2. Pain. Reuven is not liable to compensate Shimon for pain unless his actions wee deliberate or “inadvertent and close to intentional”.

3. Healing. Reuven is not liable to compensate Shimon for healing unless his actions were deliberate or “inadvertent and close to intentional”.

4. Loss of income. Here too, Reuven is not liable to compensate Shimon for loss of income unless his actions were deliberate or “inadvertent close to intentional”.

5. Humiliation. Reuven, to be liable for humiliation, must have intended to injure or humiliate a specific person.

However, if Reuven intended to humiliate Levi and instead humiliated Shimon he is liable to Shimon for humiliation. Similarly if Reuven intended to humiliate a minor and instead humiliated Shimon, an adult, he must pay Shimon the compensation due to a minor who has been humiliated. For example: (a) Since there must be intent to humiliate or injure Shimon to be liable for humiliation, if Reuven humiliates Shimon while Reuven is asleep, (for example, Reuven spits in his sleep and it lands on Shimon’s face) he is not liable for the category of humiliation. (b) If Reuven does not intend to injure or humiliate Shimon but humiliates him while trying to retrieve Reuven’s possession from Shimon’s premises, he is not liable for humiliation. (c) The officer of the Beth Din, acting under the instructions of Beth Din, beats Reuven the defendant who refuses to appear in Beth Din.

Reuven strikes the officer. The officer’s wife comes to his defense and she rescues him by humiliating Reuven. She is not liable. (d) The officer of the Beth Din, in pursuance of his official duties, humiliates Reuven, the defendant, who refuses to abide by the decision of the Beth Din. The officer is not liable.

Requesting Divine Intervention against another
Reuven feels that he has been wronged by Shimon. Reuven invokes Divine intervention against Shimon. Reuven will be punished first. The Talmud states: “Woe to the person who cries out for Divine intervention even more than to him against whom it is invoked” (Baba Kama 93a). As seen from the Talmud, the prohibition against invoking this request from Heaven applies only if he can obtain justice in Beth Din or even if there is no Beth Din to grant him relief, he could obtain a favorable result in the secular courts of the community. There is an opinion that even if there is no court available to obtain justice Reuven cannot invoke Divine retribution until he first notifies Shimon.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume X chapters 421 & 422 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il