Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/421

Paragraph 1- One is not liable to pay for embarrassment unless he had the intent to embarrass. One who embarrasses unintentionally would be exempt. Thus, if a sleeping person embarrassed another, he would be exempt. Similarly, if one accuses another that he informed on him or stole from him or anything similar, although he cannot prove his claim he would still be exempt, because he did not intend to embarrass him.

Paragraph 2- If one intends to embarrass a minor and embarrasses an adult, he would pay the adult the value of the minor’s embarrassment. If he intended to embarrass a slave and he embarrassed a free person, he would pay the free person the value of the slave’s embarrassment.

Paragraph 3- There are those who say that one is liable for pain, medical expenses and lost work even where there was no intent, so long as it was not an unavoidable accident, but was something that was unintentional but nearly deliberate. When it comes to damage, however, one is liable even in the case of an unavoidable accident, because a person is considered warned for everything, whether his action was unintentional or intentional and whether he was awake or sleeping.

Paragraph 4- When is it true that one who is sleeping is liable? Where both parties went to sleep at the same time and one rolled over on the other and damaged him or tore his clothing. If one was sleeping, and another came and lied down next to him, however, the second party would be liable if he damaged the first one, but if the first one damaged the second, he would be exempt. The same is true in any other truly unavoidable accident, and the tortfeasor would be exempt. Similarly, if one left his vessels next to someone sleeping, and he rolled over and broke them, he would be exempt, because the person that left the vessels there is negligent for leaving them next to him.

Paragraph 5- If two individuals were wrestling with each other, and one knocked the other down to the floor and he fell and his eye was blinded, the party that knocked him down would be exempt.

Paragraph 6- In all cases, one who intentionally injures another is liable for all five categories. Even if the victim entered the tortfeasor’s domain without permission, and the tortfeasor struck him and evicted him, he would be liable, because although he had permission to evict him, he had no right to injure him. If he was refusing to leave, however, there are those who say he would even have the right to injure him to get him to leave. Similarly, if one had a servant and was concerned that he was stealing from him, he may evict him before the employment period is up, and if he refuses to leave he can strike him until he leaves.

Paragraph 7- If one enters another’s courtyard without permission, and the homeowner was not aware he entered and he damaged him unintentionally, the homeowner would be exempt. If the homeowner was damaged, the intruder would be liable because he entered without permission. This is only where the homeowner was unaware and did not see him enter. If he saw him enter, however, the intruder would be exempt because the homeowner damaged himself.

Paragraph 8- If both parties were there with permission, or neither had permission, and they damaged each other, they would both be exempt. If they intentionally damaged each other, they would both be liable.

Paragraph 9- If one is chopping wood in the public domain, and wood flies out and damages in a private domain, or if he was chopping in a private domain and he damaged in another private domain, or if one entered a carpenter’s store, regardless of whether he had permission or not, and a chip shot out and struck him on the face, the tortfeasor would be liable for the four categories, but exempt from embarrassment.

Paragraph 10- If one had a rock placed on his lap, regardless of whether he was never aware of it or he was aware of it and forgot, and he stood up and the rock fell and damaged, or if one intended to throw two and he threw four and damaged, or he damaged while sleeping, he would be liable for damage but exempt from the other four categories.

Paragraph 11- If one fell from the roof in a typical wind, he would be liable for the four categories and exempt from embarrassment. If he fell in an atypical wind, he would only be liable for damage, and exempt from the other four categories. If he turned while in the air, he would be liable for all categories, even embarrassment, because anyone who intends to damage is liable for embarrassment, even if he did not intend to embarrass.

Paragraph 12- If one damages his wife during sexual relations, he is liable for her damage. If one tells another to cut off his hand or blind his eye on the condition he will be exempt, he would still be liable for the five categories because it is known that a person does not want such a thing. ''There are those who say that if explicitly made it conditional that he would be exempt, then he is exempt, but if he did not say so explicitly and just said things that imply as much, we would interpret his words in a way that would not exempt the tortfeasor. For example, if he told him “cut my hand” or “blind my eye”, and the tortfeasor respond, “on the condition that I am exempt?” and the victim respond, “yes,” we would view the response as a question and the tortfeasor would be liable.''

Paragraph 13- If two individuals injured each other, and one injured the other more than the other injured him, that tortfeasor would pay for the full difference. This is only where they both began injuring each other at the same time or where as soon as he finished injuring the other, the other immediately began to injure him. If one of them initiated, however, the second would be exempt because he has the right to injure the first in order to save himself. ''The same applies to defamation and embarrassment and the party that initiated would pay the penalty. If Reuven struck Shimon, and Shimon went to strike Reuven back, and Reuven’s wife came and grabbed Shimon, and Shimon pulled out his hands and hit her, he would be exempt. See later at the end of Siman 424 regarding a man and woman that injured each other.'' An evaluation would be required, however, to determine if the victim was able to rescue himself with a smaller injury and injured him with a greater one, in which case he would be liable. ''This is only true with respect to the aspect of injury that requires he pay the four categories because he is like a person who damages unintentionally. He would, however, be exempt from embarrassment, because he had no intention to embarrass. Thus, if one hits another and the other calls him illegitimate, he would be exempt, because the verse states, “and it will be when his heart gets angry. . .” Similarly, if one calls another a thief, and the other responds “you are lying like an illegitimate person” or he calls him illegitimate, he would be exempt for this same reason.'' The same is true where a person sees one Jew hit another and he cannot rescue him without striking the aggressor, and he may strike him in order to stop him from violating a prohibition. Similarly, if one is under another’s control and he sees him committing a sin, he is permitted to strike him and rebuke him to prevent him from violating a prohibition, and he does not have to bring him to court.

Paragraph 14- If two people injured another together, they would both be liable and they would split the cost. If one had intention to damage and the other did not, the second would be exempt from liability for embarrassment.