Hot answers tagged

14

R' Moshe Feinstein ruled that people are culpable for acts committed under hypnosis if there is reason to believe that the hypnotist wouldn't be beyond suggesting to the person to behave improperly (Igros Moshe, YD 3:44). This is comparable to someone that goes to sleep near fragile items and breaks them in his sleep (Tos. Bava Kamma 4a, s.v. Keivan). To ...


8

This is called מציל עצמו בממון חבירו, saving yourself at the expense of someone else's property. Fred is indeed liable to pay Ernie for any damages, even if he was trying to save his own life (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 380:3), and certainly if it was just to save his own property from theft or confiscation (ibid. 292:8 and and 388:2).


8

Halachah distinguishes between two kinds of indirect damages: g'rama, for which one is exempt from court-imposed penalties or repayments (although he is still liable to Heavenly judgment until he makes good the loss); and garmi, for which a court of law can hold him liable. (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 386) What distinguishes g'rama from garmi is ...


8

Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 421:5 says (in my own translation): Two who wrestled together, and one knocked the other to the ground so that he fell and got blinded, he's not liable. The S'ma explains: The reason for this is: Since they both wrestled willingly, each intending to knock down his fellow, and each knowing that it's impossible to be ...


8

The Talmud in Bava Kama 91a talks about inducing panic in someone -- "our courts can't charge the person, but Heaven will take him to task." I would assume the same would apply here, at first glance. (I'm not well-read on the halachic literature on the subject.) The classical examples of charging for embarrassment involve physical actions such as spitting ...


7

The question is addressed in the poskim, I believe it gets a footnote in Shulchan Aruch at the end of the Laws of Purim. I recall hearing a tape about this a few years ago. In short, drunkenness alone is not a defense (see below); what may be a defense is that if the damages were caused "as part of normally-acceptable merrymaking." Tosfos (France, 1200s) ...


7

From Shut Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah, Part 2, Siman 10: ... My opinion is that the Katan (Minor?) that caused damage will have to pay when he grows up. Then he says that not everybody agrees to this (and think that he doesn't have to pay even when he grows up) but he couldn't find their opinion in Shulchan Aruch. So the discussion is about the Katan's payment ...


7

In terms of actual damages the general discussion of this concept is around Grama and Garmi. A person is always responsible for their direct actions (except in an Ones - when forced). However, if the damage is indirectly related, then they are not, as a matter of Beis Din (G-d still holds you responsible). This is a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the ...


6

Aruch Hashulchan (CM 410:26) speculates the reason why the ditch-digger is not responsible for kelim as follows: Kelim, in general, do not move unless a person or an animal is moving them. We expect a person to be paying enough attention where he is walking not to fall into the ditch, especially when he is carrying stuff (which is why the digger is also not ...


6

Someone who damages someone else in the body has to pay for 5 things: 1) נזק - monetary loss. This is evaluated by the loss of value of the person damaged as a slave in the market due to the deformity. 2) צער - pain. This is evaluated as what would a person pay to avoid this. So if a government decreed that this had to be done to him, and he could pay to ...


6

In Rosh Hashanah 10a defines Par, פר, it's at least 2 years old and one day. In Bava Kamma 65b Rava says that a Shor, שור, can even be a newborn. A Shor can do damage at any age and be liable, but the Korban needs to be a certain age.


5

This passage speaks of a case where men fighting negligently [due to their cations this is not considered an accident] caused a woman to have a miscarriage. Despite the death of the baby, the punishment is a fine, rather than a punishment for killing. They would be liable for additional damages if the woman was hurt. If the baby was born and lived but was ...


5

A relevant source (regarding case #2) is Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 383:2 (from Bava Kamma 28a). The case is that A's ox has climbed on top of B's ox and is going to kill it. B may pull his ox out, even if this will cause A's ox to fall to its death. On the other hand, he may push off A's ox only if he has no other way to save his own; if he could have ...


5

Point number one, you are invading his privacy for which the cheirem of Rabbeinu Gershom would apparently apply. This article discusses similar modern inventions as far as this cheirem goes. http://www.torah.org/advanced/business-halacha/5757/vol2no17.html Second, while it seems the damage done by hacking is not 'real' in the sense that no property was ...


5

I googled and found this exact application of these rules in the Business Halacha Institute's newsletter for Shoftim 5773. First, they indicate that the first principle you quote from 412:1, which they cite the Gemara in Bava Kama 27b for, does not apply here, since: The rationale is that people are not expected to be extra careful while they are in ...


4

Just to back Alex up: Yes it's allowed. The simple understanding is that the obligation to save a life overrides virtually all commandments, which would include "don't steal" or "don't damage your neighbor's property." There is some discussion about this, but that appears to be our conclusion. (Yet the Gemara seems to have debated it; either we conclude it'...


4

The question's "I am paid for repairs" may be misleading: I seem to recall that you're paid for the difference between the market value of the car before it was damaged and its value damaged: that the payment has nothing to do with repairs. (This differs from assault on a person, where one pays for the difference in value (as above, nezek), repairs (ripuy), ...


4

Aside from the fact that most prize fights are on Friday or Saturday night (often before Shabbos is out), I'm not sure there is a problem. Chabad apparently doesn't think so as they have heavily promoted one of their own, welterweight fighter Dmitriy Salita (35-1-1), since he became frum and turned pro 12 years ago. (He's fighting former champion Hector ...


4

R. Asher Weiss addresses this question in his responsa Minchat Asher (siman 111, p. 378). Here is my paraphrase: A person may have an item which is worth a great deal to him for sentimental reasons, such as an object that he inherited from his ancestors, or a picture of his parents or a family album, even though these items have no value on the ...


4

Nailed it. This is the last question in Rabbi Dovid Lichtenstein's Headlines: Halachic Debates of Current Events. (This entire discussion is summarized from pages 449-462 from that book.) The first angle he approaches the question from is the Mazik of Eish. As recorded in the first several blatt of Bava Kamma, each Av of Nezek has its own characteristic, ...


4

While hezek re'iyah is clearly an established halachic concept, they don't seem to explicate what's included in such a violation. In Bava Basra, they discuss what one may or may not do in building a house due to hezek re'iyah, and it seems that beis din may force a person to rebuild in order to fix any existing privacy violations. There's also a story in ...


3

The laws of damage are not restricted to an ox. The gemara in bava Kama extends them to several other animals explicitly and to all animals (and objects) based on certain commonalities, such as intention to harm or normalcy to harm. (Unlike the laws of kashrus which may depend on the biological source or nature of an animal.) So if this sefer yetzira ox has ...


3

Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Nizqei Mamon 13:18[19] (and Shulchan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 416) says (in Eliyahu Touger's translation): When a wall or a tree falls into the public domain and causes damage, the owner is not required to compensate [for the damages]. [This applies] even when he declared [the tree or the wall] ownerless. [The rationale is that these ...


3

I seem to recall that you're paid for the difference between the market value of the car before it was damaged and its value damaged: that the payment has nothing to do with repairs. (This differs from assault on a person, where one pays for the difference in value (as above, nezek), repairs (ripuy), lost wages (sheves), and pain and suffering (boshes and ...


3

A person who damages is obligated for five things: Tzaar (distress), ripui (healing), sheves (idleness), boshes (embarassment), and nezek (damage) (CM 420:3). However, we nowadays only obligate someone to sheves, ripui, and nezek (1:2), and some say only nezek (Rama there). There is no question that annoying someone doesn't count for nezek or ripui. However,...


3

Rambam (based on Kiddushin 25a) writes (Avadim 5:4 (English)): כיצד בראשי אברים: המכה את עבדו בכוונה, וחיסרו אחד מעשרים וארבעה אברים שאינן חוזרין--יצא לחירות, וצריך גט שיחרור. אם כן למה לא נאמר בתורה אלא "שן" (שמות כא,כז) ו"עין" (שמות כא,כו), לדון מהן: מה שן ועין, מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין--אף כל מום שבגלוי שאינו חוזר, יצא העבד בו לחירות.‏ How ...


2

I don't believe there is proof from this story that one who damages someone to prevent them from doing an aveira is not obligated to pay for damages. R' Ada bar Ahava was likely a dayan who was qualified (according to the rules set forth in Sanhedrin 5a) to judge cases on his own. The courts have many powers that individuals do not, such as using certain ...


2

Harav Yosef Mizrahi Shelit"a said that you don't have to pay (he quoted from Harav Moshe Malka). He quoted this Gemara, and then said you are allowed destroy their sinful objects. I'm not sure exactly who Harav Moshe Malka is but I hear he was a great disciple of the Baba Sali.


2

It seems that y'shal'mena necessitates a monetary interpretation, whereas v'nasata is vague enough that the Tanna Kamma followed the more apparent meaning.


2

In theory maybe you are right. The concept of paying the full value of someone's life certainly exists - as is the case by kofer (when one's mu'ad animal kills a person). So your kid's point is not merely rhetorical. In practice of course we have to judge based on exactly how much the person was actually shamed, but I don't see why it can't be possible that ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible