16

Humans are liable for damages caused while sleeping (Mishna Bava Kamma 2:6) unless they went to sleep far from things to be damaged and someone else placed something to be damaged near them (Yerushalmi ibid.). As the Rambam puts it (Mazik 1:11): אדם מועד לעולם בין שוגג בין מזיד בין ער בין ישן בין שכור אם חבל בחבירו או הזיק ממון חבירו משלם מן היפה שבנכסיו....


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 ...


12

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 ...


10

A Driver’s Liability in Halacha and Civil Law deals with the issue of automobile liability in modern times. Over and above the concept of Adam Muad Leolam. This means that even if halacha were to say patur in a particular case, the fact that a person gets a drivers license and insurance, means that he is voluntarily subjecting himself to the secular law of ...


9

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 ...


9

It would seem from the Rambam (Hil. Geneivah 3:12) that she bears the debt until she can afford to pay it off: הָאִישׁ נִמְכָּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ אֲבָל לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. וְדָבָר זֶה מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה. וְאֵין הַגַּנָּב נִמְכָּר אֶלָּא בְּקֶרֶן אֲבָל בְּכֶפֶל אוֹ בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה עָלָיו חוֹב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר: ...


9

According to the Rabbi answering same question this site, if there are no specifications in the rental agreement then it depends: If the house is uninhabitable due to the roaches, then the landlord has to pay. If it's merely inconvenient then the tenant has to pay. As to where to draw the line, he answers that if the infestation is so bad that a normal ...


8

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 ...


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

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).


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 ...


7

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 ...


7

No. One who borrows an item without permission from the owner is conidered a gazlan (שואל שלא מדעת גזלן), and like all cases of stealing, must return the item (והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל). He is not required to purchase the item or to pay for the usage. If any damage was caused, however, he must pay the full value of the product, not just the amount the item ...


7

Indeed, the classic Jewish understanding of this verse is that "Yatza [Yasa] Yeladeha" means the incitement of a miscarriage, which is only liable to a fine, not the death penalty. This is evident from the Talmud in Kesubos 29b, that learns from this verse, the concept of "Kim Lei Bederaba Minei" - when a person is faced which multiple punishments for a ...


7

Rambam Hilchos Chovel U'Mazik 4:16 בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בָּהּ אֲחֵרִים. אֲבָל הַבַּעַל שֶׁחָבַל בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ מִיָּד כָּל הַנֵּזֶק וְכָל הַבּשֶׁת וְהַצַּעַר וְהַכּל שֶׁלָּהּ וְאֵין לַבַּעַל בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת. וְאִם רָצְתָה לִתֵּן הַדָּמִים לְאַחֵר נוֹתֶנֶת. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים. וְהַבַּעַל מְרַפֵּא אוֹתָהּ ...


6

If a golem or an ox is intentionally made from scratch by a man via Sefer Yetzira, then for damages incurred he would be Chayav (liable) on par with one that makes a fire which causes damage. The Gemora in Bovo Kama 22a says: אשו משום חציו The damages from his fire is liable under the category of his arrows thrown/launched which are human inflicted ...


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

A very relevant passage is Nidda (47a) which relates that Sh'muel, examined the body of his slave, to better understand the maturity process and at which point bagrut is achieved. He then paid her 400 zuz to compensate her for the indignity. He explained that the Torah allows one to work a slave; not to embarrass her. It seems that compensation was ...


6

Even before the Gemara, the Mishna on Bava Kamma 83b makes it clear : One who injures another becomes liable for five things: damages, pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish. -Damages: If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold in the market ...


5

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 ...


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

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 ...


5

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 is ...


5

The Gemara on Bava Kama 83b: אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין (My translation with help from steinzaltz): Why (does it say) “An eye for an eye”? The Torah ...


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

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

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 ...


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