"If two men fight together, and one strikes the other with a stone or a fist..."Says Rabbi Shimon HaTimni: "An extra word 'fist' teaches us that just as a fist, the weapon must be available for inspection," - but Rabbi Akiva disagrees. However, they agree that an assessment is required: the court must assess that the injury was probable and not an accident.
If one humiliates someone with words, he is not liable for any payment; however, the offender may lose his share in the World to Come.
It is forbidden to cut down valuable fruit trees.
Art: Hanging Knife and Jack of Hearts by John Frederick Peto
2 comments:
Interesting. The first section basically sets a low civil bar. Even if someone is injured in a fight, by an opponent using a rock, that opponent is only liable for damages if the injury was "probable," A modern court would almost certainly set a higher bar, on the assumption that if you fight with someone and injure them with a rock, you are atleast criminally negligent. Then the second paragraph seems to indemnify for causing emotional damage. Again, a modern court, like a divorce court, would certainly be more stringent. [important, though, to distinguish this private speech from slander, which injures someone's reputation.
I don't get the connection with the fruit trees, if there is any. Are people like fruit trees in some way? Is this just an accidental juxtaposition?
Matt,
I would agree that the payments are lower in the Talmud than in the American civil court.
Humiliation with words is not payable, but humiliation connected to action is. Even removing someone's outer garment in the street, if done against his will, is actionable.
Cutting the tree comes in because the Talmud was discussing if cutting oneself is allowed. But you are very correct in sensing that there is a connection. In here, http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/20-19.htm , it is a question, “For is the tree of the field a man?”, But in Kabbalah, it is a statement.
Post a Comment