Empathy and the Price of Humiliation

MISHNA: One who injures another is liable to pay compensation for that injury due to five types of indemnity: They must pay for damage, for pain, for medical costs, for loss of livelihood, and for humiliation.

1. How is payment for damage assessed? If one blinded another’s eye, severed their hand, broke their leg, or caused any other injury, the court views the injured party as though they were a slave being sold in the slave market, and the court appraises how much they were worth before the injury and how much they are worth after the injury. The difference between these two sums is the amount that one must pay for causing damage.

2. How is payment for pain assessed? If one burned another with a skewer [beshapud] or with a hot nail, or even if one burned another on their fingernail, which is a place that does not cause a bruise that would affect the victim’s value on the slave market, the court evaluates how much money a person with a similar threshold for pain as the victim is willing to take in order to be made to suffer in this way. The one who burned the victim must then pay this amount.

3. How is payment for medical costs assessed? If one struck another, then that one is liable to heal them by paying for their medical costs. In a case where growths, e.g., blisters or rashes, appeared on the injured party, if the growths are due to the blow, the one who struck them is liable; if the growths are not due to the blow, the one who struck them is exempt. In a case where the wound healed, and then reopened, and again healed, and then reopened, the one who struck them remains liable to heal the injured party by paying for their medical costs, as it is apparent that the current wound resulted from the original injury. If the injury healed fully, the one who struck them is not liable to heal them by paying for any subsequent medical costs.

4. How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though they were a watchman of cucumbers [a 'gourd guard'], and the one who caused them injury must compensate them based on that pay scale for the income that they lost during their convalescence. This indemnity does not take into account the value of the actual wages of the injured party because the one who caused them injury already gave them compensation for their hand or compensation for their leg, and that compensation took into account their professional skills.

5. How is payment for humiliation assessed? It all depends on the stature of the one who humiliates the other and the one who is humiliated.

§ The mishna teaches: How is payment for humiliation assessed? It all depends on the stature of the one who humiliates the other and the one who is humiliated....As we learned in a baraita: And in all of those cases of Jews who were humiliated, regardless of their individual stature, they are viewed as though they were freemen who lost their property and were impoverished, and their humiliation is calculated according to this status, as they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are all of prominent lineage. Humiliation is assessed according to a standard formula, regardless of who was humiliated. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The court views each person according to their stature, the great person according to their greatness, and the small person according to their smallness.

Rabbi Shimon says: In a case of wealthy people, the court views them as though they were freemen who lost their property; in a case of poor people, the court views them as the least among the poor. This lessens the payment of compensation for the one who caused humiliation.

...

The Sages taught: If one intended to humiliate a katan and instead humiliated a gadol, give the money you would have owed for the katan’s humiliation to the gadol. ... When the baraita is referring to a katan, it means that they are small in terms of property, i.e., they are poor; and when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means that they are great in terms of property, i.e., they are wealthy. ...

(What is the reason for exempting one who humiliated a person whom he did not intend to humiliate? The halakha of humiliation is like the halakha of killing. Just as in a case of killing, the murderer is not executed unless he intended to kill the victim specifically, as it is written: “And he lies in wait for him, and rises up against him” (Deuteronomy 19:11), which means he is not liable unless he intended to kill him specifically, so too, in a case of humiliation, the one who humiliated is not liable unless he intended to humiliate him specifically, as it is written: “And she put forth her hand, and took him by his genitals” (Deuteronomy 25:11); this teaches that one is not liable for humiliation unless one intended to humiliate another specifically.)

... Do you maintain that when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means great in terms of property, and when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means small in terms of property? No, rather, when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means an actual adult [gadol]; and when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means an actual minor [katan]. The Gemara asks: But is a minor subject to humiliation? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rav Pappa said with regard to another halakha: The case involves a minor who has reached a stage in which when others humiliate them they feel humiliation; here, too, say that the baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached a stage in which when others humiliate them, they feel humiliation.

MISHNA: One who humiliates a naked person, or one who humiliates a blind person, or one who humiliates a sleeping person is liable, but a sleeping person who humiliates another is exempt. If one fell from the roof onto another person, and thereby caused them damage and humiliated them, then the one who fell is liable for the indemnity of damage, since a person is always considered forewarned, and exempt from the indemnity of humiliation, since a person is not liable for humiliation unless they intend to humiliate the other person.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:12): If one humiliated another who was naked, that one liable, but the magnitude of humiliation felt when humiliating them while naked is not comparable to the magnitude of humiliation felt when humiliating them while clothed, since one who chooses to be naked is less sensitive to humiliation. Similarly, if one humiliated another in a bathhouse, that one is liable, but the magnitude of humiliation felt when humiliating them in a bathhouse is not comparable to the magnitude of humiliation felt when humiliating them in the marketplace.

...

This distinction is taught in a baraita, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A deaf-mute has the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. With regard to a minor, sometimes they have the right to receive compensation for humiliation, and sometimes they do not have the right. Why is this so? This case where they have the right to receive compensation for humiliation is one involving a minor who has reached the stage in which when others humiliate them they feel humiliation; that case where they do not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation is one involving a minor who has not reached the stage in which when others humiliate them they feel humiliation.

It was also taught in a baraita with regard to the appreciation of life: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Perform mitzvot while you still find opportunities, and you have the financial means, and you are still under your own control. And King Solomon also said, in his wisdom: “And remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come...

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: A person should always request divine mercy with regard to this condition of poverty, for if he does not come to a state of poverty, his son will, and if his son does not come to such a state his grandson will, as it is stated: “You shall surely give him and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, for due to this thing [biglal hadavar hazeh] the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you put your hand toward” (Deuteronomy 15:10). With regard to this verse, the tanna from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Due to [biglal] this thing means that it is a wheel [galgal] that turns in the world, upon which people continuously rise and fall.

Rav Yosef said: We hold that a Torah scholar will not become poor. The Gemara challenges this statement: But we see that they do become poor. The Gemara answers: Even so, if there is a Torah scholar who becomes poor, he will still never have to go around asking for charity at people’s doors. In a similar vein, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya said to his wife: When a poor person comes to the house, be quick to give him bread so that they will be quick to give bread to your children. She said to him: Are you cursing them, your children? He said to her: It is a verse that is written, as it says: “Due to this thing,” and the Sages expounded that it is a wheel that continuously turns in the world.

Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: The verse that states: “And He will show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you” (Deuteronomy 13:18) teaches us that anyone who has compassion for God’s creatures will receive compassion from Heaven, and anyone who does not have compassion for God’s creatures will not receive compassion from Heaven.

Do not toil to gain wealth; have the sense to desist. You see it, then it is gone; It grows wings and flies away, like an eagle, heavenward (Mishlei 23:4-5). The quality of "wealth" isn't superior to the quality of "strength". It's unnecessary to even say the same compared to the quality of "wisdom". For wisdom concerns the spiritual side, and strength concerns the physical side, but wealth is neither spiritual nor physical. It rather approaches from outside the physical. For it comes to a person sometimes, or it doesn't arrive, and in turning, the wheel spins. Everything is under the supervision of the Supervisor of Blessing, who is supreme above all and maker of all. Thus says Solomon (Mishlei 22:2), "Rich and poor meet; ha-Shem made them both."

One who is poor? ha-Shem can make them rich! And one who is rich? ha-Shem can make them poor! For the poor are called "God's people", as the sages derived from the verse (Sh. 22:24), "If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you." Who are "My people"? The poor!

As it says (Yish. 49:13), "ha-Shem has comforted God's people, has been merciful to God's poor."

Unlike flesh-and-blood,...though ha-Shem is rich -- as it is said (Divrei ha-Yamim I 29:12), "Riches and honor are Yours" -- nonetheless ha-Shem cares only for the poor, as it is said (Yish. 14:32), "ha-Shem has established Tzion and within it, the needy, God's people, shall find shelter." Therefore it is said, "...to My people, to the poor".

(6) If someone boxes another's ear, give them a sela [four zuz]. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh [one hundred zuz].” If they slapped the person, then they must pay 200 zuz. If with the back of their hand, they must pay 400 zuz. If someone tore at another's ear, plucked out their hair, spat at them (and the spit landed on them), or pulled their cloak from off them, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, they must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor.

[But] Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?”

He answered, “You have said nothing.” If a person injures themselves, even though they have no right to do so, they are not liable. But others who injure them are liable. If one cuts down their own saplings, even though they have no right to do so, they are not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.

(7) Even though someone pays [the person that suffers the indignity], they are not forgiven until they seek [forgiveness] from the other person, for it says: “Therefore restore the man’s wife… [and he shall pray for you]” (Genesis 20:7). And from where do we learn that he who must forgive should not be cruel? As it says: “And Abraham prayed unto God and God healed Avimelech” (Genesis 20:17).

The Laws of One Who Shames Another Unintentionally

(1) One is only liable for the penalty of shaming someone if it is intentional, based on the case of the sleeping person who accidentally shames another being exempt.

(2) One who intends to shame a child and [accidentally] shames an adult, must pay to the adult the penalty associated with shaming a child.

(11) Someone who falls off a roof in a normal wind and injures another is liable for the four categories of compensation, and exempt from paying the penalty for shaming another. In an abnormal wind, they are only liable for direct damages and exempt from the other four categories.

But if they twist around while falling [e.g. in order to land somewhere less painful for themselves], then they are liable for all categories of compensation, even shaming another. For the damage was caused intentionally, even if the intention wasn't to shame another.

(12) Anyone who injures their spouse in the course of sexual activity is liable for damages.

If someone says to another, 'cut off my hand' or 'put out my eye', on the condition that you will be exempt [from paying damages], behold the person who does so is liable for all five categories of compensation. For the matter is known, that a person does not desire such a thing.

(13) ...Similarly, the ruling in the case of someone who sees a Jew striking another, and isn't able to save them by calming the assailant, is allowed to physically strike them, based on the principle of restraining from prohibited actions.

One who injures another is required to appease them and seek forgiveness.

One who injures another, even if they have provided the five categories of financial compensation, will not have their slate wiped clean until they ask for and receive forgiveness from the one they've hurt.

Furthermore, it is forbidden for the injured party to be cruel in withholding forgiveness. For this is no way to be a Jew.

Rather, let the one who injured another ask the one they've hurt, that they should be gracious [in providing forgiveness]. They should ask a first time and a second, and make known that they have repented from their sin and regretted their wrongdoing. Then forgive them. The one who forgives quickly is to be praised, for the spirit of wisdom rests upon them.

King David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness.
1. They are merciful, as it is written: “And God will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you” (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will ha-Shem have mercy upon you, but God will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
2. They are shamefaced, as it is written: “And that God's fear shall be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one’s face is one's shame.
3. They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: “For I have known Avraham, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of ha-Shem, to practice righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation.