Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

A person will be severely shamed when a person of an ignoble character publicly embarrasses him.

Since the person is not embarrassed by walking naked in the view of others, there is no way he could be caused further embarrassment.
Rashi (Bava Kama 86b) explains that this refers to all forms of embarrassment. Tosafot differs and states that if one spits at or hits a person who is naked or who is in a bathhouse, one is liable for causing embarrassment. For this form of embarrassment has nothing to do with whether the person is clothed or not. See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 420:41 for a discussion of this issue.
The Sefer Me’irat Einayim offers the interpretation of the phrase “A person who is naked has no embarrassment,” as meaning that there is no need to pay for the embarrassment of a person who walks naked in the street, for such a person has no sense of shame. According to this view, one is liable for embarrassing a person who is naked in a bathhouse.

Obviously, a far lesser payment must be made to the person who was partially unclothed than to one who was fully clothed.

In this instance as well, a far lesser payment must be made to the person who was partially unclothed. There is a need to mention both this and the previous example, for in the previous instance the person’s nakedness was caused against his will, while in this instance he willingly lifted his garments up.

Although the person will not suffer from the embarrassment while he is asleep, he will become aware once he awakes and suffer shame then.

This question is left unresolved by Bava Kama 86b, the question being: Is embarrassment a difficulty for the person himself alone (and therefore, since he never felt any embarrassment, no payment is due), or does it affect his entire family (and since they are alive, the money should be paid to them).
Therefore, because of the principle that money cannot be expropriated from the person in possession unless there is a certain claim against him, we do not expropriate the money from the person who caused the injury. By the same token, if the money is taken by the injured party’s heirs, it should not be expropriated from him, unless it has been established with certainty that it does not rightfully belong to him.
The Rambam’s opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420:35). The Tur and the Ramah differ and do not hold the person who caused the embarrassment liable. They maintain that the embarrassment involves only the person himself, and not his family.

A mentally incompetent person has no balanced sense of shame. Indeed, he is always embarrassing himself through his own conduct. Therefore, a person is not liable for embarrassing him.

A deaf mute, though considered mentally incompetent with regard to many responsibilities, still possesses a sense of personal shame. Therefore, a person is liable for embarrassing him.

This applies to both a Hebrew servant and a Canaanite servant.

See Hilchot De’ot 6:8, which states that it is forbidden to embarrass a minor. One might infer that even if one is not financially liable for embarrassing a minor, it is forbidden to do so. (See also Halachah 7.)

Obviously, the embarrassment suffered by an adult - and a free man and a mentally competent individual - is much greater.

For damages are paid only when an individual’s physical person has been harmed.

I.e., punishing a person either physically or financially. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420:38) says that the person who caused the embarrassment should be put under a ban of ostracism until he appeases the person he embarrassed. The Ramah differs and maintains that he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct, the Rabbinic equivalent of lashes.

According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia, this amount would equal 336 grams of gold.

Although many k’nasot (fines) are not imposed in the diaspora, an exception is made in this instance to honor the Torah and its scholars. See Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:11, which states: “It is a great sin to disgrace Torah scholars.... Jerusalem was not destroyed until [its inhabitants] disgraced its sages.... Whoever disgraces the sages has no portion in the world to come.”

For all people, and especially a Torah scholar, should be willing to bypass any insult they suffer (see ibid. 7:13; Hilchot De’ot 6:9).
Note, however, the comments of that source that this refers only to embarrassment of a Torah scholar in private. When the scholar is embarrassed in public, it is forbidden for him to forgive the disgrace to his honor, for it is not his individual honor that is involved, but that of the Torah as a whole.

Avot 3:14. (See also Hilchot De’ot 6:8 and Hilchot Teshuvah 3:14, which explain the gravity of this transgression.)

I.e., rather than have each case evaluated individually, our Sages established uniform guidelines for payment for these blows. Regardless of the particulars of a given instance, the standard amount must be paid.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 420:41) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Tur and the Ramah (ibid.:43) differ and maintain that these specific amounts cover only the pain and the embarrassment. If there is a need for medical treatment or unemployment compensation, these are evaluated independently.

These coins weigh 102 grams according to Piskei Siddur.

Such a large payment is required because the embarrassment suffered in this instance is greater.

If the spittle only touches the person’s clothes, no payment is required, as stated in Halachah 5.

For these are also considered very embarrassing actions.

I.e., we do not say that he suffers embarrassment only once.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 420:60 states that although the Rambam does not mention the value of the copper, the person who caused the damage is liable to pay that as well. Although the copper is worth far less than the silver, its value is not inconsequential.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the concept mentioned in this halachah does not refer to the first three penalties mentioned above: kicking, butting and punching. These three penalties involve primarily pain, while the remainder involve primarily embarrassment.