Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

When a person causes damage to a colleague's property that is not evident to the eye, he is not liable to make financial restitution according to Scriptural Law. For the object has not changed, nor has its form become altered. Nevertheless, our Sages ruled that he is liable according to Rabbinic Law, for he reduced the value of the article. They required him to pay the amount by which its value was reduced.

What is implied? If a person causes food belonging to a colleague to be rendered ritually impure, he mixes produce together with produce that is terumah causing it to be considered dimu'a, he mixes a drop of wine that had been used for the sake of idolatry in a colleague's wine, causing the entire quantity to be forbidden, or the like - the amount of the loss is evaluated, and the person who caused the loss is required to pay the entire damages from the finest property in his possession, as is the law regarding anyone who causes damages.

This ruling was a penalty prescribed by our Sages so that none of the ravagers will go and render a colleague's produce impure and then excuse himself, saying: "I am not liable."

For this reason, if the person who caused damage that is not noticeable dies, the penalty is not expropriated from his estate. For our Sages enforced this penalty only upon the person who transgressed and caused the damage, but not on his heirs, who did not cause any damage.

Similarly, a person who inadvertently causes damage that is not noticeable, or as a result of forces beyond his control, is not liable, for our Sages imposed this penalty only upon a person who intentionally causes damage.

When priests intentionally cause a sacrifice to be rendered piggul, they are obligated to make financial recompense to the person who brought the sacrifice. If they cause such an effect unintentionally, they are not liable.

Similarly, a person who intentionally performs work with a red heifer or with water designated for its ashes is obligated to make financial recompense to its owner. If he does so unintentionally, he is not liable.

A person who brings a red heifer to the place where a team of cows are threshing, so that it will nurse and thresh, and a person who is carrying water designated for the ashes of the red heifer who diverts his attention from the water is not held liable by an earthly court. He does, however, have a moral and spiritual obligation to make financial recompense.

When a person pours wine belonging to a colleague as a libation to idol worship, he does not cause the wine to become forbidden. For a Jewish person does not cause property that does not belong to him to become forbidden.

In any of the following situations, the person does cause the wine to be forbidden, and he is therefore liable to make financial recompense:

a) he is a partner with the owner;

b) he is an apostate, who is considered like a gentile;

c) he is given a warning, acknowledges it, and yet disobeys, in which case he is considered an apostate.

How is it possible for such a person to be liable for financial recompense when this act causes him to be liable for capital punishment? Because he becomes obligated to pay for the wine at the time that he lifts it up, while he does not become liable for capital punishment until he actually pours it as a libation.

Whenever a person causes property belonging to a colleague to be damaged - even though he himself is not the one who ultimately causes the damage - since he is the primary cause, he is liable to make financial recompense from the finest property in his possession, like others who cause damage.

What is implied? A person throws a utensil that he owns from a roof onto pillows and blankets, and another person comes and removes the pillows from the ground, causing the utensil to hit the ground and break. The person who removes the pillows is liable to pay the entire sum of the damages, as if he broke the utensil with his own hands. For it was the removal of the pillows and the coverings that caused the utensil to break. The same applies in all analogous situations.

When by contrast a person throws a utensil belonging to a colleague from a roof onto pillows and blankets that belong to the owner of the utensil, and the owner comes and removes the pillows from the ground, the person who threw the utensil is liable to pay for the damages to it. His throwing the utensil is the primary cause for its breaking.

In the above instance, if a person other than the owner of the utensil removes the pillows, both the person who threw the utensil and the one who removed the pillows are liable. For together they both caused the owner's property to be damaged.

Similarly, a person who burns promissory notes belonging to a colleague is liable to pay the entire debt that was mentioned in the promissory notes. Although the promissory notes themselves are not of financial worth, by burning them one causes his colleague a direct financial loss.

When does this apply? Only when the person who burned the note admits that it had been validated in court, that it was for such and such an amount of money and that because it was burned the owner cannot collect the debt. If the person who burned the note does not believe the owner with regard to any of these points, he is required to pay only the value of the paper.

Similarly a person is liable for causing a colleague financial loss in the following situation. Reuven was owed money by Shimon and sold the promissory note recording the debt to Levi. After he sold the note, he waived Shimon's obligation, freeing Shimon of responsibility, as will be explained in its place.

Reuven becomes liable to pay Levi the entire amount mentioned in the promissory note, for he caused him to lose the money that he could have collected with the note. It is as if he destroyed it by fire. Similarly, if one of Reuven's heirs waived the debt, the person who waived the debt must make financial recompense for Levi's loss from the finest property in his possession.

Similarly, if a person designates a servant as an apotiki for a loan and then frees the servant, he is liable to pay the creditor, for he nullified his lien and caused him to lose his money. We also compel the creditor to free the servant, so that when he encounters him, he will not tell him: "You are my servant."

Similarly, if a person pushes a colleague and causes a coin belonging to him to fall from his hand and roll until it descends into the sea, he is liable to pay for it. Similarly, if a person blemishes the ear of a cow, he is obligated to make financial recompense, for he has reduced its value.

Similarly, a person who scrapes the surface of dinarim belonging to a colleague and removes their imprint is liable to pay, for he has caused him a loss. The same applies in all analogous situations.

When a person throws a utensil from a roof toward the earth without there being any pillows beneath it to soften its fall, and another person comes and breaks the utensil with a staff while it is in the air before it hits the earth, the person who breaks it is not liable. The rationale is that he broke only a utensil that would certainly have been broken immediately. And so, it is as if he is breaking a broken utensil. He is not considered to be one who caused damages. Similarly, anyone who performs analogous actions is not liable.

The following rule applies when a person, without the consent of the owner, slaughters an ox that was condemned to be slaughtered because it injures others, or cuts down a tree that was condemned to be cut down because it causes damage to others. He is liable to pay the owner as dictated by the judges, because he prevented him from performing a mitzvah.

If the person who caused the damage claims that the owner told him to slaughter the animal or cut down the tree, he is not liable since it was intended for that fate.

Similarly, if a person slaughters a beast or a fowl, and another person covers the blood without the consent of the slaughterer, he is liable to pay a fine as dictated by the judges.

There are authorities who rule that in such instances a fine of a fixed amount, ten gold pieces, should be paid. For they ruled that anyone who prevents a colleague from performing a positive commandment - that he is fit to perform - by performing it first, should pay the owner ten gold pieces.

When a person causes damage with his own hands, the damage is evaluated in the same way as it would have been evaluated if the damage had been caused by his property.

What is implied? If a person kills an animal belonging to a colleague or breaks one of his utensils, we evaluate the animal's previous worth and the worth of the carcass, or the utensil's previous worth and its present worth. The person who caused the damage must pay the difference to the owner together with the carcass or the broken utensil, as we have explained above with regard to damage caused by an ox. For the same principles prevail.

If a person treads grapes belonging to a colleague, we must evaluate the loss. The same principles apply in other analogous situations.

When the loss he caused is expropriated from the person who caused the damage, it should be expropriated from his movable property. If he has no movable property, it should be expropriated from the finest landed property that he owns.

Similarly, the fines to be paid by a rapist, a seducer or a person who spreads malicious gossip about his wife must be paid from the finest landed property that he owns.

When someone damages property belonging to a colleague and does not know the extent of the damage, the person whose property was damaged is given the prerogative of taking an oath according to the institutions of our Sages - as is a person whose property was stolen - and he may then collect the money that he claims. This applies provided he claims property that one might suppose that he did possess, as has been explained with regard to a person whose property was stolen.

What is implied? A person takes a wallet belonging to a colleague and throws it into the sea, or into a fire, or gives it to a person of force and thus causes it to be lost. The owner of the wallet claims that it was filled with gold coins, while the person who caused the damage says: "I do not know what it contained. Perhaps all it contained was earth or straw."

The person whose property was damaged is entitled to take an oath while holding a sacred article and collect the money he claims, provided he claims articles that we may assume that he owns or that were entrusted to him and would ordinarily be put in a wallet or the like.

If, however, it is not customary to place such articles in such containers, the owner is considered negligent and the person who caused the damage is not held liable.

What is implied? A person grabbed a filled covered leather sack or basket and threw it into the water or burned it. The person whose property was destroyed claimed that it was filled with pearls. His claim is not accepted, and the person who caused the damage is not required to take an oath. For it is not customary to place pearls in baskets or leather sacks.

If, however, the person whose property was damaged seizes property belonging to the person who caused the damage equivalent to the value of his claim, it should not be expropriated from him. Instead, he is required to take an oath that it contained pearls, and then he is able to keep their worth from the goods that he seized. The same laws apply in all analogous situations.

If the person who caused the damage knew that the wallet contained gold coins, but does not know their amount, and the person whose property was damaged claimed that it contained 1000 coins, the plaintiff's claim is accepted. He may collect 1000 gold coins without taking an oath provided he could be presumed [to possess such an amount of money]. For the defendant is required to take an oath, but cannot, as will be explained with regard to an entrusted object.