Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7-8

Hook

Imagine the bustling souk of a medieval Moroccan city, the air thick with the scent of spices and the murmur of a thousand conversations. Amidst this vibrant tapestry of life, a craftsman, his hands stained with dye, accidentally spills a small amount of precious indigo onto a fellow artisan's finely woven silk. The damage is not immediately apparent, a subtle discoloration that only a discerning eye, or perhaps the passage of time, would reveal. Yet, in the intricate legal and ethical framework of Jewish life, even this subtle, almost imperceptible harm carries weight, demanding consideration and resolution. This is the world Maimonides, the Rambam, ushers us into with his profound legal code, the Mishneh Torah.

Context

Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, particularly the section concerning "One Who Injures a Person or Property," is not merely a legal text; it is a window into the intellectual and spiritual landscape of Sephardi Jewry during its golden age and beyond. To truly appreciate this section, we must situate it within its rich historical and cultural milieu.

Place: The Crossroads of Cultures

The Sephardi world, encompassing the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and later spreading across North Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and beyond, was a crucible of diverse influences. Maimonides himself, born in Cordoba, Spain, in 1138 and later exiled to Morocco and ultimately settling in Fustat (Old Cairo), Egypt, embodied this cosmopolitanism. His intellectual formation was deeply rooted in the philosophical and scientific advancements of the Islamic world, a milieu that fostered rigorous intellectual inquiry and a sophisticated understanding of law and ethics.

• Iberian Peninsula: During the centuries of al-Andalus (Muslim-ruled Spain), Jewish communities flourished, engaging with Arab culture, philosophy, and science. This period, from the 8th to the 15th centuries, saw an unprecedented flourishing of Jewish intellectual life, producing giants like Maimonides, Judah Halevi, and Abraham ibn Ezra. The legal traditions that developed here were deeply informed by a desire to integrate Jewish law with rational thought and to create comprehensive legal codes that could serve a sophisticated, urbanized society. The need to navigate complex commercial transactions, property rights, and intercommunal relations within a diverse society spurred the development of detailed legal reasoning. Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, written in clear, concise Hebrew, aimed to synthesize the vast body of Talmudic law into an accessible and systematic whole, reflecting a desire to make Torah accessible to all levels of understanding, a hallmark of Sephardi intellectual ambition.

• North Africa and the Mediterranean Basin: Following the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 and Portugal in 1497, many Sephardi Jews resettled in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), the Ottoman Empire (Turkey, Greece, the Balkans, Egypt, and the Levant), and other parts of the Mediterranean. These communities, while maintaining their distinct Sephardi traditions, also absorbed local customs and legal frameworks. Maimonides' works, including the Mishneh Torah, were foundational texts for these communities, studied and expounded upon by generations of rabbis. The legal discussions within the Mishneh Torah concerning damages and restitution reflect the practical realities of these communities, where trade, agriculture, and skilled crafts were central to economic life. The emphasis on the value of property, the nuances of intent, and the concept of "damages not evident to the eye" speak to a society where subtle harms could have significant financial repercussions in a world of interconnected livelihoods.

Era: A Time of Consolidation and Intellectual Synthesis

Maimonides lived during a period of significant intellectual and legal development within Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud had been compiled centuries earlier, and the subsequent centuries saw extensive rabbinic commentary and the emergence of new legal codes. Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, completed in 1180, was a monumental undertaking, aiming to present the entire body of Jewish law in a logical and systematic manner, free from the dialectical debates of the Talmud.

• The Age of Codification: Maimonides' Mishneh Torah was a direct response to the perceived need for order and clarity in Jewish law. Prior to his work, legal knowledge was largely dispersed within the vast ocean of the Talmud and subsequent commentaries. Maimonides sought to create a definitive code, a "Second Torah," that would be authoritative and accessible. This ambition to synthesize and organize legal material was characteristic of the intellectual spirit of the era, which saw similar efforts in other fields of knowledge, influenced by the systematic approaches of Greek philosophy and Islamic jurisprudence. The structure of the Mishneh Torah, with its clear divisions and precise language, reflects this drive for systematic understanding.

• Bridging Philosophy and Halakha: Maimonides was a towering figure in Jewish philosophy, particularly known for his Guide for the Perplexed. This philosophical engagement profoundly influenced his approach to law. In the Mishneh Torah, he often integrates philosophical reasoning with halakhic rulings, seeking to demonstrate the inherent logic and wisdom of Jewish law. The discussions on intentionality, negligence, and the nature of harm in the Hilchot Nizakim (Laws of Injury and Damages) are imbued with a philosophical understanding of human agency and responsibility. The text grapples with questions of what constitutes genuine harm, not just physically but also financially and morally, reflecting a deep concern with justice and equity rooted in both divine commandment and rational ethical principles.

Community: A Legacy of Scholarship and Practicality

Sephardi communities were characterized by a strong tradition of scholarship, a deep respect for learning, and a practical engagement with the world. The legal discussions in the Mishneh Torah reflect this dual focus.

• The Rabbi as Scholar and Judge: Rabbis in Sephardi communities were not only spiritual leaders but also legal authorities and judges. They were expected to possess a comprehensive knowledge of Jewish law and to apply it to the practical challenges faced by their communities. The Mishneh Torah served as a primary resource for these rabbis, providing them with the framework for resolving disputes and guiding their congregants. The detailed discussions on damages, restitution, and the nuances of liability demonstrate the rabbis' commitment to ensuring fairness and order within the community. The meticulous attention to detail in distinguishing between different types of harm, intentional versus unintentional acts, and the role of intent underscores a commitment to a just and equitable system.

• Engaging with the Economic Realities: Sephardi Jews were often involved in trade, finance, and various crafts. The laws of damages and property rights, as elaborated in the Mishneh Torah, directly addressed the economic realities of these communities. The text grapples with issues such as contractual obligations, credit, the transfer of property, and the prevention of financial loss. The detailed scenarios presented, from the burning of promissory notes to the accidental rendering of food terumah impure, reflect a legal system that was responsive to the complexities of a dynamic, mercantile society. Maimonides’ consideration of “damages not evident to the eye” highlights a nuanced understanding of economic harm, where the reduction in value, even if not immediately visible, is a real and compensable loss. This demonstrates a commitment to protecting the economic well-being of individuals within the community.

This rich historical and cultural tapestry provides the essential backdrop for understanding the profound insights embedded within Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, particularly in its exploration of the delicate balance between individual responsibility and community well-being, and the meticulous application of justice in all spheres of life, even in the most subtle of harms.

Text Snapshot

The text from Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nizakim (Laws of Injury and Damages) 7:10-11, delves into the intricate legal ramifications of causing financial loss, even when the damage is not immediately apparent. It illuminates the rabbinic principle of dina d'garmei – the law of indirect damages – which holds individuals liable for financial losses they cause, even if the act itself doesn't involve direct physical destruction or theft.

"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." (Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:7)

This foundational principle is then illustrated with a series of complex scenarios:

"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." (Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:8)

The text further explores the responsibility of a creditor who sells a promissory note and then absolves the debtor, thus rendering the note worthless to the buyer:

"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... 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." (Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10)

These excerpts highlight Maimonides' meticulous approach to defining financial responsibility, extending it beyond direct physical destruction to encompass indirect harms that diminish value or render assets unusable, all rooted in the rabbinic concern for justice and economic fairness within the community.

Minhag/Melody

The concept of dina d'garmei, indirect damages, which is central to the Mishneh Torah passage we've explored, is not just a dry legal principle; it is deeply woven into the fabric of Sephardi and Mizrahi liturgical and communal life. While Maimonides provides the legal framework, the practical and spiritual implications of such principles resonate through the prayers, the piyutim (liturgical poetry), and the customs that have shaped these communities for centuries.

Piyut and the Weight of Indirect Harm

The melodies and poetry of Sephardi and Mizrahi traditions often explore themes of divine justice, human responsibility, and the consequences of our actions, both seen and unseen. While a direct piyut solely dedicated to dina d'garmei might be rare, the underlying sentiment of accountability for harm, even that which is not overtly apparent, is a recurring motif.

Consider, for example, the High Holiday liturgy, particularly the prayers of Vidui (confession). The Vidui lists numerous transgressions, many of which are not physical acts of destruction but rather sins of speech, thought, and subtle omissions. The very act of confessing these "hidden" sins reflects an understanding that harm can be inflicted in ways that are not immediately visible.

A Connection to Ashamnu: The communal confession, Ashamnu, recited on Yom Kippur, includes the line: "אשמנו, בגדנו, גזלנו, דִּבַּרְנו לָשׁוֹן" (Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu, dibarnu lashon - We have trespassed, we have dealt treacherously, we have robbed, we have spoken slander). The inclusion of "דִּבַּרְנו לָשׁוֹן" (we have spoken slander) is particularly relevant. While slander is a sin of speech, its impact can be devastating and far-reaching, causing immense emotional and social damage that is not "evident to the eye" in the same way as a broken vase. The harm to reputation, the fracturing of relationships, and the emotional distress caused by slander are profound, and the liturgy acknowledges this as a form of transgression that requires repentance.

The melodies accompanying these confessions are often somber and introspective, reflecting the gravity of acknowledging our complicity in harm, whether direct or indirect. In many Sephardi traditions, the recitation of Ashamnu is sung with a particular plaintive melody, known as Selichot melodies, which are designed to evoke a sense of deep contrition and self-reflection. These melodies, passed down through generations, carry the emotional weight of centuries of communal prayer and the shared understanding of human fallibility.

The Kavanah of Prayer: Beyond specific piyutim, the kavanah (intention) cultivated during prayer in Sephardi and Mizrahi communities often emphasizes the interconnectedness of all members of the community. When we pray for shalom bayit (peace in the home) or shalom ha'ir (peace in the city), we are implicitly acknowledging that the well-being of the community depends on the well-being of each individual. Any act that diminishes another's well-being, even indirectly, disrupts this delicate balance. This communal consciousness, fostered through prayer and shared tradition, underscores the relevance of Maimonides' laws concerning indirect damages.

The Case of the Moseir and the "Hidden" Danger: The Mishneh Torah also discusses the moseir, one who informs on a fellow Jew to gentile authorities, endangering their property or person. While the act of informing might seem a simple communication, its consequences can be catastrophic and not always immediately obvious. The text states: "It is forbidden to inform about a colleague to the gentiles and endanger his physical person or his property." (Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 10:1). The "endangering" of property is a form of indirect damage. The property might not be physically destroyed at the moment of informing, but its value is compromised, or it becomes subject to confiscation.

While not a piyut in the traditional sense, the very concept of the moseir and the severe condemnation of this act within Jewish law and tradition serve as a potent reminder of the spiritual and communal ramifications of actions that cause harm, even if that harm is not immediately apparent. The gravity with which this sin is treated, including the discussion of its permissibility to kill a moseir under certain circumstances, reflects a deep-seated understanding of the devastating, indirect damage they inflict upon the community and its members. This understanding would undoubtedly have informed the emotional timbre and thematic content of liturgical poetry that touched upon themes of communal responsibility and safeguarding.

The melodies associated with prayers related to communal welfare and protection, often found in the Seder Ha-Avodah (Service of Atonement) or in specific supplications for protection, carry a certain solemnity and urgency. These melodies, passed down through oral tradition, often feature specific modes and cadences that evoke a sense of communal vulnerability and the need for divine intervention against hidden dangers and malicious actors.

In essence, while Maimonides lays out the legal framework for dina d'garmei, the spirit of this principle – the recognition of harm beyond the immediately visible – permeates the devotional landscape of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jewry. It is echoed in the confessions of hidden sins, the prayers for communal well-being, and the strong condemnation of actions that endanger others, all of which are conveyed through rich and evocative liturgical melodies that have shaped Jewish spiritual life for centuries.

Contrast

The meticulous legal reasoning presented in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah regarding dina d'garmei (indirect damages) offers a fascinating lens through which to explore the diverse legal traditions within Judaism. While Maimonides, a towering figure of Sephardi jurisprudence, systematically codified these principles, other traditions, particularly within Ashkenazi communities, developed their own nuanced approaches and emphases. It is crucial to approach these differences with respect, recognizing that each tradition reflects a unique historical journey and a profound commitment to Jewish law.

Maimonides' Systematic Codification vs. Ashkenazi Dialectical Depth

Maimonides' approach in the Mishneh Torah is characterized by its systematic organization, clarity, and aim for comprehensive codification. He sought to present the law in a definitive manner, synthesizing vast amounts of material into a coherent and accessible whole. This approach is evident in his treatment of dina d'garmei. He clearly establishes that while Scripture does not hold one liable for indirect damages, the Sages instituted such liability to prevent loss and ensure fairness. He then proceeds to list various scenarios, such as rendering food impure or selling a worthless promissory note, and meticulously details the consequences, emphasizing payment from the "finest property" (meiyuv or meiyuv sheba' nikesin).

• Sephardi Emphasis on Clarity and Application: Maimonides’ work reflects a desire to provide clear-cut rulings for practical application. The Mishneh Torah was intended to be a guide for both scholars and laypeople, offering definitive answers to legal questions. This emphasis on clarity and systematic application is a hallmark of Sephardi legal thought, which often favored authoritative codifications that streamlined the application of Jewish law in complex societal contexts. The methodical breakdown of dina d'garmei into specific examples and consequences exemplifies this.

• Ashkenazi Engagement with Talmudic Debate: Ashkenazi legal tradition, particularly as it developed in medieval Germany and later Eastern Europe, often retained a more dialectical and argumentative style, deeply rooted in the methodology of the Talmud. While Ashkenazi scholars also developed sophisticated understandings of indirect damages, their approach often involved extensive debate and exploration of the underlying principles and potential loopholes within the Talmudic discourse. The Tosafot (commentaries on the Talmud) are a prime example of this, engaging in complex discussions that probe the limits and scope of various legal concepts.

Consider the case of the moseir (one who informs on a Jew to gentile authorities). Maimonides addresses this severely, even permitting capital punishment in certain circumstances, framing it within the context of preventing immense harm to the community and the individual. His ruling is direct and unambiguous in its condemnation.

Ashkenazi commentators, while equally condemning the act of moseirut, might delve deeper into the nuances of the Talmudic discussions surrounding it. For instance, they might analyze different interpretations of the term moseir, or explore the precise conditions under which the severe penalties apply, engaging in a more iterative and argumentative process of legal reasoning. The focus might be on dissecting the very definition of "informing" and its causal relationship to the resulting damage, rather than solely on the severity of the outcome.

The "Finest Property" and the Nuances of Restitution

Maimonides' directive for restitution from the "finest property" (meiyuv) for certain types of damages, including indirect ones, is significant. This implies a higher standard of restitution, suggesting that the perpetrator should compensate the victim to the fullest extent possible, even beyond the immediate financial loss, to ensure the victim is made whole and the perpetrator is adequately penalized.

• Maimonides' Rationale for Meiyuv: The rationale for demanding restitution from the finest property often stems from the understanding that the damage caused, even if indirect, is particularly egregious or involves a breach of trust. For example, Maimonides states that when Reuven sells a promissory note to Levi and then absolves the debtor, he must pay Levi from his finest property. This is because Reuven's act effectively nullified the value of what he sold, causing a significant loss of potential gain for Levi. The demand for meiyuv serves as a deterrent and a form of punitive compensation.

• Ashkenazi Discussions on Garam and Kenesset Yisrael: In Ashkenazi legal discourse, the concept of garam (indirect damage) was also extensively debated. However, there were differing views on the extent to which garam should be treated with the same severity as direct damages. Some Ashkenazi authorities, like Rashi, were more hesitant to impose liability for indirect damages beyond what was explicitly mandated by Scripture or rabbinic decree. The Tosafot, on the other hand, expanded the concept of garam considerably, often aligning with Maimonides' broader view, but their reasoning was often embedded within the intricate tapestry of Talmudic debate rather than presented as a standalone codification.

Furthermore, the concept of restitution within Ashkenazi tradition might be more closely tied to the specific damages incurred, rather than a blanket requirement for the "finest property" in all garam cases, unless explicitly stipulated by rabbinic decree or the nature of the transgression demanded it. The debate often revolved around whether garam was a form of kenas (penalty) or asham (restitution for loss), and the implications of each for the method of compensation.

The Role of Intent and Rabbinic Decree

Both Maimonides and Ashkenazi tradition place significant emphasis on intent (da'at) in determining liability. However, the way this is articulated and applied can differ. Maimonides' codification often presents these distinctions with clarity, such as differentiating between intentional acts that lead to liability and unintentional ones that may not.

• Maimonides' Direct Approach to Intent: Maimonides clearly delineates when intent is a prerequisite for liability. For instance, in the case of priests intentionally causing a sacrifice to be rendered piggul (unfit), they are liable, whereas unintentional acts do not incur the same penalty. This highlights a structured approach to understanding mens rea within his legal framework.

• Ashkenazi Exploration of Nuance: Ashkenazi scholars, in their engagement with the Talmud, might explore the subtle interplay of intent and circumstance in greater detail. They might analyze cases where a seemingly unintentional act has been performed with a degree of negligence that approaches intent, or where the rabbinic decree itself is designed to encompass a broader range of actions to prevent harm. The emphasis might be on the practical implications of intent within the lived experience of the community and the imperative to safeguard against potential abuses.

In conclusion, while Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah provides a clear and systematic framework for understanding indirect damages, particularly within the Sephardi tradition, Ashkenazi legal thought often engages with these concepts through a more dialectical and argumentative lens. The differences lie not in a hierarchy of correctness, but in distinct methodologies and historical developments, each contributing to the rich and multifaceted tapestry of Jewish jurisprudence. Both traditions, in their own ways, strive to uphold justice and ensure the well-being of the community, adapting the timeless principles of Torah to their unique historical circumstances.

Home Practice

The insights from Maimonides' Mishneh Torah on the ramifications of even subtle, indirect harm can serve as a powerful catalyst for introspection and positive action in our daily lives. While we may not be dealing with ritual impurity of food or the sale of promissory notes, the core principle of recognizing and rectifying damage, even when it's not immediately obvious, is profoundly relevant.

Cultivating "Awareness of Subtle Harm"

We can translate Maimonides' legal concepts into a personal practice of heightened awareness and proactive responsibility. This practice centers on identifying and mitigating "subtle harms" we might inadvertently cause to others in our interactions and environments.

1. The "Damage Assessment" of Daily Interactions:

Before engaging in conversations, sending emails, or making decisions that affect others, take a moment to perform a mental "damage assessment." Ask yourself:

• "Is there a potential for my words or actions to diminish the value of someone's effort, reputation, or emotional state, even if not overtly?"
• "Could my communication be misinterpreted, leading to confusion or unintended offense?" (This relates to the idea of subtle damage where the form hasn't changed, but the value or usability is reduced).
• "Am I inadvertently creating a situation where someone else might be held responsible for something I initiated or influenced negatively?" (Echoes the principles surrounding indirect causation in the text).

Example: If you are part of a group project and are not pulling your weight, you are not directly breaking anything, but you are reducing the overall value and efficiency of the team's work. This is a form of indirect damage to your colleagues' efforts and the project's success. Acknowledging this subtle harm means stepping up your contribution or communicating your challenges proactively.

2. Practicing "Value Restoration" in Communication:

Maimonides emphasizes that even if the object isn't physically altered, its value has been reduced, and the perpetrator must compensate. In our interactions, this translates to actively "restoring value" when we perceive we may have caused a subtle harm.

• The "Clarification and Compensation" of Words: If you realize your words were ambiguous, potentially hurtful, or caused misunderstanding, don't simply dismiss it. Take the initiative to clarify, apologize sincerely, and express your intention to mend any perceived damage. This is akin to paying the "amount by which its value was reduced."
  • Home Practice: Keep a "Reflection Journal" for a week. At the end of each day, jot down one instance where you might have caused a subtle harm (e.g., an impatient tone, a dismissive comment, a lack of clear communication) and how you could have "restored the value" or prevented it.

3. Adopting the "Finest Property" Mentality in Giving:

Maimonides mandates payment from the "finest property" for certain damages, signifying a commitment to make the injured party whole to the highest degree. In our personal lives, this translates to giving our best effort and most sincere intentions when rectifying a mistake or contributing positively.

• "Giving Your Best" to Mitigate Harm: When you've made an error, whether in judgment or action, strive to rectify it with your "finest property"—your most sincere apologies, your most dedicated effort to fix the situation, or your most thoughtful consideration for the other person's feelings.
  • Home Practice: Choose one area of your life where you feel you tend to be less than fully present or attentive (e.g., family meals, conversations with a friend, a specific work task). For one week, commit to bringing your "finest property" to this area – your full attention, your most patient demeanor, your most thoughtful engagement.

By internalizing the principle that even seemingly minor actions can have significant, albeit subtle, consequences, we can foster a more conscientious and compassionate approach to our relationships and responsibilities. This practice of "awareness of subtle harm" and "value restoration" allows us to embody the ethical depth of Jewish tradition in our everyday lives, making us more mindful contributors to the well-being of those around us.

Takeaway + Citations

The study of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah on Hilchot Nizakim (Laws of Injury and Damages) reveals a profound ethical framework that extends beyond overt acts of destruction to encompass the subtle, yet significant, harms that can arise from our interactions. Maimonides, a cornerstone of Sephardi and Mizrahi legal thought, meticulously details the rabbinic principle of dina d'garmei (indirect damages), emphasizing that causing a reduction in the value of another's property or well-being, even without visible alteration, incurs liability. This principle underscores a deep-seated commitment to justice, equity, and the prevention of loss within the community, reflecting the intellectual rigor and practical concerns of the vibrant Jewish communities where these traditions flourished.

The Sephardi and Mizrahi heritage, characterized by its rich liturgical poetry and deep communal consciousness, resonates with this emphasis on accountability for all forms of harm. Through the melodies of piyutim and the spirit of communal prayer, the recognition of subtle transgressions, akin to speaking slander or endangering property through indirect means, becomes a vital part of spiritual life. While Ashkenazi legal traditions may engage with these concepts through different dialectical methods, the shared goal remains: to uphold justice and ensure the well-being of each individual within Kenesset Yisrael (the community of Israel). By internalizing Maimonides' teachings, we are encouraged to cultivate a heightened awareness of our impact on others, practicing "value restoration" in our interactions and striving to mitigate even the most subtle of harms.

Citations

• Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:7: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.7
• Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:8: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.8
• Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.10
• Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_10.1
• Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Ohr_Sameach_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.10.1
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.10.1
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.10.2
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.10.3
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:10:4: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.10.4
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.11.1
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:11:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.11.2
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, One Who Injures a Person or Property 7:11:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_One_Who_Injures_a_Person_or_Property_7.11.3