Introduction

The Torah (Exodus 21:24) states for compensation after an injury, “(One should pay) an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot.” At a literal level this verse implies physical retribution for an injury which makes Torah law both brutal and vindictive. However since the ways of the Torah are peaceful (Proverbs 3:17), “Its (the Torah’s) ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace” this cannot be the meaning of the verse.    

Rather the oral law explains that compensations for injury is only monetary as Maimonides writes (Laws of Damages by a Person 1:6), “Monetary compensation for injury is explicitly mentioned in the oral tradition transmitted by Moses from Mount Sinai and is regarded as biblical. This is what our ancestors ruled in the court of Joshua, Samuel of Ramah, and in every single Jewish court that has functioned from the days of Moses our teacher until the present age.” 

Maimonides (ibid. 1:3) explains that the intent of “Eye for an eye” is that the assailant should realize that he deserves to be injured in the same manner as the victim. However the oral law rules that he should make financial restitution.

Proofs

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b-84a) provides several proofs that the expression “eye for an eye” is not literal based upon comparing different verses in the Torah or through logic. For the sake of brevity the author will provide a sampling as follows:

• Verses (comparison to capital punishment) – The Torah states (Numbers 34:31-32) that one cannot pay a ransom to exonerate a murderer whether from capital punishment if premeditated or exile if accidental. The Talmud (ibid.) infers that for an injury one must pay compensation and be exempt from additional punishment. The verses follow, “You shall not accept ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall be put to death (by a duly authorized court and with witnesses who saw the crime and warned the assailant). You shall not accept ransom for one who has fled to his city of refuge, to allow him to return to live in the land, before the high priest has died.” In addition to the literal meaning of the verse the Talmud (ibid.) infers from the expression, “life of a murderer” which appears superfluous that a murder cannot pay ransom and by inference an assailant must pay compensation.
• Verses (comparison of verses referring to injury) – The Talmud (ibid. 84b) infers from verses in Leviticus 24:19-20 that an assailant must pay compensation. In the former verse the Torah uses the expression “Done to him” and in the latter verses the Torah writes, “Given to him”. The former verse follows, “A man who inflicts an injury upon his fellow just as he did so shall it be done to him”, implying a literal interpretation. However the next verse states, “Just as he inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be given to him“, implying a monetary payment because money is given from hand to hand.            
• Logic – The Talmud (ibid.) also questions the fairness of an eye for an eye. For example if the assailant were blind or severely visually impaired what would be gained by taking out his eye? Furthermore the Talmud (ibid.) notes the risks of inflicting damage on the assailant could lead to excessive pain or even death depending upon strength of the assailant. The Torah warns against taking revenge or bearing a grudge (Leviticus 19:18). Rather one must show love as the verse states, “You shall neither take revenge nor bear a grudge against … your people. You shall love your fellow as yourself. I am Hashem (who created all peoples).” However the victim may seek legal recourse for damages as explained above. Even in the case of lashes, administered by a duly authorized court with a trial and witnesses, the risk is reduced because the court can halt the lashes if the accused becomes faint.   

The Aruch Hashulchan (Chosen Mishpat 420) adds the following proofs from verses in scripture:   

• Similar payments (ibid. 5) – Since the Torah (Exodus 21:19) specifies monetary payments for medical treatment and temporary loss of employment it is reasonable to assume that compensation for the other damages is also monetary.
• Similar laws (Ibid. 6) – If an owner strikes his Canaanite servant and damages his eye or knock out his tooth then the servant goes free and the assailant does not suffer bodily damage. The freedom of the servant is equivalent to monetary compensation because a servant typically earns his freedom trough a payment to his master (Kiddushin 22b).     
• Pleasantness (ibid. 7) – As mentioned above, the penalty for injury cannot be literal (i.e. eye for an eye) because the ways of Torah are pleasant and not vindictive based upon Proverbs 3:17. The verse follows, “Its (the Torah’s) ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace “.  

Analysis

Five Payments

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b) lists the different categories of damage which the assailant must pay after an assessment by the court. The following table cites these categories in the order of the Mishna in Hebrew, English, with a supporting verse from the Torah.  

Hebrew	English	Verse
נזק	Permanent damage	Exodus 21:24
צער	Pain	ibid. 25
רפוי	Medical treatment	ibid. 19
שבת	Temporary loss of employment	ibid. 19
בשת	Embarrassment	Deuteronomy  25:11

In the continuation of the article the author will discuss each of these categories in detail quoting relevant verses from scripture, continuing with the interpretation of the Talmud, and codification of the Halacha by Maimonides and Shulchan Aruch. In addition to the development of the Halacha the author will show both the depth and fairness of Halacha taking into account the suffering of the injured party and the extent of the liability of the assailant.     

Scripture

Permanent Damage – נזק

Although the Torah (Exodus 21:24) writes, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot” the method of payment is not specified.

Pain – צער

The Torah (Exodus 21:25), writes, “A burn (כויה) for a burn, a wound (פצע) for a wound, a bruise (חבורה) for a bruise”, meaning that the assailant must compensate the victim for pain he endured. If there is loss of limb the assailant must also pay for permanent damage. Rashi (ibid.) explains some of these injuries based upon other verses in scripture as:

• Burn – based upon Leviticus 13:24 where a skin affliction develops after a burn.
• Wound – a wound that bleeds.
• Bruise – a blow in which blood collects below the surface of the skin resulting in a patch of red skin. The word חבורה is similar to that of Jeremiah 13:23 “Can a leopard change its spots (חברברתיו)?”  

Medical Treatment – רפוי

The Torah (Exodus 21:19) cites payment for medical care after a quarrel. The verse follows, “If he gets up and walks about (after the quarrel) … the assailant shall be cleared (from murder). Rather he shall pay for temporary unemployment and medical care.”

Temporary Loss of Employment – שבת

The assailant must also compensate the victim for temporary loss of employment until recovery as cited in the above verse.

Embarrassment – בשת

The assailant must also compensate the victim for public embarrassment he suffered based upon Deuteronomy 25:11-12. The verses follow, “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them approaches to rescue her husband from his assailant and stretches out her hand and grabs hold of his private parts. You (court) shall cut off her hand.” The Talmud interprets the “cutting of the hands” as a monetary payment for embarrassment.      

Talmud

Although the Torah does not specify the details of the payment the Talmud provides the underlying rationale for assessing payment as follows for each category of injury.

Permanent Damage – נזק

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b) assesses compensation for permanent damage (e.g. loss of arm or leg) as the reduction in wages of future employment over the victim’s lifetime. Specifically the Talmud (ibid.), quoting the Mishna, questions, “How is payment for permanent damage assessed?” The Talmud answers, “The court views the injured party as though he were a slave being sold in the slave market and appraises how much he was worth before the injury and how much after the injury.” One must pay the difference between these two amounts.”

The reader may ask, “What is the assessment if the injured party has a different profession other than a slave. The Rosh (Bava Kamma 8:1) explains that the assessment as a slave is the default base. If the victim has a different profession then he is awarded compensation according to his previous employment. 

Pain – צער

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b) quoting the Mishna asks, “How is payment for pain assessed where other payments are not involved?” The Talmud (ibid) initially answers that the court evaluates how much a person with a similar threshold for pain as the victim is willing to receive in order to bear this pain. The assailant pays this amount.

The Talmud (ibid. 85a) questions the fairness of this assessment because a person may demand an exorbitant amount of money to endure pain. Rather the Talmud reasons that fair compensation is how much a person would pay to avoid pain. For example the amount a person would pay for an anesthetic before an operation. In this manner the assailant pays a much smaller amount. The initial amount (i.e. enduring pain) reflects the principle of reciprocity, “burn for a burn”. However the payment must be reasonable for the assailant based upon Proverbs 3:17, “Its (the Torah’s) ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace “.

Medical Care –  רפוי  

Although the Torah refers to medical care after a quarrel the Talmud (Bava Kamma 85a) understands that the assailant must pay after any injury in which he is responsible. This payment includes the fees of the doctor or any medical practitioner as well as medication.  

Temporary Loss of Employment – שבת

Although the Torah refers to temporary loss of employment after a quarrel, the Talmud (Bava Kamma 85a) understands that the assailant must pay after any injury in which he is responsible.  This payment compensates the victim for loss of income during his recovery, based upon his profession after recovery. The payment for permanent damage (נזק) covers the loss of income for his lifetime. Hence the amount of compensation for temporary loss of employment depends upon the degree of injury after recovery (viz. minor – maintains profession or major- new profession).    

Embarrassment – בשת

Although the Torah does not explicitly cite a verse for embarrassment the Talmud (Bava Kamma 86a) derives this liability from Deuteronomy 25:11-12, “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them approaches to rescue her husband from his assailant and stretches out her hand and grabs hold of his private parts. You (court) shall cut off her hand.” The Talmud interprets the “cutting of the hands” as a monetary payment for embarrassment.     

Similar to the Talmud, Rashi, quoting the Sifre on this verse, explains that monetary compensation is implied. He cites a verbal analogy (2^nd of the 13 principles of Torah interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael). In reference to scheming witnesses the Torah (ibid. 19:21) states that the court must apply the same punishment that they had intended for the court to apply to the victim will be applied to them if they are disproven. In both verses the Torah writes, “Do not have pity – לא תחוס”. Just as in the latter verse monetary compensation is implied because the Torah (ibid.) states, “An eye for an eye” so too in the case of embarrassment.        

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b) states that this payment depends upon the status of the person who embarrasses and the victim.  The embarrassment from a low person is greater than that from an honourable person and therefore he must pay a larger amount than the latter. Similarly the payment for a distinguished person who is embarrassed is greater than of a regular person. The Rosh (Bava Kamma 8:7) limits the payment for an honourable (i.e. wealthy) person to one who was previously wealthy to reduce the liability of the assailant.  

Summary of Payments

The Talmud provides a framework for these 5 payments as summarized in the following table which list the categories of damages in Hebrew and English with the underlying consideration for payment.

Hebrew	English	Payment
נזק	Permanent damage	Permanent loss of income
צער	Pain	Avoidance of pain
רפוי	Medical treatment	Treatment and medication
שבת	Temporary loss of employment	Temporary loss of income
בשת	Embarrassment	According to status

Shulchan Aruch

The Talmud provides the rationale and many considerations for these payments. The Shulchan Aruch (Chosen Mishpat 420), as a code of law, provides details for these payments and rules about disputes in the Talmud. The following table lists the type of payment in Hebrew and English with associated paragraph in the Shulchan Aruch.  

Hebrew	English	Shulchan Aruch – Paragraph
נזק	Permanent damage	15
צער	Pain	16
רפוי	Medical treatment	18
שבת	Temporary loss of employment	17
בשת	Embarrassment	24

Permanent Damage – נזק

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 15), following the Talmud, only allows compensation for loss of income due to injury. However unlike settlements of secular courts, there is no compensation for a decrease in quality of life and psychological impacts of the injury (e.g. depression or trauma). For example if a person suffered a leg injury and could not participate in amateur sports as before he would not receive compensation for a decrease in quality of life. 

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) and associated commentaries rule that the assessment depends upon the profession of the victim as follows:

• If loss of permanent wages for the victim in his profession exceeds that of a slave then he is awarded a settlement according to his profession (e.g. a jeweler who suffered a hand injury) – Rema (ibid.). The victim must bring proof of his profession and wages to claim this larger amount.
• If loss of permanent wages of a slave exceeds that of the injured party’s current profession (e.g. a jeweler who suffered a leg injury) then he is awarded a settlement according to the former because he may change professions (Meirat Einayim commentator on the Shulchan Aruch ibid. 17).

The Shulchan Aruch rules that a lump sum payment for loss of income is a direct assessment and does not consider a potential increase in wages due to promotions and expected inflation.  

Pain – צער

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 16) rules that the assailant compensates the victim according to the amount that the latter would pay to avoid pain. Maimonides (Laws of Damages 2:9) adds that the court considers the nature of the victim. For example a sensitive or delicate person would be awarded a larger settlement than a heavy labourer.     

Medical Care – רפוי     

The Shulchan Aruch lists a number of considerations for medical payments as follows:   

• The court estimates the duration of recovery and expenses per day to obtain a lump sum which the assailant must pay up front. If the injured party recovered earlier or later than the estimate the initial payment remains (ibid. 18).     
• The assailant can opt for a daily payment at his discretion. However if recovery from the injury is longer than expected the assailant is liable until recovery (ibid. 19). If the injured party did not follow the doctor’s instructions and the recovery was longer then the assailant is not liable for this extension (ibid. 20).  
• If the assailant offers to treat the victim himself or suggests a doctor who works for free (e.g. a relative of the assailant) the victim has the right to reject both offers (ibid. 21). The Talmud (Bava Kamma 85a) explains that the victim may be uncomfortable with the victim treating him. In the language of the Talmud the victim considers the assailant as an ambushing lion. In reference to a doctor who works for free the victim may say, “A doctor who works for nothing is worth nothing”. The Rosh (on the Mishna) explains even if the doctor is qualified he may not treat the victim conscientiously without remuneration. The same applies if the doctor is willing to accept a reduced fee.
• If the assailant offers an out of town doctor who will accept a lower fee, the victim may refuse this offer. This doctor may not be conscientious because his reputation is not affected as when he is local (ibid. 22).        
• By contrast, if the victim says to the assailant “Give me the payment and I will make the arrangements by myself.”  The assailant may refuse this offer and claim that the victim may not handle the matter properly and later blame the assailant giving the latter a bad reputation (ibid. 23). 

Temporary Loss of Employment – שבת

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 17) lists a number of considerations for temporary loss of employment on a per day basis as follows:

• If the victim will return to his previous employment (e.g. temporarily bed ridden or swelling of hand or foot) then he receives payment according to this employment.
• If the victim will not return to his previous employment (i.e. loss of hand or foot) then he receives payment according to his new reduced income.   
• The daily payment must be reduced somewhat because the victim is not working and therefore can enjoy to a limited extent his time off from work. This reduction is based upon what a person would accept to refrain from work and depends upon how strenuous is the work.

Embarrassment-  בשת

The Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 24), following the Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b), rules that this payment depends upon the status of the person who embarrasses and the victim as discussed above.       

In addition the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 38) rules that payment for embarrassment does not include insults or even spitting on the victim’s clothes. Rather the embarrassment must be on the victim’s person. However the court (ibid.) is authorized to assign fines for lesser forms of embarrassment (e.g. insults).   

The author has included the following appendices to provide additional discussion about these payments:

1. Appendix 1 examines the degree of liability to these 5 payments based upon the nature of the injury whether intentional, negligent, avoidable, and unavoidable.
2. Appendix 2 considers different combinations of payments (i.e. 1 to 5) depending upon the nature of the injury.  
3. Appendix 3 analyzes the power of present day rabbinical courts to assign damages to an injured party.    

Method of Payment

In addition to detailing the individual 5 payments the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 420) adds the following considerations for the method of payment:

• ibid. 27 – After the court renders judgment the assailant must immediately pay the victim for all of the payments except embarrassment. The latter payment may be delayed because he did not damage the victim monetarily. The Gaon of Vilna (note 13) remarks that payment for an injury only involving pain may similarly be delayed because it does not involve a monetary loss.  
• ibid. 28 – To discourage fraudulent claims the court must assess if the assailant actually caused the injury that the victim claims. For example if the victim claims that the assailant threw a stone at him he must bring the stone to the court. In addition at least two witnesses must see the injury and testify before the court. If the victim lost the stone and claims that the stone was large enough to inflict damage then the victim takes an oath before the court and collects payment.    
• ibid. 33 – If the victim claims that the assailant made him blind or deaf the court does not accept his claim without proof. For example the court must check the victim over several days to determine his actual condition.     

In addition to payment the assailant must sincerely ask forgiveness from the victim. In turn the victim should not be cruel and accept the apology (ibid. 422:1).    

Conclusion

This article discussed the biblical citation, “An eye for an eye” and showed that this statement is not literal because the ways of Torah are pleasant and not vindictive based upon Proverbs 3:17. The verse follows, “Its (the Torah’s) ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace “.  

Rather the Talmud proves that the assailant must pay the victim for 5 types of damages inflicted. The author traced these damages through scripture, Talmud, and Shulchan Aruch and showed both the depth and fairness of Halacha taking into account the suffering of the injured party and the extent of the liability of the assailant.   

Appendix 1 – Liability

The degree of liability depends upon assailant’s culpability as shown in the following table based upon Talmud (ibid. 26a-b) and Shulchan Aruch 421:3. This table includes the name of the compensation in Hebrew and English with respect to culpability ranging from intentional (5 forms of compensation), negligence (4 forms), without negligence but avoidable (1 form), and unavoidable mishap (exempt).

Hebrew	English	Intentional	Negligent	Avoidable	Unavoidable
נזק	Permanent	√	√	√	X
צער	Pain	√	√	X	X
רפוי	Medical	√	√	X	X
שבת	Temporary	√	√	X	X
בשת	Embarrassment	√	X	X	X

Although the Torah does not clearly define these different levels of liability state the Talmud (ibid. b) derives these levels from scripture as follows.

In addition the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 421:5) rules that if two people willingly engage in a fight (e.g. for sport),  then neither party can sue for damages because they entered this fight willingly and forfeit any claims.

Permanent Damage – נזק

The Talmud (ibid. 26b) notes an apparent redundancy in the Torah. The Torah (Exodus 21:25) states “A wound for a wound” and also writes (Leviticus 24:19) “A man who inflicts an injury upon his fellow man; just as he did so shall be done to him.” Since a wound is also an injury the former verse teaches that one is liable for injury even when the assailant acted without negligence or the injury was avoidable.

Pain (צער), Medical Care (רפוי), and Temporary Loss of Employment (שבת)  

The Torah (Exodus 21:18-19) writes, “If men quarrel and one strikes another with a stone or with a fist … the assailant shall pay for temporary loss of employment and medical expenses.” This implies that these liabilities apply when the assailant acted with intention. Similarly the verse indicating liability for pain (ibid. 25) follows a verse (ibid. 22) which speaks of men quarreling.  The Talmud (ibid. 27a) explains that for these liabilities negligence is equivalent to intentional injury.

Embarrassment – בשת

Liability for embarrassment only applies when the injury was intentional based upon Deuteronomy 25:11-12,”If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them approaches to rescue her husband from his assailant and stretches out her hand and grabs hold of his private parts. You (court) shall cut off her hand.” The Talmud (ibid. 86a) interprets the stretching of the hand as intent to embarrass. 

Scenarios

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 27a) provides scenarios for all of the above cases involving a person who falls off a roof and causes injury to another. (In Talmudic times houses had flat rooms which were used for living space and storage.) The author has listed the cases in increasing level of liability depending upon the strength of the wind that led to his fall. 

1. Unavoidable (0 payments) – If a person fell as a result of a totally unexpected wind he is not liable because this accident was unavoidable. In the words of Halacha this is termed   אונס גמור. In secular law the term may be “exemption by an irresistible force”.
2. Avoidable (1 type of payment) – If a person fell as a result of an unusual, but not totally unexpected wind, then he is only liable for permanent damage because a person is responsible for permanent injury unless unavoidable.
3. Negligent (4 types of payments) – If a person fell as a result of a normal wind then he is liable for 4 forms of compensation because he was negligent but did not intend to injure.
4. Intentional (5 types of payments) –  If a man fell as a result of a normal wind and intentionally landed on a women to soften the fall then he is liable for all 5 types of payment.  Although he did not intend to embarrass he is liable because he intended to soften the fall.        

Appendix 2 – Combinations    

An assailant may be liable for any of these 5 payments depending upon the injury sustained. As an example the Shulchan Aruch (Chosen Mishpat 420) lists different injuries where the assailant must pay from 1 to 5 payments as follows:

1. 1 payment – The assailant hit a person in the face with a hand or shaved his head (ibid. 8 and 12 respectively – embarrassment only), burned him with no other injuries (ibid. 9 – pain), applied a lotion which only changed the appearance of the victim’s skin in a place where it not visible (ibid. 10 – medical care), or forced the victim into a room and the locked the room (ibid. 11 – temporary loss of employment).
2. 2 payments – The assailant hit the victim in a place which is not exposed which requires medical attention (ibid. 7 – medical expense and pain).
3. 3 payments – The assailant hit a person in the head which caused swelling but no affect on employment (ibid. 6 – pain, medical attention, and embarrassment). 
4. 4 payments – The assailant hit a person on his hand which caused swelling resulting in temporary loss of employment and the other 3 payments listed in the previous case (ibid. 5 – pain, medical attention, temporary loss of employment and embarrassment.)     
5. 5 payments – The assailant cut off or permanently injured a person’s hand resulting in permanent reduction in wages and in addition to the 4 payments listed in the previous case (ibid. 4 – permanent damage, pain, medical attention, temporary loss of employment and embarrassment.)

Although there are other possibilities for different amounts of payments the author has selected examples from the Shulchan Aruch for ease of reference. In addition these examples illustrate the great detail of Halacha in establishing law.         

The Aruch Hashulchan (ibid. 420:10) similarly provides examples of 1 to 5 payments where the assailant burned the victim. For example the assailant would pay for pain and embarrassment when the injury is visible. 

Appendix 3 – Judicial Authority

The Talmud (ibid. 84a-b) states that compensation for injury to a person caused by another person cannot be collected outside of Israel at that time. The Talmud (ibid.) explains that the Torah uses the word – -א-להים for judges in Exodus 22:8, “For every item of liability … both parties shall come to the judges (for litigation).” The term א-להים refers to expert judges who were ordained in Israel as an unbroken chain of ordination from the time of Moses. Although the above verse refers to a theft, the Talmud (ibid. b) extends the requirement of expert judges to the laws of damages because they are included in the same section of the Torah.   

Towards the end of the Talmudic era this chain was broken and therefore it appears that there is no recourse through a rabbinic court. However the Talmud (ibid.) explains that current rabbinic courts act as agents of the earlier ordained and may adjudicate cases which meet the following requirements:

• Monetary claim (not a fine from the Torah).
• Commonplace occurrence.
• Direct monetary loss.  

Monetary Claim

A monetary settlement is not a fixed amount and depends upon the case (e.g. bodily injury). By contrast the Torah imposes fixed fines for certain damages independent of the actual loss (e.g. an ox kills a Canaanite slave – Exodus 21:32). Hence all 5 forms of compensation for injury are monetary claims.

Commonplace Occurrence

The case must be a commonplace occurrence. The Talmud (ibid.) states that bodily injury caused by a person is not as common as other damages. However the commentators on the Talmud dispute the extent of this statement. Maimonides (Laws of Sanhedrin 5:10) rules that injury involving compensation for medical expenses and temporary loss of work is common and therefore may be handled by the courts at present. By contrast the Rosh (Bava Kamma 8:2) rules that all forms of bodily injury are uncommon and therefore compensation for medical expenses and temporary loss of work are not handled by the courts at present.       

Direct Monetary Loss

Although embarrassment is a common occurrence the courts do not handle this case because it does not involve direct monetary loss. The same applies for compensation for pain.

Summary

The following table summarizes the type of injury whether common occurrence or direct monetary loss.  This table includes the name of the compensation in Hebrew and English and whether the injury is commonplace and involves direct monetary loss.

Hebrew	English	Common	Direct
נזק	Permanent	X	√
צער	Pain	X	X
רפוי	Medical	Dispute	√
שבת	Temporary	Dispute	√
בשת	Embarrassment	√	X

The Shulchan Aruch (Chosen Mishpat 1:2) rules that rabbinic courts at present do not adjudicate case of bodily injury involving permanent damage, pain, or embarrassment. The author of the Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Maimonides and rules that settlement involving medical expenses and temporary loss of employment are handled by rabbinic courts. By contrast the Rema follows the opinion of the Rosh and rules that even these cases are not handled by rabbinic courts.  

Recourse

Despite these limitations the victim has recourse through:   

• Seizure of property – The victim may seize property of the assailant as compensation for damages. However since courts cannot adjudicate these cases the victim cannot ask the court for an amount to seize. Rather he seizes property according to his assessment. In turn the assailant may approach the court for a settlement if he feels that the victim has seized too much.     
• Excommunication – The court has the right to excommunicate the assailant if he does not agree to settle with the victim (ibid. 1:5).  
• Emergency legislation – The court has the right to judge the assailant for all 5 forms of compensation if they deem that the he is a menace to society and will persist in injuring others. In extreme cases the court has the authority to imprison (ibid. 2:1).      
• Moral suasion – Although the assailant cannot be sued in court he is nevertheless not exempt from payment. Rather he is morally obligated to compensate the victim for damages in the language of Halacha, “To fulfill the law of heaven.” Hence the court may pressure the assailant to appease the victim for an out of court settlement (ibid. 1:2).