Wise regulations express the depth of Torah law

By: Nathan Kotler

background
The concept of 'immaterial damage' appears in two main places in the Shas. The first place is at the beginning of the first chapter of the Book of Common Law, in Rabbi Chiya's 24 Avot HaNzikin: "The one who defiles, the one who tears, and the one who tears" (4:2). These Avot HaNzikin are defined as 'immaterial damage'. What does this concept mean? "Immaterial damage is physical damage to an object. Immaterial damage is damage that is not physical, but halakhic. For example, applying the status of impurity to a pure thing" (Shiurei HaRa'al Bedina DeGarmi, p. 75).
The second place in the Shas is in Gittin (Neb. 2 ff.), where there appears a controversy and extensive discussion on the question, 'Is it from the Torah that the damage that is not apparent from the sky [=is it considered] the damage or not the damage from the sky?'
Hezekiah believes that the Torah is the source of the damage that is not apparent - the source of the damage. However, the Sages ruled that an accidental one would be exempt so that the harmful person would inform his friend that he had forbidden his fruits. After all, if he were liable, he would not inform his friend and eat something forbidden.
In contrast, Rabbi Yochanan believes that the Torah is the one who is not visible - not the one who is
Why is the Torah exempt from harm that is not apparent?
We have identified three methods based on the fact that according to Torah law, damage that is not apparent is not considered damage:
A. The damage is not clearly visible - when the damage is clearly visible, it is visible damage, but when the damage is not clearly visible, it is invisible damage (R"I's method in Tos' 22:2, 2, 5, and the debtor is liable for his liability).
B. The damage did not affect the body of the object - even if it occurred with an object that was impermissible or forbidden, since the body of the object was not damaged, therefore the damage that is not apparent does not constitute the damage (Rashi Gittin 55:1, i.e. the damage that is not apparent; Rambam 35:1).
C. Damage does not take into account a change in the halakhic status - damage that caused a change in the halakhic status of the object is not called damage because one should not confuse financial damage with spiritual damage (HaMeiri Gittin 4:2; Kontrasei Shiurim 1:16).
In an unnoticeable harm, he violates "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself"
We have seen that according to the law, damage that is not apparent does not constitute damage and therefore, according to the Torah, is exempt. However, the Sages established that one who intentionally causes damage will be liable, "so that no one goes and defiles the purity of his neighbor and says, 'I am exempt.'" We must clarify: Does the Sages' regulation completely uproot the law of the Torah, or does it express the depth of the will of the Torah?
Rav Kook proves that there is a Torah prohibition in the case of harm that is not apparent, which violates "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself." And how? Hillel the Elder told a Gentile who came to convert that the entire Torah is: What is hateful to you, you shall not do to your neighbor (Shabbat 30:1). If so, certainly no person would want to be harmed even in the case of harm that is not apparent, and therefore there is a Torah prohibition in this (Responsa Orach Mishpat, Ch. 36).
Therefore, the Sages' ruling that one will be liable for intentional harm is extremely precise and faithful to the spirit of Torah law, because in cases of damage that is not apparent, the intention of the harmer is most significant (Ravad Hovel and Mishik 7:4; and in his interpretations of the Rif Ketubot 44:2)