Home
Up
About Us
Daily Minyan
Donate to ASBEE
Study Torah
ASBEE Family
Upcoming Events
Shul Events
Photos
Rabbi & Cantor
ASBEE Sisterhood
Youth
Where We Are
Jewish Memphis
Resources/Links
Inside ASBEE Bulletin

Boxing and Jewish Law

Boxing, like so many sports, is popular among Jews as well as the rest of the population.  But is it kosher to hit another person as a form of entertainment? Read on: 

Exodus II, 13: On the second day, and behold two people were fighting, so he said to the wicked one, why do you hit your friend.

Talmud Sanhedrin 58b: Resh Lakish says, one who lifts his hand against his friend, even though he did not hit him is called wicked (Rasha), as it says, and he said to the wicked one, why will you hit your friend. It does not say Why did you hit him, but why will you hit him, even though he did not hit him he is called a wicked one.

Code of Jewish Law, HM 34, 4: Rama: One who raises his hand to hit his fellow is disqualified for testimony according to Rabbinic Law.

Commentators: even though it is a Torah violation, since it is not punishable by lashes, he is not disqualified.

RAN (Rabbeinu Nissim, Sp. 14^th cent.): it may be an extension of stealing. What difference does it make if he damages his body or his money?

Rambam in counting the 613 mitzvot: we were commanded in the laws of hitting a friend or damaging his property.

Deut.:  40 lashes he should hit him, he should not add, lest he hit him more and cause a great wound…

Sefer Hachinuch: That we prevent the judge from hitting the sinner too much.. and this prohibition includes hitting  person. If this man who sinned we are commanded not to hit him certainly any other person.. The root of the matter is clear, for it is wrong to hit a creature.

Maimonides, Laws of WOUNDING AND DAMAGING

 CHAPTER 1

If one wounds another, he first pay compensation to him for five effects of the injury, namely, damages, pain, medical treatment, enforced idleness, arid humiliation. These live effects arc all payable from the injurer’s best property, as is the law for all who do wrongful damage.

CHAPTER V

1. One is forbidden to wound either himself  (note: This point is a matter of dispute among later commentaries) or another. Not only one who wounds another but even one who strikes a law-observing Israelite in the course of a quarrel, whether an adult or a minor, whether a man or a woman, transgresses a negative commandment contained  in the verse, He shall not exceed.. to smite him (Deut. 25: 3). For if Scripture here Warns against excess  in lashing an offender, how much more does this warning apply  to smiting of an innocent person.

2. It is forbidden even to lift a hand against another, and if one does lift a hand against another, he is deemed wicked even if he does not actually strike him.

3. If one gives another a blow which does not  injure him to the extent of a perutah,  he incurs flogging, for there it no compensa­tion in this case (to exempt him on the grounds) that the negative commandment is rectified by monetary compensation.

Maimonides, Laws of gifts to the poor X, 2: Anyone who is unmerciful and has no mercy, we have to wonder if he is Jewish….

Mishnah BK 93a:: If the plaintiff said: PUT OUT MY  eye.. on the understanding that he would be exempt, he WOULD still be liable. If  THE PLAINTIFF SaID: TEAr MY GARMENT ON the UndeRSTANDING THAT YOU WILL BE EXEMPT he WOULD be EXEMPT.

Gemarah: R.  Assi ben Hama said to Rabbah: Why the rule differing in the former one and in the latter case? —He replied: [There is liability  in] the former case because no man truly pardons the wounding of his principal limbs.  The other rejoined: Does a man then pardon the inflicting of pain, seeing that it was taught: ‘If the plaintiff had said, Smite me and wound me on the, the understanding that you will be exempt, the defendant would be exempt.’ He had no answer and said, Have you heard anything on this matter?-He thereupon said to him: this is what R. Shesheth has said The liability is because the plaintiff had  no right to pardon the discredit the family. It was similarly stated: R. Oshaiah said; Because of the discredit to the family, whereas Rabba said: Because no man could truly pardon the injury to his principal limbs. R. Yohanan however said: Sometimes the term yes, means no, and the term no means yes. It was also taught likewise; If the plaintiff said, smite me and wound me, and when the defendant interposed. ‘On the understanding of being exempt.’ the plaintiff replied. ‘Yes.’ there may be a ‘Yes’ which implies ‘No’. If the plaintiff said, ‘Tear my garments.’ and when the defendant interposed, ‘On the understanding of being exempt.’ he said to him, ‘No,’ there may be ‘No’ which  means ‘Yes.’

Rashi ad locum (Fr. 11^th cent.): Even in the case of injury, if he said no in way that sounds like yes, he is exempt.

Tosaphot (Fr. 12^th cent): In a case of principal limbs he never means to forgive  even if he says yes. In the case of damages, he probably means yes even if he says no, since he began by saying, tear my clothing.

Rosh (Ger, Sp. 13^th cent.): in the case of garments he means yes if he intimated a bit of irony, even if he says no.  

Tur, Rabbi Yaakov, son of the Rosh: A question was asked to my father and maseter, the Rosh, of blessed memory: Two were wrestling together and one knocked over the other to the ground and trampled on him and took out his eye. What is the law? Answer: It seems that he is exempt from the 5 things even thought we say that a person is always responsible, but when there is a mistake (with no way of knowing otherwise), he is exempt. As we studied in the Jerusalem Talmud, he was sleeping and his friend came and slept next to him, he is exempt in the damages of the second fellow. And we studied re. Two who ran in the public domain and hurt one another unintentionally they are exempt. And in our case that they wrestled one with another, it was by both  people’s consent that they hurt each other without intent, for it is known that those who wrestle, do so with the intent to knock the other over and it cannot be done precisely (without damage) and to intend that he will knock him down gently that he will not be hurt, for they are fighting with all their strength, and each tired to knock over his friend, and they waved the rights one to another and it was based on this that they wrestled together.

Minchat Hinuch (early modern commentary on the 613 commands): re. The Rosh, it is totally permitted to do so.

Chavot Yair: (early modern): re. Rosh, it is still forbidden to do this, but not punishable monetarily.

Conclusion: So the question of boxing in Jewish law is a matter of dispute. Some argue that hitting is always immoral, others arguing that it depends on the consent of the parties.