The one who infects his friend with the disease for the benefit

1. On the surface, it seems that this is harmful in rape, and the person who causes harm is liable (a person is forever liable). It is true that it can be argued that if that person had known, he would have wanted me to break his leg. But this is not true, since the true information is that there was no need for it, and therefore there is only an argument that if that person had (mistakenly) thought that there was a need for it, he would have agreed. But there is no point in claiming that there is agreement if that person was wrong. He was not wrong, and there is no point in discussing what he would have thought if he had been wrong. 2. Regarding the obligation in the divine law, we need to discuss a bit. The question is what is an obligation in the divine law. Simply put, it seems that the intention is a punishment for an offense. Here, there was good intention and it seems that there is simply no punishment for him. But the Meiri cited in the book of the collection from the author of the settlement that the obligation to pay damages is an obligation to pay damages, but it is not collected in the case of the Ba'al. He writes there that if he did not pay, he is a usurper. According to this, there is room to argue that there would be an obligation in the divine law, as we saw in the previous section in the case of human law. Although the Ba'al would have to disagree, since it is possible that the reason there is an obligation to pay in the divine law is a punitive obligation and he does not deserve punishment. 3. Good question. Ostensibly, the categorical order says no, but it makes sense to say yes. What would be the claim against him in the law of heaven? After all, he only prevented theft. They will argue against him that he violated the authority of the court, but that is not true. He smuggled assets and therefore did not pay, and he did not claim that he was not paying by force against the authority of the court. If so, the authority of the court was not violated, and neither was the truth. Therefore, it seems to me that it is permissible. This is a great slander for a bar and a shema to take out. According to the law, poskim say that a bar does not take out of a shema. Now the question arises whether the plaintiff who cannot take out of a bar can bring a lawsuit for himself. Of course, if he does so by force in the court, he will take out of it and return it to the defendant, but if he does it quietly (steals from the defendant), that is why the same question. And still, I'm confused about this.