Bava Kamma, Chapter 8, Mishnah 6. The Mishnah before us lists fixed amounts - payments that the Beis Din imposes for certain actions.
"Hatokei'a lachaveiro nosein lo sela" - One who strikes his fellow gives him a sela:
"Hatokei'a lachaveiro" - One who strikes his fellow, and as Rashi explains: one who shouts in his ear or strikes his ear. His payment is a sela, which is four dinars, the largest of the coins. "Rabbi Yehudah omer mishum Rabbi Yosei HaGlili maneh" - Rabbi Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGlili, a maneh. In his opinion, the payment is a maneh, one hundred dinars, a much larger sum.
The Rishonim discussed the huge gap between the opinions - at least twenty-five times as much. In fact, the gap is more complex, as there are two types of coins based on the amount of silver in them: a provincial coin and a Tyrian coin, whose silver is of higher quality. There are those who want to say that Rabbi Yehudah is speaking of the higher quality coin, meaning the gap goes up to two hundred times the value. The halachah is ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah - a payment of a maneh, one hundred zuz; and the Rema assumes that it refers to a provincial coin, regular silver. In any case, this is a significant payment.
The Shulchan Aruch brings this law, and the poskim debate it: one who strikes his fellow, slaps him on the ear or shouts in his ear, and pays a maneh - is this the payment for embarrassment alone, or does it include all five payments? The Mechaber holds that the maneh includes all five, while the Rema rules according to the opinion that this is only the payment for embarrassment, and beyond it there are four other payments.
The amounts for embarrassment in the Mishnah:
"Satro - nosein lo masayim zuz" - If he slapped him, he gives him two hundred zuz. This is double the maneh. As a benchmark: two hundred zuz is the amount of a kesubah, which is roughly the living expenses for a year.
"Le'achar yado - nosein lo arba me'os zuz" - With the back of his hand, he gives him four hundred zuz. One who slaps his fellow with the back of his hand pays double. It seems that four hundred zuz is the maximum payment, and nothing is added to it, no matter how severe the insult and embarrassment may be.
The Mishnah lists additional cases that are all the same amount:
"Tzaram be'ozno" - He pulled on his fellow's ear, and some explain that he slit it.
"Talash bise'aro" - He tore and pulled on his hair.
"Rakak vehigi'a bo ruko" - He spat at his fellow and the spit touched his skin. But if it landed only on his clothes or on the floor, this is not included in injuring and a direct assault, but rather falls under damage caused by speech, and its law is different - it is also severe, but it is not one of the five payments.
"He'evir taliso mimenu" - He stripped off his outer layer of clothing, and all the more so if it was a lower layer that exposed his skin. Even so, despite the a fortiori argument, the payment does not exceed the ceiling of four hundred zuz.
"Para rosh ha'ishah bashuk" - He uncovered a woman's head in the open marketplace, in public, and humiliated her.
In all of these - "nosein arba me'os zuz" - he gives four hundred zuz: a fixed amount, like a maximum fine for someone who committed a highly humiliating act to his fellow.
"Zeh haklal: hakol lefi kevodo" - This is the rule: everything is according to his honor:
According to the Tanna Kamma, everything depends on who was embarrassed. The high amounts, up to four hundred zuz, were stated on the assumption that the person embarrassed is an honorable and distinguished person, and therefore suffered great and severe embarrassment and humiliation.
It is worth noting that nowadays people are not as sensitive to their honor in these matters: if someone were to pull his friend's tallis off him, it is doubtful it would be considered such a humiliating event. But in years past, it was. The Rema rules as halachah that one sitting in the synagogue who realizes his tallis is missing tzitzis - and by wearing it he is transgressing a Torah prohibition of wearing a four-cornered garment without tzitzis - since it is done passively, as a 'shev ve'al taaseh', by sitting rather than taking an active step, he is permitted to leave the tallis on and not remove it, so as not to be embarrassed in public. From here we see that people took their tallis very seriously, and having it removed in public was extremely humiliating. It is with this understanding that we must approach the Mishnah.
The Opinion of Rabbi Akiva - The Honor of Every Jew:
The Tanna Kamma thus holds that everything depends on the person, and these amounts are the upper limits. Rabbi Akiva said: "Afilu aniyim shebeyisrael ro'in osam ke'ilu hem bnei chorin sheyardu minichseihem, shehem bnei Avraham Yitzchak veYaakov" - Even the poorest of Jews, of the lowest status, is judged in these laws as a nobleman who lost his property, who is deserving of full honor. There is no difference between a wealthy Jew and a poor Jew, since all Jews are noblemen, direct descendants of the holy Patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Therefore, we cannot differentiate and say that some are more sensitive to embarrassment than others; each and every one is worthy of full honor.
"Maaseh be'echad shepara rosh ha'ishah bashuk":
The Mishnah brings an incident that occurred, illustrating Rabbi Akiva's approach. A man uncovered a woman's hair in public - he tore off her head covering in a public place, and she was humiliated. "Bas lifnei Rabbi Akiva vechiyvo litten lah arba me'os zuz" - She came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to give her four hundred zuz. The injurer said to him: "Rabbi, ten li zeman" - Grant me a short extension to arrange the payment, "venasan lo zeman" - and he gave him time.
It is a rule that we do not give time: once the court rules that a person owes money, he must pay immediately; and if he claims he does not have the money, the court seizes and sells his assets to collect the payment. An exception to the rule is a case where the victim did not incur a monetary loss or expense, and it is merely a type of fine - in which case the court is permitted to give the injurer time to organize the funds, rather than seizing his assets and forcing their sale. Such was the case here: the woman was humiliated in public by having her hair uncovered, but she did not lose money or incur an expense, and therefore the court has the authority to grant time to the one found liable in judgment.
The injurer sought to trap her. "Shamarah" - He waited for her, "amad al pesach chatzerah" - and when she stood at the entrance to her courtyard, "veshavar es hakad lefaneyha uvo ke'isar shemen" - he broke a jug of oil before her that contained a few perutos worth of oil. "Vegilsah es roshah vehaysah metapachas umanachas yadah al roshah" - The woman removed her head covering of her own free will, gathered the oil from the ground and placed it on her head, like one anointing with ointment, for she was poor and could not afford to buy oil. It turns out that this same woman, who was awarded four hundred zuz for being humiliated in public, uncovered her hair in public willingly.
"Vehe'emid lah edim uva lifnei Rabbi Akiva" - The injurer stationed two witnesses to testify about the incident in court, and they all came again before Rabbi Akiva. "Amar lo: Rabbi, lezo ani nosen arba me'os zuz?" - Must I pay four hundred zuz, a huge sum that could support her for about two years, for the humiliation of a woman who willingly uncovers her hair for oil worth a few perutos? It is entirely unreasonable.
"Amar lo: Lo amarta kelum":
Rabbi Akiva replied to him that he had proven nothing and said nothing with this incident, and reasoned with two examples:
"Hachovel be'atzmo, af al pi she'eino rashai - patur" - A person is forbidden to injure himself and inflict a blemish upon himself, and it is even a sin between him and the Omnipresent, since his body does not belong to him. We learn this from the nazir, who is considered as one who has sinned and brings a sin-offering for withholding wine from himself, how much more so one who intentionally harms his body. Nevertheless, one who does so to himself is exempt from any monetary liability. But, "acher shechaval bo - chayav" - someone else who injures that same person pays all five payments, and there is no difference.
"Hakotzetz neti'osav, af al pi she'eino rashai - patur" - And if you say that we cannot learn from one who injures himself, since physical pain is involved there, Rabbi Akiva added: One who has fruit trees in his courtyard and cuts them down transgresses the Torah prohibition of 'bal tashchis' (do not destroy), and this is the primary case of destruction, for which one even receives lashes with witnesses and forewarning. Still, one who cuts down his own plantings is exempt from payment, and the matter has no monetary consequences. But, "acherim shekatzetzu es neti'osav - chayavin" - aside from the sin of 'bal tashchis' in their hands, they must financially compensate the victim for the fruit trees that grew in his courtyard and were cut down.
From here to our matter: The woman is also not permitted to embarrass herself, and she must guard her honor; but when another forces the embarrassment upon her - he is obligated to pay.
In summary: It makes no difference that one who does an action to himself is exempt; when another person does it to him - he is liable. The same applies to humiliation, which Rabbi Akiva views largely as an objective matter: a Jew's dignity is not subject to his own discretion alone. One who wishes to waive his dignity - it is possible that he is permitted to do so, even though it is not the proper thing to do; however, one who forces his fellow into this, such as in this incident, the one who uncovered the woman's head - is guilty, and pays her full compensation like any Jewish woman who is publicly humiliated.