Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the halakhic distinctions of an Ox that was set aside for a Shelamim sacrifice and gores another ox.  This is a technically complicated legal discussion, but please bear with me, as it will lead to an interesting moral and psychological observation. 

Since according to one opinion, the Shelamim sacrifice is considered to be still a possession of the owner, and when a regular ox gores, half the damages is paid out of the value of the damaging ox, then half of the damage must come from the ox that gored.  However, since the fats belong to the altar, part of the Shelamim is owned by Hekdesh (the Temple) and not by the owner. Therefore, the Gemara contemplates if the owner of the offending ox can claim shared liability, since he is a co-owner of the ox with Hekdesh, and only pay half of the half.  Rabbi Nassan is known to have the opinion that when there is a claim against two damaging agents, such as when an ox pushes another ox into a pit, each owner of the damaging party is fully responsible (pit and goring ox). Thus if one cannot pay, the other is liable for the full amount. (The goring ox is liable only up to its worth, but the owner of the pit is liable for the full value of the dead animal.  Thus, according to Rabbi Nassan’s principle of complete liability to both parties, much more than 50% of the payment may fall upon the owner of the pit.) Here too, should the owner of the ox be fully liable since Hekdesh is never liable for goring (an ox fully owned by Hekdesh never pays for damages by special rule), and the half damage comes out of the full value of the flesh which belongs to the owner, or only half of the half, since the fats are part of the animal and share the liability but Hekdesh does not pay. The Gemara suggests that since it is one body of the ox, even Rabbi Nassan will agree that one cannot argue the body of the animal did it without the involvement of the fats. Thus, half of the half-damages is on the owner of the ox to pay, and the other half of the half is on Hekdesh (the fats portion of the animal) and is exempted from payment.  Ultimately, the Gemara says, it is one body and the entire body is held liable equally and uniformly, unlike an ox which pushes an ox into a pit, where the owner of the pushing ox and the owner of the pit share full liability. Since there are separate bodies, if the ox doesn’t cover the value, all of it will fall on the owner of the pit and not just 50%.

This got me thinking about how we often split our sense of liability when we get angry or commit indiscretions.  We like to say, “You made me do it”, or “the devil made me do it”.  Even the Gemara (Sotah 3a) tells us:

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין אָדָם עוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְנַס בּוֹ רוּחַ שְׁטוּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ״, ״תִּשְׁטֶה״ כְּתִיב. 

Reish Lakish says: A man commits a transgression only if a spirit of folly [shetut] enters him, as it is stated: “If any man’s wife goes aside [tisteh]” (Numbers 5:12). The word tisteh is written with the Hebrew letter shin, affording an alternative reading of tishteh, which is related to the term for folly, the word shetus.

This is indeed true psychologically, where we can become so possessed by an urge or impulse it feels as if an outside agent is compelling our behavior.  The ancients believed they can be possessed by an evil spirit or a demon.  Of course, we are so much smarter and “advanced” in the modern age, so we don’t believe in such things, (ha ha, don’t we?). We rename them as “chemical imbalances” or “addictions”, which are scientifically cloaked meaningless terms that are as unproven as voodoo. The bottom line is, we may at times find ourselves under the sway of the powerful forces of our personal demons. It may even be fair to say that this lightens our moral burden. But in the legal world, it is “all one body” and liability is shared. We might have certain excuses but we must make restitution to those whom we damaged.