דההוא גרגותא דבי תרי דכל יומא הוה דלי חד מנייהו אתא חד קא דלי ביומא דלא דיליה א"ל יומא דידי הוא לא אשגח ביה שקל פנדא דמרא מחייה א"ל מאה פנדי בפנדא למחייה אפילו למ"ד לא עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה במקום פסידא עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה
There was a certain cistern belonging to two people whose arrangement was to alternate its use so that every day one of them would draw from it in turn. It happened that one of them came and was drawing water on a day that was not his turn. His co-owner said to him: This is my day to draw, not yours. His colleague did not pay attention to him. The person whose turn it was therefore took the handle of a hoe and struck the person who was stealing his water, who then sued for damages. Rav Naḥman said to him: In that case, he was right to do so, and he should have hit him even a hundred times with the hoe. Even according to the one who says that a person may not take justice into his own hands but should go to court, in a case where there would be a loss involved if no immediate action is taken, a person may take justice into his own hands.
This is as it was stated, that Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Naḥman says: A person may take justice into his own hands.
Where there is an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Naḥman says that a person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully, as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before the judge to have him enforce the law.
a. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear: It is stated : With regard to an ox that climbed on the back of another ox to kill it, and the owner of the ox on the bottom came and removed his ox, and the ox on top consequently fell and died, the owner of the ox on the bottom is exempt from paying for the dead ox.
b. Isn't this rule stated with regard to a case where the attacker is a forewarned ox, where there is no loss to the owner of the bottom ox, since even if the owner of the ox on the bottom does not remove his ox, he will eventually receive full restitution from the owner of the belligerent ox? Yet he is exempt from paying restitution for causing the death of the belligerent ox. Evidently, he had the right to take justice into his own hands!
c. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the ruling is with regard to a case where the attacker is an innocuous ox, where there is a loss for the owner of the ox on the bottom if he does not save it, since the owner of an innocuous ox pays for only half the damages resulting from his ox’s attack.
d. The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that same statement: If, instead of removing his own ox, the owner of the ox on the bottom pushed the one on top and it died, he is liable. And if it is referring to an innocuous ox, why is he liable? He is defending his property so as not to incur a loss. The Gemara answers: He is liable because he should have removed his ox from underneath the belligerent ox, and he did not remove it.
ובמקום דאיכא פסידא אפילו רב יהודה מודה דעביד איניש דינא לנפשיה ואפי' הכי כיון דיכול להציל שור בשמיטה ודחפו לעליון ומת חייב.
In an instance where there is a loss, even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that you may take the law into your own hands. But nevertheless, where one might save the ox with removal of the bottom one, and they chose to instead push off the top ox, then the pusher would be obligated to pay.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.
For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, 89
I looked out on the street. That was where I saw white parents pushing double-wide strollers down gentrifying Harlem boulevards in T-shirts and jogging shorts. Or I saw them lost in conversation with each other, mother and father, while their sons commanded entire sidewalks with their tricycles. The galaxy belonged to them,
(יב) יֵשׁ לְאָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת דִּין לְעַצְמוֹ אִם יֵשׁ בְּיָדוֹ כֹּחַ הוֹאִיל וְכַדָּת וְכַהֲלָכָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִטְרֹחַ וְלָבוֹא לְבֵית דִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד בִּנְכָסָיו אִלּוּ נִתְאַחֵר וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין.
One may take the law into his own hands, if he has the power to do so. Since he acts according to the law, he is not obligated to take the trouble of coming to court, even if no material loss would result if he were to postpone action and come to court.