Shevus Yaakov: Teacher beats student from anger at his inattention - must he pay damages?

 Shevus Yaakov (3:140): Question: A teacher became angry at his student and he strongly beat him because of the student was not paying attention to his learning. Is the teacher required to pay for the 4 types of damages he inflicted or is he exempt? Answer: It would seem obvious that the teacher is exempt from having to pay any compensation. We see in the gemora Makkos that a father who kills his son unintentionally or a teacher who kills a student unintentionally or a messenger of beis din - are not punished with exile. This gemora explicity states that the exemption is because they are exempt because the unintended killing took place while they were involved in a mitzva. There is no basis of saying that one can't generalize from the exemption from exile to an exemption of the 4 types of damages - because it is a statute of the Torah.  Don't argue that you can't reason  that if they are exempt from capital punishment and exile then surely they are exempt from the 4 types of payment because we find in a number of places in the gemora that even though a person is exempt from exile he is obligated to pay. That is because this case is different since the gemora which provides an exemption is only when they were involved in doing a mitza as we see in Makkos (8a-b).Therefore that is the reason we should exempt the teacher from payment since he was involved in a mitzva as we see when a person is running erev Shabbos and causes damage since he was involved in a mitzva. So surely in the case of the teacher. Furthermore the gemora compares the three cases with each other and the messenger of the court is exempt even if he damages someone as we see in Choshen Mishpat in the Beis Yosef at the end of simon 8 and is brought in the Rema in Shulchan Aruch without any dissent...A teacher who is discipline a student because of this studies is exempt from all payments of damage. This is stated explicitly in the Termas HaDeshen (#218) that it is not only a person allowed to hit his son or his student but everyone person is allowed to hit anyone under his control if there is justification for hitting him to stop him from sinning. Furthermore he says there is no need to bring the sinner to beis din before hitting him. He learns this out from Bava Kama (28) he a freed slave can be beaten by his former master because he doesn't want to leave the woman he was given as a slave who is not prohibited to him. So if it is permitted to beat another person for this reason then surely it is permitted because the student is wasting time from Torah study. So even though the halacha is that a teacher can only hit a student with a small strap which doesn't cause serious harm - nevertheless bedieved the teacher should not be punished because he didn't comply with that condition. 

Don't think that I am not fully aware of what the Ranach (1:111) wrote concerning an agent of beis din who hit someone out of anger and he was required to pay. The case of a teacher is different since the gemora in Taanis (4a) says that a talmid chachom becomes angry because of the Torah. In particular it causes him greater anguish when he learns with a student who doesn't pay attention to his studies. Therefore the teacher should be exempt from all payment. However in order that the teacher should not become accustomed to beating his student because it is not nice for a talmid chachom to become enraged or to lack patience - for the sake of improving the situation (migder milsa) and to make sure he doesn't violate the halacha of not hitting with more than a small strap - I rule that he must pay for the docotr to cure the student...
 =============================
update 4/18/13 Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 424:17): There are those who say that a teacher who beats his students is exempt from paying for the damage done by the beating if it was done for the sake of teaching. A proof for this is that our Sages say that a person is exempt from exile when he kills unintentionally [Makkos 8a] while doing a mitza... such as a father who hits his son and a teacher who disciplines his student and an agent of beis din. According to this the case where the father is obligated to pay for beating his son or daughter is only when it is done without any intent for educating them - however if it is done for the welfare of the child then the father is exempt from payment. However there are those who disagree because a person is not allowed to give blows that cause bruises. This that the Torah exempts from exile in Makkos 8a is a statute of the Torah and it appears that the person died because of Heavenly Decree.  Since it is a dispute in the poskim the actual ruling depends on the details of each case according to the understanding of beis din.

פתחי תשובה חושן משפט סימן תכד:ד

(החובל בבניו כו' - עיין בתשובת שבות יעקב ח"ג סימן ק"מ אודות מלמד שכעס על תלמידו והכה אותו בשביל לימודו עד שחבל בו, אם חייב בד' דברים או פטור. והשיב, נראה פשוט דפטור מכולם כדאיתא במסכת מכות [ח' ע"א] מה חטיבת עצים רשות יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח ב"ד, ואין לומר דהיינו דפטור מגלות מגזה"כ אבל חייב בד' דברים, זה אינו, דהא מבואר שם בגמרא דאילו פטורים משום דמצוה קעביד, א"כ מה"ט יש לפטור מכולם כדאמרינן גבי רץ בערב שבת בין השמשות [ב"ק ל"ב ע"א]. ועוד, דהא הני תלתא מדמה הש"ס להדדי, ובשליח ב"ד פטור אפילו אם הזיקו כמבואר בב"י סוף סימן ח' ובהגהת שו"ע שם בלי חולק כו', וכן מבואר בתרומת הדשן סי' רי"ח [הובא לעיל סימן תכ"א סעיף י"ג בהגה] דלאו דוקא בנו ותלמידו אלא אפילו לכל אדם שכפוף תחת ידו ראוי להכותו להפרישו מן העבירה כו', וכ"ש בשביל ביטול תורה, אף על גב דקיי"ל דיש להכותו בערקתא דמסאני ולא באכזריות [כדאיתא בשו"ע יו"ד סימן רמ"ה סעיף י'], מ"מ דיעבד אין לקנסו בשביל כך. ואף דבתשובת הראנ"ח ח"א סי' קי"א כתב דבשליח ב"ד שהכה מפני כעס וחימה חייב [הביאו הכנה"ג לעיל סימן ח' [הגב"י סק"ג]], מ"מ בת"ח דאורייתא מרתחא ליה, בפרט שהוא צער גדול כשלומד עם התלמיד ואינו משים לב על לימודו, יש לפוטרו מכל, אבל מ"מ כדי שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן ולמיגדר מילתא פסקתי שישלם שכר הרופא, עכ"ד ע"ש. ולדבריו צ"ל דאלו הדינים שבסעיף זה בחובל בבניו מיירי שלא הכהו ליסרו, אולם בתשובת קרית חנה סי' כ"ב לא כתב כן [הבאתיו בקצרה בפ"ת ליו"ד סימן רמ"ה שם [סק"ד]], אלא דהכא מיירי אפילו במכהו ליסרו, ומה דאמרו יצא האב המכה את בנו כו' הוא רק דפטור מגלות, משא"כ לענין ד' דברים דאיתרבו שוגג כמזיד כו', והאריך בזה ע"ש וצ"ע: