How is striking another with a shovel apropos even to a water feud? And how does R. Nachman answer that he might have struck him a hundred times? Even if it is a potential loss, to the litigant who wishes to act on his own behalf as a deputy of the legal authorities, I don't understand how a shovel blow refunds the loss. He still has no water. And, how one can say he had acted as the authorities would have prescribed, since there are no literal shovel-blows prescribed by Torah.
H. David Levine, Roanoke, VA; USA
Sholom Rav,
The Gemara is currently discussing the right of a person to take the law into his own hands to reclaim what is his beyond any shadow of doubt. And it is in this context that R. Nachman vindicated the defendant for having struck his friend (i.e. in order to stop him from drawing any more water), adding that, he would have been permitted to strike him even a hundred times had he not relented earlier (though not one stroke more than would have been necessary to achieve that goal).
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.