This skips the most basic point which is that it's assur to attack someone for causing one any of the avos nezikin, the category of self-defense just doesn't apply to shevet so the whole premise is bunk. Why would you write this needlessly incendiary article with a halakhic conclusion that no one agrees to and you don't even make an effort to defend? Blocking or protesting on a highway in Israel is illegal but it doesn't clearly fall into a category of nezek and doesn't make it mutar to attack another Torah-observant Jew Ch"V! Did your rabbis teach you this? "Therefore he should be allowed to defend himself" - is this your feeling or your opinion on the halakha? Even for a cut-and-dry case of nezek it's assur to attack someone even to stop ongoing financial damage. Also you just handwaive away the whole point which is that we pasken that this type of damage would be grama and so there is no true nezek going on in the first place! So on what possible basis would you permit one to attack another Jew on the basis of grama by protesting in a democracy (albeit in a disruptive way)? You say you're not giving psak halacha but then you say "he should be allowed to defend himself" meaning, I presume, that you would be okay with someone getting out of their car and beating a protestor until he's incapacitated? Is that correct?
Your intellectual acrobatics and false lomdus in the first part of the post mask a seriously disturbing conclusion which is that you are distorting halakha to permit damage to another Jew in a case where no heter applies. Do any poskim hold like you that you can attack another Jew for indirect financial damage caused by protest or are you simply trying to stir people to break Torah law because of your personal frustration? You should do teshuva and take this post down if you care about Torah and halakha. לֹא־תְקַלֵּ֣ל חֵרֵ֔שׁ וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל - you're directly leading people into a scenario where they could cause real nezek to someone in a way that is forbidden by Torah law.
Waoh! hold on there, Tommy boy! The fellow is just thinking out loud about how the sugya of sheves applies or doesn't apply to making someone late for work. I didn't get the feeling he was permitting any attack.
>>"Even for a cut-and-dry case of nezek it's assur to attack someone even to stop ongoing financial damage."<<
Are you so sure? There is a whole sugya in Bava Kamma 27b-28a called עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה which seems to allow the use of force to prevent financial loss.
Rav Ḥisda sent him in response: There is 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.
There is also the sugya of ממלא כדים ברשות הרבים in 27a
§ The mishna teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, he should examine the road and then continue walking.
The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to one who placed not just one barrel in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with barrels, blocking the path. Since the public domain belongs to everyone, a pedestrian is entitled to traverse the road even if it necessitates breaking the vessels.
This skips the most basic point which is that it's assur to attack someone for causing one any of the avos nezikin, the category of self-defense just doesn't apply to shevet so the whole premise is bunk. Why would you write this needlessly incendiary article with a halakhic conclusion that no one agrees to and you don't even make an effort to defend? Blocking or protesting on a highway in Israel is illegal but it doesn't clearly fall into a category of nezek and doesn't make it mutar to attack another Torah-observant Jew Ch"V! Did your rabbis teach you this? "Therefore he should be allowed to defend himself" - is this your feeling or your opinion on the halakha? Even for a cut-and-dry case of nezek it's assur to attack someone even to stop ongoing financial damage. Also you just handwaive away the whole point which is that we pasken that this type of damage would be grama and so there is no true nezek going on in the first place! So on what possible basis would you permit one to attack another Jew on the basis of grama by protesting in a democracy (albeit in a disruptive way)? You say you're not giving psak halacha but then you say "he should be allowed to defend himself" meaning, I presume, that you would be okay with someone getting out of their car and beating a protestor until he's incapacitated? Is that correct?
Your intellectual acrobatics and false lomdus in the first part of the post mask a seriously disturbing conclusion which is that you are distorting halakha to permit damage to another Jew in a case where no heter applies. Do any poskim hold like you that you can attack another Jew for indirect financial damage caused by protest or are you simply trying to stir people to break Torah law because of your personal frustration? You should do teshuva and take this post down if you care about Torah and halakha. לֹא־תְקַלֵּ֣ל חֵרֵ֔שׁ וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל - you're directly leading people into a scenario where they could cause real nezek to someone in a way that is forbidden by Torah law.
Waoh! hold on there, Tommy boy! The fellow is just thinking out loud about how the sugya of sheves applies or doesn't apply to making someone late for work. I didn't get the feeling he was permitting any attack.
>>"Even for a cut-and-dry case of nezek it's assur to attack someone even to stop ongoing financial damage."<<
Are you so sure? There is a whole sugya in Bava Kamma 27b-28a called עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה which seems to allow the use of force to prevent financial loss.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: דְּהָהוּא גַּרְגּוּתָא דְּבֵי תְרֵי, דְּכׇל יוֹמָא הֲוָה דָּלֵי חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ. אֲתָא חַד, קָא דָלֵי בְּיוֹמָא דְּלָא דִּילֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יוֹמָא דִּידִי הוּא! לָא אַשְׁגַּח בֵּיהּ. שְׁקַל פַּנְדָּא דְּמָרָא, מַחְיֵיהּ.
Rav Ḥisda sent him in response: There is 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְאָה פַּנְדֵי בְּפַנְדָּא לִמְחֲיֵיהּ! אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ; בִּמְקוֹם פְּסֵידָא – עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
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.
דְּאִתְּמַר, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
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.
הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּעָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא; רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא – לֵיזִיל קַמֵּיהּ דַּיָּינָא. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּכֵיוָן דִּבְדִין עָבֵיד – לָא טָרַח.
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.
There is also the sugya of ממלא כדים ברשות הרבים in 27a
וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ – פָּטוּר. אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי וּמֵיזַל!
§ The mishna teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, he should examine the road and then continue walking.
אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בִּמְמַלֵּא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כּוּלָּהּ חָבִיּוֹת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בַּאֲפֵילָה שָׁנוּ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית.
The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to one who placed not just one barrel in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with barrels, blocking the path. Since the public domain belongs to everyone, a pedestrian is entitled to traverse the road even if it necessitates breaking the vessels.