Our Gemara on Amud Beis describes a distinction regarding a lung that is found to be shriveled. If it became shriveled due to natural causes, such as the animal was frightened from thunder or lightning, it is not a tereifa. However, if it became shriveled from fright caused by the hand of man, such as the animal saw someone slaughter another animal, it is tereifa.

Sefer Daf al Daf on our Gemara quotes the Chidushei Hari”m that this teaching supports a tradition we have that after losses from a fire, one becomes wealthy, but after losses from theft, it is not so.

If the spiritual mirrors the physical, and the physical mirrors the emotional, the same principle by the lungs and by physical loss (and its spiritual implications and/or fate) also applies to emotional trauma.

Studies indicate that when people experience interpersonal trauma, the incidence of PTSD symptoms is much higher compared to trauma caused by a natural disaster. In other words, trauma resulting from personal harm—such as being robbed or murdered—has a greater emotional impact than financial loss or death caused by a hurricane or other natural disaster.

There is another psychological/halachic application of this distinction between interpersonal and non-personal trauma. The rule by (eidim zommemim) conspiring false witnesses is that if they are caught after the court rules against the defendant, they must pay the amount that they would have cost the defendant, even though the defendant never had to pay it because their testimony is proven false before he paid.

Sefer Yereim (168) raises an intriguing question. He notes that there is an assumption that the payment is made to the intended victims. Yet, since it’s not fully proven that the witnesses were false, and there is even an opinion in the Gemara (Makkos 2b) that payment is a penalty (fine) rather than actual reimbursement, there are implications. If the witnesses preemptively confess their sin, there would be no liability. If so, this really shouldn’t be restitution to the victim because it’s a fine and usually fines go to the court. Returning to Sefer Yereim’s question, where is the scriptural source or indication that the payment should go to the victims, especially in a case where the victim never lost out on anything?

Sefer Daf al Daf (Sanhedrin 27) quotes Rav Yisrael Salanter, who offers a psychological answer. Since the verse tells us to inflict upon the conspiring witnesses the same fate they plotted for the victim (Devarim 19:19), Rav Yisrael Salanter explains that they must suffer in the same way as the victim would have. He elaborates: It is a different feeling to make a payment to a court of law—though frustrating, it is still an impersonal transaction. On the other hand, to fully create the same sense that the victim experienced, who was deceitfully forced to give his hard-earned money to another person, who had been gloating in their cruel and manipulative behavior, is a different degree of pain and defeat. Since this is the pain the victim would have suffered, it is essential to do the same to the conspiring witnesses. This is why the payment must go to the victim and not to the court, as in an ordinary fine.

This too is an example where interpersonal betrayals and trauma are more severe.

Research reveals that the overall rate of PTSD is 15.9%, with variation depending on the type of trauma and gender. Boys exposed to non-interpersonal trauma are at the lowest risk (8.4%), while girls exposed to interpersonal trauma show the highest rate (32.9%) (Source: Alisic, E., Zalta, A. K., van Wesel, F., Larsen, S. E., Hafstad, G. S., Hassanpour, K., & Smid, G. E. (2014). Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed children and adolescents: meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204, 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.131227).

We may theorize that trauma disrupts a person’s sense of safety. When it comes from an interpersonal, malicious force, the pain is greater because it makes the world feel like a mean and unsafe place. On the other hand, natural disasters can be rationalized as impersonal events. For religious individuals who believe in a compassionate God, there is comfort in knowing that their prayers and/or repentance can have an effect on the future. However, when someone experiences interpersonal cruelty, it is much harder to restore a sense of safety. Disruptions in the environment, especially those perceived as originating from hostility, lead to a greater lack of safety and relational disruption. Even natural disasters can be interpreted by someone with a relational perspective as a personal punishment from God, leading to fear and insecurity.

One final note: Why do the boys, percentage wise, suffer least from non-interpersonal trauma, and to the contrary, girls, percentage wise, suffer most from interpersonal trauma seems to fit well with classic gender differences. Men are more aggressive and thus the shame and humiliation of victimhood is greatly increased when it is interpersonal as opposed to an insurmountable natural disaster, leading to more internalized trauma. And women who value interpersonal relations and connections more will suffer rejection and betrayal more by a personally inflicted source of trauma.