No community start suggestion yet.
How does tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov relate to chov l'acheir? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov only applies when there is chov l'acheir, creating an irrevocable right that overcomes the lack of a makneh. The principle of migo d'zachai l'nafshei zachai nami l'acheirim provides the mechanism for direct acquisition, avoiding the chov l'acheir problem entirely.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Gittin 11b concerning the principles of tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov (benefit to a creditor) and chov l'acheir (acquiring a debt for another person). The discussion centers on how these concepts interact and what mechanisms allow for valid acquisitions in complex creditor-debtor scenarios. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position is carefully examined: he holds that tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov only applies in a case where there is chov l'acheir (makom she'yesh chov l'acheir). This follows Rav Yochanan's position in the Gemara (גמרא). The shiur distinguishes this from cases of metziah (found objects), where different principles apply because there is no chov l'acheir involved—someone simply loses an object and another finds it.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Gittin 11b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
