A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When returning a lost object, are you the employee of the owner or of Hashem (ה׳)? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira in hashavas aveida: whether the Torah (תורה) obligates you to work for the baal aveida (making fringe benefits from him problematic) or for the Ribono Shel Olam (making mitzvah (מצוה) koveid the resolution). This yesod reconciles the Rambam (רמב"ם) and resolves a machloket in sugyos between Nedarim and Kesubos.
Rabbi Zweig delivers a comprehensive analysis of the sugya of hashavas aveida (returning lost objects), focusing on the fundamental question of whether one who returns a lost object is considered a shomer sachar (paid guardian) or shomer chinam (unpaid guardian). The shiur begins by presenting the basic sugya in Bava Kamma where Rav Yosef holds that a shomer aveida is a shomer sachar, while Rab holds he is a shomer chinam. The Gemara (גמרא) in Nedarim (35b) discusses whether one may return a lost object when either the finder or the owner is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other (mudar hana'ah). The Ran presents a fundamental problem: if we rule like Rav Yosef that a shomer aveida is a shomer sachar due to the principle of oseik b'mitzvah (מצוה) patur min ha'mitzvah (one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos), how can the Gemara permit returning the aveida in a case of mudar hana'ah based on "p'ruta d'Rav Yosef lo shachi'ach" (a small benefit that is unlikely to materialize)? If this benefit is significant enough to create the status of shomer sachar, it should be significant enough to constitute forbidden benefit in the mudar hana'ah case.
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!
Nedarim 35b
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.
