A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When must someone pay for using another's property if the owner suffers no loss (zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaser)? The shiur analyzes two Gemaras with different criteria—one based on whether the user has an alternative, another on whether the owner is makpid. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s pesak reveals that being makpid creates liability even when no financial loss occurred.
This shiur examines the principle of zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaser (one benefits while the other loses nothing) through two related Gemaras in Bava Kamma. The central question is: under what circumstances is someone who benefits from another's property without causing financial loss still required to pay? The shiur opens by contrasting two Gemaras. In the first Gemara (גמרא), the discussion revolves around whether the unauthorized user has an alternative place to stay. If he has another residence available (dor b'chutzecha v'erfi), he is not considered to have truly benefited, since he had his own option. In such a case, even though he lived in someone else's house without permission, there may be no liability because the benefit wasn't necessary.
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!
Bava Kamma 20b-21a
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.
