A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When property values fluctuate, who may still collect maaser oni? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between someone whose property depreciated along with the general market versus a poshei'a whose unique circumstances caused isolated losses. Rashi (רש"י)'s two interpretations of "ad mechtzah" yield dramatically different approaches to whether we assess eligibility by current market value or original worth.
This shiur tackles one of the most challenging sugyos in Bava Kamma, found on daf 7a, which deals with the eligibility for maaser oni (the poor tithe) when someone owns property that has depreciated in value. Rabbi Zweig warns at the outset that this is an exceptionally difficult sugya requiring hours of preparation just to understand the basic positions, and that he will likely need two days just to present the three shitos in the Gemara (גמרא) plus the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s complicated fourth position. The foundational Gemara establishes that a person with assets worth less than 200 zuz may receive maaser oni—and may receive even large sums at once. Someone with 200 zuz or more cannot receive maaser oni at all. The question arises: what happens when someone owns real estate (income property, not their residence) that has fluctuated in value?
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 7a
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.
