A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone uses another's property without permission, under what circumstances must he pay full rental value versus mere damages? The shiur analyzes whether the obligation stems from tashlum gezeila (restitution for theft) or from avoiding the issur of gezeila itself. The Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of zeh nena v'zeh lo chaser is reframed: payment is required not because of monetary loss, but because profiting from another's property while causing them loss constitutes gezeila that demands full compensation.
The shiur focuses on the sugya in Bava Kamma 20b-21a regarding one who uses another person's property without permission. The central issue is whether the user must pay full rental value or merely compensate for actual damages caused. This question hinges on a fundamental conceptual dispute about the nature of the obligation. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone lives in another's house without permission in a situation of chutz she'lo kaim l'agra—where the owner does not typically rent out the property. The standard principle of zeh nena v'zeh lo chaser (one benefits, one loses nothing) would normally exempt the user from payment. However, the Gemara introduces scenarios where payment is required, particularly when the homeowner incurs actual costs such as shacharis or shaisa (deterioration or wear and tear).
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.
