A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does someone who benefits from another's property owe payment even though the owner suffered no actual loss? The Gemara (גמרא)'s case of an animal chewing produce raises a fundamental question: if the produce becomes worthless during consumption, is this zen nena v'zeh lo chaser (one benefited, one lost nothing)? Tosfos suggests liability stems from original value despite subsequent damage, while the Pnei Yehoshua frames the entire sugya as addressing midah Sedom.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Bava Kamma 20a-20b, beginning with Rav Chisda's question to Rami bar Chama about one who sleeps in another's property without permission (dor b'chatzer chaveiro shelo mi'da'ato). The core inquiry is whether such a person must pay rent. The discussion immediately focuses on why the term "shelo mi'da'ato" (without his knowledge) is critical—if the issue is simply zen nena v'zeh lo chaser (beneficiary gains but owner loses nothing), why does the owner's knowledge matter? Rabbi Zweig analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation extensively. Rashi presents two scenarios for zen nena: one where someone else would provide housing for free (sheyesh sheim fishmat sim lei ba tam lehasho), and another where the person has an alternative residence (v'yo shel bayis acher). The difficulty is understanding why having an alternate residence creates a zen nena situation. If people typically charge for lodging, why does the fact that some might give it freely eliminate its monetary value? The shiur questions whether this represents a true lack of value or merely a case where certain individuals choose not to charge.
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 20a-20b
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.
