A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When one benefits from another's property without causing loss, is the obligation to pay based on monetary debt (tashlum gezeilah) or on avoiding the prohibition of theft (issur gezel)? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rishonim on zeh nehene v'zeh lo chaser, examining whether payment stems from mammon gabach (monetary claim) or from a self-imposed obligation to avoid being a gazlan, with major implications for when payment is required.
This intensive Gemara (גמרא) shiur dissects the fundamental dispute among Rishonim regarding the case of zeh nehene v'zeh lo chaser (one benefits while the other suffers no loss). The Gemara on Bava Kamma 20b-21a discusses whether one who dwells in another's courtyard without permission must pay rent. Tosafos (תוספות) and the Rashba hold that zeh lo nehene v'zeh chaser (where the user himself derives no benefit but causes loss) exempts from payment, while most other Rishonim hold one is liable even in that case. The shiur presents two fundamentally different understandings of the obligation. According to one approach, championed by the Ri and Rosh, this is a case of tashlum gezeilah—actual monetary debt. The resident owes money because he has benefited from the owner's property, creating a tzvi'as mamon (monetary claim). Under this view, there is mammon gabach—the owner's money is in the hands of the user. This understanding parallels cases of yored l'sadeh chavero, where one who benefits from another's field must pay the full market value, not merely the owner's minimal costs.
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.
