No community start suggestion yet.
When an animal eats in the public domain, how do we calculate damages? The shiur explores whether you pay based on what you would have spent to feed your animal (Rashi (רש"י)'s approach of hanoa/benefit), or based on what was actually taken from the property owner (the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach of hezek/damage). The resolution affects whether you pay for expensive food eaten even though you normally feed cheaper food.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rav and Rava regarding damage payments when an animal eats in reshus harabim (the public domain). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where an animal eats expensive food like se'orim (barley), but the owner normally feeds only cheaper food like kash (straw). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation. According to Rashi, even though the owner normally feeds his animal kash, he must pay for se'orim at wholesale price (mezaro bazo) when his animal eats it in reshus harabim. This raises a fundamental question: why should someone pay more than what they would have normally spent? Rashi appears to hold that this is a din of hanoa (benefit) - since the animal received benefit from the better food, the owner must pay for that benefit. The measure of benefit is determined by how much money was saved - what one would have had to spend to provide that food.
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
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.
