No community start suggestion yet.
When Reuven builds walls on his own property that benefit Shimon's enclosed field, why should this be zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaser? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם)'s positions on whether the walls were built on joint or individual property, and explores the broader question of when someone must pay for unsolicited benefit. A parallel analysis examines three types of kavod obligations: personal entitlement (Kohen), office requirement (Kohen Gadol), and communal need (Melech).
This shiur on Bava Kamma 20b begins with the case of an eved ivri (Jewish slave) and the question of whether one can engage in isur aveirah (prohibited activity) with him. The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between working with a canaani eved (Canaanite slave) for free versus for payment. When payment is involved, there is no isur, since the eved receives compensation for his labor even though the money goes to the person he stole from. The shiur then transitions to its primary focus: the sugya of building walls around fields. The core case involves Reuven who has four fields surrounding Shimon's single interior field. Reuven builds walls on three sides. The question is whether Shimon must contribute to the cost of these walls under the principle of zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaser (one benefits while the other suffers no loss). Rabbi Zweig presents a fundamental difficulty: according to Rashi (רש"י), the walls were built entirely on Reuven's own property. If so, why should this be considered zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaser at all? Reuven spent his money building on his own land. The fact that Shimon benefits from the shade or protection these walls provide seems irrelevant—Reuven was acting within his rights on his own property.
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
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.
