A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When must the nikas (enclosed party) pay for walls the makas (enclosing party) built? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that payment depends not on passive benefit but on active taking—specifically, becoming an owner of the wall to secure one's protection. This reframes zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaser as a hilchos gezeila principle: you pay when you take, not merely when you benefit.
This shiur analyzes the sugya in Bava Kamma 20b concerning the din of makas and nikas—when one party (the makas) surrounds another's field (the nikas) with walls, and under what circumstances the nikas must contribute to the cost. Rabbi Zweig focuses primarily on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of this case and contrasts it with other Rishonim including Rashi (רש"י) and the Baal HaMaor. The fundamental machloket concerns where the walls are located. According to the Baal HaMaor and one reading of the sources, the walls are built on both properties, straddling the boundary. Rashi holds they are built on the makas's property adjacent to the nikas. The Rambam takes the position that the walls are on joint property—physically on both the makas's and nikas's land.
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.
