Bava Kamma 20b

בבא קמא כ׳ ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 20b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 20b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether a person who lives in someone else's courtyard without permission must pay: the case of זה נהנה וזה לא חסר (one person benefits and the other loses nothing)

Overview

רב חסדא asks about someone who lives in another person's courtyard without permission, where the owner was not going to rent it out anyway. The squatter benefits, but the owner loses nothing. This case is called זה נהנה וזה לא חסר. רמי בר חמא tries to prove from a משנה about an animal eating produce that the one who benefits must pay, but רבא says that case is not the same. The גמרא then tries proofs from several other sources: the משנה about fencing a field surrounded on all sides, and the משנה about a collapsed house and its upper story. Each proof is pushed away, because the case turns out to be special or to involve some loss after all. The question is sent to רבי אמי, who rules the squatter is פטור, while רבי חייא בר אבא admits he has no answer. Two students then give opposite reports of רבי יוחנן's view. רב פפא explains that רבי אבהו's report, that the squatter pays, came from an inference about a הקדש treasurer, together with רבי יוחנן's silence, which was not agreement. The גמרא begins explaining, with a rule of רבה, why הקדש is different, and this explanation continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (23)

1. QuestionThe owner's argument: you benefited
2. Responseרמי בר חמא says a משנה already answers it
3. QuestionWhich משנה, and a small act of service first
4. ProofThe משנה: an animal pays for what it benefited
5. Rejectionרבא: the משנה does not really match
6. ResolutionDefending רמי בר חמא: produce in public is ownerless
7. ProofA proof from the surrounded field: the neighbor must pay
8. RejectionRejected: the inner field made the fence longer
9. ProofA proof from רבי יוסי: the neighbor is exempt
10. RejectionRejected: the inner owner only needed cheap protection
11. ProofProof from the collapsed house and upper story: no rent is owed
12. RejectionRejection: the lower house owes a home to the upper story
13. ProofProof from רבי יהודה: even a squatter pays rent
14. RejectionRejection: living there blackens the walls
15. Responseרבי אמי rules that the squatter owes nothing
16. Conclusionרבי חייא בר אבא admits he has no answer
17. StatementTwo opposite reports of רבי יוחנן's ruling
18. Statementרב פפא: רבי אבהו's version was only inferred
19. ProofThe משנה about a treasurer using a הקדש stone
20. Statementשמואל: only when the stone covers a skylight
21. Statementרבי אבהו draws the squatter ruling from the treasurer case, and רבי יוחנן stays silent
22. Rejectionרבי יוחנן's silence was not agreement
23. ResolutionBeginning to explain why the treasurer is different: רבה's rule about הקדש