What is the difference between paying back damages and paying back "that which he benefited"? What general principle lies behind the notion of the obligation to pay back "that which he benefited?"
Up until this point, the Talmud claims it has not found the precise situation to which the question refers. Why not?
What principles would we have learned up until this point?
What is the central dilemma here? Try to characterize this in abstract terms.
According to Rami bar Hama the situation in the mishnah is equivalent to the case of a person living in another's quarters without his permission or knowledge. How so?
What does Rava's remark "How little does a man..." express? What is he saying?
Why does Rava not agree with the comparison?
Read the following Tosafot and see if you can sense a difficulty with Rava's comment:
זה נהנה וזה חסר הוא - דכל זמן שרואין את זה עומד בביתו אין מבקשין ממנו להשכיר:
What is the function of this line in the Talmud? Why does the Talmud need to state this here?
אפקורי מפקר להו - לא לגמרי דא"כ אפילו מה שנהנית לא משלם אלא מתייאש מהם שסבור שיתקלקלו מחמת שרבים דורסים עליהם עד שלא יבואו לדמי מה שנהנית:
This is a Tosafot that expresses a strong difficulty on the resolution offered in the Talmud.
What seems to be the simple principle behind the mishnah from Bava Batra?
How does the Talmud reject it?
First try to explain what R. Yose is saying in the Mishnah. Then try to see how this proves what the Talmud says it proves.
Read this Tosafot too. It helps clarify exactly the situation we are discussing:
טעמא דניקף הא מקיף פטור - ...וא"ת ואי [ואם] זה נהנה וזה לא חסר פטור אפילו עמד ניקף נמי!? וי"ל שאני עמד ניקף דגלי אדעתיה דניחא ליה בהוצאה ולא דמי לדר בחצר חבירו דלא גלי אדעתיה אלא בחנם:
How does this line function within the sugya? Why is this not a case of "this one benefits and this one does not suffer a loss?"
First try to understand the simple reading of the Mishnah. Then try to extrapolate how one can learn from this that "when this one benefits and the other does not incur a loss, the one who derives benefit is exempt."
How does the Talmud reject the proof from that Mishnah?
The full text of this mishnah is found below. Read it there and see what the Talmud is trying to derive from it. Then see how the Talmud rejects it.
The following is Rashi's explanation.
שחרוריתא דאשייתא - שמשחיר לו הכתלים הלכך חסר הוא אבל בית ישן לא:
According to Shmuel the mishnah refers to a case where the treasurer used the beam to cover an opening in the roof. Why does Shmuel say this?
This is Rashi's interpretation. שינוי refers to the concept that when one steals something from someone else and then modifies it, he acquires it immediately upon modification:
והוא שהניחה ע"פ ארובה - ולא קבעה בבנין דלא הוי שינוי הלכך לא מעל עד שידור תחתיה:
Why does R. Abahu think that Shmuel's case proves that one who lives in his fellow's courtyard without permission must pay him rent?
This R. Papa's rejection of R. Abahu's inference from that mishnah. How does it work? Why is this mishnah not proof that one who dwells in his fellow's residence without his permission must pay him rent?
Rashi's commentary does not appear on the page here but is quoted by later Rishonim, who also raise difficulties on it: The following is from the Tosafot.
כהדיוט מדעת דמי - פ"ה דדעת שכינה איכא וקשה דשלא מדעתו לאו דוקא אלא אורחיה דמילתא נקט וה"ה מדעתו אלא נראה כהדיוט מדעת דמי כלומר דדעת שכינה איכא שלא יהנה אדם בלא מעילה:
Rashi explains that the Shekhinah knows [that he is residing there]. But this is difficult, for "without his knowledge" is not specific. Rather, the Talmud mentions this only because it is the norm. But the same would be true "with his knowledge."
Rather, it seems that "like an ordinary person with his knowledge" means that that Shekhinah does not want one to benefit from consecrated property without it being considered "meilah" (illicit use of Temple property).
Read this Tosafot carefully for it will help understand the underlying issue at hand.
What is the contradiction between the two previous halakhot? How does the Talmud resolve them and what effect does this resolution have on the overall answer to the question?
How does the verse and these amoraic statement effect the reasoning behind the halakhah that the one who lives in his fellow's courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay rent? What is the underlying idea here?
The Talmud here explains what the difference between R. Yosef's reasoning and that of the verse (or Mar bar Rav Ashi). Below is Rashi's commentary. Note that this too has a large effect on the overall reading of the sugya.
דקמשתמש בו - בעל הבית בציבי ותיבנא שהיו עציו ותבנו בתוכו וזה הלך ודר בו משום שאיה ליכא הואיל ומשתמשין בו משום ביתא מיתבא איכא דאין זה ישוב וזה שדר בו יפה עשה וההנהו: