Torah Proprietors
Hello Rabbi,
I recently studied in Tractate Kiddushin about the various types of ownership of an animal – delivery, withdrawal, elevation, rabbi simta, etc. Many and varied legal details with many opinions.
I thought about these cases and did not understand why they are defined as Torah study. Beyond the question of the irrelevance of the vast majority of these laws today due to the fact that the custom has apparently changed in the ways of ownership – I do not really understand even for their time – why was it defined as Torah study (or not?). How are legal definitions of ownership that are derived from the custom prevalent in their time related to understanding the Torah? Apparently, there is no relationship between these definitions and understanding the Torah as a clarification of the word of God. It is also quite clear that this is not a tradition that passed down at Sinai – both from all the disputes about it in the Gemara, and from the explanations given there that define the reality and the opinion in the NIV.
I will rephrase the question a bit from another perspective. It is like, for example, a poske who writes a teshuva on matters of electricity on Shabbat. He first examines the reality – how exactly electricity works and what happens when you press the button, etc. And then he projects this onto the laws related to these matters and compares word for word according to the halachic rules of Shabbat laws. Can the first part of clarifying the reality be defined as Torah study? In my opinion, no. And apparently the same thing applies to me here. All the laws that define the types of owners are important for ruling on halachic matters. But they are, in total, purely a realistic clarification, and do not yet fall within the scope of pure Torah study.
On the other hand, I do see that there is a disagreement in the Gemara regarding whether the Torah is a matter of purchase or a purchase, and they discuss the verse “or buy from your fellow man.” So perhaps the Torah did have a definition regarding the forms of purchase that was passed down through tradition?
In any case, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be studied. It’s clear that it’s important for those who are going to deal with these laws to know it in depth. But at least we should know what its place is in relation to Torah study (perhaps for the blessing of the Torah).
By the way, I saw that you wrote something similar in one of your recent articles regarding all the laws related to the community regulations. There you claimed that reciting the blessings of the Torah over them is a blessing in vain.
Do you think so here too?
I have already written in several places that I accept your argument in principle. For example, what you mentioned that the community regulations are not Torah (even though they were included in the Shulchan Arbiter).
Regarding the methods of acquisition, their status is unclear. Regarding the methods of acquisition and withdrawal, the Gemara implies that this has its origin in the Torah itself and therefore it is certainly Torah. The same applies to the purchase of a field from a pencil. Although these can also be conditioned and custom can change this (like everything in finance), it does not matter. See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7%95% D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7% 95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%A2/
As for the other methods of acquisition, it is quite clear that they were founded by the Sages (even though they purchase from the rabbinic court). Therefore, the mere fact that a buyer delivers or raises a property is not really Torah. But there is still a Torah dimension to all of these, since they reflect the form of acquisition and the relationship between the type of act and the object purchased, and this should always be true and be expressed in the other methods of acquisition as well.
And beyond all of this, there are the halachic rules in the laws of property (such as situmta, or something that never comes into existence) that are part of the essence of halachic law and not an expression of one custom or another (and probably cannot be changed either).
Hi Yosef, according to the beautiful refinement you brought, and I do not agree with you at all, because if we go like this, Torah study will only be study from the Gemara or the Bible and then people will not think about everything. And according to your method, studying A, B, C and reading will not be considered part of Torah study. I really do not agree with you. Rather, in my opinion, anything that a person thinks/learns/plans (cooks/sleeps/enjoys/is happy) in order to do something because in his opinion God will agree with his actions and will have it, then it is considered Torah study. And the simplest proof was in the parashat, and this is the blessing: And to Zebulun, he said, Zebulun rejoiced when you came out, and Yissachar, in your tents.
And besides, there is a well-known ”Midrash” that explains how the angel of death subdued David from studying Torah in order to take his soul. And let's agree that as much as David studied without ceasing… To escape from the angel of death and not even sleep, for his needs he had to walk, would this be considered a break from studying? It seems not! And shall we provide these proofs or do you still disagree? I would love to hear
Hi Moshe Moedim LaShimcha,
You are right that it is important to study these subjects, and my main question is about the blessing of the Torah. In any case, you will agree with me that not everything that is important and desirable in the eyes of God is defined as Torah study. According to your words, then even what Rabbi Michael Avraham studies Kant and other philosophers is Torah study and one should recite the blessings of the Torah for it (maybe that is what he does, I don't know.. :-), and also maybe when King David went to sleep he should have recited the blessings of the Torah beforehand…
(In general, the evidence from King David can be easily dismissed (although there are no answers to the sermon) because it is possible that the angel arrived exactly when David was actually engaged in Torah study, and it did not take long for him to be able to distract himself from Torah study and take his soul, so that he did not have to be consumed by his piercings in this short period of time..)
By the way, in this context, there is a well-known story about the Herschel Auerbach, who went to sleep before delivering the general lesson in the yeshiva, and told his wife that he was going to prepare the lesson.. 🙂
It is clear, then, that there is a useful distinction that a person makes between pure Torah study and pure Torah study. And it seems that when a poske clarifies the reality of electricity with a certified electrician, he does not need to recite the blessings of the Torah beforehand, even though he is doing something thoughtful and desirable. And perhaps the same is true regarding property law.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
