Halacha buyers.

The concept of exchange is learned from the verse "And this was before Israel for the redemption and the exchange...".
The verse describes a common procedure regarding the transfer of ownership.
The Sages learn from this that it is possible to transfer ownership through the legal act of exchange.
There are legal procedures for how to create new ownership. By sale, by winning.
The Torah directs the process and there are verse-based teachings on how to do this.
The meta-halakhic question is what is the content of the study.
Property is contractual, when people want to create changes in the status of an object and the like, they are essentially creating a halal, an ideal essence that exists in the legal sense,
In order for us to identify the process in the physical world, we create a process, an act, that symbolizes the ongoing action, and thus we can essentially say that ownership is the manifestation of legal action, when ownership occurs it is a sign that there is action.
This can be looked at in many ways, whether ownership is just a verbal disclosure, or is it a condition and procedure, a kind of on-off button. Either way, there are no rules regarding ownership, it is something that is essentially contractual.
If so, the question arises as to what the Torah actually wants with the kenyain it teaches, why does it need to teach us kenyain, why does it need to direct us which kenyain to use, if it is enough that we establish kenyain and that is enough.
Or did the Torah truly establish legal norms without regard to halacha?
Regarding the properties themselves, they are seemingly universal. Ownership is a social status. If there were only one person in the world, he could not be the owner, because it has no meaning. The essences are created due to the interactions between people. This is mine because it is no one else's.
Or if marriages apply, it exists because it is personal and people determine its legal status.
Now we can ask whether healing will also spread to the Gentiles?
In the case of the Kenyanim, it seems so, but what about Kiddushin?
Why is there no kiddushin for a Gentile? After all, it is a universal process, it has no halakhic content.
Although this will have no consequences, because a Gentile is commanded to marry another man only on the factual level, on the substantive level he will have a state of sanctification.
Or it could be said that the entire state of Kiddushin is in accordance with its forbidden implications, since there is a halakhic definition of a consecrated woman, which is special to her husband, and is permitted to him in marriage, and forbidden to the entire world, then only someone who is within the halakhic system belongs to the definition of Kiddushin. Someone who is not within it, such as a Gentile, has no relevance to Kiddushin, and therefore, it does not exist for him.
Because its entire existence is in relation to its halakhic implications.
Everything that a Gentile has is a social, not a normative, personality.
The question is actually why, if two people perform a legal act that is agreed upon by all but is not halachically defined, do they not buy? This is a universal thing. The Torah, even if it wanted to, cannot prevent ownership.