A gift of knowledge in the act of ownership (purchase of property by attraction)

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › A gift of knowledge in the act of ownership (purchase of property by attraction)

asked 3 months ago

peace,
What do you think in the following case:
Reuven the buyer is mistaken in thinking that Shimon the seller told him to buy the item. For example: Reuven dreamed at night that Shimon told him to buy his recipe book by drawing and Reuven was mistaken in thinking that this actually happened. Another example: Shimon’s recipe book was mistakenly placed in a place where Reuven mistakenly thought it was for sale (if the nature of the mistake matters in your opinion, I would be happy for you to point this out and explain).
It so happened that just before Reuven came to make a withdrawal from Shimon’s recipe book – Shimon decided that he wanted to sell his recipe book. He made up his mind completely that he wanted to sell, or even told two people (other than Reuven) that he wanted to sell. If you think there is a difference between when he told others or not – I would be happy for you to point out and explain.
The question is whether the ownership applies.
I have a few thoughts and sides on the matter, but I’d love to hear your opinion first, of course if you have solid sources on the matter, that would be great.
Thank you very much!

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 3 months ago

If Reuven wants to sell, why shouldn’t Shimon buy? Because Reuven doesn’t know Shimon and didn’t decide to sell to him specifically? I don’t think it matters. Purchases are usually made by the buyer, and on the part of the seller, it’s enough to be willing. This is an unwitting purchase. In the issue of unwitting despair, we talk about setting aside a donation of a bi’ab without his knowledge, and if after a while it turns out that he is willing, everything is fine. Even in despair, according to the Netiyam, it is not a loss but a permission to buy. And if the buyer gains a loss after despair, it happens without the knowledge of the acquirer, but only by consent. It is true that there is a general consent here that allows everyone to gain, but from the interpretation it does not seem to be different from a general desire to acquire. And in despair that is not conscious, there is envy without knowing to whom. This is already very much like the general consent discussed in Didan.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

עמית replied 3 months ago

There were avrechims in my yeshiva who wanted to claim that in all the above examples - despair, the separation of a donation, the stamma that is a mitratza brought by the Shek Chomach in the book of the Law A) The essence of the act of purchase is an expression of the parties' mutual agreement. And this is a famous dispute of the latter (it is customary to say other things in the name of the buyer and the seller). B) Even when the act is on the part of the buyer alone (in a withdrawal, the buyer does everything, the seller can sleep at that time for the sake of the matter) the seller's opinion is expressed.
My main argument was on the second assumption; – After all, in a withdrawal, the seller's opinion is not really expressed at all. They argued that if the seller told the buyer to buy by withdrawal, this is itself an expression of his opinion, but I disagree – at the time of the withdrawal itself, the seller's will is not “seen” at all. He can sleep for the sake of the matter. So it is clear that there is no such disadvantage in a withdrawal act of purchase – that it does not express the seller's opinion.
And it is really not so clear to me – If the entire essence of ownership is an expression of the finality of thought (assumption A), what about the opinion of the acquirer? How is it that the opinion of the acquirer is not expressed at all in the attraction. Why is it enough to bring the opinion of the buyer into expression?
And after all, it is apparently clear (or not?) that the opinion of the acquirer and the opinion of the buyer both inhibit to the same extent.
Thank you!

מיכי Staff replied 3 months ago

I wrote what I thought, and I didn't see any new arguments here. The opinion of both the buyer and the seller is required, of course. But the deed is done by the buyer.