Air taxi fare

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › Air taxi fare

asked 6 years ago

(Sorry for sending the question without text, I accidentally forgot to paste the text)
Can there be a monetary ownership of air? I saw in the issue of the first-mentioned dispute between Rav and Shmuel about the obligation to pay for a pit because of vanity or a hit, that Rav does not obligate because of a hit, and the Gemara’s reasoning is that he believes that they are not obligated because it is worldly land, and in the Rishonim (Rashi Shtamek) it seems that the reason is that it is not a mine, but all of it is money, and Rav obligates only for its money. Then the question arises: is the vanity that has accumulated in the pit really a mine? Is it possible to take ownership of the vanity? And if so, how do you take ownership of the vanity of a strong money attraction?
thanks

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 6 years ago

You do not have to assume that the vanity is his property. It is enough that it is not the property of others. A pit in the wilderness is one of the things that is not in a person’s possession, and the Torah placed it in his possession in order to be obligated for it. But according to Rav, the world belongs to everyone and therefore there is no obligation for it. It should be noted that in property law there is no ownership of air. This is one of the things that defines something that has no substance (the air of a yard). It is commonly thought that the intention is that ownership is not defined for this at all, but in my opinion the intention is that ownership of the air belongs to the owner of the land beneath it. In other words, it is not that you cannot own the air of the yard, but that you cannot separate ownership of the air from ownership of the yard. See my article on copyright in the fields of law. According to this, ownership of vanity should be discussed. You cannot own it when the land beneath it is the land of the world. Perhaps some say that although you cannot own it, it still does not belong to the world. Only the land belongs to the world. For example, in the well-known Amoraic dispute about fire, the Rabbis believe that fire is because of its arrows because there is no ownership of fire (something that is not true). But he does not absolve the person because of this, but rather obligates him because of his arrows.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

נחום replied 6 years ago

Is the reason that there is no ownership of fire, as explained in the Gemara in Bitza, that even a person who enjoys pleasure is permitted to enjoy the flame of the one who enjoys it, a reason why there should be no copyright? And what will the dissenters who believe that there are copyrights answer, since creation is certainly something that does not really exist?

מיכי replied 6 years ago

First, in my article I showed that there is ownership of information/idea.
Second, I do not recognize any “dividers” (except for me, the poskim attach copyright to the laws of rabbinic or trespass, the law of demalchuta, and so on).
Third, I brought up here above the opinion of Riv”ch that is binding because of its arrows. A similar solution can be found for copyright: even if there is no ownership of it, it is a part of me (my body). Like the “children of my spirit”.

נחום replied 6 years ago

How would you explain the Gemara in Bitza that says that it is permissible for a person to enjoy the pleasure of the medium only if you say that it is a person without a partner, because if it is part of the medium, it would be forbidden?

מיכי Staff replied 6 years ago

When the flame is with the one who enjoys it or merely pleases him, it is no longer the owner's (a candle for one is a candle for a hundred). When it becomes harmful, it is considered to be his power (like a pit that was placed at the owner's disposal to be pledged).

נחום replied 6 years ago

I didn't fully understand that when I copy someone's poem, the apparent prohibition is that I'm using their work without permission. The point is that in the Gemara, in the book of Bitza, it is explained that there is no ownership of a flame, regardless of whether a candle is for one or for a hundred, because it is explained that there is ownership of a coal. If I light a fire from it, it will be forbidden. If so, ownership does not apply to something that actually exists.

מיכי replied 6 years ago

In the flame when you take or enjoy it is yours and not his. In the ember it is always his and if you light it you have used his.
Regarding the song, it does not mean that you copied. You may have copied the physical song, but you took the information and did not copy it. In my article on copyright I explained that the information is part of it, its uniqueness.