Talmudic meta-study
A question that is not so classic in Talmudic scholarship. In the BK and BBM and in other tractates it is written that Sumachus teaches that if there is a doubt about the property, then it is divided. I understand to what extent this is the law, the logic behind the things, that if there is a real reason in reality to say that it belongs to one of the two, then each already has some kind of ownership in the property (as the Rashba says) and this is what Sumachus says. But I am trying to understand the logic behind the things, that is, what is the reason for enacting such a law, because even if there is a Darra Dammona and even if there is not, there are fifty percent for each of them, and in reality the statistics will be that fifty percent of the times it will turn out that the property belongs to the first and fifty percent the opposite, and if so, what makes Sumachus say his law only in Darra Dammona? The purpose of a court of law is to decide as close to the truth as possible or as best as possible for those standing trial, and what Sumachus says does not help these reasons.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you. I completely understand the distinction in the difference. In any case, I ask a simple question, why is the legal form decided in this way, after all, statistics will lead us closer to the truth and the utilitarianism of both parties. The question is not about what is said here but about the logic behind the legal legislation
I explained there that we do not always strive for the truth in the sense of who owns the money. Legal truth is different from factual truth. This is sometimes true in other legal systems as well, but in halacha it is very much so. The sages understood that this is the proper way to act legally even if it is not the factual truth. In other legal systems this usually happens because of considerations of efficiency and effectiveness of the law, in halacha it also happens because there is a legal truth that is not necessarily the factual truth. There is a metaphysical layer at the basis of halacha and also the legal part of it, and it is conducted differently than ordinary justice. I have argued this more than once (for example in my article on the laws of property and ownership in halacha).
All the laws of spikyness in money, as detailed in Tos’ Reish B”M and P”G D”B and more, are not based on statistics but on a legal perception of how spikyness should be treated. Darra Dammona is just one of many principles.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
