Q&A: Ownership — a Metaphysical Matter or a Social Convention?
Ownership — a Metaphysical Matter or a Social Convention?
Question
Hello Honorable Rabbi,
I got confused בעקבות the lectures on anti-Platonism and halakhic ruling:
According to Rabbi Gibraltar, there was no legal system in the ghetto, and therefore there was no social agreement regarding ownership; that concept was essentially nullified, and so there is no theft.
On the other hand, ownership is apparently a metaphysical matter, which connects the owner to the object.
I thought maybe to solve the problem by saying that there is theft that is legally forbidden and theft that is forbidden by the Torah.
Maybe in a situation like a ghetto, the legal prohibition of theft would of course fall away because there is no enforcement system and therefore no concept of ownership as a social convention, but the metaphysical concept definitely still exists, and there the Torah prohibition of theft that the Torah added would not be nullified?
Maybe you already answered this and I missed it?
Answer
I answered this at length in the lecture itself. There were debates about it.
I said that even if metaphysically there are concepts of ownership, the moment they are not practiced in reality they have no actualization and remain in the world of ideas. Just as if a religious court were to declare someone’s property ownerless, then the property would not be his, even though halakhically it is his.
According to Rabbi Shimon, the law applies to the very framework of laws, and therefore there is no situation in which there is no legal ownership but there is halakhic ownership.
Discussion on Answer
Correct.
Okay, I missed the part about Rabbi Shimon.
Thanks.
So if, in an imaginary situation, I have an ox in the ghetto, and the ox gores and kills.
If it kills a person or a cow, it makes no difference, because it isn’t mine at all?