Q&A: Modes of Acquisition in Torah Study
Modes of Acquisition in Torah Study
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I recently studied in tractate Kiddushin about the various modes of acquiring an animal—delivery, pulling, lifting, public domain, alleyway, etc.—many varied legal details with numerous opinions.
I thought about these discussions and didn’t understand why they are defined as Torah study. Beyond the question of the apparent irrelevance of the overwhelming majority of these laws nowadays because custom has seemingly changed the ways acquisitions are made—I don’t really understand it even for their own time: why was this defined as Torah study (or was it not)? How are legal definitions of acquisition, which are derived from the prevailing custom of their time, connected to understanding the Torah? Seemingly there is no connection between these definitions and understanding the Torah as clarifying the word of God. It is also quite clear that this is not a tradition passed down from Sinai—both from all the disputes about it in the Talmud, and from the reasoning brought there that defines reality and people’s intent.
Let me sharpen the question a bit from another angle. It is like, for example, a halakhic decisor who writes a responsum about electricity on the Sabbath. First he examines the reality—how exactly electricity works and what happens when the button is pressed, etc. Afterward he applies that to the laws relevant to these matters and compares one case to another according to the halakhic rules of the laws of Sabbath. Can the first part, clarifying the reality, be defined as Torah study? In my humble opinion, no. And seemingly the same applies here. All the laws that define the various modes of acquisition are important for issuing halakhic rulings. But they are, all in all, merely factual clarification, and do not yet fall under the category of pure Torah study.
On the other hand, I do see that there is a dispute in the Talmud about whether by Torah law money effects acquisition or pulling effects acquisition, and they discuss the verse, “or buy from your fellow’s hand,” so perhaps the Torah did define forms of acquisition that were transmitted by tradition?
In any case, I’m not saying this should not be studied. It is obviously important that anyone who is going to deal with these laws should know them thoroughly. But at least let us know what place this has in relation to Torah study (a practical difference might be with regard to the blessing over Torah study).
By the way, I saw that in one of your recent articles you wrote something similar regarding all the laws connected to communal enactments. There you argued that to recite the blessings over Torah study on them would be a blessing in vain.
Do you think the same here as well?
Answer
I have already written in several places that, in principle, I accept your argument. For example, as you mentioned, communal enactments are not Torah (even though they were incorporated into the Shulchan Arukh).
Regarding modes of acquisition, their status is not clear. As for money and pulling, the Talmud implies that they have a source in the Torah itself, and therefore that is certainly Torah. The same is true regarding the modes of acquiring a field derived from Ephron. Even though these too can be made conditional, and custom can alter them (as with anything monetary), that does not change matters. See my article here:
בין הטריטוריה שלי לטריטוריה של הזולת על חובות וזכויות בהלכה ומשמעותן
Discussion on Answer
Hi Moshe, happy holiday,
You are right that there is importance in studying these topics, and my main question is about the blessing over Torah study. In any case, you will agree with me that not everything that is important and desirable in God’s eyes is defined as Torah study. According to what you say, then even Rabbi Michael Abraham studying Kant and other philosophers is Torah study and one should recite the blessings over Torah study on that too (maybe that’s what he does—I don’t know.. :-)), and maybe when King David went to sleep he also had to recite the blessing over Torah study beforehand…
(And in general, the proof from King David can be easily rejected—though one does not argue with a preacher—that perhaps the angel arrived precisely when David was actually engaged in Torah study, and not much time passed before he succeeded in distracting him from Torah study and taking his soul, so it is not necessary at all that he had to relieve himself within that short period…)
By the way, in this context the story is well known about Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach of blessed memory, who went to sleep before giving the general lecture in the yeshiva, and told his wife that he was going to prepare the lecture.. 🙂
So clearly there is a distinction between something useful that a person does and pure Torah study. And it seems that when a halakhic decisor clarifies the reality of electricity with a certified electrician, he does not need to recite the blessings over Torah study beforehand, even though he is doing something important and desirable. And perhaps the same is true with the laws of acquisition.
Hi Yosef, based on the nice sharpening you made—and I don’t agree with you at all—because if we go that way, Torah study would be only learning from the Talmud or the Bible, and then people wouldn’t think beyond that. And according to your approach, learning the alphabet and reading also wouldn’t count as part of Torah study. I really don’t agree with you. Rather, in my opinion, anything a person thinks/learns/plans (cooks/sleeps/enjoys/rejoices in) in order to do something because in his view God would agree with his actions and want them, counts as Torah study. And the simplest proof is in the portion of Ve-zot HaBerakhah: “And of Zebulun he said: Rejoice, Zebulun, in your going out, and Issachar in your tents.”
Besides that, the “midrash” is well known that explains how the Angel of Death subdued David from Torah study in order to take his soul. And let’s agree that as much as David studied nonstop… in order to escape the Angel of Death and not even sleep, still for his bodily needs he had to go—would that be considered an interruption in learning? Apparently not! Will these proofs suffice, or do you still disagree? I’d be glad to hear.