This will be the first in a (hopefully long) series of short notes about Choshen Mishpat. Our kehilla started a night program focusing on Choshen Mishpat today. I plan here to make some notes about things that strike me as interesting, confusing, or unclear.
Hopefully, one day, this will develop into a place for chiddushim and birurim. Until then, I plan to use it to store things that I want to make sure I go back to when I have enough information to actually have some answers.
Today’s topic is on ×§× ×™×™×Ÿ ×›×¡×£. According to the ×ª×•×¨×”, when a person wants to buy ×ž×˜×œ×˜×œ×™×Ÿ (any moveable object; i.e., not real estate), all he needs to do is pay for it. At the moment he pays, a ×§× ×™×™×Ÿ is effected, and the object (which he didn’t touch, and may be located elsewhere) becomes his.
However, the ×¨×‘× ×Ÿ saw a possible problem here. The ×’×ž×¨× references a case called “×©×ž× ×™××ž×¨ ×œ×• × ×©×¨×¤×• ×—×˜×™×š ×‘×¢×œ×™×™×””, “Maybe [lest] he [the seller] will say, ‘it was burned in the attic.’” In this case, Reuven bought some wheat from Shimon, and payed him for it. Before Reuven can pick it up, there’s a fire in Shimon’s attic. Shimon has no reason to save the wheat; it’s not his, and he wasn’t a ×©×•×ž×¨ for Reuven. To prevent this from happening, the ×¨×‘× ×Ÿ said that the ×§× ×™×™×Ÿ doesn’t take place until Reuven does either ×”×’×‘×” (for anything) or ×ž×©×™×›×” (for things too large to be picked up).
The question is whether this abrogates the original ×§× ×™×™×Ÿ or simply imposes an additional requirement the buyer must fulfill, without which the ×¨×‘× ×Ÿ decreed that the seller retains responsibility.
For example, let’s suppose Reuven pays Shimon for an item he [Reuven] bought (say, a ×œ×•×œ×‘). We learn above that ×ž×“×¨×‘× ×Ÿ, the object still belongs to Shimon, and not to Reuven. However, according to the original ×ª×•×¨×” law, the item is now Reuven’s.
Is Shimon permitted to use the item? For example, in our case above, can Shimon use the ×œ×•×œ×‘ on the first day of ×¡×›×•×ª, when the ×œ×•×œ×‘ must be long to the user?
One response to “Kinyan Kesef M’Derabanan”
The ×’×ž×¨× in ×‘×‘× ×ž×¦×™×¢× on 48b seems to suggest that somethings remains on a ×“××•×¨×™×™×ª× level, even though we do not say a ×§× ×™×™×Ÿ took place. According to the opinion that ×ž×™ ×©×¤×¨×¢ is a curse, how can ×‘×™×ª ×“×™×Ÿ curse another Jew for violating “just” a ×“×¨×‘× ×Ÿ; what about ×“××•×¨×™×™×ª× issue of “×¢×ž×š” (TODO- full citation)? If, however, the person did something wrong on a ×“××•×¨×™×™×ª× level as well, perhaps it may be permissible to curse him.