Is a car considered movable or immovable property?Parashat Metzora+HagadolPesach/PassoverScratch on a car: liability if panel was later paid by another Car falls into my ditch- I'm not responsible?Why does a convert own his property?Playing music in the car with the windows openHitting a double-parked carVery small damage to someone else's propertyWhat recourse is available for someone whose property was seized by a creditor of the seller?Can you acquire land merely by using it?When is desiring another man's property permittedPaying damages for rerouting flood to neighbor's property
What does "enim et" mean?
Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
LM317 - Calculate dissipation due to voltage drop
extract characters between two commas?
Ideas for colorfully and clearly highlighting graph edges according to weights
Travelling to Edinburgh from India
Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?
What happens when a metallic dragon and a chromatic dragon mate?
Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning
Information to fellow intern about hiring?
Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?
How would photo IDs work for shapeshifters?
Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?
Doomsday-clock for my fantasy planet
How to manage monthly salary
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
How to create a consistant feel for character names in a fantasy setting?
Is there a familial term for apples and pears?
Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a Good Pack Animal for the Ancient Mayans
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Crop image to path created in TikZ?
I see my dog run
What does 'script /dev/null' do?
"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"
Is a car considered movable or immovable property?
Parashat Metzora+HagadolPesach/PassoverScratch on a car: liability if panel was later paid by another Car falls into my ditch- I'm not responsible?Why does a convert own his property?Playing music in the car with the windows openHitting a double-parked carVery small damage to someone else's propertyWhat recourse is available for someone whose property was seized by a creditor of the seller?Can you acquire land merely by using it?When is desiring another man's property permittedPaying damages for rerouting flood to neighbor's property
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):
נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:
Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.
Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
add a comment |
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):
נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:
Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.
Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
4 hours ago
I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.
– Salmononius2
4 hours ago
@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.
– DonielF
4 hours ago
@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).
– Lo ani
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):
נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:
Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.
Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):
נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:
Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.
Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin
halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
edited 1 hour ago
alicht
2,6871634
2,6871634
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
asked 4 hours ago
DonielFDonielF
17k12689
17k12689
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
4 hours ago
I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.
– Salmononius2
4 hours ago
@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.
– DonielF
4 hours ago
@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).
– Lo ani
1 hour ago
add a comment |
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
4 hours ago
I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.
– Salmononius2
4 hours ago
@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.
– DonielF
4 hours ago
@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).
– Lo ani
1 hour ago
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
4 hours ago
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
4 hours ago
I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.
– Salmononius2
4 hours ago
I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.
– Salmononius2
4 hours ago
@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.
– DonielF
4 hours ago
@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.
– DonielF
4 hours ago
@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).
– Lo ani
1 hour ago
@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).
– Lo ani
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.
A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:
meshicha "pulling" from a property to another
mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.
In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:
Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):
הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):
הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:
It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.
Thus
By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.
A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:
meshicha "pulling" from a property to another
mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.
In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:
Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):
הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):
הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:
It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.
Thus
By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
add a comment |
We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.
A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:
meshicha "pulling" from a property to another
mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.
In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:
Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):
הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):
הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:
It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.
Thus
By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
add a comment |
We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.
A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:
meshicha "pulling" from a property to another
mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.
In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:
Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):
הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):
הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:
It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.
Thus
By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.
A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:
meshicha "pulling" from a property to another
mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.
In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:
Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):
הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.
Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):
הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:
It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.
Thus
By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
edited 1 hour ago
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
answered 4 hours ago
koutykouty
15.5k32047
15.5k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
add a comment |
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)
– Heshy
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
1 hour ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
58 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
50 mins ago
add a comment |
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
4 hours ago
I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.
– Salmononius2
4 hours ago
@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.
– DonielF
4 hours ago
@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).
– Lo ani
1 hour ago