Rabbi Bleich on Kinyan

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Arnie says:

    Is ontology in the context of R. Bleich’s article the same as the Brisker “chalos”?

    [YA – Not the way we used it in yeshiva. Chalos is the vesting of an onotological entity called a kinyan. The kinyan needs to have ontological significance in order for chalos to apply to it; that ontological reality continues to exist beyond its chalos in the object.

    I hope I’ve made myself obscure.]

  2. Harry Maryles says:

    Kinyan = a mechanism (or act) of aquisition of property (real or movable) – transferred from one person (or legal entity) to another.

  3. Arnie says:

    If, for example, the chalos of eirusin has taken place, the ontological reality of ishus obviously continues past the maaseh kiddushin. I think that this is the case in every “chalos” – a change in status has been effected in a person or object which carries into the future. I don’t yet understand the nafka mina.

    May this noetic discussion continue…

    Kesiva Vechasima Tova.

    [YA – Actually, your supposition is the subject of a yeshivishe chakira. This is the way I heard it. Someone asked Rav Boruch Ber about the true nature of kiddushin. Does kiddushin create a chalos of aishes ish that continues for the duration of the marriage (sorta what your position above would predict), or alternatively, does kiddushin initiate a change in which there is a new chalos of kiddushin every second of their married life? Reportedly, R Boruch Ber responded (perhaps not as a dispositive statement of what he felt), “Mazal tov, mazal tov, mazal tov, mazal tov….”]

  4. lawrence kaplan says:

    Thanks Rabbi Adlerstein for pointing out that Rabbi Bleich’s article can be accessed at the De Paul Law Site. I have downloaded it, and look forward to reading – better, studying–it.

    Shanah tovah.

  5. Tal Benschar says:

    Sounds intriguing. This can have theological ramifications as well. We say, every day, in Shemoneh Esreh that Hashem is koneh ha kol. This likely derives from the verse in Ber. 14:19 where Malkizeek describes Hashem as koneh Shomayim va Aretz. I don’t think either means that Hashem did a maaseh kinyan on the world! Rather these phrases seem to imply an ontological, metaphysical reality, as R. Bleich suggests, which derive from Hashem as the Borei Olam. (How appropriate for Erev Rosh Ha Shanah!)

    Kesivah Va Chasimah Tovah.

  6. dr. bill says:

    A very appealing conceptualization of the Halakha. It apparently also points to the need for extensions to the halakha to deal with certain modern economic issues adequately. The ontology implicit in the halakha as rabbi bleich conceptalizes it, does not appear adequate to deal with a some rights/obligations that are not that easily “attached” to an entity – either an existing asset or a person. Rabbi Bleich mentions this on page 22 (without judging the import or significance of these “lacunae.”) However, I suspect that in addition to extensions that are not possible without an adequate authority (a sanhedrin perhaps) that R. Bleich mentions, we may have to incorporate (just, secular,) non-halakhic rules, (as rishonim suggested in other contexts) to create a realistic and functioning beit din for economic matters. Not even close to my expertise areas; curious what others think.

  7. Phil says:

    Very interesting, thanks!!
    Oh, there’s one typo:
    “True to form, Rabbi Bleich won’t THROUGH in a term like metaphysics”

    [YA – Thanks! Corrected]

Pin It on Pinterest