Is a car considered movable or immovable 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 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
|
show 3 more comments
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 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
1
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
2 days ago
1
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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna
– Dr. Shmuel
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
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 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
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 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
edited 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
edited 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
edited 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
edited 2 days ago
alicht
2,7011634
2,7011634
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
asked 2 days ago
DonielFDonielF
17.1k12690
17.1k12690
1
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
2 days ago
1
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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna
– Dr. Shmuel
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
2 days ago
1
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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna
– Dr. Shmuel
2 days ago
1
1
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
2 days ago
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
2 days ago
1
1
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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna
– Dr. Shmuel
2 days ago
Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna
– Dr. Shmuel
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
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 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days 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
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days 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 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days 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
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days 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 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days 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
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days 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 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
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 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
answered 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
answered 2 days ago
koutykouty
15.7k32047
15.7k32047
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days 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
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days ago
add a comment |
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days 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
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days ago
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days ago
I will explain Gemara
– kouty
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy
– kouty
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.
– Heshy
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days ago
Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia
– kouty
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?
– rosends
2 days ago
1
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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago
Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna
– Dr. Shmuel
2 days ago