3 replaced http://judaism.stackexchange.com/ with https://judaism.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a courta court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea. And the legator would then acquire it from its ownerless state.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea. And the legator would then acquire it from its ownerless state.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea. And the legator would then acquire it from its ownerless state.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackJudaism/status/531818700672753665
2 added 64 characters in body
source | link

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea. And the legator would then acquire it from its ownerless state.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea. And the legator would then acquire it from its ownerless state.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?
1
source | link

Can a court declare a minor's lulav ownerless? Has one?

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:6, says that one should not give his lulav to a minor as a gift, as the minor cannot give it back to him. (Minors cannot give anyone legal ownership in anything.)

According to some views outlined in the Mishna B'rura there (:28), this presents a problem on the first day of Sukos. After all, the adult cannot give the lulav to the minor, as he won't get it back. He cannot lend it to the minor, as (according to this view) such a loan would be useless: the minor will not accomplish anything by shaking a borrowed lulav on the first day. One solution is to make sure no adult (see MB :24) needs to use it any more that day, and then give it to the minor: it's his, then, for the rest of Sukos, but that's okay, as a borrowed lulav is valid after the first day, and the adult can borrow it from the minor.

It seems, though, that there's another solution. There's a general rule of hefker bes din hefker: "the ownerlessness of a court is ownerlessness", meaning that a court can declare anything ownerless. Indeed, there are instances (which I can't think of specifically at the moment) when this is done as a blanket rule: a court has decided that any possessions fitting certain criteria are ownerless, and that rule is in effect for years to come, applying to any possessions that eventually meet those criteria. It seems that a municipal court (bes din) can do the same here: issue a decree prior to Sukos that any lulav acquired by a minor on or before the first day of Sukos is ownerless as soon as the minor's done with it and the legator wants it back. (The wording would need to be better thought out, but that would be the general idea.)

  • Has any court done this?
  • Has any source discussed the utility or validity of this, or, indeed, anything else about it?