I want to understand the havah aminah of R'Meir as quoted by Rami bar Chamah concerning adam makneh devar s'lo bo l'olem. I thought that to transfer ownership three conditions must be fulfilled:
1) das of the makne,
2) kinyon on the object,
3) and das of the koneh (10th perek Bava Metzia).
When an object does not yet exist one can not make a kinyon on it. How does R' Meir hold it is chal? We see that one does not necessarily need to make meshekah on an object since kinyon agav or sudar or chalipin don't require the transfered object be physically present.
Nevertheless, the object must exist. Perhaps when the object doesn't exist there is a pigum on the dass of the the koneh, where he can not be sure he will really receive the object? Is the crux of the machloket that R Meir believes if something is likely to come into existence or if it is within the control of a human (a woman is mikadesh on the condition he becomes a ger) then there is adequate dass of the koneh and the halacha is that there is inadequate dass of the koneh, but all agree that if the item is unlikely to come into existence then there is inadequate dass (perhaps of both the koneh and the makneh)?
May I ask on the other side of the question: We allow a woman to sell her ketubah on the chance she will collect it if her husband predeceases her or if she gets divorced (Makos); even if this is a relatively unlikely event. We also allow people to buy lottery tickets even though they know the odds of winning (Rashi's explanation that the bal hamafkid is willing to give the unlikely kafel in return for the repayment of his principle). If there is nothing lacking in the dass of either party in tranfering an asset which does not yet exist and is unlikely to come into existence, then how can there be a problem in transferring the perot of a dekel tree or any other item likely to come into existence according to all opinions?
Thank you so much for accepting my question
Sincerely,
Evan Sehgal, Englewood, USA
Dear Evan,
Rav Elchonon Vasserman in Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra #276 mentions the two ways to understand the lack of Lo Ba l'Olam- either no Semichas Da'as or no possibilty of Kinyan if there's no object in existence. He proves that it is a Machlokes between the Maharam m'Rottenberg (insufficient Da'as) and R. Yechiel m'Paris from the Ba'alei Tosfos (no item).
Rebbi Meir says its Koneh. If the problem is Da'as then he holds there is enough Da'as- at least when its occurant to happen or its partially Ba l'Olam (see Tosfos DH Eimor BB 79b). If the lack is the item, Rebbi Meir learns that one can make a valid agreement between people for when the item comes into existence.
Your cases of Kesuvah and lottery tickets are not Lo Ba l'Olam. Even according to the Rabanan they work. He buys the actual Kesuvah and ticket now and therefore obtains all its rights. It is similar to the Gemara's answer here that he bought the animal itself for its rights to the Kefel.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Dear Rabbi Weiner,
Can you elaborate on your answer of last week concerning d'var s'ayn bo leolum. Does R. Meir not hold that a kinyon is necessary to complete a transaction? It seems as if there are 30 blott Gemorrah about the necessity of kinyonim. If he holds a kinyon is necessary then what kind of agreement is it when the machna and the koneh both have das but there is no kinyon? I understand that until the deckel fruit come into existence one may retract. But I understand the Gemorrah to say explicitly according to R. Meir a person may convey an item which is likely to come into being, before it actually exists.
Thank you again,
Evan Sehgal
Dear Evan,
Sorry for the delay.
Of cource R Meir needs Kinyan. I meant that according to R Meir a standard Kinyan must be performed, but is effective without the item existing (for when it comes into existence) - not like the Rabanan that its too early.
According to R Meir the Kinyan is finished (unless you retract before it exists)- there is no need to make another Kinyan. Therefore the Gemara calls this making Kinyan on a item which doesn't exist.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner