15

Is everything in outer space hefker? For example if a private person lands on the moon or an asteroid can he be koneh it? Do you retain the rights to something that you send into space?

Isaac Moses
  • 48,026
  • 13
  • 119
  • 333
  • 1
    Do you mean land or chattel or both? – Double AA Nov 06 '12 at 17:04
  • 1
    Shamyaim belongs to Hashem and aretz belongs to us. – sam Nov 06 '12 at 19:36
  • 5
    @sam pretty sure the aretz belongs to him too ;) –  Nov 06 '12 at 20:01
  • What about bamidbar? Isn't that a similar case? – Charles Koppelman Nov 06 '12 at 20:38
  • @sam Shamyaim means spiritual, not physical, the moon and other stellar objects are also aretz. – Ariel Nov 06 '12 at 23:34
  • 1
    Why would think you could not be koneh on it? – Ariel Nov 06 '12 at 23:35
  • @pm ofcourse it does,but the concept is that shamyim is not ours to explore. – sam Nov 07 '12 at 01:20
  • @Ariel I would assume it is like the ocean or the sky itself, meaning ownerless by definition. –  Nov 07 '12 at 14:05
  • @sam that is a pretty radical statement, do you have any source to support it? –  Nov 07 '12 at 14:06
  • @pm everything belongs to Hashem I was just saying Hashem gives the earth to dwell in but the heavens belong to Hashem solely. I will try to find source learnt it a while ago. – sam Nov 07 '12 at 14:28
  • @PM I'm not so convinced the ocean is ownerless. If someone builds a dock jutting out over the ocean - does that land not belong to him? If someone anchors rig to the sea floor, does that land not belong to him? The ocean is only ownerless in the sense that it's hard to build a permanent structure in any one spot. Space is the same way. – Ariel Nov 08 '12 at 01:06
  • @Ariel the dock would be connected to land. if someone weighs anchor in the middle of the ocean for 3 years I don't know that they would own the ocean floor or event that latitude/longitude. Same would be true if you built something that hovered in the sky in the same spot, no? –  Nov 08 '12 at 14:45
  • @PM Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand - is there a reason to say they don't own the spot it's built on? A large part of the southern part of NY was originally ocean, and was filled in with land. – Ariel Nov 08 '12 at 21:28
  • Lehavdil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon – Menachem Apr 16 '13 at 02:38

3 Answers3

2

First you have to differentiate between Reshut HaRabim and Hefker.

Nobody can do a Kinyan on Reshut haRabim; it belongs to everybody unless the "king" or local equivalent decides otherwise. (Unless you cause damage; it belongs to you insofar as you are responsible for restitution.)

When a tract of land is Hefker you can do a Kinyan - appropriate to land like digging in it - but only that piece of land you dug up is yours. Unless it's fenced in, but then it's probably not Hefker. Fencing in a tract of land may be a Kinyan.

(Based on my reading Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen HaMishpat these past few months. How to do Kinyan on an heirless Ger's estate comes to mind.)

So the question really becomes: do things in outer space have the status of Hefker or Reshut haRabim.

As was pointed out, you may not be able to claim ownership of the sea floor, as it probably is Reshut haRabim by common agreement. Once out of territorial waters, ships seem to have a "free route" and nobody would want to change that.

So, do we (sensible earthlings) want outer space to be Hefker or Reshut haRabim?

Danny Schoemann
  • 43,259
  • 5
  • 76
  • 197
0

You couldn't do it halachically anyway. Treaties signed by the major nations declare space as the common heritage of mankind, with ownership of any portion of celestial body by any nation explicitly forbidden. Most opinion articles seem to believe this also extends to private ownership, that the goods created by any private party must be equally shared among all the people of Earth, rich and poor nations alike.

If you are a citizen of a country who is signatory to these treaties, then as a Jew you must obey that treaty, since that is the law of your land. Therefore, sanctification of ownership in this instance should be meaningless.

Aule
  • 595
  • 5
  • 7
  • 1
    What if you renounce your citizenship and move to Mars? – Double AA Nov 29 '13 at 07:29
  • Laws and international agreements can change or get interpreted away. If private extraterrestrial property ever becomes physically practical, I strongly suspect that corporations and nations will find ways to make it legal. – Isaac Moses Nov 29 '13 at 08:29
  • @Double AA, not that easy. Most countries will consider you a subject under their laws even if you renounce citizenship. It's called citizenship by blood rather than citizenship by law. If you reached Mars as a stateless person the US would still consider you to be a citizen by blood, and therefore still a subject to their laws for the purpose of the treaty, – Aule Nov 29 '13 at 10:11
  • @Isaac Moses. It won't happen. The treaties practical result is to keep us grounded and completely remove all possible private incentive. Believe me, no company would want to be the one to lose their shirt to enable all other companies from benefiting from our gains. The laws are stagnating our ability to travel and settle space. – Aule Nov 29 '13 at 10:14
  • @aule so what about the rest of the countries of the world? – Double AA Nov 29 '13 at 14:24
  • @Double AA: I guess the signatories can enforce their will through the threat of nuclear war. – Aule Nov 29 '13 at 19:17
  • right.......... – Double AA Nov 29 '13 at 19:19
-1

To answer this question you have to understand the idea of the property on Earth. All monetary matters are subject to social approvement, in other words, "דינא דמלכותא דינא".

So imagine you find an iceberg in Iceland and you'd like to privatize it - is it Halachicly yours? The only way to answer this is to ask others - It makes no sense of having a property with no humans around, think about that.

So there is no difference in boundaries for that social approval - you might claim you own 5 square miles on Uranus, but as long as there's no existing agreement about Uranus, your claim is meaningless.

mbloch
  • 51,726
  • 9
  • 92
  • 240
Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • The application of Dina d’Malchusa was already discussed here; what more are you adding? – DonielF Mar 21 '19 at 14:03
  • @DonielF I don't see it mentioned at all. People don't understand the very dependence of the Halachic status of the property on the approval of society. So itis crucial to link between the two. – Al Berko Mar 21 '19 at 14:07
  • “If you are a citizen of a country who is signatory to these treaties, then as a Jew you must obey that treaty, since that is the law of your land.” What more would you like? – DonielF Mar 21 '19 at 14:10
  • @DonielF "you must obey that treaty" acc to the civil law but Halachicly? This says nothing about the Halacha. – Al Berko Mar 21 '19 at 14:21
  • What is the literal translation of Dina d'Malchusa? He doesn't say "If you are a citizen of such a country, you must obey that treaty," but rather "as a Jew you must obey that treaty." If anything, this sounds like it should be a comment on that post asking for clarification rather than a standalone answer. – DonielF Mar 21 '19 at 14:24
  • @DonielF 1. Semantics 2. I publish my answer for my kids and my followers that want to know my opinion and my tradition. I also love to make things clear or blur it completely. – Al Berko Mar 21 '19 at 14:29