Hefker beth-din hefker

This principle has far-reaching consequences, since it is possible to formally uproot things and which will become binding upon all parties, in so far as the Mosaic Law is concerned, by changing the monetary status of the thing in question. For example, according to one approach, the expropriation of money given by a man for his wife's betrothals, if a Jewish court should decide to take this route, it can make the money with which the husband consecrated his wife null and void, in which case the betrothals were, in retrospect, of no force whatsoever, seeing as the woman was betrothed by money and did not belong to the man who assayed to betroth her. In addition, by the power vested unto the Sages of Israel by this law, they are able to change the standard laws of inheritance prescribed in the Law of Moses (henceforth: Torah).

There is a deliberate debate as to whether a court can transfer an object from one person to another, or whether it can only remove an object into a state of being ownerless.[5] Another discussion is about whether an act of taking possession as enacted by the Sages of Israel and whose validity is derived only from a rabbinic ordinance is considered a valid act of acquisition in matters directly affecting a biblical law or injunction, in what concerns a court ruling property as ownerless, so that the same property may now be used to betroth a woman.[6] Most rabbinic scholars hold the view that, although the principle is taken from the Book of Ezra, the ruling is tantamount to a ruling taken from the Torah.

The Shittah Mekubetzet explains that the court's power to dispense with a particular thing does not yet confer it upon another, the court merely relinquishing the object from its first owners, and giving permission to another to acquire that object.[7]

Based on this rule, Nissim of Gerona explained the possibility of judges who have not been ordained by rabbis that can trace a line of authority back to Moses as being able to engage partly in monetary matters. Rabbi Joseph Karo, citing the Tur, also permits a court to apply this principle whenever it deems it necessary to bring offenders into submission, even though the arbiters have not been ordained by the laying on of hands.[8] While a court, under ordinary circumstances, has no power to uproot a prohibitive command from the Torah, except in cases where the intent is to bring instruction for a limited time only, in this case they are permitted to expropriate another's property without limitation, in order to instill correction where needed.

This principle has also allowed others to justify the introduction of public regulations in Jewish communities, in terms of halacha. This justification was done by way of inference. First, the court has the ability to decide things that are not governed by a permanent law - the abandonment of property is just one example. Secondly, a court is an example of an institution that is agreed upon by the community and, hence, it can be said that the elected officials also meet this criterion and can therefore make an amendment to the Torah. That is, as long as they do not violate explicit prohibitions written in the Torah (excepting the provisions on monetary laws, which are permitted).

• Confiscation
• Dina d'malkhuta dina

• The Jewish Encyclopedia - Hefker