Honesty and ethics in business transactions – Going back on your word in a sale or gift:[1]

1. Introduction:

Retracting from a sale and asking for a refund is common business practice which is a fundamental aspect in today’s world of commerce. Customers want to hold the right to retract from the sale not only before the actual reservation or payment for the product, but often even afterwards. For this reason, many stores have return policies which allow the customer to change their mind on the product and receive a cash or store credit refund. Nonetheless, not all services, products, and stores offer refunds and the ability to retract from the purchase, and it is all dependent on the specific business. Furthermore, even businesses that offer refunds, it often comes with certain regulations, such as a limitation on the amount of time after the purchase that the refund may be requested, as well as the condition of the item purchased, and the reason for the requested refund. In some countries and states, the ability to return the product in exchange for a refund is mandated in civil law. All in all, the concept of having the ability to refund one’s product helps raise consumer trust and in general is considered good for business and comes to benefit the sellers as much as the buyers. All the above is from a secular law and business perspective, however, in this article we will review what Torah law states regarding retracting from a sale. Our main focus will not be on the lengthy and complex technical laws of acquisitions which make a sale considered final according to Halacha, and therefore make it illegal to retract from it, but rather on the subject of honesty and ethics. When one agrees to a sale, aside from the question of whether retracting from it is considered legal, a more fundamental question is raised, regarding whether it’s considered honest. In this Halacha we will learn of the importance of keeping one’s word in a business transaction due to ethical reasons. Just as there exists laws which dictate the legality of business and commerce, so too, there exists a separate set of laws which dictate morals, ethics and honesty, and not always do the two go hand-in-hand. Meaning, just because something is legal in business, does not mean that it is ethical, and just because something is ethical doesn’t always mean that it is legal. This Halacha will focus on the ethics of business. If one promised to give a gift to someone, must he go through with his promise due to ethical reasons? If one agreed to buy a certain item must he go through with the sale due to ethical reasons, even if he now has reasons to retract from it? In Halacha, retracting from one’s given word in a business transaction, contains four levels of severity. The first level is where it is illegal to retract from the gift or sale, either due to the fact that an acquisition has taken place, or due to the fact that one’s word is considered binding. This matter, and the cases subject to this ruling, will be explained in length in Halacha E case 1-2. The second level is where one retains the legal right to retract from the sale or promise, but whoever does so is considered worthy of a special curse that the sages instituted for people who are untrustworthy. This matter, and the cases subject to this ruling, will be explained in length in case three. The third level is where one retains a legal right to retract from the sale or gift and is not liable to be cursed, but whoever does so is considered untrustworthy by the sages and they are displeased with his actions. This matter, and the cases subject to this ruling, will be explained in length in case four. The fourth level is where one is not considered untrustworthy or displeasing in the eyes of the sages if he retracts from his word or resolve, although, this may not be considered an act of piety and the way of the God-fearing. This matter, and the cases subject to this ruling, will be explained in length in case five. Prior to going into the four different levels of severity of retracting from a sale or gift we will first introduce the general concept of being honest in business as explained in C. However, before we jump into the subject we will give a short synopsis of the background of the subject from Scripture and Talmud, which will serve as the foundation for the entire discussion of the laws below.

Background from scripture:[2] The verse in Kedoshim 19:36 which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified.[3] Now, there is a dispute regarding how we interpret this statement.[4] Some learn that this means that when a person speaks and says yes or no to an agreement, then he must fulfill his word and not retract from it.[5] Others negate the above and rather learn that it is a prohibition against one making a promise or agreement without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it.[6] Others learn that it is coming to teach us that a borrower must pay back his loan.[7] There is a further verse in Tzefanya 3:13 which states “Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yaasu Avla Velo Yidabru Chazav,” from which some learn that one may not go back on his promises.[8] The practical ramification regarding which verse one learns to be the source for keeping ones word in business transactions, is regarding if the obligation is viewed as Biblical or Rabbinical, or as a mere proper act.[9]

Background from Talmud:[10] The Talmud records a dispute between two of the greatest Amoraim regarding whether it is unethical for one to go back on his word in relation to business dealings, or gifting something to another person, in those scenarios in which no acquisition has taken place and simply words were exchanged. Rav is of the opinion that not following through with verbal business agreements is simply the way of the world of business and commerce, as people change their minds due to different factors, and hence not only is it legally permitted for one to go back on his word, but he is not even viewed as untrustworthy if he does so.[11] Rabbi Yochanan, however, is of the opinion that although one may legally retract from his verbal business agreements, it is unethical to do so in the event that the other party took one’s word to heart and believed it to be true such as if he promised to give him a small gift. Practically, we rule like Rebbe Yochanon.[12]

Discrepancy in Admur:[13] Admur records the Halacha of keeping ones word in business transactions in two different areas of his Shulchan Aruch. The first is in Orach Chaim chapter 156 Halacha 2 and the second is in Choshen Mishpat Hilchos Mechira Halachas 1-6. There is a discrepancy between Admur’s ruling in O.C. ibid versus Admur’s ruling in C.M. ibid as to the source in Scripture for this requirement. In O.C., Admur records the verse of Hin Tzedek as the source for the requirement, as brought in the first approach above in scripture. However, in C.M. Admur records the verse of “Sheiris Yisrael” as the source for the requirement, and interprets the verse of “Hin Tzedek” as brought in the second approach above in scripture. One of the ramifications between this discrepancy is seemingly regarding whether in the view of Admur, going back from one’s word in business agreements transgresses a Biblical versus rabbinical prohibition or as to whether it is not a prohibition at all and is rather a mere act of improperness. From O.C. it is clearly implied that it is a severe prohibition which is likened to idolatry and is possibly of biblical status. However, from C.M. it is implied that it is not of biblical status and perhaps is not a prohibition at all but rather a mere act of improperness. Vetzaruch Iyun!

1. The four levels of business misconduct:

• Illegal to retract
• Legal to retract, but liable for Mi Shepara curse by Beis Din if he does so, and is therefore forbidden to be done.
• Legal to retract, but considered unethical due to Michesurei Emuna & Ein Ruach Chachamim Noach Heymenu if he does so, and therefore according to some is forbidden to be done.
• Legal to retract and not considered unethical if he does so, although it may not be the ways of the G-d fearing.

Prior to going into each one of these levels of business misconduct, we will first introduce the general idea of being honest in business and keeping one’s word.[14]

1. The general obligation to be honest in business and keep one’s word:[15]

One is to beware to deal honestly in business and not change his word [from whatever agreements that were discussed, and from whatever promises were made].[16] This means that when a person speaks and agrees to something with a yes or no, then one must try to fulfill his word and align them with his actions.[17]

The severity – Like idolatry:[18] Whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry.[19]

Personal matters versus matters between man and his fellow:[20] The above requirement for one to keep his word only applies regarding matters that are between man and his friend, however, matters that are personal, between him and his personal needs, then there is no need to fulfill them, if it does not involve any aspect of a Mitzvah, even if he expressed that he will do so. [This applies even if one did not say Beli Neder at the time he expressed his resolve.[21]]

Thoughts of the heart – One who decided in his mind to do a certain deal:[22] Once someone decides even in his mind to buy a certain item, or agree to a certain matter, then it is proper for every G-d fearing person to fulfill it.[23] However, as stated above, this only applies regarding matters that are between man and his friend, however, matters that are personal, between him and his personal needs [that he decided in his heart to perform], then there is no need to fulfill them, if it does not involve any aspect of a Mitzvah.[24]

Matters of a Mitzvah:[25] One who resolves, even in his heart, that he will do a certain Mitzvah related matter, is obligated to do so due to the rules of a vow. One is certainly obligated to do so if he verbalized his resolution with his mouth.

Telling a lie for the sake of peace:[26] One may not tell a lie to his friend even for the sake of peace. Now, although the Sages[27] state that it is permitted [and even a Mitzvah[28]] to change the facts [i.e. lie] for the sake of peace, nevertheless, one may only lie for the sake of peace regarding a past event. However, he may not tell a lie regarding future matters. [Nevertheless, this matter needs further analysis, as an argument can be made that it is permitted to lie for the sake of peace even regarding a future matter.[29]]

The business ethics and morals of a Torah scholar:[30] The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty. He answers honestly to yes and no questions. He is stringent with himself in his accounting, and gives and yields to others when he buys from them, and is not particular with them. He pays for his purchases immediately and does not act as a guarantor or cosigner,  or accept a power of attorney form and individual to do their bidding. He does not[31] enter himself to a business agreement in areas that the Torah did not obligate him, in order so he can keep his word and not change from it. If others have obligations to him by law, he grants them an extension and pardons them. He lends and bestows gifts. He does not encroach upon another’s occupation, nor does he ever cause someone discomfort. The rule is that he should be among the pursued and not the pursuers, among those who accept humiliation but not among those who humiliate [others]. Whoever does all the above and their like, of him [Isaiah 49:3] states: “And He said to me, ‘You are My servant, Israel, through whom I will be glorified.”

1. The prohibition against making a promise or agreement without intent to fulfill it:[32]

Although, as will be explained, there exist various scenarios in which one retains the legal right to retract from a promise or agreement, and at times doing so is not forbidden and does not even consider one untrustworthy [i.e. a promise to give a large gift, as will be explained], nonetheless there exists a Biblical[33] prohibition against one making a promise or agreement without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it.[34] [Meaning, although changing one’s mind at a later point is not considered outright lying, and one retains a legal, and at times even a moral, right to do so based on new developments or points that he is now taking into account, nonetheless, at the time that he makes the promise or agreement he must have in mind to fulfill it, and if he changes his mind later, then he changes his mind. However, to make a false promise or agreement which he has no intent to fulfill even at the time that he is saying it, is Biblically forbidden. Thus, in all scenarios to be explained that one is allowed to change his mind, or that changing his mind does not transgress a Biblical prohibition, this is only if he intended to follow through with his promise and agreement at the time that it was made.]

Discussing product with a seller without intent to buy: While certainly there is no prohibition against entering a store without intent to buy, in order to observe the merchandise, which can eventually lead to one buying it then or in the future, nonetheless, based on the above it is seemingly Biblically forbidden for one to lie and tell the owner or seller that he is interested in buying his product when in truth he is no intent to purchase it [i.e. is there in order to get information as business opposition research, or is bored and is doing so for jest to pass time]. This is aside for the possible additional Biblical prohibition of Ona’as Devarim which is transgressed if one fools a seller into believing that he is interested in buying his product when indeed he has no intent to do so.[35] [However, if one tells the seller that he has no intent to buy the product and he simply wants to know the price, then it is allowed. Likewise, some suggest that a quick question of price without going into details and taking much of his time is permitted.[36]]

1. The cases:

• Inability to retract – Kinyan was made:[37]

Once a valid Halachic acquisition [i.e. Kinyan] has been made on the product that one is receiving or purchasing, then it is no longer legally possible for any of the two parties to retract from the deal, as the transaction and transformation of ownership has already taken place. This applies whether to a gift that was given to a person, and that person or the giver now wants to retract it, or to a purchased item that was already received by the buyer, and the buyer or seller now wants to retract from the sale. This applies even if both parties consent to the nullification of the transaction, and a new valid Halachic acquisition must take place between the buyer and seller in order to reverse the ownership.[38] Even in this case, however, there do exist exceptions in the event of a Mekach Taus, or the existence of a refund policy, as we will soon explain.

What is considered a valid acquisition:[39] The laws of defining a legal acquisitions are complex, as there exists a number of different forms of acquisition[40], of which their validity is dependent on the product being purchased, such as real estate versus a movable object.[41] This itself is subject to change based on whether the buyer or recipient is a Jew or Gentile.[42] There is also discrepancy between the Biblical versus the Rabbinical legality of an acquisition, such as by Kinyan Kesef[43], and many acquisitions are subject to dispute amongst the Poskim as to their status regarding all the above. Accordingly, it is beyond the scope this article to delineate the various forms of acquisitions and their status, and full books[44] have been written on this subject alone. Nevertheless, to not leave the matter completely unclear, we will suffice with noting that when acquiring light movable objects [i.e. Mitaltalin], the Kinyan of Hagbah, which involves the recipient lifting[45] the object is considered a valid acquisition.[46]

Example-When does the Kinyan take effect in a store? Once one has lifted the purchased item, and certainly once he has taken it out of the store into his car and house[47], then the item becomes legally his and he no longer retains the legal right to change his mind and nullify the transaction, absent of a Mekach Taus or store/state refund policy. [Furthermore, even when the person lifts the item in the store prior to payment, some argue that it is considered that he has Halachically purchased the item, being that he has performed Hagbah to the item.[48] Nonetheless, even according to the approach that it is considered his, it has the status of an item that was purchased with intent to evaluate and eventually decide whether to keep or not, and hence it may be returned so long as he has yet to actually pay for it.[49]]

Mekach Taus – Defects and wrong charge:[50] Even in the event that a fully valid acquisition has taken place between the buyer and seller, or giver and recipient, to legalize the transaction, nonetheless, in the event of a Halachically defined Mekach Taus, it is permitted for the party who was wronged[51] to retract from the sale [as in truth the sale is viewed as if it never took place[52]]. It is beyond the scope of this article to delineate the various legal definitions of Mekach Taus which permit retracting from a sale and receiving whatever money he gave back in return, although some of the main examples include 1) A blemished product, or product not fitting description at time of purchase.[53] 2) Overcharging or under charging for the product more than 20%, which is known as Onah.[54] There are various details in these two categories and hence a Rav is to be contacted in all cases that the buyer and seller cannot reach an agreement for a requested refund.

Refund policies of Country and business:[55] The above inability to retract from a transaction once a valid acquisition has taken place, as well as the ability to retract from a transaction in the case of Mekach Taus, only applies absent of a store refund policy and in an area that does not contain any consumer laws regarding the issue of returns. However, if the store policy is to permit returns, then certainly one may do so. Furthermore, if the State in which the purchase took place, contains consumer laws and policies which are accepted upon that area, then the laws of returning a product follow all those laws and regulations for all purposes. In such a case, a store return policy that is not legal according to State law, is not binding on the consumer, and he reserves the right to return a product and receive reimbursement as per State law. Thus, for example, in Israel there exists a law which obligates many types of businesses to permit returns within 14 days from purchase even if no Mekach Taus was involved.[56] Accordingly, this state law overrides the regular Jewish law which does not recognize the ability to ask for a return on a product once a valid acquisition has taken place, absent of a Halachically defined Mekach Taus.[57]  In the USA, there is no federal mandate for return policies, although states do individually have state mandates which dictate return policies. For example, in California when reserves the right to return a product for a full refund within 30 days from purchase, unless the business explicitly posts otherwise, in a way visible to consumers.

 

• Inability to retract – No Kinyan was made:

The following is a list of scenarios in which one may not legally retract from the pledged transaction even in the case that no valid legal acquisition has yet to be made:

Acquisition of a pledge:[58] If a person made a pledge to give a person a gift, and the recipient had made an acquisition on the promise from the person gifting it, using the valid methods in which words and promises can be acquired, then he is legally required to go through with his promise whether it is a large or small gift.[59] If, however, the gifting was done out of error, then even if an acquisition took place it is not legally binding.[60]

Matters of a Mitzvah:[61] One who resolves, even in his heart, that he will do a certain Mitzvah related matter, is obligated to do so due to the rules of a vow. One is certainly obligated to do so if he expressed his resolution with his mouth. [Nonetheless, in certain cases he may perform Hataras Nedarim to absolve him of the oath.[62]]

Forgiving a debt or loan:[63] A person who forgives a debt or loan cannot legally go back on his word, and the loan or debt is considered legally null and void from there on. There is no need for any acquisition to take place to legally affect the nullification of the debt, and simply saying that one forgives the loan suffices to make it legally binding. This, however, is with exception to a case in which the forgiveness was done out of error, in which case even if an acquisition took place it is not legally binding.[64]

Gift from the community, or from a group of people:[65] In the event that a group of individuals told a person that they will give him a gift, then if there were three appointed community leaders present amongst the group of individuals who promised the gift to the individual, then from the letter of the law, they are legally not able to retract from the promise, and must go through with giving him the gift.[66]

A pauper:[67] One who states that he will give a pauper a present, then it retains the status of a vow, and hence whether it is a small present and whether it is a large present, he may not legally retract his statement, and is required to follow through with his promise, as is the law regarding all vows.[68] Furthermore, even if he did not express his resolve to give a pauper a gift in actual words, and rather simply made the resolve[69] within his heart and mind, then he is required to follow through with the resolve of his mind, as will be explained in the laws of charity.[70] [Nonetheless, he may perform Hataras Nedarim to absolve him of the oath.[71] Thus, if one wrote a check to charity, he cannot go back on it unless he performs Hataras Nedarim.[72]]

Maaser to a Levite:[73] One who states that he will give his Maaser produce to a certain Levite, then if the Levite is a pauper, then it retains the status of a vow, and he may not legally retract his statement, and is required to follow through with his promise, as is the law regarding all vows.

If handed a gift to a messenger to give to the recipient:[74] One who gives money or an object to his friend and tells him to give it to a certain person as a gift, then if in his instructions to the messenger he used the term “Ten/give this to him as I’m giving it to him as a present” then that individual is already considered to have acquired the gift money or object and hence he is no longer legally able to retract it [whether it is a small gift or large gift].[75] Accordingly, even if the giver asks the messenger to give it back to him, he may not give it back to him unless he is coerced in a way that leaves him without choice.[76]

• Mi Shepara – Ability to retract but liable to receive curse of Mi Shepara:[77]

In certain scenarios, although one may still legally retract from going through with the agreed transaction if a valid legal acquisition has yet to take place, nonetheless, one who does so is liable to receive the curse of Mi Shepara.[78] It goes without saying that such an individual is considered a dishonest person [i.e. Michisurei Emuna], and the Sages were not happy with such an individual, as it is proper for a person to keep to his word, as explained in Case 4. [However, being liable for Mi Shepara is more severe than simply being called Michsurei Emuna, as the Sages are not merely displeased with him, but actually curse him. Furtehrmore, in the scenario that one is liable for Mi Shepara, it is forbidden for one to go back on the sale and make himself liable for Mi Shepara[79], unlike in a scenario of mere Michsurei Emuna in which this matter is under debate, as will be explained.]

Case example – Paid for product but no Kinyan: Although according to Biblical law paying for a product is considered a legal acquisition, nevertheless, the sages abolished this method of acquisition with exception to certain cases, and hence according to Rabbinical law, paying for a product does not necessarily suffice for legally acquiring the item and finalizing a business transaction.[80] Accordingly, both the buyer and the seller retains the legal ability to retract from the transaction, following the letter of the law, so long as no legal acquisition was made, in addition to the payment.[81] Nonetheless, once the buyer pays[82] for the item even partially, anyone who backs out from the sale, whether the buyer or the seller, is eligible to receive the curse of Mi Shepara.[83] This applies even if the market value of the product has changed.[84] [There do exist however certain cases of exception in which one who retracts is not liable for Mi Shepara.[85]]

Other cases:[86] Other cases likewise exist in which the side who retracts from the business agreement is liable to receive Mi Shepara, even if no money was exchanged, such as if a Kinyan Situmta was done in a locality where such a Kinyan is not practiced in commerce.

Mekach Taus – Defects and wrong charge:[87] In the event of a Halachically defined Mekach Taus, it is permitted for the party who was wronged to retract from the sale, and he is not liable for Mi Shepara, as explained above in Case 1 that this applies even if a valid Kinyan has taken place.

The law if there exists a refund policy:[88] The above liability for Mi Shepara on retracting from a sale only applies in an area that does not contain any consumer laws regarding the issue of returns. If, however, the State in which the purchase took place, contains consumer laws and policies which are accepted upon that area, then the laws of returning a product follow all those laws and regulations for all purposes. The same applies if the store policy is to permit returns until a certain time, in which case there is no Mi Shepara for retracting from the sale.

Gentile:[89] It is disputed amongst the Poskim whether a Jew is liable for the curse of Mi Shepara in the event that he retracts from a transaction that he did with a Gentile, if he has yet to perform a valid acquisition.[90]

• Michisurei Emuna – Ability to retract and no Mi Shepara but is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna]:[91]

From a legal standpoint, words alone do not suffice for legally acquiring an item and finalizing a business transaction [even if there are witnesses who testify to the agreement[92]].[93] Accordingly, both the buyer and the seller, or giver and receiver, retains the legal ability to retract from the transaction, following the letter of the law, so long as no legal acquisition was made.[94] Furthermore, even the curse of Mi Shepara is not given to one who backs out from the agreement so long as the buyer has yet to pay for the item.[95] Nonetheless, such an individual who backs out from a finalized[96] agreement [whether the buyer or seller[97]] is considered a dishonest person [i.e. Michisurei Emuna][98], and the Sages were not happy with such an individual [i.e. Ein Ruach Chachamim Noach Heymenu][99], as it is proper for a person to keep to his word.[100] [Accordingly, it is forbidden for one to retract from the transaction in any scenario which would be defined as Michsurei Emuna, and one who does so is called a Rasha.[101] However, some Poskim[102] rule that this is not a prohibition, but a mere matter of properness, and hence one who does so is not called a Rasha or transgressor. On the other hand, one who does keep his word, merits to sit in the sector of God, and the spirit of the sages are happy with him and according to some, he merits wealth.[103]]

Thoughts of the heart: The consideration of Michsurei Emuna only applies to an individual who retracts from a verbal agreement that was made with the other party. However, resolutions of the heart do not consider one Michsurei Emunah if he retracts from them, even though it is proper for a G-d fearing Jew to fulfill them, as will be explained in Case 5.

Going back from an agreed upon price:[104] If a buyer and seller agreed on a certain sum for an item, then neither party should go back on their word and ask to pay more or less than the agreed upon sum. [If one does so, then he is considered Michsurei Emuna, and the sages are not happy with such an individual, and is therefore forbidden to do so, as explained above. This applies even if one discovered that other stores sell the item for cheaper.[105]]

If the market value of the product has changed, or other unexpected changes occurred:[106] Some Poskim[107] rule that it is forbidden [due to Michsurei Emuna] for either party to retract from the sale price even if the market value has changed. Hence, if the value of the product went up in price, the seller may not demand a higher price, and if the value of the product went down in price, the buyer may not demand it to be given to him for the lower price, and if either party does so then they are considered untrustworthy. Other Poskim[108], however rule that if one of the parties retracts from the sale due to an increase or decrease in the market value of the item, then he is not considered untrustworthy, and hence even initially one may choose to do so. [The same applies regarding any other unexpected change on the ground that may make the person now retract from the sale.[109]] Practically, the main ruling follows the former opinion[110], [although some conclude that it is a mere Midas Chassidus to be stringent[111], and some write that the custom today is to be lenient in this matter[112], and by a large unexpected change, then one may be lenient according to all[113]].

Agreement due to error:[114] If the agreement was done out of error, then one who retracts from his position is not considered Michsurei Emuna.

Going back from a proposed favor:[115] If one told his friend that he will do for him a certain favor, and he has the ability to do so, then he should not go back on his word [and if one does so, then he is considered Michsurei Emuna, and the sages are not happy with such an individual[116]]. [Thus, if one offered to give someone a ride, or let them stay as a guest in one’s house, or go shopping for them for certain item, then one may not go back on his proposal and if he does so he is considered Michsurei Emuna. All the more so, seemingly a guest who has closed with a host to eat or stay by them, it is considered Michsurei Emuna for him to cancel on them without due notice.]

Going back from a proposed small gift:[117] One who tells his friend that he will give him a small gift, [then although he retains the legal right to retract from his pledge if the recipient is wealthy, nevertheless,] if he does not end up giving it to him, then such a person is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].[118] [However, by a large gift, a person is not considered Michsurei Emuna if he retracts from the pledge, as will be explained in case 5. However, if the recipient is a pauper, then it is illegal to retract from his pledge, as was explained in Case 2.] [A small gift is defined as any gift in which the recipient believed in the pledge that he was given, based on the wealth of the person making the pledge.[119]] See Halacha F for the full details of this matter.

Mekach Taus – Defects and wrong charge:[120] In the event of a Halachically defined Mekach Taus, it is permitted for the party who was wronged to retract from the sale, and he is not considered untrustworthy.  This applies even after a Kinyan has taken place, as explained in case 1, and certainly if it was a mere verbal agreement.

The law if there exists a refund policy:[121] The above consideration of Michsurei Emuna on retracting from a sale seemingly only applies in an area that does not contain any consumer laws regarding the issue of returns. If, however, the State in which the purchase took place, contains consumer laws and policies which are accepted upon that area, then there is no Michsurei Emuna for retracting from the sale agreement, as one may do so even after the Kinyan takes place. The same applies if the store policy is to permit returns until a certain time, in which case there is no Michsurei Emuna for retracting from the sale agreement, as if one may ask for a refund even after a purchase, certainly one may go back on an agreement to purchase it. However, seemingly, this only applies if the business provides cash refunds, however, if they only give store credit, then seemingly it would be considered Michsurei Emunah to retract from the sale, as the owner loses business.[122]

Gentile:[123] A Jew is not considered Michsurei Emuna if he retracts from a transaction that he did with a Gentile, if he has yet to perform a valid acquisition, as gentiles themselves reserve the right to back out of a verbal agreement.

Chargeback – Canceling a purchase via one’s credit card company:[124] Canceling a purchase via one’s credit card company illegally or unjustifiably, breaches not only a prohibition of Michsurei Emuna, Mi Shepara, and the laws of Kinyanim, but furthermore makes the person considered a Mazik, as the credit card company often charges an administrative fee to the business. It likewise has the chance of potentially ruining the reputation of the business with the credit card issuer, and hence he also transgresses Motzi Sheim Ra on the business. This is aside for being potentially illegal according to civil law.[125] Hence, a chargeback may only be done in the event of a true Mekach Taus[126], and only after the business is notified and still refuses to issue a refund.[127] One who prematurely cancels a purchase via his credit card company, may be guilty of all the above, and be liable to pay for the loss caused to the business.

• Ability to retract and is not considered Michsurei Emuna, but may be unproper:

Large gift:[128] By a large gift[129], [such as one who tells his friend that he will give him a gift of $1 million] then even if he does not follow through with his promise he is not considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna] if the recipient is wealthy and is not a pauper, as explained above in Case 2.[130] This, however, is with exception to a case in which the recipient had made an acquisition on the promise from the person gifting it, using the valid methods in which words and promises can be acquired, in which case he is legally required to go through with his promise.[131] See Halacha F for the full details of this matter.

Thoughts of the heart – One who decided in his mind to do a certain deal or favor:[132] Once someone decides[133] even in his mind to buy a certain item, or agree to a certain matter, then it is proper for every G-d fearing person to fulfill it.[134] Thus, if one resolved in his mind and heart to sell a certain item for a certain sum and the potential buyer was unaware of this resolved sum and offered a higher price for the item, then he should only take from him the amount that he originally resolved in his heart to charge for the product.[135] Likewise, if a buyer has resolved in his heart to buy a product for a certain sum, then he should not go back on his hearts resolve [and pay less for the product, even if he is offered the product for less than his initial resolve to pay].[136] (The same applies for all other matters of the like, between man and his fellow, that he should fulfill the words of his heart if he resolved to do them, such as to do a certain favor for his friend, and he has the ability to do so [then he should fulfill his resolve].)[137]

Personal matters versus matters between man and his fellow:[138] The above requirement for one to keep his word only applies regarding matters that are between man and his friend, however, matters that are personal, between him and his personal needs, then there is no need to fulfill them, if it does not involve any aspect of a Mitzvah, even if he expressed that he will do so.

1. Retracting from a promise to give a gift or present:[139]

Small gift: One who tells his friend that he will give him a small gift, [then although he retains the legal right to retract from his pledge if the recipient is wealthy, nevertheless,] if he does not end up giving it to him, then such a person is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].[140] [However, if the recipient is a pauper, then it is illegal to retract from his pledge, as will be explained below.] [A small gift is defined as any gift in which the recipient believed in the pledge that he was given, based on the wealth of the person making the pledge.[141]]

Recipient is unaware:[142] Some Poskim[143] rule that the above rule [that the person is considered untrustworthy] applies even if one made the pledge of giving the gift not in the presence of his friend, and his friend is unaware of his pledge. However, an argument can be made that he is not considered untrustworthy if he retracts from it if the recipient was unaware of the pledge[144], and so rule some Poskim.[145]

Large gift: However, by a large gift[146], [such as one who tells his friend that he will give him a gift of $1 million] then [if the recipient is wealthy, then not only does he retain the legal right to retract from the gift, but furthermore] even if he does not follow through with his promise he is not considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].[147] [However, if the recipient is a pauper, then it is illegal to retract from his pledge, as will be explained below. Likewise, some Poskim[148] rule that if he made the statement in public, then he is considered to be untrustworthy if he goes back on it, even if it was a large gift, and the recipient is not a pauper.] This, however, is with exception to a case in which the recipient had made an acquisition on the promise from the person gifting it, using the valid methods in which words and promises can be acquired, in which case he is legally required to go through with his promise.[149] If, however, the promise for the gifting was done out of error, then even if an acquisition took place it is not legally binding.[150]

Intent to follow through with one’s promise:[151] Although one retains the right to not go through with his promise to give someone a large gift, and even by a small gift he has the legal right to retract from his promise and is simply deemed untrustworthy, nonetheless, at the time that he makes the promise or statement that he will give him a gift, he must say it with complete intent to follow through with his statement, and may not intend at the time of making the statement to go back on his word. If he does make the statement promising a gift, even a large gift, without intent to follow through, then he transgresses a Biblical prohibition, as to speak one way in one’s mouth and one way in one’s heart is Biblically forbidden.[152] [Accordingly, any time that one is unsure of whether he truly plans on going through with a certain promise or declaration to another, then he should not say it with certainty, due to the Biblical prohibition, and should rather say it without complete affirmation, such as “I am considering giving you such and such” or “I would like to give you such and such,” rather than saying “I am going to give you such and such,” when in truth in his mind he is not sure that he wants to do so or can do so, and plans on giving himself the right to go back on his word. However, even in the latter case, if circumstances arise that cause him to go back on his word, then he has the legal right to do so, although is considered untrustworthy if he promised a small gift.]

Gift from the community, or from a group of people:[153] In the event that a group of individuals told a person that they will give him a gift, then even if it is a large gift, if they retract from fulfilling their promise, then they are considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].[154] Furthermore, in the event that there were three appointed community leaders present amongst the group of individuals who promised the gift to the individual, then from the letter of the law, they are legally not able to retract from the promise, and must go through with giving him the gift.[155]

A pauper:[156] One who states that he will give a pauper a present, then it retains the status of a vow, and hence whether it is a small present and whether it is a large present, he may not legally retract his statement, and is required to follow through with his promise, as is the law regarding all vows.[157] Furthermore, even if he did not express his resolve to give a pauper a gift in actual words, and rather simply made the resolve[158] within his heart and mind, then he is required to follow through with the resolve of his mind, as will be explained in the laws of charity.[159] [Nonetheless, he may perform Hataras Nedarim to absolve him of the oath.[160] Thus, if one wrote a check to charity, he cannot go back on it unless he performs Hataras Nedarim.[161]]

Maaser to a Levite:[162] One who states that he will give his Maaser produce to a certain Levite, then if the Levite is a pauper, then it retains the status of a vow, and he may not legally retract his statement, and is required to follow through with his promise, as is the law regarding all vows. However, if the Levite is wealthy, then he may legally retract from his promise, although is considered not trustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna].[163]

If one already handed the gift to a messenger to give to the recipient:[164] One who gives money or an object to his friend and tells him to give it to a certain person as a gift, then if in his instructions to the messenger he used the term “Ten/give this to him as I’m giving it to him as a present” then that individual is already considered to have acquired the gift money or object and hence he is no longer legally able to retract it [whether it is a small gift or large gift].[165] Accordingly, even if the giver asks the messenger to give it back to him, he may not give it back to him unless he is forced to do so.[166] However, if in his instructions to the emissary he used the term “Holeich/bring this, or Sa/carry this, or Yehei/this should be to the following individual whom I am giving you present to” then he retains the legal right to retract from his statement [and ask the emissary to give them back the gift] if the recipient is wealthy.[167] Although, in such a case, the giver would be considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna] if it is a small gift.[168] [However, if it is a large gift, then he is not even considered untrustworthy if he retracts from it. Furthermore, an argument can be made that even by a small gift, he is not even considered untrustworthy if he retracts from it[169], and so rule some Poskim.[170] However, if the recipient is a pauper, then his statement has the status of a vow whether it is a small gift or large gift, and the giver must fulfill his promise, as stated above regarding a pauper.[171]]

A child:[172] Some Poskim[173] rule that the above concept of being considered untrustworthy if one retracts from his pledge applies even if one made a pledge to a child. Other Poskim[174], however, rule that it does not apply towards a child recipient, and hence one may retract from his word and is not considered untrustworthy. Nonetheless, according to all, it is improper for one to promise a child an item and not fulfill it, as this educates the child to lie.[175] [Likewise, it causes the child to lose trust in authority.[176] Some learn that regarding a child, this applies even in those cases that one is not considered untrustworthy if he does not fulfill his word, such as by a large gift, or the child is Mochel, or the market value has rose.[177]]

1. May one back out of a loan after giving his word to the borrower?[178]

Legal liability: If one said he would loan money to someone, he is not legally liable to go through with the loan and the borrower cannot force him in court to give him the money.[179] [Nevertheless, some Poskim rule that he is considered Mechsurei Emuna for doing so, as explained next.] If, however, an IOU document was already written with the consent of the lender, then some Poskim[180] rule he is liable to give the borrower the money. Other Poskim[181] however rule he can go back from the loan even in such a case. 

Breaking a Neder: If one said he would loan money to someone who is in need then although there is no legal liability, it is forbidden to back out of his word due to a Neder, just as is the law regarding charity pledges.[182] If one desires to retract his word he is to perform Hataras Nedarim.[183] If however the person who is borrowing the money is not in need, and is borrowing it for extracurricular matters, then he is not obligated to keep his word, although some Poskim[184] rule that he is considered untrustworthy [i.e. Mechesareiy Emuna] and the Sages are not happy with him as a person is supposed to keep to his word. Due to the above law, one is to initially state “Beli Neder” upon taking upon himself to give someone a loan.[185]

Summary: A pledge to give a loan is not legally binding and can be retracted at any time. Nevertheless, at times making the pledge is considered a Neder and one hence must perform Hataras Nedarim to back out from his word. Likewise, even when the pledge does not have the power of a Neder, it is considered unethical to not fulfill one’s word. As a word of advice, in call cases one is to say Beli Neder when making the pledge in order to avoid the above issues.

1. Appointing a different Sandek:[186]

Once an individual has been asked by the father to be the Sandek, it is forbidden for the father to go back on his word and ask somebody else to do so, just as we rule in regards to a Mohel.[187]

The second Sandek is more righteous or a greater friend:[188] In the event that one found a more righteous Sandek, or a Sandek who is a greater friend, then one may even initially retract from his original appointment and appoint the more righteous Sandek, or a Sandek who is a greater friend, if one would have definitely appointed him initially if he was around at the time of the appointment of the original Sandek. [This however may only be done at least one or two days before the circumcision and not in close proximity to the circumcision as doing so will shame and embarrass the original Sandek.[189]]

May the second Sandek do so if asked:[190] If the father transgresses and retracts from the appointment and asks another Mohel to do so, then it is permitted for the second Mohel to do so.

1. Appointing another Mohel:[191]

Once a Mohel has been asked by the father to perform a Bris Milah, it is forbidden for the father to go back on his word and ask somebody else to do so [and if he does so then he is considered wicked[192]].[193]

The second Mohel is more experienced and expertise:[194] In the event that one found a more experienced or more expertise Mohel, then one may even initially retract from his original appointment and appoint the more expertise Mohel. [This however may only be done at least one or two days before the circumcision and not in close proximity to the circumcision as doing so will shame and embarrass the original Mohel.[195]]

The second Mohel is more righteous or a greater friend:[196] In the event that one found a more righteous Mohel, or a Mohel who is a greater friend, then one may even initially retract from his original appointment and appoint the more righteous Mohel or a Mohel who is a greater friend, if one would have definitely appointed him initially if he was around at the time of the appointment of the original Mohel. [This however may only be done at least one or two days before the circumcision and not in close proximity to the circumcision as doing so will shame and embarrass the original Mohel.[197]]

1. Summary:

It is Biblically forbidden for one to give his word without intent to fulfill it. In the event that he had intent to fulfill it and later changed his mind, then the following is the law: Once a Kinyan has been made by the buyer or recipient, neither party may retract from the sale absent of a Mekach Taus, or refund policy. Prior to a Kinyan having been made by the buyer or recipient, either party may legally retract from the purchase or gift. However, if money was exchanged in the case of the purchase, then it is forbidden to retract from the sale, and the party who retracts the sale is liable for the curse of Mi Shepara, absent of a Mekach Taus, or refund policy. If no money was exchanged, but a statement was made by the buyer or seller to go through with the purchase, then if one retracts from the sale he is considered Michsurei Emuna, absent of a Mekach Taus, or refund policy. Likewise, changing the price after agreement on the price of the object, would consider the party who retracts as Michsurei Emuna. Likewise if one made a promise to give a gift, then he is considered to be Michsurei Emuna if he retracts his promise, unless it was a large gift and the recipient is not a pauper. If one merely agreed in his mind to purchase or sell an item or give a gift, then he is not considered Michsurei Emuna if you retracts from his results, although a God-fearing Jew should honor it. The same applies if he resolved on a certain price on the purchase.

_____________________________________________

[1] List of Sources: Scripture: Kedoshim 19:36; Tehillim 15:2; Tzefanya 3:13; Shulchan Aruch: Admur O.C. 156:2; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha’s 1-4 and 6; Michaber C.M. 204:6-9; Rama 204:11; Mishneh and Talmud: Bava Metzia 48-49a; Mishneh Shevi’is 10 and Mefarshim ibid; Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Sanhedrin 92a; Bava Basra 88a; Makos 24a Rishonim: Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13; Hilchos Mechira 7:8; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol; Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Rashi Kesubos 86a; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 Achronim: Smeh 204:12; Shelah Miseches Chulin p. 114a; Minchas Chinuch 259; Minchas Pitim 204:8-11; Mishpitei Chaim 6; Yagdil Torah 68:36 Melaktim: Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Halacha’s 1-6 and in Likkutim and Biurim, Shaar Tziyon and Mekoros; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 281-316; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Mi Shepara” Vol. 46 p. 81-152; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717

[2] See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 287-290

Why the verse [Shemos 23:7] of Midvar Sheker Tirchak is not mentioned as a source: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Eifas Tzedek” that it is a mere Asmachta [i.e. Rabbinical] for general lying, as the main command refers to judges and a court house, and even that Asmachta only applies about matters of the past, that one may not lie about past events, and not regarding statements of the future, that one must fulfill his word so he does not end up lying retroactively. Rather, we have other verses that teach us this aspect of dishonesty. For more on the subject of Midvar Sheker Tirchak and its intended applications, see: Toefos Riem on Yireim 235; Shavuos 30b; Even Ezra on Shemos ibid that this verse is an extra command relevant only to judges; Rav Perla in his commentary on Sefer Hamitzvos Rasag Mitzvah 22 that the Rambam/Ramban/Chinuch all learn it is not a general command against lying; Menoras Hamaor 2:2; Orach Meisharim 9:1; Yad Haketana Deos 10; Rashbatz on Azharos 59

[3] Bava Metiza 49a

[4] See Minchas Pitim 204:11

[5] Admur 156:2; Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah; Minchas Chinuch 259; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 67-73

[6] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Abayey Bava Metzia 49a; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66

[7] Rashi Kesubos 86a; See Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a who negates this interpretation; See Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 204; Minchas Pitim ibid

[8] Admur C.M. Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1; Rashi Bava Metzia ibid; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rotehnberg; Darkei Moshe 243:20; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 74-76

[9] See Mishpitei Chaim 6; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid

[10] Bava Metzia 49a and Rif ibid; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 283-286

[11] In addition, Rav holds that even paying part of the sum of the product does not make one liable for Mi Shepara if the excess amount of the product that was not yet paid for, is asked to be canceled. [See Bava Metzia 49a and Rashi there that Rav holds “Kinegdo Hu Kneh”]

[12] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber 204:8; Rama 204:11; Tur 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a as explained by Rav Papa; Rif 80a rules like Rebbe Yochanon.

[13] See Imrei Yaakov Biurim “Eiyn”; Yagdil Torah 68:36; Pischeiy Choshen Halva 1:38

[14] The general laws of honesty in business is recorded in Admur O.C. 156:2. The detailed laws of going back on one’s word in business is brought in C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halachas 1-6

[15] Admur 156:2; Michaber 156:1 “Veyisa Viyiten Bemuna”; Tur 156; Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13

Biblical, Rabbinical, or Midas Chasisdus: Biblical: Some Poskim rule that the above obligation is Biblical as it is based on an explicit verse in Scripture. [Possible understanding of Admur 156:2 who brings Pasuk of Hin Tzedek as source; Braisa Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Shelah ibid; Minchas Chinuch 259; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Smeh ibid, Rashi Kesubos 86a, Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah] Rabbinical: Other Poskim, however, rule that it is merely Rabbinical. [Implication of Admur Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1 who brings Pasuk of Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yasu; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Eino Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Rif, Rosh, Ramban in Milchamos, Admur ibid, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; See Hamaor Hagdol on Rif ibid; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36 and Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”] Whatever the case, there is a prohibition to change one’s word. [See Rama “Assur Lachzor”; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25] Midas Chassidus: However, from other sources it is evident that this is a mere act of properness or of piety and not an obligation at all. [Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 who use the term “Rauiy”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty. He answers honestly to yes and no questions. He obligates himself to a business agreement in areas that the Torah did not obligate him, in order so he can keep his word and not change from it.” However, see Kesef Mishneh ibid for a second version in which it states that he does not obligate himself, which simply means that he does not give his word to agreements in order to prevent a situation that he must go back on it.] See Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136; See Mishpitei Chaim 6; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”

Other opinions in Talmud: Some are of the opinion that one always retain the right to retract from a promise of giving a gift or business agreement, whether the agreement and gift is small or large, and doing so does not consider one as not trustworthy, as so is the way of business for people to change their mind due to a variety of factors. [Rav Bava Metzai 49a, brought in Admur ibid Kuntrus Achron 1]

[16] The reason: 1) As the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. [Admur O.C. ibid; Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah; Minchas Chinuch 259; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 67-73] This means that when a person speaks and says yes or no to something, then one must try to fulfill his word and justify them. [Admur ibid; Rashi ibid] 2) Alternatively, this is learned from the verse [Tzefanya 3:13] which states “Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yaasu Avla Velo Yidabru Chazav.” [Admur C.M. Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1; Rashi Bava Metzia ibid; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rotehnberg; Darkei Moshe 243:20; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 74-76]; Regarding the apparent contradiction in Admur O.C. ibid versus Admur C.M. ibid as to the source in Scripture for this requirement, See: Imrei Yaakov Biurim “Eiyn”; Yagdil Torah 68:36; Pischeiy Choshen Halva 1:38

Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2 interprets this verse of Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach to refer to the concept that there is a Biblical prohibition against one making a promise without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it. In his words: To speak one way in one’s mouth and one way in one’s heart is Biblically forbidden as the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Rambam Deios 2:6; Abayey in Bava Metzia 49a in his interpretation of Braisa ibid; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66]

[17] Admur ibid; Rashi of Bava Metzia ibid

[18] Admur 156:2; Sanhedrin 92a

[19] Perhaps this is compared to idolatry because it is considered as if one denies Hashem’s sovereignty and that the agreement was meant to happen. He rather believes that he will benefit from changing the deal.

[20] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses regarding a resolve though and even speech “However his own personal needs, so long as they do not contain any aspect of a Mitzvah, he does not have to fulfill even if he explicitly said that he will do so””; Admur 156:2 regarding thought

[21] See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 222; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:7 Shaar Hatziyon 32

[22] Admur 156:2 “Even the thoughts of one’s heart that one has decided in his mind, it is proper for every individual who has fear of heaven to fulfill it.”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “A God-fearing man is to fulfill even the thoughts of his heart.”; Bava Basra 88a; Makos 24a; Hagahos Ashri 21; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 300-301

[23] The reason: As the verse [Tehillim 15:2] states “Vedover Emes Bilivavo/and a person who speaks truth in his heart.” [Admur O.C. ibid and C.M. ibid; Bava Basra ibid]

[24] Admur 156:2; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses (“And other matters of the like, between man and his fellow, he should fulfill the words of his heart if he resolved to do them, such as to do a certain favor for his friend, and he has the ability to do so. However his own personal needs, so long as they do not contain any aspect of a Mitzvah, he does not have to fulfill even if he explicitly said that he will do so”)

[25] Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah” and 4; regarding Tzedaka; Kuntrus Achron 1; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast; Chasam Sofer E.H. 2:101; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Tzarich Lekayem Machshavto” in length

[26] Admur O.C. 156:2; M”A 156:1; Sefer Chassidim 426; Tosafos Bava Metzia 23b; Rambam Deios 5:7; Semag 107; Pela Hayoeitz “Hasheker”

[27] Yevamos 65b;

[28] Admur in parentheses; Rif in Bava Metzia Perek Eilu Metzios 23b

[29] Admur ibid in parentheses that this above ruling, “Requires slight analysis being that peace is greater than all the other mitzvah’s [see Midrash Raba Chukas 19:27 on verse Tehillim 34:15 “Bakesh Shalom Veradfeihu”; Vayikra Raba 9:9] and the Talmud [Yevamos 65b] permits one to lie for the sake of peace, and the Rif [Bava Metzia Perek Eilu Metzios 23b] even holds that it is a Mitzvah to do so, and hence from where can one conclude that one may not lie regarding future matters, as in truth perhaps it is permitted, as it states Bechol Derachacha Deieihu. [Brachos 63a even for an Aveira and Rashi there that sometimes one should even transgresses if it is for the need of a mitzvah; Midrash Raba Bereishis 1; Elya Raba 156:2; Peri Megadim 156 A”A 2]”

[30] Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13

[31] See Kesef Mishneh ibid that so is the more correct Nussach. An alternative Nussach states “He accepts obligations in matters of buying and selling for which the Torah does not hold him liable, in order to uphold and not go back on his verbal commitments.” Seemingly, the difference between the two versions is that according to the version recorded above in the main paragraph, he abstains from giving his word and making agreements in order so we can always withhold the right to retract if necessary and not considered dishonest. According to the second version, he abstains from retracting from an agreement once he gave his word. Seemingly, the argument against the second version is due to the fact that not only a Torah scholar is obligated to keep his word but rather every Jew, and hence this matter should not listed as a unique trait of Torah scholars. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[32] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Abayey Bava Metzia 49a; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 182; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66

Other opinions: Some Poskim imply that making a statement without intent to follow through with it at the time that one says the statement, is not under any Biblical prohibition. [Implication of Admur O.C. 156:2, and all Poskim who hold of this position, who interprets this verse to refer to the concept that one should always try to follow through with his promises, which is only a matter of Michisurei Emuna, and is not Biblical]

[33] Admur ibid based on Milchamos on Rif ibid and Rosh ibid; Implication of Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36; See Likkutei Sichos 32:157 footnote 24

[34] The reason: As the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Abayey Bava Metzia 49a; Rif 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon; Rambam Deios 2:6] See Rashi ibid that the Hin is 12 Lugin while the Eifa is three Sean which is 72 Lugin

Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur O.C. 156:2 interprets this verse to refer to the concept that one should always try to follow through with his promises. In his words: “One is to beware to deal honestly in business and not change his word as the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. This means that when a person speaks and agrees to something with a yes or no, then one must try to fulfill his word and align them with his actions.” This follows the opinion who rules that the above verse is a mere Asmachta to the concept of Michisurei Emuna, and is not of Biblical status. [Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamish ayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10]

[35] See Admur Hilchos Onah Vegineivas Daas 28; Michaber C.M. 28:4; Mishneh Bava Metzia 58b

Seller is unaware that buyer has no intent to buy: According to Admur, there is possible implication that if the seller has no idea that one is trying to fool him, and he rather believes that he is asking to see if he can afford it, then it is permitted even if in truth the asker has no intent to buy it. [Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid in Biurim p. 43-44] However, even according to this approach, it would remain prohibited for the person to lie and say that he’s interested in buying the product, and rather the allowance is simply for him to ask how much the item costs without mentioning any interest in buying it.

[36] See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid in Biurim p. 43-44; Pischei Choshen 15:5 footnote 15; Hilchos Onah Harei Halachos p. 378-380

[37] Michaber C.M. 189:1; Tur 189:1; Rambam Mechira 1:1; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:1

[38] Rama C.M. 189:1

[39] See Admur 448:8-12; Michaber C.M. 189:1; 198 regarding Kinyan Kesef and Meshicha and Hagbah; 199; 203; 204:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Mitaltalin” Vol. 45; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:1 Shaar Hatziyon 1-18; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim 3 Volumes

Hired worker and prepaid him for part of the work: Is considered a Kinyan and can no longer retract. [Nesivos Hamishpat 333:1; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 3:9]

[40] Various possible Halachic acquisitions exist, including: 1) Meshicha: Taking the product into one’s property or public area. [See Admur 448:8; Michaber C.M. 198:1 and 3; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 6]; 2) Hagbah: Lifting the object. [Michaber C.M. 198:1-2; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 6] 3) Kinyan Kesef: Paying for the product. [See Admur 448:8; Michaber C.M. 198:1 and 5-6, 15 and 199; Bava Metzia 47b; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 3 and 5] 4) Situmta: Any action which is accustomed to being used amongst merchants to finalize a sale, considers the sale final and valid, such as: Marking on the merchandise; Handshake or Tekias Kaf; The giving of a Perutah; Slapping hands; Handing over of keys. These actions are only valid if they are common practice amongst merchants in the area that the sale is taking place, and are used to finalize the sale. [See Michaber C.M. 201:1-2; Admur 448:11; Michaber Choshen Mishpat 129:5; Kesef Kodshim on 201:1; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 8-11; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 12] 5) Kinyan Agav Karka: A Kinyan Agav Karka, involves acquiring a moveable object through acquiring land. [Michaber C.M. 202; Admur 448:11; Chok Yaakov 448:14; See Seder Mechiras Chametz [Levin] p. 162; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 11] 6) Kinyan Chatzer: See Admur 448:11; Michaber C.M. 200; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 8 7) Kinyan Sudar or Kinyan Chalifin: A Kinyan Sudar involves the seller acquiring an object [i.e. handkerchief] of the buyer, and through doing so the buyer acquires the object. [See Michaber C.M. 195:1; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 4] 8) Shtar: A sale contract does not acquire merchandise, but rather as a show of proof for the sale. [See Admur 448:12; Shaar Hakolel Seder Mechira 33; 9) Umdana: When one can assess the intents of a transaction to be of a certain form, it has Halachic status of Umdana, which is Halachically binding. [See Rav Z.N. Goldberg in Techumin 35:346] 10) Dina Demalchusa Dina: [See Rama C.M. 369/11; Chasam Sofer 5 C.M. 44; Rashba 22] 11) Chazaka: See Michaber C.M. 192 and 275; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 7; 12) Kinyan Udisa [i.e. admission]: See Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 13

[41] See regarding buying Karka: Michaber C.M. 190-195 [Buying with Kesef, Shtar, Chazakah, Chalifin]; Buying Slaves: Michaber C.M. 196; Buying Animals: Michaber C.M. 197; Buying Mitaltalin: Michaber C.M. 198-204; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:1 Shaar Hatziyon 10-18; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 5

[42] See Admur 448:8-12; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim in each corresponding chapter

Meshicha and Kesef by a sale to gentile: See Admur 448:8 for a dispute regarding Kinyan Meshicha with a gentile. Some opinions rule that a gentile only acquires an item through giving money to the seller and not through Meshicha. [Opinion in Admur 448:8; Rashi Kiddushin 14b; Bechoros 3b; Masas Binyamin 59 and 97; Nachalas Shiva 30; Michaber and Tur, like Reish Lakish] Other Poskim rule the opposite, that a gentile only acquires an item through Meshicha and not through giving money to the seller. [Ruling of Admur in 441:12; Kuntrus Acharon 441:4; opinion in Admur 448:8; Shach C.M. 194:1; Rabbeinu Tam Tosafos Avoda Zara 71a; Ramban; Chok Yaakov; like Rebbe Yochanan] Other Poskim rule that both forms of acquisition are valid, either Meshicha or Kesef. [Opinion in Admur 448:8; Rambam Zechiya Umatan 1:14] Practically, Admur 441:12 and in Kuntrus Acharon 441:4 rules like the Shach ibid that only Kinyan Meshicha works, and not Kinyan Kesef. In his words “As a Jew from a gentile, or vice versa, does not acquire anything with money alone, but rather with Meshicha”

Meshicha by a present to gentile: When a gentile is given a present from a Jew, according to all it suffices for him to carry the object, as money was only said to be required [for acquisition] in a case that the gentile is buying an item from a Jew, and thus has to give him money for it, however in a case that there is no money involved, like when its being given as a present, then carrying the item alone suffices. [Admur 448:9]

Situmta:  A Kinyan Situmta is valid for a gentile. [Admur 448:11]

Kinyan Agav Karka:  A Kinyan Agav Karka is valid for a gentile. [Admur 448:11; Chok Yaakov 448:14; See Seder Mechiras Chametz [Levin] p. 162]

Kinyan Chatzer:  Kinyan Chatzer is invalid by a gentile as a Chatzer acquires Midin Shlichus, and a gentile does not have Din Shlichus. [Admur 448:11]

Kinyan Sudar: It is debated in Poskim as to whether this is a valid form of acquisition with a gentile, and the final ruling of Admur and other Poskim is that it is invalid. [See Shach C.M. 123:30; Admur Kuntrus Acharon 441:3; Piskei Dinim 448 p. 32; Sheiris Yehudah 11; Shaar Hakolel 32]

[43] See Case 3 regarding the validity of Kinyan Kesef from a Biblical versus Rabbinical perspective

[44] See Sefer Toras Hakinyanim [3 Volumes] in great length for an overview on all Kinyanim and their Halachic status and opinions

[45] Some say three Tefachim, some say one Tefach, and some say any amount. [See Michaber C.M. 198:2; 269:5; Toras Hakinyanim 6:53]

[46] See Michaber C.M. 198:1-2; Sefer Toras Hakinyanim Chapter 6:55

Kinyan Meshicha: The Kinyan of Meshicha which involves the recipient taking the object into his property or into a Simta [joint property, however not public property], is only considered a valid acquisition by Mitaltilin that is uncommon to lift up [i.e. a heavy item, such as a fridge]. [See Michaber 197:1; Rambam Mechira 3:1; Bava Basra 86a; Toras Hakinyanim 6:1, 3, and 46] However, seemingly, even by Mitaltalin that is common to lift it should regardless become his if it was entered into his car or home due to Kinyan Chatzer, and possibly even without Kinyan Chatzer. [See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 310; 315; Toras Hakinyanim ibid footnote 89]

[47] See previous footnote regarding Kinyan Meshicha

[48] See Rama 198:1 “Since he did Hagbah or Meshicha he has acquired even if he did not yet pay”; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95 6-7 footnotes 14-19 in length that it has the status of Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro, however, see there that some argue that he has no intent to purchase prior to payment.

Background – Kinyan Hagbah prior to payment: Regarding if simply lifting the object suffices to be considered a valid acquisition even prior to paying for the object, it is clear that it is considered a valid acquisition. [Rama ibid] However, this only applies if the buyers intent is indeed to purchase it, however, if his intent is not yet to purchase it then his Hagbah means nothing. Accordingly, when shopping for items and placing them in one’s cart or hand, it is disputed amongst today’s Poskim as to the status of acquisition of these items and as to whether we consider it acquired on the status of Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro, or not. [See Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95 6-7 footnotes 14-19] Nonetheless, even according to the approach that it is considered his, it has the status of an item that was purchased with intent to evaluate and eventually decide whether to keep or not. In other words, it is as if one purchased it with an inherent refund policy which gives him the ability to go back on the sale, and hence there is no ramification regarding our subject of whether he may go back and return it, as according to all he may. The only ramification would be regarding his level of liability on the product prior to payment. [See regarding “Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro: Michaber C.M. 200:11; Smeh 200:29; Tur 200; Nedarim 31a”; Bava Basra 88a; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95] However, once he pays for the product and does Meshicha or Hagbah, then it is considered fully his and it is illegal for him to go back on the sale absent of a refund policy of the store or state.

[49] See Michaber C.M. 200:11; Smeh 200:29; Tur 200; Nedarim 31a regarding “Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro”; Bava Basra 88a; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95

[50] See Michaber C.M. Chapters 227-234 regarding general law of Mekach Taus and Onah; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Onah

[51] May the perpetrator [i.e. Mianeh] retract from the sale? The party who did the wrong may not retract from the sale if the victim [i.e. Misaneh] consents to go through with the sale regardless, either verbally or through silence. However, if the victim does not give his consent to go through with the sale in the above manner, then it is disputed as to whether the perpetrator may on his own decide to nullify the sale. [Michaber 227:4 rules he may not, as Lo Yihyeh Choteh Niskar; Rama ibid rules he may because the sale is invalid; See Smeh 227:6-8]

[52] See Smeh 227:8

[53] See Michaber C.M. 228-234

[54] See Michaber C.M. 227:4; See also Admur C.M. Hilchos Onah

[55] A refund policy in essence makes the purchase of the product defined as “Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro” by which we rule that one may return it. See Michaber C.M. 200:11; Smeh 200:29; Tur 200; Nedarim 31a”; Bava Basra 88a; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95

[56] https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/general_tuota/he/EN_Brushur_SITE.PDF

[57] See Michaber 232:6 that we follow the Minhag Hamedina regarding the definition of a Mum, and Michaber 232:19 that the Minhag is not to accept returns on eggs, and Minhag Mivatel Halacha! See Aruch Hashulchan 232:7 and 30

[58] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9

[59] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid

[60] See Admur ibid; Rama C.M. 241:2; Mordechai Sanhedrin 1 Remez 682; Maharik Shoresh 111; Tosafus Sanhedrin 7a; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 298 footnotes 145-148

[61] Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah” and 4; regarding Tzedaka; Kuntrus Achron 1; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast

[62] See Shach C.M. 125:27; Beis Shmuel 51:11; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 258:8-9; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:17 and 19 Shaar Hatziyon 58-59

See regarding doing Hatras Nedarim to a charity pledge: Michaber Y.D. 258:6; Maharsham 1:201 regarding pledges in thought; Tzedaka Umishpat [Bloy] 4:5

[63] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Rama C.M. 241:2; Tur 241:2; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 5:11; Zechiya Umatana 3:2; Tosafus Sanhedrin 7a; Bava Metzia 112a; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:11-12 Shaar Hatziyon 40-45 and Likkutim 2:7 Mekoros 19-21

[64] Admur ibid; Rama C.M. 241:2; Mordechai Sanhedrin 1 Remez 682; Maharik Shoresh 111; Tosafus Sanhedrin 7a

[65] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 3; Hagahos Mordechai ibid; See also Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Halacha 15; Rama end of 163; See Michaber 204:9; Mordechai Bava Metzia 6 Remez 458

[66] The reason: As any actions of a community do not require an acquisition to become legally binding. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Mordechai ibid]

[67] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 4 and Kuntrus Achron 1 in great length; [see also Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah”; Admur Hilchos Gezeila Halacha 31 “Amira Legivoa”]; Michaber C.M. 125:5; Y.D. 258:12; Rama C.M. 243:2; Rama E.H. end of 51; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast; Beis Yosef Y.D. 258; Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:2; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Mordechai Bava Metzia 6 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rothenberg and Bava Basra Remez 499; Hagahos Maimanis Zechiya 11 Daled; See Shach 243:2; Bava Kama 18b; Nimukei Yosef 18a; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Smeh 125:25; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:15-17 and in Biurim “Leani” and “Eino Yachol Lachzor” and Likkutim 4:10

Definition of a pauper: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:15 Shaar Hatziyon 51-53 and in Biurim “Leani”

May one give the gift to another pauper: No. [Admur Kuntrus Achron ibid] However, if it was merely thought in his mind, then he may give it to another pauper. [See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Veafilu Gamar Belibo” and Likkutim 4:10 Mekoros 26]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one is only required to give the gift to the pauper if the gift was in his possession at the time that he made the promise. However, if he did not yet own the gift, then he is not legally required to follow through with his promise, although retracting from his promise could be considered untrustworthy. [Smeh 243:6 in name of Mordechai Bava Basra ibid; Admur ibid in the Hagah negates this opinion, under the basis that when it comes to making a vow, whether or not one currently owns the item is irrelevant; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:17 Shaar Hatziyon 54-57 and in Biurim “Eino Yachol Lachzor”] Other Poskim rule that saying that one will give a gift to a poor person is never considered like a vow as it is only considered a vow if the term charity was used, and hence he is not legally required to follow through with his promise, although retracting from his promise could be considered untrustworthy. [See Admur Kuntrus Achron ibid that so is implied from Bava Basra  49a regarding Matanos Kehuna to Levi’im, as understood by Mordechai Gittin 3 Remez 363 and Tosafus Bava Basra 123b, brought in Darkei Moshe 204:3, that promising to give Maaser to a Levite is not considered a vow, but rather has the status of a small present, even if the Levite is a poor person. Admur ibid then goes ahead to negate this understanding based on other Rishonim and Poskim]

[68] The reason: As there is a mitzvah on all of the Jewish people to give charity to a poor person and give him that which he lacks, and hence it is found that he made a vow of a Mitzvah related matter. Thus, when one makes a statement or resolve regarding a poor person that he will give him a gift, which is a statement of an obligatory Mitzvah on all the Jewish people, it is considered as if the poor person has already acquired it. This is in contrast to Maaser of produce that one states that he will give it to a wealthy Levite, that one may retract from his statement if the Levite is rich being that the Jewish people are not obligated to give their Maaser to this specific Levite. [Kuntrus Achron ibid]

[69] However, if he did not make any resolve in his mind and the thought simply passed through his mind, then there is no need even from a perspective of piety to fulfill this passing thought. [Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:18 Shaar Hatziyon 60]

[70] Admur ibid; Kuntrus Achron ibid 1; Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah”; Admur 457:18 in parentheses; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast; See Tzedaka Umishpat [Bloy] 4:4-5

See regarding that charity pledges have the status of a vow even when not verbalized and simply accepted in one’s mind: Rama Y.D. 258:13 and Michaber C.M. 212:8 for both opinions and Rama concludes in both Y.D. and C.M. that the main opinion is like the first stringent opinion; Stringent: 1st opinion in Rama and Michaber ibid; Mordechai; Maharik 185; Semak; Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 258; Imrei Yosher 2:162; Lechem Rav 223; Kneses Hagedola C.M. 212 that according to Michaber should be stringent; Lenient: 2nd opinion in Rama and Michaber ibid; Rosh Kelal 13; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D 258:16 and Gilyon Maharsha 258 in name of Das Eish 14 that Machshava only helps for the amount of the pledge, however one must at least verbalize that he is making a pledge, otherwise it is not binding according to any opinion; Sdei Chemed Klalei Haposkim that Michaber is lenient; See also Mahariy Asad Y.D. 311; Erech Shaiy Y.D. 210 in name of Avnei Shoham;

[71] See Shach C.M. 125:27; Beis Shmuel 51:11; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 258:8-9; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:17 and 19 Shaar Hatziyon 58-59

See regarding doing Hatras Nedarim to a charity pledge: Michaber Y.D. 258:6; Maharsham 1:201 regarding pledges in thought; Tzedaka Umishpat [Bloy] 4:5

[72] Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:19

[73] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Kuntrus Achron 1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 301-302

Other opinions: See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 297; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 3

[74] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 6; Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:5 and 243:2 regarding Holeich; 2^nd opinion in Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:7 and 243:3 regarding Ten; Rambam Hilchos Zechiya 4:4; Rebbe Yochanon Gittin 11b regarding Ten; Gittin 32b regarding Holeich; Ran Gittin 6b

Regarding a debt: See Admur Hilchos Halva Halacha 32

[75] Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:7 and 243:3; Rambam Hilchos Zechiya 4:4; Rebbe Yochanon Gittin 11b regarding Ten

The reason: As when the term “give” is used, it is considered that [the giver has appointed the emissary as a Shliach Kabala, and hence it is considered as if] the individual has already actually received it himself through the emissary taking it into his hands, as Zachin Leadam Shelo Befanav, and hence he is no longer able to retract it. [Admur ibid; See Mishneh Gittin 11b; Admur 366:12]

[76] Admur ibid; Michaber 125:1

[77] See Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; Michaber C.M. 198:15 and 204:1-6; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Mi Shepara” Vol. 46 p. 81-152; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:1 Shaar Hatziyon 1-18

[78] Who gives the curse: The Beis Din. [Michaber C.M. 204:4] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit p. 96 footnotes 136-140

Where to give the curse: See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit p. 97 footnotes 141-144

The wording of the curse: See Michaber and Rama C.M. 204:4; Rambam Mechira 7:2; Mishneh Bava Metzia 44a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit pp. 92-97

Pesul for Eidus: See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 91-92 footnotes 82-94 for a dispute in this matter

[79] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 87 footnote 46 in length that so rule most Poskim, although some Poskim rule that even in a case of Mi Shepara, there is no prohibition involved.

[80] See Michaber C.M. 198:1 “Devar Torah Maos Konos” and 198:5 for the reason of this Takanas Chachamim; Rambam Mechira 3:5; Rebbe Yochanon Bava Metzia 47b; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:1

Cases of exception that Maos Konos even Rabbinically: See Michaber C.M. 198:5-6 regarding Sechirus, product in home of buyer or in area safe from fires, and if the two parties agree for it to be Koneh; See also 199:1-4 for further cases of exception; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit pp. 98-117; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 4-7

[81] Michaber C.M. 198:15

[82] The status of a check: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:2 Mekoros 12 if it is considered like cash or like a document

[83] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; Michaber C.M. 204:1; 198:15; Rama 204:11; Mishneh Bava Metzia 44a; Bava Metzia 48a; Rashi and Nimukei Yosef on Bava Metzia 49a in story of Rav Kahana and the ruling of Rav; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 83 footnotes 20-22

Opinion of Rav: Rav holds that paying part of the sum of the product does not make one liable for Mi Shepara if the excess amount of the product that was not yet paid for, is asked to be canceled. [See Bava Metzia 49a and Rashi there that Rav holds “Kinegdo Hu Kneh”]

[84] See Tur C.M. 199; Aruch Hashulchan 204:8; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 137 footnotes 499-503

[85] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit pp. 98-137

[86] See Michaber C.M. 201:1 and 204:6 regarding Rosheim Al Hamekach; Smeh C.M. 204:11; Bava Metzia 74a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 83 footnotes 13-19 and pp. 98-117; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 8-11  

[87] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 121 footnotes 354-356

[88] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 115 footnotes 293-295 regarding that there is no Mi Shepara if the Mekach will not take place until 30 days later; A refund policy in essence makes the purchase of the product defined as “Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro” by which we rule that one may return it without penalty of any level of mistrust. See Michaber C.M. 200:11; Smeh 200:29; Tur 200; Nedarim 31a”; Bava Basra 88a; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95

[89] See Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 4:110; Imrei Yosher 2:137-3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 136 footnotes 488-494

[90] See Case 1 in footnotes for a dispute regarding if Kinyan Kesef is considered a Biblically valid acquisition for a gentile. The practical ramification would be if one would be liable for Mi Shepara according to the stringent opinion here. However, perhaps he would be liable regardless due to Kinyan Situmta. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[91] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; Michaber C.M. 204:7-8; Rama C.M. 204:11 [See Smeh C.M. 204:13 and 18]; Rambam Mechira 7:8; Rav Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 281-316; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717

[92] Michaber C.M. 189; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 1:1; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:2 Shaar Hatziyon 19

[93] Admur ibid; Michaber C.M. 189:1; Tur 189; Bava Metzia 48a and 49a even in opinion of Rebbe Yochanon “Yachol Peshita” and Rashi there

[94] If will cause a loss to the seller: Even if the buyers backing out from the purchase will cause a loss to the seller, such as if he lost the ability to sell it to a different client, nonetheless, the buyer has the legal right to back out from the sale and he is not liable for reimbursing the seller on his lost income. [See Nesivos Hamishpat 333:3; Pischeiy Choshen Nezikin 3:4; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:3 Mekoros 14]

[95] Admur ibid; Michaber C.M. 204:7; Rama 204:11; Bava Metzia ibid; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 84 footnotes 27-28

[96] See Tzemach Tzedek Y.D. 345:15, brought in Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 293 footnotes 108-110, that so long as they are still talking about the agreement, then it is not considered final, and either party may retract from previous statements without regulation; See also Encyclopedia Talmudit p. 298-299

The type of agreement: One is considered Michisurei Emuna whether he backs out from a fully closed agreement between the buyer and seller to the point that they even agreed on a price and closed the sale with witnesses, or if the buyer simply agreed to buy it from the seller and the seller simply agreed to sell it to the buyer, in either case, one who backtracks from the deal is considered untrustworthy. [Implication of Admur ibid regarding Machshava; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Hachozer”]

If the buyer said he is leaving to get money, may the seller sell to another client: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Hachozer” in length

[97] Rama 204:11; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:3 Shaar Hatziyon 20

[98] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michisurei Emuna” Vol. 44 p. 281

The reason: As the verse [Tzefanya 3:13] states “Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yaasu Avla Velo Yidabru Chazav.” [Admur C.M. Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1; Rashi Bava Metzia ibid; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rotehnberg; Darkei Moshe 243:20; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 74-76]; Alternatively, this is learned from the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] which states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. [Admur O.C. 156:2; Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah; Minchas Chinuch 259; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 67-73] This means that when a person speaks and says yes or no to something, then one must try to fulfill his word and justify them. [Admur O.C. 156:2; Rashi ibid] Regarding the apparent contradiction in Admur O.C. ibid versus Admur C.M. ibid as to the source in Scripture for this requirement, see: Imrei Yaakov Biurim “Eiyn”; Yagdil Torah 68:36; Pischeiy Choshen Halva 1:38

Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2 interprets this verse of Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach to refer to the concept that there is a Biblical prohibition against one making a promise without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it. In his words: To speak one way in one’s mouth and one way in one’s heart is Biblically forbidden as the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Rambam Deios 2:6; Abayey in Bava Metzia 49a in his interpretation of Braisa ibid; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66]

Biblical, Rabbinical, or Midas Chasisdus: Biblical: Some Poskim rule that the above obligation is Biblical as it is based on an explicit verse in Scripture. [Possible understanding of Admur 156:2 who brings Pasuk of Hin Tzedek as source; Braisa Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Shelah ibid; Minchas Chinuch 259; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Smeh ibid, Rashi Kesubos 86a, Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah] Rabbinical: Other Poskim, however, rule that it is merely Rabbinical. [Implication of Admur Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1 who brings Pasuk of Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yasu; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Eino Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Rif, Rosh, Ramban in Milchamos, Admur ibid, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; See Hamaor Hagdol on Rif ibid; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36 and Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”] Whatever the case, there is a prohibition to change one’s word. [See Rama “Assur Lachzor”; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25] Midas Chassidus: However, from other sources it is evident that this is a mere act of properness or of piety and not an obligation at all. [Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 who use the term “Rauiy”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty. He answers honestly to yes and no questions. He obligates himself to a business agreement in areas that the Torah did not obligate him, in order so he can keep his word and not change from it.” However, see Kesef Mishneh ibid for a second version in which it states that he does not obligate himself, which simply means that he does not give his word to agreements in order to prevent a situation that he must go back on it.] See Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136; See Mishpitei Chaim 6; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”

Other opinions in Talmud: Some are of the opinion that one always retain the right to retract from a promise of giving a gift or business agreement, whether the agreement and gift to small or large, and doing so does not consider one as not trustworthy, as so is the way of business for people to change their mind due to a variety of factors. [Rav Bava Metzai 49a, brought in Admur ibid Kuntrus Achron 1]

[99] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Rambam Mechira 7:8; Bava Metzia 48a; Mishneh Shevi’is 10 [See Mefarshim on Mishneh on Rash]; See Tzemach Tzedek C.M. 82:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 286-287 and Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717

The meaning of this statement: This means that the sages of Israel do not receive satisfaction from the actions of this individual and they are not pleased with him. [Smeh C.M. 204:13; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:5 Shaareiy Tziyon 26]

The scriptural source for this statement: The above statement of that the sages are not happy with one who changes his mind is based on the previous statement of the Talmud, which is based on the verse of Hin Tzedek. [Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10]

[100] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Poskim brought in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 44

The law if one sold it and received money from someone else after the agreement: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid regarding Mi Shepara versus Michsurei Emuna

[101] Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; Rama “Assur Lachzor”; See Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25

[102] Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 “Rauiy Lamod”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136

[103] Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 p. 296 footnote 54 and 79-80

[104] See the following Poskim regarding resolve in heart, and certainly this would apply even more so if it was actually expressed and agreed upon between the two parties, and doing so would be included in the category of Michsurei Emuna, and Ein Ruach Chachamim Nocha Heymena: Admur C.M. ibid; Rabbeinu Gershom  and Rashbam Bava Basra ibid; Rashi Makos 24a in name of Sheilasos Parshas Vayechi 36; Hagahos Ashri Bava Basra 5:21

[105] Alon Hamishpat Vol. 51:6

[106] See Rama C.M. 204:11; Smeh C.M. 204:12; Shach 204:8 in name of Bach 204:11 leaves this matter in question; Aruch Hashulchan 204:8; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 312-314; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 51 for article by Rav Yosef Fleishman; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:5 Shaareiy Tziyon 27-29

[107] 2^nd opinion of Rama ibid; Darkei Moshe 204:11; Smeh C.M. 204:12 in opinion of Rambam Mechira 7:8 and Setimas Michaber [and so would likewise follow to be Setimas Admur]; Nimukei Yosef on Rif Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad and Rashba; Magiid Mishneh Mechira 7:8; Ramban in Milchamos on Baal Hamaor ibid; Beis Yosef 204 in name of Tosafus; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 9:4; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 255-265; Poskim in Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 2 and 6-7 and that so rule majority of Rishonim

[108] 1^st opinion of Rama ibid; Smeh C.M. 204:12 in opinion of Rosh Bava Metzia 4:14 and Tur 204:11 in name of Razah in Baal Hamaor Bava Metzia 29; Talmidei Harashba in name of Ittur; Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:3; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 248-254; Poskim in Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 1 and 8-9

[109] See Chasam Sofer C.M.  102; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 314 footnotes 266-269; Alon Hamishpat ibid6-10  footnotes 12-15; ; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 1:1 Mekoros 1-2

[110] Rama ibid “Vichein Nireh Ikkur” [like 2^nd opinion in Rama, which is our 1^st opinion brought above]

[111] See Aruch Hashulchan ibid who concludes that it is only Midas Chasidus to be stringent, and not a requirement; Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 10

[112] Shevet Halevi 4:206 based on Chasam Sofer ibid; Rav M.M. Shpern in Hayashar Vehatov 9:38 and Rav Sariel Rosenberg in Hayashar Vehatov 8:52;  Poskim in Alon Hamishpat ibid footnote 11

[113] See Alon Hamishpat ibid

[114] See Admur ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 298 footnotes 145-148

[115] Admur C.M. ibid in parentheses regarding resolve in heart, and certainly this would apply even more so if it was actually expressed and agreed upon between the two parties, and doing so would be included in the category of Michsurei Emuna, and Ein Ruach Chachamim Nocha Heymena; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 309 footnote 226

[116] Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid

[117] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber 204:8; Rama 204:11; Tur 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a as explained by Rav Papa; Rif 80a rules like Rebbe Yochanon; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 45

Wrote check as wedding gift and did not go to wedding: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Lasos Eizeh Tova”

[118] The reason: As the recipient had truly believe the promise and had assumed that he would receive it. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rav Papa in Bava Metzia ibid in explanation of opinion of Rebbe Yochanon and Rashi ibid]

[119] Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 2; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 192; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:10 Shaar Hatziyon 39

[120] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 121 footnotes 354-356

[121] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 115 footnotes 293-295 regarding that there is no Mi Shepara if the Mekach will not take place until 30 days later; A refund policy in essence makes the purchase of the product defined as “Halokeiach Keli Al Means Levakro” by which we rule that one may return it without penalty of any level of mistrust. See Michaber C.M. 200:11; Smeh 200:29; Tur 200; Nedarim 31a”; Bava Basra 88a; Alon Hamishpat Vol. 95

[122] Credit card purchases: Now, although regarding a credit card purchase, businesses who accept credit cards do so under the implicit stipulation that the buyer holds the right to dispute the charge, nevertheless, this may only be done in a case of true Mekach Taus. Accordingly, going back on a credit card purchase outside of the refund policy, would be Michsurei Emuna, Mi Shepara, and illegal, unless due to a true Mekach Taus.

[123] See Maharam Mintz 35; Mishpat Shalom 204:7; Maharsham 4:66; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 293-294 footnotes 111-112

[124] Although businesses who accept credit cards do so under the implicit stipulation that the buyer holds the right to dispute the charge, nevertheless, this may only be done in a case of true Mekach Taus and only after first consulting with the business and asking them for a refund. Accordingly, going back on a credit card purchase outside of the refund policy, would be Michsurei Emuna, Mi Shepara, and illegal, unless due to a true Mekach Taus. See https://stripe.com/resources/more/three-types-of-chargebacks-and-how-to-prevent-them ; https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/chargeback-fraud-what-small-businesses-need-to-know ; https://www.bartkasperolaw.com/chargeback-law-your-rights-as-a-consumer/

Explanation: A credit card payment should be viewed no different than a messenger, or lender, who has agreed to pay on behalf of the consumer, and the credit cards stipulation with the business is no different than a messenger who stipulated his payment with the seller. However, this does not relinquish the buyer from his obligation to pay for the product once a Kinyan has been made, and hence irrelevant of whatever policy the credit card company has, the buyer still has to follow his business obligations that are implicit in his purchase. To give an example: If the buyer and seller agree to for the payment to be given by another individual, and that individual stipulates with the seller that he will take his payment back in any scenario that the buyer asks for the payment back, then although certainly that stipulation stands, nonetheless, in the event that the buyer asked for the payment back, he the buyer would still remain personally obligated to pay the seller for the goods. Accordingly, chargebacks can cause the buyer to transgress several of the matters brought above, as the issue between him and the seller remain unresolved, and it only resolves the issue between the seller and his credit card company, which is his Shliach or lender. To say it in other words, the credit card company does not transgress anything for issuing a chargeback, as this was explicitly stipulated in the agreement of accepting their payment, however, the buyer remains liable for transgression. The stipulations of the credit card company regarding chargebacks for merchants is a private agreement between them and the merchant and not between the merchant and the buyer. This holds true even in civil law, and hence notwithstanding the chargeback decision of the bank, the merchant always retains the civil right to sue the consumer for payment in court.

[125] https://www.bhlawfirm.com/blog/2022/04/are-there-consequences-for-filing-false-chargebacks/

[126] Such as: https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#3

• Your order didn’t arrive or the service was not provided
• Your order is faulty or doesn’t match the description
• The seller has gone out of business

[127] “Your first step should always be to contact the seller, but if you’re unable to resolve the situation to your satisfaction, your card provider may still be able to help you.” “With a refund, however, the seller accepts responsibility for refunding you directly, without the need to claim through your bank. You should always request a refund from the seller first before making a chargeback claim.” See https://www.visa.co.uk/how-you-pay-matters/chargeback-purchase-disputes.html#2

[128] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber 204:8; Tur 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a as explained by Rav Papa; Rif 80a rules like Rebbe Yochanon.

[129] A large gift is defined as any gift in which the recipient did not believe in the pledge that he was given, based on the economic status of the person making the pledge [i.e. he can’t afford it].  [Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 2]

[130] The reason: The above consideration of being defined as untrustworthy only applies when one breaks his promise to give one a small gift, as the recipient had truly believe the promise and had assumed that he would receive it. However, when one breaks a promise to give a large gift, he is not considered untrustworthy, as the potential recipient who was given the promise of the large gift, did not truly believe his words that he will be given this large present. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rav Papa in Bava Metzia ibid and Rashi ibid]

[131] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid

[132] See Admur O.C. 156:2; C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 300-301

[133] However, if he did not make any resolve in his mind and the thought simply passed through his mind, then there is no need even from a perspective of piety to fulfill this passing thought. [Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:6 Shaar Hatziyon 31]

[134] Admur 156:2 “Even the thoughts of one’s heart that one has decided in his mind, it is proper for every individual who has fear of heaven to fulfill it.”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “A God-fearing man is to fulfill even the thoughts of his heart.”; Bava Basra 88a; Makos 24a; Hagahos Ashri 21; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Sheim Chashav Vegamar Belibo”

[135] Admur C.M. ibid; Rabbeinu Gershom  and Rashbam Bava Basra ibid; Rashi Makos 24a in name of Sheilasos Parshas Vayechi 36

The reason: As the verse [Tehillim 15:2] states “Vedover Emes Bilivavo/and a person who speaks truth in his heart.” [Admur O.C. ibid and C.M. ibid; Bava Basra ibid]

[136] Admur C.M. ibid; Hagahos Ashri Bava Basra 5:21; Bava Basra ibid

[137] Admur C.M. ibid in parentheses

[138] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses regarding a resolve though and even speech “However his own personal needs, so long as they do not contain any aspect of a Mitzvah, he does not have to fulfill even if he explicitly said that he will do so””; Admur 156:2 regarding thought

[139] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Michaber C.M. 204:8; Rama 204:11; Tur 204:8; Rambam Hilchos Mechira 7:9; Rebbe Yochanon in Bava Metzia 49a as explained by Rav Papa; Rif 80a rules like Rebbe Yochanon; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183 Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 281-316 in general and pp. 303-306 in detail; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Ein Ruach Chachamim” Vol. 1 p. 716-717

[140] The reason: As the recipient had truly believed the promise and had assumed that he would receive it. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rav Papa in Bava Metzia ibid in explanation of opinion of Rebbe Yochanon and Rashi ibid]

If giver or recipient died: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 2:6 Mekoros 17-18

[141] Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 2; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 192; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:10 Shaar Hatziyon 39

[142] See Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 6 and Hagah there; Minchas Pitim 204:8; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160; Mishpitei Chaim 6; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 pp. 296-297 footnotes 137-138; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:8 Shaar Hatziyon 33-35

[143] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 6; Rama C.M.  243:2; Mordechai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312; Minchas Pitim 204:8 in name of Rosh and Kehilas Yaakov Erech Zechiya; See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 297; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 3 in opinion of Shaareiy Teshuvah Shaar Shelishi 183 and in opinion of Michaber; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 138

[144] Admur ibid in Hagaha that Tzaruch Iyun on the ruling brought above [Rama ibid] as since the recipient has no knowledge of this pledge of a gift, there is therefore no assumption on the part of the recipient that he will receive it, which is the reason for why by a large gift one is not considered untrustworthy if he retracts from his pledge, furthermore, from the Mordechai ibid there is no hope for this ruling of the room, as it refers to a case in which the recipient was told about the pledge through witnesses, Vetzaruch Iyun.

[145] Haflah Kesubos 55, brought in Minchas Pitim ibid;Peri Yitzchak 1:51; Machaneh Efraim Hilchos Zechiya 28; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 137

[146] A large gift is defined as any gift in which the recipient did not believe in the pledge that he was given, based on the economic status of the person making the pledge [i.e. he can’t afford it].  [Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 2]

[147] The reason: The above consideration of being defined as untrustworthy only applies when one breaks his promise to give one a small gift, as the recipient had truly believe the promise and had assumed that he would receive it. However, when one breaks a promise to give a large gift, he is not considered untrustworthy, as the potential recipient who was given the promise of the large gift, did not truly believe his words that he will be given this large present. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Rambam ibid; Rav Papa in Bava Metzia ibid and Rashi ibid]

[148] Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 3:8 Mekoros 22

[149] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 4:10 Mekoros 28

[150] See Admur ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 298 footnotes 145-148

[151] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2; Abayey Bava Metzia 49a in interpretation of Braisa ibid; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 182; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36

Other opinions: Some Poskim imply that making a statement without intent to follow through with it at the time that one says the statement, is not under any Biblical prohibition. [Implication of Admur O.C. 156:2, and all Poskim who hold of this position, who interprets this verse to refer to the concept that one should always try to follow through with his promises, which is only a matter of Michisurei Emuna, and is not Biblical]

[152] Admur ibid based on Milchamos on Rif ibid and Rosh ibid; Implication of Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36; See Likkutei Sichos 32:157 footnote 24

The reason: As the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Abayey Bava Metzia 49a; Rif 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon; Rambam Deios 2:6] See Rashi ibid that the Hin is 12 Lugin while the Eifa is three Sean which is 72 Lugin

Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur O.C. 156:2 interprets this verse to refer to the concept that one should always try to follow through with his promises. In his words: “One is to beware to deal honestly in business and not change his word as the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. This means that when a person speaks and agrees to something with a yes or no, then one must try to fulfill his word and align them with his actions.” This follows the opinion who rules that the above verse is a mere Asmachta to the concept of Michisurei Emuna, and is not of Biblical status. [Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamish ayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10]

[153] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 3; Michaber 204:9; Mordechai Bava Metzia 6 Remez 458; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 195-199; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 3:13-14 Shaar Hatziyon 46-50

See regarding retracting from hiring a Rav: Shut Rama 50; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 3:9 Mekoros 23

Retracting from hiring Milameid: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 3:14 Shaar Hatziyon 48

[154] The reason: As for a group of individuals, a large gift is considered like a small gift which is given by a single individual. [Admur ibid; 2^nd reason in Smeh  204:14; Mordechai ibid]

[155] Admur ibid; Hagahos Mordechai ibid; See also Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Halacha 15; Rama end of 163

The reason: As any actions of a community do not require an acquisition to become legally binding. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Mordechai ibid]

[156] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 4 and Kuntrus Achron 1 in great length; [see also Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah”; Admur Hilchos Gezeila Halacha 31 “Amira Legivoa”]; Michaber C.M. 125:5; Y.D. 258:12; Rama C.M. 243:2; Rama E.H. end of 51; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast; Beis Yosef Y.D. 258; Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:2; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Mordechai Bava Metzia 6 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rothenberg and Bava Basra Remez 499; Hagahos Maimanis Zechiya 11 Daled; See Shach 243:2; Bava Kama 18b; Nimukei Yosef 18a; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Smeh 125:25; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:15-17 and in Biurim “Leani” and “Eino Yachol Lachzor” and Likkutim 4:10

Definition of a pauper: See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:15 Shaar Hatziyon 51-53 and in Biurim “Leani”

May one give the gift to another pauper: No. [Admur Kuntrus Achron ibid] However, if it was merely thought in his mind, then he may give it to another pauper. [See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Veafilu Gamar Belibo” and Likkutim 4:10 Mekoros 26]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one is only required to give the gift to the pauper if the gift was in his possession at the time that he made the promise. However, if he did not yet own the gift, then he is not legally required to follow through with his promise, although retracting from his promise could be considered untrustworthy. [Smeh 243:6 in name of Mordechai Bava Basra ibid; Admur ibid in the Hagah negates this opinion, under the basis that when it comes to making a vow, whether or not one currently owns the item is irrelevant; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:17 Shaar Hatziyon 54-57 and in Biurim “Eino Yachol Lachzor”] Other Poskim rule that saying that one will give a gift to a poor person is never considered like a vow as it is only considered a vow if the term charity was used, and hence he is not legally required to follow through with his promise, although retracting from his promise could be considered untrustworthy. [See Admur Kuntrus Achron ibid that so is implied from Bava Basra  49a regarding Matanos Kehuna to Levi’im, as understood by Mordechai Gittin 3 Remez 363 and Tosafus Bava Basra 123b, brought in Darkei Moshe 204:3, that promising to give Maaser to a Levite is not considered a vow, but rather has the status of a small present, even if the Levite is a poor person. Admur ibid then goes ahead to negate this understanding based on other Rishonim and Poskim]

[157] The reason: As there is a mitzvah on all of the Jewish people to give charity to a poor person and give him that which he lacks, and hence it is found that he made a vow of a Mitzvah related matter. Thus, when one makes a statement or resolve regarding a poor person that he will give him a gift, which is a statement of an obligatory Mitzvah on all the Jewish people, it is considered as if the poor person has already acquired it. This is in contrast to Maaser of produce that one states that he will give it to a wealthy Levite, that one may retract from his statement if the Levite is rich being that the Jewish people are not obligated to give their Maaser to this specific Levite. [Kuntrus Achron ibid]

[158] However, if he did not make any resolve in his mind and the thought simply passed through his mind, then there is no need even from a perspective of piety to fulfill this passing thought. [Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:18 Shaar Hatziyon 60]

[159] Admur ibid; Kuntrus Achron ibid 1; Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah”; Admur 457:18 in parentheses; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast; See Tzedaka Umishpat [Bloy] 4:4-5

See regarding that charity pledges have the status of a vow even when not verbalized and simply accepted in one’s mind: Rama Y.D. 258:13 and Michaber C.M. 212:8 for both opinions and Rama concludes in both Y.D. and C.M. that the main opinion is like the first stringent opinion; Stringent: 1st opinion in Rama and Michaber ibid; Mordechai; Maharik 185; Semak; Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 258; Imrei Yosher 2:162; Lechem Rav 223; Kneses Hagedola C.M. 212 that according to Michaber should be stringent; Lenient: 2nd opinion in Rama and Michaber ibid; Rosh Kelal 13; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D 258:16 and Gilyon Maharsha 258 in name of Das Eish 14 that Machshava only helps for the amount of the pledge, however one must at least verbalize that he is making a pledge, otherwise it is not binding according to any opinion; Sdei Chemed Klalei Haposkim that Michaber is lenient; See also Mahariy Asad Y.D. 311; Erech Shaiy Y.D. 210 in name of Avnei Shoham;

[160] See Shach C.M. 125:27; Beis Shmuel 51:11; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 258:8-9; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:17 and 19 Shaar Hatziyon 58-59

See regarding doing Hatras Nedarim to a charity pledge: Michaber Y.D. 258:6; Maharsham 1:201 regarding pledges in thought; Tzedaka Umishpat [Bloy] 4:5

[161] Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:19

[162] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Kuntrus Achron 1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 301-302

Other opinions: See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 297; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 3

[163] The reason: As there is a mitzvah on all of the Jewish people to give charity to a poor person and give him that which he lacks, and hence it is found that he made a vow of a Mitzvah related matter. Thus, when one makes a statement or resolve regarding a poor Levite that he will give him his Maaser produce, it is considered as if the poor person has already acquired it. This is in contrast to one who states that he will give it to a wealthy Levite, that one may retract from his statement if the Levite is rich as the Jewish people are not obligated to give their Maaser to this specific rich Levite, and hence he has not acquired it in any way, unlike the law by a pauper. [Kuntrus Achron ibid]

[164] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 6; Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:5 and 243:2 regarding Holeich; 2^nd opinion in Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:7 and 243:3 regarding Ten; Rambam Hilchos Zechiya 4:4; Rebbe Yochanon Gittin 11b regarding Ten; Gittin 32b regarding Holeich; Ran Gittin 6b; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 5:23-25 Shaar Hatziyon 73-79 and Likkutim 6:13 Mekoros 39

Regarding a debt: See Admur Hilchos Halva Halacha 32; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 5:27

[165] Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:7 and 243:3; Rambam Hilchos Zechiya 4:4; Rebbe Yochanon Gittin 11b regarding Ten

The reason: As when the term “give” is used, it is considered that [the giver has appointed the emissary as a Shliach Kabala, and hence it is considered as if] the individual has already actually received it himself through the emissary taking it into his hands, as Zachin Leadam Shelo Befanav, and hence he is no longer able to retract it. [Admur ibid; See Mishneh Gittin 11b; Admur 366:12]

[166] Admur ibid; Michaber 125:1

[167] Admur ibid; Michaber and Tur C.M. 125:5 and 243:2; Rambam Hilchos Zechiya 4:4; Gittin 32b regarding Holeich; Ran Gittin 6b

[168] Admur ibid; Rama C.M.  243:2; Mordechai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312; Minchas Pitim 204:8 in name of Rosh and Kehilas Yaakov Erech Zechiya; See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 297; Betzel Hachochmah 5:160 – 3 in opinion of Shaareiy Teshuvah Shaar Shelishi 183 and in opinion of Michaber

[169] Admur ibid in Hagaha that Tzaruch Iyun on the ruling brought above [Rama ibid] as since the recipient has no knowledge of this pledge of a gift, there is therefore no assumption on the part of the recipient that he will receive it, which is the reason for why by a large gift one is not considered untrustworthy if he retracts from his pledge, furthermore, from the Mordechai ibid there is no hope for this ruling of the room, as it refers to a case in which the recipient was told about the pledge through witnesses, Vetzaruch Iyun; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 5:29 Shaar Hatziyon 80

[170] Haflah Kesubos 55, brought in Minchas Pitim ibid

[171] See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 5:28

[172] See Minchas Pitim 204:8; Mishpitei Chaim 6;  Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 297 footnotes 139-141; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:8 Shaar Hatziyon 33-35

[173] Minchas Pitim 204:8 in name of Kehilas Yaakov Erech Zechiya; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 140

[174] Minchas Pitim ibid according to all Poskim who rule that one needs Daas Hamikabel; Salmas Chaim 2:79; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 141

[175] Rebbe Zeira in Sukkah 46b; Yirmiyah 9:4; See Ranbam Shavuos 12:8; Taz C.M. 249; Mishpitei Chaim 6; Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278

[176] See Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278

[177] See Mishpitei Chaim 6; See Hisorerus Teshuvah 1:16; Salmas Chaim 2:79; See Sichos Kodesh 5736, vol. 2, p. 278

[178] See Ahavas Chesed Mitzvas Halvah 1/11 and Nesiv Hachesed 18; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 308-309

[179] Michaber C.M. 39/17; Nesiv Hachesed ibid that this applies according to all; See Admur Dinei Mechira 1 “A transaction is not completed through words”

[180] Shach 39/49 in name of Ramban and Riy Migash

[181] Michaber ibid

[182] The reason: As giving a loan to a person in need is a Biblical command [Admur Halva 1] and if one accepts upon himself to perform a certain Biblical or Rabbinical Mitzvah then it is considered a vow]. [See Y.D. 213/2 [in Michaber regarding learning and in Rama regarding all Mitzvos]; 203/4 and Shach 203/4 regarding charity; M”B O.C. 238/5 [regarding all matters of a Mitzvah]

[183] Nesiv Hachesed ibid 18

[184] See Ahavas Chesed ibid; Admur ibid; Nachalas Shiva 24-3; Divrei Rivos 278; Betzel Hachochma 3:78; Maharashdam C.M. 128; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 220-225 for a dispute in this matter

The reason: As there is no obligation to lend money to a wealthy man for a long period of time [Ahavas Chesed ibid] and the same applies regarding lending for extravagances, that there is no obligation to lend him money. [See next Q&A] Therefore, his word is not considered a Neder, and he can back track from it. Nevertheless, not keeping one’s word would fall under a separate prohibition of “Mechusarei Emuna” as brought in Admur ibid. [Ahavas Chesed ibid]

[185] M”B ibid

[186] Darkei Moshe 264:4; Beis Yosef 264; See regarding a Mohel: Rama Y.D. 264:1; Pesakim Uteshuvos 264:7-8; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Likkutim 2:5 Mekoros 16

[187] The reason: Once a Sandek has been appointed, it is forbidden for one to retract disappointment being that doing so is considered lying. [See Taz 264:5; Shach 264:7; Beis Yosef]

[188] Taz 264:5

[189] Chasam Sofer Y.D. 246

[190] Rama ibid

[191] Rama Y.D. 264:1; See Pesakim Uteshuvos 264:7-8

If the original Mohel could not make it and then showed up: See Rama ibid; Pesakim Uteshuvos 264:8

[192] Shach 264:6; Taz 264:5

[193] The reason: Once a Mohel has been appointed, it is forbidden for one to retract disappointment being that doing so is considered lying. [Taz 264:5; Shach 264:7; Beis Yosef]

[194] Taz 264:5 ; See however Migdal Oz Nachal Gimel

[195] Chasam Sofer Y.D. 246

[196] Taz 264:5

[197] Chasam Sofer Y.D. 246