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

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].[2] [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.[3]]

Recipient is unaware:[4] Some Poskim[5] 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[6], and so rule some Poskim.[7]

Large gift: However, by a large gift[8], [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].[9] [However, if the recipient is a pauper, then it is illegal to retract from his pledge, as will be explained below. Likewise, some Poskim[10] 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.[11] If, however, the promise for the gifting was done out of error, then even if an acquisition took place it is not legally binding.[12]

Intent to follow through with one’s promise:[13] 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.[14] [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:[15] 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].[16] 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.[17]

A pauper:[18] 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.[19] Furthermore, even if he did not express his resolve to give a pauper a gift in actual words, and rather simply made the resolve[20] 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.[21] [Nonetheless, he may perform Hataras Nedarim to absolve him of the oath.[22] Thus, if one wrote a check to charity, he cannot go back on it unless he performs Hataras Nedarim.[23]]

Maaser to a Levite:[24] 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].[25]

If one already handed the gift to a messenger to give to the recipient:[26] 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].[27] 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.[28] 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.[29] Although, in such a case, the giver would be considered untrustworthy [i.e. Michsurei Emuna] if it is a small gift.[30] [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[31], and so rule some Poskim.[32] 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.[33]]

A child:[34] Some Poskim[35] 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[36], 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.[37] [Likewise, it causes the child to lose trust in authority.[38] 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.[39]]

___________________________________________________

[1] 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

[2] 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

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

[4] 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

[5] 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

[6] 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.

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

[8] 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]

[9] 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]

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

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

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

[13] 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]

[14] 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]

[15] 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

[16] 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]

[17] 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]

[18] 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]

[19] 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]

[20] 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]

[21] 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;

[22] 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

[23] Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 4:19

[24] 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

[25] 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]

[26] 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

[27] 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]

[28] Admur ibid; Michaber 125:1

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

[30] 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

[31] 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

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

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

[34] 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

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

[36] 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

[37] 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

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

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

Bookmark