Mi Shepara: An ancient curse sanctioned for unfaithful Business Dealings[1]
Mi Shepara is a concept within the laws of financial transactions, discussed in the section of Choshen Mishpat, whereby a person becomes liable for a very severe curse pronounced by the Sages if he retracts from a business agreement after giving his word. This liability does not apply in every situation in which one backs out of an agreement; rather, it is limited to specific halachic scenarios defined by the Sages. Accordingly, not every retraction from an agreed-upon transaction results in liability for Mi Shepara. In this section, we will outline the particular circumstances in which a person transgresses this prohibition and becomes subject to the curse of Mi Shepara, as well as the notable cases of exception in which such liability does not apply. It should be emphasized that there exists a separate and independent halachic concern related to retracting from a business agreement or promise, known as Michsurei Emuna (acting without trustworthiness). While this behavior is also considered improper for a Jew, it is less severe than Mi Shepara and does not involve an actual curse. The laws of Michsurei Emuna are addressed in a separate article. A comprehensive treatment of this entire subject—including both Mi Shepara and Michsurei Emuna—can be found in our publication “Honesty and Ethics in Business Transactions,” available on our website and on Amazon.
- The Liability:[2]
In certain scenarios, although one may still legally retract from going through with an 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. 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. Furthermore, 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[3], unlike in a scenario of mere Michsurei Emuna in which this matter is under debate, as will be explained.]
Gentile:[4] 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.[5]
Who gives the curse:[6] There is a dispute among the Rishonim and Acharonim regarding who recites the declaration of Mi Shepara. Some authorities maintain that it is stated by the judges of the Beis Din, or at least by one of the judges. Others hold that the party who retracts from the transaction himself recites the declaration. A further opinion is that it is said by a public representative (shaliach tzibbur). According to another view, the opposing party to the one who retracted recites the Mi Shepara, or he may appoint someone else to say it on his behalf.
Where to give the curse:[7] There is a dispute among the Rishonim regarding the place where the declaration of Mi Shepara is recited. Some authorities maintain that it is said in the Beis Din. Others write that it is recited in the synagogue, explaining that according to this view the shaliach tzibbur proclaims it publicly while standing on the pulpit. A further opinion holds that Mi Shepara may be recited in any place chosen by the claimant, without limitation to a specific venue.
The wording of the curse:[8] The Beis Din proclaims the following formula: “He Who exacted punishment from the people of the Generation of the Flood, and from the people of the Generation of the Dispersion, and from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians who drowned in the sea—He will in the future exact punishment from one who does not stand by his word.”
Pesul for Eidus:[9] There is a dispute among the Poskim whether a person who is liable for Mi Shepara becomes disqualified from serving as a witness.
- The Cases Liable for Mi Shepara:
Liability for the curse of Mi Shepara does not apply in cases where the agreement consisted of mere verbal commitment alone, without any form of acquisition. Retracting from such a verbal agreement is governed by the laws of Michsurei Emuna (lack of trustworthiness), and not by the laws of Mi Shepara. The liability for Mi Shepara applies only where an act of acquisition (Kinyan) was performed in connection with the agreement; however, that acquisition is not legally binding and does not fully finalize the transaction. In such circumstances, although the parties may technically retract according to the letter of the law, doing so renders the retracting party liable for the curse of Mi Shepara. This may occur in any of the following cases:
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.[10] 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.[11] Nonetheless, once the buyer pays[12] 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.[13] This applies even if the market value of the product has changed.[14] [There do exist however certain cases of exception in which one who retracts is not liable for Mi Shepara.[15]]
Other cases- Kinyan Situmta:[16] 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.
- The Cases of Exceptions:
There are several cases of exception in which, although an act of acquisition was technically performed, one nevertheless retains the right to retract from the agreement and is not liable for the curse of Mi Shepara. In such circumstances, the retraction is not considered wrongful conduct, and the individual is not deemed to have acted improperly according to halacha.
Mekach Taus – Defects and wrong charge:[17] 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, even if a valid Kinyan has taken place.
The law if there exists a refund policy:[18] 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.
- Practical Example
Reuven agrees to sell Shimon a laptop for $1,000. Shimon transfers the money to Reuven, but the laptop has not yet been delivered or acquired through a valid Kinyan (such as meshichah). According to Rabbinic law, payment alone does not finalize the transaction, and technically either party may retract from the sale. If Reuven now informs Shimon that he is backing out of the deal and will not deliver the laptop, Reuven may be legally permitted to retract. Nevertheless, since money was already given toward the transaction, Reuven becomes liable for the curse of Mi Shepara. Beis Din declares that just as Hashem exacted punishment from the wicked of earlier generations, so too He will exact punishment from one who does not stand by his word. By contrast, if Reuven and Shimon merely agreed verbally on the sale price, but no money was paid and no act of acquisition was performed, Reuven would not be liable for Mi Shepara if he retracts. In such a case, his conduct would fall under the category of Michsurei Emuna—improper and lacking trustworthiness—but he would not be subject to the curse of Mi Shepara.
Practical Example – Online Purchases Such as Amazon
Levi places an order on Amazon for a household appliance and clicks “Place Order,” agreeing to the listed price. Shortly thereafter, before the item has been shipped, Levi changes his mind and cancels the order through Amazon’s cancellation option. In this case, Levi is fully permitted to cancel the purchase, and he is not liable for Mi Shepara, nor has he acted improperly. The reason is that companies such as Amazon—and many online merchants—do not consider the transaction legally binding at the time the order is placed. Rather, according to their stated commercial policy, the seller does not obligate itself to the sale until the item is actually shipped. Until that point, the listed price and order confirmation function merely as a proposal or intention to sell, rather than a finalized agreement. Accordingly, from a halachic perspective, prior to shipment there has been no binding Kinyan, nor even a firm commitment by the seller. The transaction at that stage is comparable to a verbal understanding alone, from which retracting does not give rise to Mi Shepara and does not even constitute Michsurei Emuna. Once the product is shipped, however, different halachic considerations may apply depending on the circumstances.
Mi Shepara – Retraction Permitted but Liable for Curse
| Topic / Scenario | Halachic Status | Key Details and Notes |
| General definition | Retraction legally permitted, but subject to Mi Shepara | Even though no valid Kinyan has taken place and the transaction may be retracted according to the letter of the law, one who does so is cursed with Mi Shepara. Such a person is also considered Michsurei Emuna (untrustworthy), but Mi Shepara is more severe, as it involves an actual curse by Chazal. |
| Severity vs. Michsurei Emuna | More severe | In Michsurei Emuna, the Sages merely disapprove. With Mi Shepara, they actively curse the one who retracts. Additionally, where Mi Shepara applies, it is forbidden to retract and incur this curse, unlike some opinions regarding Michsurei Emuna alone. |
| Paid for product but no Kinyan | Liable for Mi Shepara | Although Biblically money can acquire, the Sages annulled this as a standard Kinyan. Thus, both buyer and seller may legally retract if no Kinyan was made. Nevertheless, once payment (even partial) is given, either party who backs out is liable for Mi Shepara, even if market value changed. Some limited exceptions exist. |
| Market price fluctuation | No exemption | A rise or fall in market value does not remove liability for Mi Shepara once payment was made and one retracts. |
| Other cases without money | Liable for Mi Shepara | Certain situations incur Mi Shepara even without payment, such as performing a Kinyan Situmta in a place where that form of Kinyan is not accepted commercial practice. |
| Mekach Ta’us (defect or wrong charge) | No Mi Shepara | If the transaction qualifies as a halachic Mekach Ta’us, the wronged party may retract without any Mi Shepara liability—even if a valid Kinyan already occurred. |
| Consumer law or store refund policy | No Mi Shepara | Where accepted state consumer laws or explicit store return policies allow returns, retracting follows those rules and does not incur Mi Shepara. |
| Transaction with a Gentile | Disputed | Poskim disagree whether Mi Shepara applies when a Jew retracts from a transaction with a Gentile before a valid Kinyan takes place. |
[1] See Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; Michaber C.M. 198:15 and 204:1-6; Rambam Mechira 7:2; Mishneh Bava Metzia 44a and Gemara 47; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Mi Shepara” Vol. 46 p. 81-152; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:1 Shaar Hatziyon 1-18
[2] See Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1; Michaber C.M. 198:15 and 204:1-6
[3] 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.
[4] See Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 4:110; Imrei Yosher 2:137-3; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 136 footnotes 488-494
[5] 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.
[6] See Michaber C.M. 204:4; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit p. 96 footnotes 136-140
[7] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit p. 97 footnotes 141-144
[8] 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
[9] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid pp. 91-92 footnotes 82-94 for a dispute in this matter
[10] 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
[11] Michaber C.M. 198:15
[12] 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
[13] 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”]
[14] See Tur C.M. 199; Aruch Hashulchan 204:8; Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid p. 137 footnotes 499-503
[15] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Os Beit pp. 98-137
[16] 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
[17] See Michaber C.M. Chapters 227-234 regarding general law of Mekach Taus and Onah; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Onah; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Mi Shepara p. 121 footnotes 354-356
[18] 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
