

The only cookbook
you'll need this Yom Tov!>
ONLINE PRICE: $13.49

This fascinating and easy-to-follow new book, the first volume of two, presents important information on Jewish monetary laws that is invaluable for every Torah home. The author, Dayan Shlomo Cohen, who is a member of a beit din in Jerusalem, uses clear language and real cases from his experiences to discuss laws relating particularly to the "integrity" every Jew must exercise in his daily life.
This work is essential reading not only for the businessman, but for housewives, students — and anyone who uses money.
![]() |
Pure Money:
The Jewish laws of money & integrity for both businessmen & homemakers in a clear, easy-to-follow book by a Jerusalem Dayan. Essential for every Jew who is involved with money!
|
In any transaction, the precise point in time at which ownership is transferred from one party to another is of critical importance. From that point on there can be no “going back on the deal” without the consent of both parties.
In order to identify this point in time, we must understand what constitutes a change of ownership in any given deal. This is discussed in this and the following chapters.
This section considers verbal agreements to:
. Purchase
. Give a gift
. Donate to a charity, and
. Where custom makes them binding
Once two parties have verbally agreed to a purchase - the seller to sell, and the buyer to buy - and have agreed on a price, there is a moral obligation on each of them to stand by his word and complete the deal.
However, this obligation is not halachically binding, since there has not yet been a change of ownership.
The moral obligation to complete the deal at the agreed price applies even if there has been a change in market prices since the agreement was made, or a better deal has been found elsewhere by one of the parties - unless, of course, an express condition was made that in such an event the deal may be reconsidered.
It is therefore recommended to make such a condition when closing a verbal deal, especially if a significant time lapse is expected before the deal can be carried out.
The moral obligation to complete a verbal deal applies regardless of how circumstances may have changed, and even if one of the parties has no further need for the transaction.
Some authorities are lenient where there is a substantial change in circumstances. However, even according to these opinions it is recommended to try to appease the offended party.
Question: Eli, a textile dealer, agreed verbally with John, a retailer, to sell him a large quantity of goods at a certain price. John asked for a few days to arrange payment. In the meantime, Dave met Eli and offered him substantially more for the same stock. Eli therefore wishes to cancel the deal with John.
Answer: Eli should keep his verbal agreement with John and go ahead with the deal.
If one tells a friend that he intends to give him a small gift, he should stand by his word and do so. However, if the gift “promised” is a large one, he is not morally obligated in the same way. The reason for the distinction between large and small gifts is that in the case of a large gift it is assumed that the benefactor will not rely on the promise until he receives the gift.
The exact definition of small and large gifts is dependent on the status of the giver and receiver.
Question: Uncle George told his nephew Joey that for his Bar Mitzvah he would buy him a set of Chumashim. Uncle Don told him that he would get him a solid gold watch. Sadly, due to a family dispute, both of them are planning to back out and not even come to the party.
Answer: Uncle George is obligated to keep his word, as he promised a small gift. Uncle Don is not obligated to keep his word, as he promised a large gift.