Reviewed By Rabbi
Mordechai Shuchatowitz, Head of the Baltimore Bais Din
In a previous
article, we discussed a case in which a carpool group committed to including a
family in their carpool for the coming year. Although this family lived a mile-and-a-half
away from the other families, they were needed to complete the carpool, so they
were accepted. Later, a new family moved in within a few blocks of the other
drivers. The group then wished to back out of their commitment to the far-away
family.
We discussed the halacha
of mechusar amana, one who is not trustworthy for backing out of a
verbal commitment. If someone gave a verbal commitment to another, halacha says
that the commitment must be honored.
We will examine
some new scenarios that involve the question of backing out of a commitment,
and we will see whether the halacha changes in these new cases.
Scenario 1
Sarah Schwartz,*
Dina Davidowitz,* and Rochel Rosenberg,* are friends who start the year
together in a carpool. Sarah’s husband Shimon is a CPA in the Baltimore area.
Three months into the school year, Shimon receives a job offer in Manhattan
with a better salary and benefits. Shimon accepts the offer, and the Schwartzes
make plans to relocate to Passaic, New Jersey. However, Dina and Rochel will now
be missing a driver for those drives that Sarah was doing. They approach Sarah
and ask her to pay a driver to take over her drives.
Sarah sees the
situation otherwise. She had committed to the carpool with the assumption that
the Schwartz family would be living in Baltimore. Now that they were
relocating, Sarah feels that they do not have an obligation to the other
families.
Scenario 2
Instead of the Schwartzes
relocating to New Jersey, let’s imagine this scenario: The carpool brings the
girls of the three families to the Bnos Yaakov Academy. The Schwartzes find a
great deal on a house close to Bnos Yaakov. They close quickly on this house
and plan to move in January of the school year. Sarah tells Dina and Rochel
that, as of January, she wishes to leave the carpool as it is now easier for
her to take her girls herself, being that they live closer to the school and
further from the other two families.
Dina and Rochel
are not happy about this. The way they see it, Sarah has committed for the
entire year.
Scenario 3
Instead of the Schwartzes
moving close to the school, let’s imagine the following case: In the middle of
the year, Bnos Yaakov Academy has an opening for an elementary school teacher.
Sarah is a perfect fit for the position, and she is hired to teach in Bnos
Yaakov. She then tells the carpool that she wishes to leave the carpool, as she
is anyway going to the school, and it is more convenient for her to bring her
children with her when she goes.
Dina and Rochel
are not happy about this because they believe that Sarah had made a commitment to
the carpool for the entire year.
The Halachic Discussion
In all the
scenarios provided above, the reason the Schwartz family wanted to back out of
the carpool arose mid-year. Halachically, this situation is considered a more
serious commitment than a verbal commitment before the beginning of the school
year. This is because once the parties have started to act on their commitment,
halacha views that as a kinyan, an
act which formally binds the parties to their commitment.[1] This
means that once the families started the year doing the carpool drives for each
other, they are halachically committed to the terms that they made – that they
would continue these drives throughout the year.
Nevertheless, the
argument can be made that a carpool commitment is made with certain general
understandings. For example, we can argue that carpool commitments are made
with an understanding that the families will be residents of Baltimore. If a
family relocates mid-year to a different city, it may be understood that the
carpool will not enforce its rights to carpool drives against a family who does
not reside in Baltimore anymore. In halacha, a general understanding like this
is called an umdana, an unspoken stipulation that should be assumed by
all parties involved. For this reason, in Scenario 1, where the Schwartzes
relocate to Passaic, they may not have an obligation to the carpool they leave
behind in Baltimore.
A situation
similar to Scenario 1 is when a young woman commits to teaching in a school for
the school year. In mid-year, she gets engaged, and her chasana date is
before the school year ends. The kallah and chassan plan to
relocate to a different city after their marriage. It can be argued that any
time a school hires a single young woman to teach for the year, it is an umdana
– and unspoken stipulation – that if the young woman gets engaged and
married mid-year, she is not bound by her commitment to teach until the end of
the school year.
In Scenarios 2 and
3, however, the question is not as clear cut. In these scenarios, the Schwartzes
still live in Baltimore and have committed to the carpool. It is true that
driving the carpool will be less convenient because they live in a different
neighborhood (Scenario 2) or because Sarah is a teacher in Bnos Yaakov
(Scenario 3). Still, their new situation is not a clear basis to void their
commitment. In this case, the carpool families should search for some
compromise which is mutually acceptable or seek rabbinical guidance.
In any given
scenario that is similar to the above cases, the halachic factors involved may
be complex. Rabbinical guidance should be sought for proper resolution and to ensure
shalom.
We ask Hashem for
his help in keeping our commitments in accordance with halacha. We must be
aware that a commitment made should not be easily broken, and only under proper
guidance from a qualified halachic authority.
Rabbi Rosenfeld administers cases for the Baltimore
Bais Din. He may be reached at RYR@baltimorebaisdin.org.
