Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!

Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.

Post History

71%

+3 −0

Q&A If one designates a gift for another person, is it committed or can it be retracted?

Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 241:1, in my own, free translation: If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal ag...

posted 3y ago by msh210‭ · edited 3y ago by msh210‭

Answer

#4: Post edited by

msh210‭ · 2022-01-23T04:48:41Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:
> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…
And 243:1–2:
> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege as long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…
There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise). In 243, "acquire this for so-and-so" effects the acquisition immediately, while "bring this to so-and-so" doesn't.
Similarly, 269:1:
> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.
So, to your first question:
> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?
I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:
> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…
And 243:1–2:
> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege as long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…
There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise). In 243, "acquire this for so-and-so" effects the acquisition as soon as the third party has lifted the object, while "bring this to so-and-so" doesn't.
Similarly, 269:1:
> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.
So, to your first question:
> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?
I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

#3: Post edited by

msh210‭ · 2022-01-22T21:08:59Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:
> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…
And 243:1–2:
> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege as long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…
There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise). In 243, "acquire this for so-and-so" effects the acquisition immediately, while "bring this to so-and-so" doesn't.
Similarly, 269:1:
> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.
~~So, to your question:~~
> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?
I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:
> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…
And 243:1–2:
> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege as long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…
There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise). In 243, "acquire this for so-and-so" effects the acquisition immediately, while "bring this to so-and-so" doesn't.
Similarly, 269:1:
> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.
So, to your first question:
> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?
I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

#2: Post edited by

msh210‭ · 2022-01-22T21:08:00Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:
> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…
And 243:1–2:
> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege sad long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…
There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise).
Similarly, 269:1:
> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.
So, to your question:
> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?
I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:
> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…
And 243:1–2:
> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege as long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…
There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise). In 243, "acquire this for so-and-so" effects the acquisition immediately, while "bring this to so-and-so" doesn't.
Similarly, 269:1:
> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.
So, to your question:
> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?
I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

#1: Initial revision by

msh210‭ · 2022-01-22T20:58:22Z (almost 3 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

_Shulchan Aruch_, _Choshen Mishpat_ 241:1, in my own, free translation:

> If someone gives a gift… the recipient acquires it only by one of the standard ways of acquiring property.… But by a verbal agreement alone the recipient doesn't acquire anything, and each party can renege.…

And 243:1–2:

> If someone transfers a gift to his friend through a third party, as soon as that third party makes the act of acquisition, the recipient has acquired it, and the grantor cannot renege.… But that's where he told the third party "acquire this gift for so-and-so"; if instead he said "bring this to so-and-so" then he can renege sad long as it hasn't reached the recipient.…

There are more details in 241–258, but that's the general rule. In short, any transfer of property requires an act of acquisition, and is effective when that act takes place (unless stipulated otherwise).

Similarly, 269:1:

> If someone picks up an ownerless object on behalf of his friend, though he didn't say anything, his friend has acquired it.

So, to your question:

> Suppose Reuven is out shopping, says "Shimon would like that; I will get it as a gift for him", and buys something. Is it now committed to Shimon, or may Reuven change his mind and keep it for himself?

I suppose (of course, ask your rabbi for a practical ruling) it would depend on his mindset. If he thought "I'm buying it so Shimon owns it" then the act of acquisition was made for Shimon and the object is Shimon's. If he thought "I'm buying it and will give it to Shimon as a gift" then it's his own.

Communities

Post History