Reviewed by Rabbi
Mordechai Shuchatowitz, Head of the Baltimore Bais Din
Any member of the
Baltimore kehilla who has school-aged
children is well aware of the fact that there is no busing service for private
school children. It is the responsibility of the parents to transport their
children to and from the schools they attend. The most common method by far of
getting one’s children to school is by forming a carpool with neighbors.
It is obvious that
every parent has certain hopes: that the group be composed of families that
live in the same area, that the driving schedule for each family should not be
unreasonably burdensome, and that the children in the carpool should be well-behaved
and punctual.
The children in
the carpool also have expectations, such as riding with a group of peers they
enjoy being with, and (for the responsible student) arriving at school
promptly. While this may be the ideal, which is not always fully realized, the
situation can potentially involve some conflict. For a situation that gets more
complicated, it may even reach the point ofit requiring the intervention of an
outsider, such as a Rav. We will explore one of the issues through the use of a
case study.
A Carpool Dilemma
Sarah Schwartz*,
Dina Davidowitz*, and Rochel Rosenberg* are friends who live within two blocks
of each other. They have children about the same age and have been in a minivan
carpool group with each other for the last five years. They have always looked
for a fourth family to join their carpool but were unable to find one. This
year, too, they tried to find another family during the summer but did not have
any success. Then, in late summer, Sarah gets a call from Gila Goldberg,* whom
she knows from her years in seminary. The Goldbergs have just moved from
Lakewood and are actively looking to join a carpool. When Sarah asks Gila where
her family lives, Gila responds that they are renting a house about a mile-and–a-half
from the neighborhood where the other families live. Sarah is somewhat hesitant
to include a family from that distance away but says she will discuss it with
Dina and Rochel.
Sarah, Dina, and
Rochel talk. Based on the fact that it is close to the beginning of the school
year, they agree to commit to including Gila in the carpool. Sarah calls Gila
to tell her, and Gila is very pleased.
A week later,
Rochel gets a call from her cousin, Miriam Mandel. Miriam has just moved to
Baltimore from Eretz Yisrael. In fact, Rochel had put Miriam in touch with some
realtors and had told Miriam about some houses that were on the market within a
few blocks of where the Rosenbergs live. It turns out that the Mandels just
closed on a house a block away from the Rosenbergs, and are actively looking to
join a carpool. The location of the Mandels’ house is obviously more ideal for
the carpool as it is close to all three original families.
Rochel
communicates this new information to Dina and Sarah. They are now in a
quandary. They have already committed to Gila and the Goldbergs, but would
prefer to carpool with the Mandels. Sarah even calls Gila to see if Gila can
join another carpool in the Goldbergs’ area. After a few days, Gila gets back
to Sarah and tells her that she cannot find a carpool in her area and would
like to stay in the carpool, as was committed to her.
Miriam is told
about the dilemma, and all families agree that they should ask a shaila about whether the carpool must
honor their commitment to Gila and the Goldbergs or if they can renege and
include Miriam and the Mandels instead. They address their question to Rav
Kleinmann*, who is well respected by all families.
The Halachic Discussion
The core issue here relates to
the question: If one gives his/her word, can he/she back out because when
finding a better “deal.” In this case, the carpool made a commitment to the
Goldbergs, and they wish to back out because having the Mandels will be
more convenient. In Halacha, one who backs out of a verbal commitment is called
a mechusar amana: one who is not
trustworthy.
The source of this concept is from the
Gemara in Bava Metzia (49a). The Gemara there is discussing a case where a
buyer and seller have agreed upon the terms of sale of an item, and then one
wishes to back out because of a better offer. For example, Reuven is
selling his computer for the best offer. He solicits offers, and eventually
gets an offer of $300 from Shimon. Reuven tells Shimon that he accepts Shimon’s
offer, and they make a verbal agreement. If Reuven then gets an offer for $350
from Levi, Reuven would be considered a mechusar
amana, untrustworthy, if he backs out of his commitment to Shimon.
The Gemara is clear that, technically, a beis din cannot force Reuven to honor
his commitment. To officially formalize the transaction, there must be an act
of a kinyan. A kinyan is an act that the buyer and seller execute to make the
transaction halachically binding. For example, if Shimon picked up the
computer, that would be a kinyan, and
the computer would belong to him. However, even before Shimon picks up the
computer, if Reuven has made a commitment to sell the computer to him, Reuven
is considered halachically untrustworthy if he backs out of such a commitment.
It is clear in halacha that this does not
just apply to the sale of an object but to other cases of verbal commitments as
well. The Rama (Yoreh Deah 264:1) discusses a case where a father who is going
to have a bris milah for his son promises one person that he can be the mohel. The Rama says that the father may
not back out of his commitment if he changes his mind and wishes to honor a
different person with being the mohel.
In our case study, the carpool members
made a verbal commitment to the Goldbergs. Rabbi Kleinemann explains to
them that it is considered mechusar amana, untrustworthy, for the carpool to
back out of that commitment. Even though it presents an inconvenience, it is
right and proper to honor one’s commitment. The carpool members accept Rabbi
Kleinemann's decision and keep the Goldbergs as part of the carpool.
* * *
It should be noted that this halachic
principle of honoring a verbal commitment can have many applications. Another
common application relates to playgroups. It is common for a parent to
register with a certain playgroup, with the parent giving a verbal commitment
to the playgroup morah/teacher. If, at
some time before the year starts, the parent wishes to back out, that will have
the same issue of mechusar amana.
Yet another common application relates to
the purchase of a house. The buyer and seller may have agreed upon all terms of
the sale, and they may have made a verbal agreement to go forward with the
sale. If one party then reneges on that commitment, it will have the issue of mechusar amana.
It should be noted that any given case
may have other factors, and competent rabbinical guidance should be sought for
any case in which there is a conflict.
It should also be mentioned that if the
parties are able to make a mutually acceptable agreement with each other, they
should do so. For example, if the parent who backed out of the playgroup
is able to find another child to fill the slot, and the morah is happy to accept the new child, that will also resolve the
issue.
We ask Hashem to help us
with being honest in our commitments. We hope we can fulfill the statement of
the Mishna (Shevi’is 10:9), “Kol
hamekayem es dvaro, ruach chachamim nochach hameinu – Whoever keeps his
word, the chachamim are pleased
with him.”
Rabbi Rosenfeld administers cases for the Baltimore
Bais Din. He may be reached at RYR@baltimorebaisdin.org.
* a pseudonym
