Ben was debating where to learn. Family circumstances required him to live at home, but the local options were not satisfactory. His ideal choice required driving a significant distance, which amounted to a big gasoline expenditure.
Uncle Jack strongly encouraged Ben to learn where he would succeed most. “I am willing to cover two years’ worth of gasoline expenses,” he said. “When you fill up, save the receipts; I’ll reimburse you.”
“Are you serious?” asked Ben.
“Absolutely,” replied Uncle Jack. “I’ll even put it in writing and make a handshake on it.”
“Thanks! I really appreciate it,” said Ben.
During the course of the year, though, political events in the Persian Gulf caused the cost of gasoline to rise. Prices climbed from $2.50 a gallon to $4.00.
One day Uncle Jack joined Ben for the ride. On the way, Ben stopped to fill up with gasoline.
The attendant filled the tank. “That comes to $80,” said the attendant. “Here’s your receipt.”
“Filling the tank costs so much now!” exclaimed Ben. “It’s a lot more than what we expected it would come to!”
“What can I do,” said Uncle Jack. “That was the agreement. I committed myself to cover your gasoline expenses.”
“But you probably expected prices to remain relatively stable,” argued Ben. “I’m uncomfortable asking you to keep paying so much. I’m not even sure that such an open-ended commitment is binding.”
“I don’t see why not; a commitment is a commitment,” said Uncle Jack. “But, if you want, we can check with Rabbi Dayan about it.”
The two went to Rabbi Dayan. “Uncle Jack committed to cover my gasoline expenses for two years,” began Ben. “Is such a commitment binding, especially in light of the steady price rise?”
“If the price rise is within reason,” ruled Rabbi Dayan, “according to almost all authorities, the obligation is binding.”
“Why should anyone disagree?” asked Uncle Jack.
“This case is one of an unlimited obligation, davar she’aino katzuv,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The Rambam [Hil. Mechira 11:16] is of the opinion that an unlimited obligation is not legally binding other than in specific circumstances. Since the person does not know how much he is obligating himself to, it is similar to asmachta, an insincere commitment.”
“What about other Rishonim?” asked Ben.
“Almost all other authorities disagree with the Rambam,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “They understand that a person can commit with a kinyan even to an unlimited obligation. Mishneh Lamelech suggests that even the Rambam would concede in a sale, where the other party pays for the commitment.” (See Ketzos 60:2 and Nesivos 60:3)
“What is the source of this dispute?” asked Ben.
“The Mishnah in Kesubos 101b deals with a person who marries a woman with a daughter from a previous marriage and commits to support the daughter for a number of years,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “The man is obligated the support his stepdaughter whether prices rise or fall. The Gemara [102a] explains that because of the special circumstance of mutual commitment to marriage, this obligation is binding verbally; there is not even a need for a kinyan. ” (E.H. 114:1)
“Here, the amount of support is undefined, as the cost of living is variable,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “The Rambam apparently understood that such a commitment is generally not valid at all even with a kinyan, whereas the other Rishonim understand that a kinyan is required in general, but the commitment is always valid.”
“What does the Shulchan Aruch rule?” asked Uncle Jack.
“The Shulchan Aruch [C.M. 60:2; 207:21] cites the Rambam but writes that all subsequent authorities disagree with him and the halacha is according to them,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Despite this, some achronim apply kim li, to follow the lenient opinion of the Rambam and not enforce an unlimited commitment. [See Yabia Omer C.M. 3:4] However, the Shach (60:12) concludes that since all subsequent authorities disagree with the Rambam, as the Shulchan Aruch writes, one cannot even apply kim li.”
“Therefore,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “Uncle Jack’s commitment is binding, even though the price rose significantly. However, if the cost would skyrocket to unreasonable prices – for example, more than double – some authorities maintain that he never committed to this, and would not be liable for such a price.” (See Beis Shmuel E.H. 114:3; Avnei Miluim 114:2; Pischei Choshen, Kinyanim 18:27)