It was almost Tisha B’Av; the z’man was coming to an end.
Mr. Solomon was selling pictures of the Beis HaMikdash outside the beis medrash. “This is just the perfect thing to get before Tisha B’Av!” Yoni exclaimed.
“How much are the pictures?” he asked Mr. Solomon.
“Each picture costs $50,” answered Mr. Solomon.
“I’ll take one,” said Yoni. “But I don’t have money with me; I have to get it from my room.”
“That’s fine,” replied Mr. Solomon. “You can take the picture and bring me the money later.”
“I’ll also take one for my roommate,” said Yoni. “He told me earlier that he wanted to buy one.”
“That’s great!” said Mr. Solomon. “May we be zoche this year to see the Beis HaMikdash standing, and not just a picture!”
“Amein!” answered Yoni.
Yoni returned to his room. “I bought a picture for you,” he said to his roommate, Avi.
“Thank you, but I already bought a different picture,” replied Avi, “so I don’t need this one.”
Yoni brought Mr. Solomon the $50. “My roommate said that he got a different picture,” said Yoni, “so I’d like to return the extra picture.”
“I usually don’t accept returns,” said Mr. Solomon. “I very much need the income. You took two pictures, so you need to pay for them.”
“But I explicitly said that one was for my roommate,” objected Yoni. “If he doesn’t want it, why should I have to pay?”
“You didn’t have to buy for him,” replied Mr. Solomon, “but if you did, I don’t have to take the picture back!”
Yoni called Rabbi Dayan and asked:
“Can I return the extra picture?”
“The Gemara (Kiddushin 49b) addresses the case of a person who sold his real estate with intent to go on aliyah, but his plans fell through. If he explicitly expressed his intent at the time of sale, he can void the sale and reclaim his property, since we follow the implicit understanding of his statement, as if he stipulated (C.M. 207:3).
“However, Tur cites Rabbeinu Yona who rules (addressing the Gemara in B.B. 98b) that if someone bought wine with the intent of taking it to a profitable locale, but wine prices dropped, he cannot void the sale and return the wine, even if he stated his business intent when purchasing it.
“R. Yona explains that the implicit understanding applies only to the seller, who generally sells only when he has a pressing need, whereas the buyer – despite his stated expectation of business profit – can drink the wine.
“Tur concludes, though, that Rabbeinu Chananel does not distinguish between the seller and buyer, indicating that the buyer can void the sale in Rabbeinu Yona’s case (Beis Yosef 207:[32]; Sma 230:15).
“This dispute – which implies that the implicit understating of stated intent applies also to wine – seemingly contradicts another ruling of Beis Yosef and Rema based on Rabbeinu Chananel that the implicit understanding applies only to real estate, which people generally sell only for a clear reason, whereas moveable items require an explicit stipulation.
Drisha (C.M. 207:7, 230:5) resolves this apparent contradiction saying that the implicit understanding does not apply to the seller of moveable items, but does apply – according to Rabbeinu Chananel and Tur – to the buyer of moveable items (Pis’chei Teshuvah 207:6).
“Based on this, Sha’ar Ephraim (#140) rules in a case like ours that since Rabbeinu Yona and Rabbeinu Chananel dispute whether a buyer of moveable items can void the sale based on his stated intent – if he is still in possession of his money, he can return the item. However, if he paid already, he cannot void the sale and demand his money back (Be’er Heitev C.M. 207:8; Aruch HaShulchan 207:14; Pis’chei Choshen, Kinyanim 20:33[57]).
“Thus,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “since you didn’t pay yet, Yoni, you can return the picture.”
Verdict: There is a dispute whether or not a person who buys a moveable item with stated intent for another, who ends up not wanting it, can void the sale. Therefore, if the buyer hasn’t paid yet and is still in possession of the money, he can return the item and is not required to pay.
To receive BHI’s free newsletter, Business Weekly, send an e-mail to [email protected].
This article is intended for learning purposes and cannot be used for final halachic decision. There are also issues of dina d’malchusa to consider in actual cases.
