What are the Halachic implications of yesterday's El Al airfare snafu? In brief, El Al's air tickets were being sold online very cheap for a while; the price was later corrected, and El Al claimed the price had been due to a third party's error; and by law El Al must honor the low price for paid-for tickets.

Most of the issues I can think of are really variations on the same theme:

If you knew it was an error, could you buy the tickets?

If you did not know but assumed it was an error, could you buy the tickets?

If you thought it might possibly be an error, could you buy the tickets?

If you did not realize it was an error but your travel agent mentioned as much while booking your tickets, should you have stopped him from executing the transaction?

If you had no idea until after purchasing the tickets, do you have an obligation to offer to El Al to make amends (whether that means asking to cancel without penalty or offering the pay the difference or even canceling despite taking a penalty)?

Does the fact that El Al has virtually no way of forcing passengers to pay the difference or of canceling their tickets make any difference to my last question above?

In terms of application, I think this can be used as a perfect model for varying degrees of the same issue, that can arise in practically any business.

  • 1
    Someone asked something related on Avodah (so new that it's not even in the main archives) 1 2
    – b a
    Aug 7, 2012 at 19:32
  • There are so many details specific to this case that I suspect it might be "too localized."
    – Dave
    Aug 7, 2012 at 19:56
  • 1
    What if El Al just wants to claim it was an error, but in fact did it on purpose?
    – Yishai
    Aug 7, 2012 at 20:12
  • 1
    @SethJ I think your most recent comment belongs in the question.
    – Double AA
    Aug 8, 2012 at 2:58
  • 1
    recent post analyzing the situation torahmusings.com/2012/08/el-al-ethics
    – Double AA
    Aug 13, 2012 at 2:37

2 Answers 2


Rabbi Yair Hoffman has an analysis in the 5 Towns Jewish Times here (hat-tip to VIN for pointing me to it):

The article views the question primarily around the issue of Onaah which it defines as 16.7% above or below market value (and possibly just a pricing mistake regardless). If that issue applied, then the sale would be invalid. The conclusion of the article is that the fact that the price was wrong because the fuel surcharge was not included is controlling, and makes the fuel surcharge not part of the sale, so El Al's failure to include it does not obligate the buyer to return it.

It then concludes with the possibility that beyond the letter of the law as a matter of personal discretion.

Notice that it seems the whole discussion is only about what is practical now (the sale is over) and thus the focus on Onaah, which could actually undo a done sale, rather than just prevent one, and does not deal much with the question of if it should have been bought in the first place.


This was also asked on Dinonline and answered by them.

  • I wish this answer more explored the Expedia issue. It seems to treat at as irrelevant, but doesn't explain why.
    – Yishai
    May 27, 2014 at 18:19
  • 1
    Please edit in a summary, in your own words, of the content on the other site rather than copying and pasting their entire article.
    – Isaac Moses
    Feb 12, 2015 at 17:19
  • Why was that post a problem
    – sam
    Feb 12, 2015 at 17:26
  • Sorry; I forgot to include the link to our citation policy in my previous comment. It's not fair to republish, without permission, other people's entire articles. See also the Nolo Guide linked here.
    – Isaac Moses
    Feb 12, 2015 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .