If the son Is supported by the father.
can the son aquire a gift from him?

I heard 2 opinions

1 is that no because he can not acquire a Eruv hatzerot for others (related )

2 is that yes since the son aquiers a esrog on sukos

Sources please


I will outline my answer without sources and add them later B"H.

  1. A man's underage daughters are his "property" as he can sell them to slavery or to marriage. (As he owns their Daas)
  2. A man's sons enjoy financial freedom d'Oraysah, basically, from birth. The only financial relation between a father and a son is two-way inheritance. A father, that by most opinions is obligated to minimally sustain his kids d'Oraysah till they are 6yo, can not sell his sons to a master or force them to work.
  3. The sages ruled, that in order to keep Shalom Bays, man's son's earnings and findings will belong to him, but this does not subordinate them financially, and they certainly enjoy their private property.
  4. Gifts are of two kinds - personal and not personal. When a gift is "tailored" to the kid, we say it is personal, meaning it can not be transferred to his father (על מנת שאין לאב רשות). E.g. a watch, a phone etc. When a gift is not personal (e.g. money) it falls into the "earnings" category and the father is the rightful owner.
  5. When I realized that with my own kids I became very definitive with my kids when buying them numerous gifts, stating explicitly if the gift is all theirs or it stays mine but they can use it with no limitation. Because if it is theirs, they have the right to sell it or to damage it or else, and I didn't mean it.

There's was a story with my eldest son some 15 years ago when I bought him Teffilin for his Bar-Mitzvah. Some 7 years later he asked to buy a new set and I agreed. When I presented him the second set I rightfully took the first, but he objected, stating that this was all his property.

I learned I should be more clear about my intentions.

| improve this answer | |
  • +1 Does not על מנת שאין לאב רשות mean that it needs to be said? If said does it not work for money? If not said it should not work even if not money? – hazoriz Nov 16 '17 at 15:16
  • In many situations we follow the "common logic" policy (either "אנן סהדי" or "אזלינן בתר רובא" or "חזקה" or else) to prove the giver's intention. Even if said there should be witnesses etc, depending on who's "המוציא מחבירו" in this situation, as you can't bring witnesses we choose this strategy. – Al Berko Nov 16 '17 at 17:49
  • "(As he owns their Daas)" what does that even mean? "but this does not subordinate them financially" what does that mean? – mevaqesh Nov 30 '17 at 17:07
  • Ignore the first, second: sons have no financial responsibilities/obligations towrd their father. Or, they are financially independent. (to my knowledge) – Al Berko Dec 3 '17 at 0:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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