During the Amoraic period, an exception to this general rule had already been established – something that did not exist could be billed for the benefit of a creditor, although no one could alienate or transfer the property there; and the debtor could be in favour of a creditor property that could acquire the first in the future (BB 157a; see `Link`). This sentence gave a fundamental and substantive distinction between property rights and a mandatory right with respect to what does not yet exist. Thus, Solomon made it clear to Abraham Adret (Rashba) that a person who undertakes to give his neighbour everything he could earn over the next 30 days and orders him all his assets (present or acquired in the future) is legally obliged to complete his business, for it is not a matter of transferring the title of something that does not yet exist. , as the fruit of the palm tree, but a personal obligation to give everything that the palm should produce for a certain period in the future; and “in terms of commitments… The question of something that doesn`t exist is never… because of the responsibility of the person himself” (dsp., volume 3, No. 65; Rashba has found a basis for distinguishing between a man`s obligation to provide support for a specified period, which is valid even if he cannot afford it at the time of the undertaking: Ket. 101b). La Halacha was also decided that the rule on something that did not exist was applied to an ordinance in the language of sale or offering. However, if it were in the compulsory language (for example.B.

“I testify that I am committed to peloni [in one way or another], the obligation in question would be effective and binding (Tur. and Sh. Ar., M 60:6), because “commitment is upon one`s person and it exists” (Sma, M 60:6, n. 18). Genesis 9:13I will put my bow in the cloud, and there will be a sign of harmony between me and the earth. (BBE) Genesis 17:9 And God said to Abraham: On your side, you will agree, you and your posterity according to you by all generations. (BBE) Hebrews 11:9 By faith, he was a walker in the land of the agreement, as in a foreign country, in tents with Isaac and Jacob, who had a share with him in the same inheritance:(BBE) By the legal source of habit ,minha), Jewish law came to discern a possibility of oral creation of a legal transaction. Under Talmudic law, the existence of a commercial use in which a transaction was concluded by the placing of a mark (sitomta) on a barrel of wine was sufficient to make the sale legally complete, despite the absence of a Meshikhah – the recognized type of purchase of personal property (BM 74a). This rule was justified by the fact that “Customs repeals the law in all mamon cases” (i.e. monetary or civil matters; see `minhag`) and therefore “the acquisition is done in all the usual ways among traders” (Rashba, Nov.