Mr. Hauser had hired Mr. Cooper to redo the siding of his house before the winter. When the completion of the work got delayed time after time, Mr. Hauser became upset. To make matters worse, Mr. Cooper insisted on certain advance payments. Mr. Hauser was not happy about this, but agreed in order to get the job finished.

Toward the very end of the job, Mr. Cooper announced that he needed a three-day break.

Mr. Hauser threw a fit. “You’re doing it again!” he yelled.

“I need time to take care of certain pressing family matters,” Mr. Cooper explained, but to no avail.

“Forget the rest of the job!” screamed Mr. Hauser angrily. “Just leave, and I’ll finish the job myself!”

Mr. Cooper gathered his equipment and left.

Three days later, Mr. Hauser called. “I apologize for blowing up,” he said to Mr. Cooper. “Please come finish the job.”

“You already told me to leave,” replied Mr. Cooper. “I’m not interested in finishing.”

“But you’re still bound by contract to finish the job,” said Mr. Hauser.

“No, I’m not,” said Mr. Cooper. “When you told me to leave and said that you’d finish the job yourself, you released me from my obligation.”

“I never formally dissolved the contract,” said Mr. Hauser. “I was just venting my anger.”

“Doesn’t make a difference,” Mr. Cooper said. “You told me to leave. I’m out!”

“I’ll sue you for breach of contract,” threatened Mr. Hauser. “Anyway, I gave you advance payment. If you’re not finishing the job, return the money.”

“I will not,” replied Mr. Cooper. “I was willing to finish the job, and you kicked me out. If you decided to forgo the rest of the work, that’s your problem!”

“You know that I never meant to forgo my legal rights!” said Mr. Hauser. “You’re bound by signed contract, and now you expect not to finish the job and to keep the money!”

“All I know is that you told me to leave,” said Mr. Cooper. “We can take it up with Rabbi Tzedek if you want.”

The two went to Rabbi Tzedek.

“A worker whose employer told him, ‘Leave!’ may do so, even if he has a binding commitment,” said Rabbi Tzedek. “According to the Shach, he does not even have to return advance payments, while others question this point (Pischei Teshuvah 333:16). However, if the employer said to leave as an expression of anger, some say that the worker is not released from his commitment, since a statement made in a rage is usually not meant sincerely (Rama, C.M. 333:8).

“Some question this ruling from the institution of get mekushar, though,” continued Rabbi Tzedek. “Our Sages instituted a specially-made get (divorce document) for priests, who are not allowed to remarry their divorcees. A kohen might want to divorce his wife in a fit of rage; the special get required extra time to write, affording him time to calm down (B.B. 160b). This indicates that even an action done in a state of anger would be legally valid.”

“How would the Rema answer this?” asked Mr. Hauser.

“If the person took action in the presence of beis din or witnesses, we cannot disregard his action on account of his anger,” answered Rabbi Tzedek. “If he merely made a remark in his anger, though, his statement to forgo does not carry legal meaning (Pischei Teshuvah 333:17).”

“So Mr. Cooper has to finish, since I simply said ‘Leave’ in a fit of anger?” asked Mr. Hauser.

“Many authorities concur with the Rema, but this law is always cited as ‘some say,’ implying that it is not universally agreed upon,” replied Rabbi Tzedek. “As such, following the rule of hamotzi meichavero alav hare’ayah, it is not possible to obligate Mr. Cooper. It is proper, though, to reach a compromise in this case.”

“Some also limit the Rema’s ruling to statements such as, ‘Leave,’” added Rabbi Tzedek, “but not to an explicit statement of forgoing, even if expressed in anger (Rabbi Akiva Eiger, New Responsa, C.M. #5).”