Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

A Jewish man receives a box of Christmas cards in the mail from a Christian orphanage.  They ask him to either pay $10.00 or send the cards back in the mail.  He thinks it is unfair that he must spend money either way to get rid of the box of Christmas cards he never wanted.  The law says he is under no obligation to return them or pay the money, because they were unsolicited.  One of his friends says sending them back is the right thing to do (otherwise it is stealing).  Another friend argues that sending them back only allows someone else to be stuck in the same situation.

What should the man do?  Would it change if he got Chanukah candles from a Jewish organization?

Answer

[a] It seems that there are two issues at work in this case: tzedakah and ownership.  If the person wants to give money to the orphanage, it is certainly his right, and he should be applauded for doing so.  The same would apply in the case of the Chanukah candles.  If he wants to support the institution, he is welcome to do so, yet in the case of Chanukah candles, they should belong to you in order to perform the mitzvah.  In both cases, if the person wants to use the product, I would encourage him to send money.

[b] Separate from this being tzedakah, this is an unsolicited offer from the orphanage.  In his book Ethics of Business Finance and Charity According to Jewish Law, translated by Eliyahu Touger (Vol.3, Ch.2), Rabbi Ezra Basri points out the fact that there is a fundamental idea in the Talmud with regard to a business transaction.  It states that local custom has binding authority.  As described, according to American law, there is absolutely no obligation to either pay the ten dollars or to send it back.  Therefore this is not a legal obligation and the person has no obligation to pay anything.  This is no different whether it is a Christian charity or a Jewish one.   

[c] Additionally, there is another possible principle at work.  It is taught that one’s domain cannot acquire for him without his knowledge.  (If someone throws something into your yard, it is not automatically yours because it is now on your property.  It is only yours if you want it.)  The mail can also be seen as one’s domain, and “a person who does not desire to acquire an article does not acquire it because it is in his domain.” It still seems that the man has every right to throw out this false acquisition.  

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 3”, pgs. 61-62

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver