For donations Click Here

Keeping Your Word

In this week’s parsha we are cautioned to not take lightly what we say. The Torah states: “Actualize that which emerges from your lips” (Devorim 23:24). The Torah teaches us the power of speech in the mitzvos pertaining to nedarim, vows. The Torah empowers our words to obligate us. Nedarim, vows, shavuos and various other statements are significant in that we create obligations for positive deeds, such as learning a section of Torah or giving tzedaka . So too, through our power of speech we can forbid things otherwise permitted. The laws of nedarim are extensive. Here we will focus on the laws of charitable commitments or nidrei tzedaka.

If one pledges to pay money he doesn’t have, must he find a way to fulfill his pledge? Does it matter if his commitment was verbal or if it was just an unexpressed decision? And what about the all too common scenario that a person reaches into his pocket to find change for a beggar and, by the time he gets the money, the beggar has already walked away. Must he run after him? In the month of Elul, we are enjoined to increase our donations to tzedaka as well as teshuva and tefilla. In this article we will explore these and other ideas related to nidrei tzedaka .

 

Pledging Potential

Let’s say that someone, based on the projected future success of a highly lucrative investment, commits himself to donate $200,000 to a destitute family. But at the time he makes the commitment, he does not have the funds. Is his commitment binding? The Talmud Yerushalmi (B.M. 4:2), in relating the obligation to fulfill verbal commitments, says the following: “[If] he said he would give his friend a substantial gift he is permitted to rescind. That is in reference to a wealthy man. But with regard to a pauper, it is a neder.” We see that committing a gift to the needy is like a vow. The Mordechai (B.B. 498,499), citing the Yerushalmi, distinguishes between when one has money in hand at the time he committed, or he just intends to give it when he gets it. If he has the funds in hand, he must see through his pledge. If not his pledge is not binding.

The Beis Yosef (Y.D. 258:12) suggests not to distinguish between ready money and potential money, but rather between personal commitments and physical gifts. If one pledges to give a specific item that he doesn’t possess, his words are powerless since he cannot affect an item he doesn’t own. However, a personal commitment can and must be realized when it becomes feasible.

However, the Rambam (Mechira 2:15,16) writes that if one pledges, “whatever is born to my livestock will be sanctified to the treasury of the Beis Hamikdash or I will give it to tzedaka , though it is not sanctified, as it is non-extant [at the time he pledges], nonetheless when it comes into existence he is obligated to fulfill that which he spoke as it says, “Actualize that what emerges from your lips” (Devorim 23:24).

We see from the Rambam that though one cannot sanctify a potential commodity, he is bound by his verbal commitment to do so. The Rambam (Erchin 6:33) cited Yaakov Avinu as support for this position, as Yaakov Avinu pledged to Hashem, “…and whatever you will give me, I shall repeatedly tithe to you” (Bereishis 29:1). Yaakov committed himself to tithe from future gains, not from what he already possessed.

The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 258:12) codifies the Yerushalmi and writes that if one says he will give his friend a gift, assuming he is a needy, it is a neder.

 

Backing Out

Though a neder is binding, there are ways in which the obligation can be annulled. The concept of hataras nedarim, annulling vows, is essentially the process of dissolving a commitment by either expressing regret for the initial neder or by declaring a lack of foresight as to the ramifications of the neder (see Ran Nedarim 21b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 228:7). Not only is it permissible to annul a vow, but it is usually preferable. Vowing to do or refrain from doing something is likened to building a forbidden altar and fulfilling the vow is likened to placing an offering upon it. Therefore if possible one should seek an outlet to absolve oneself (Tur, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 203:3).

Yet, when it comes to pledging tzedaka, the laws are different. The Semag (L.T. 242) writes that the all of Chazal’s negative statements about nedarim and the insistence on annulling them are not applicable to tzedaka. The Rambam (Nedarim 13:25) bolsters this position with regard to hekdesh by quoting the posuk in Tehillim (116:14), “My vows to Hashem I shall pay.” Once we vow “to Hashem” we must see through our commitment unless inhibited by a difficult financial situation (cited in Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 203:3). The Maharam Mintz (teshuva 73) ascribes this as the source of the widespread custom to avoid annulling nidrei tzedaka (ibid).

The question was posed: What possibly could Dovid Hamelech add with the words “my vows to Hashem I shall pay”? Did the Torah itself not declare, “Actualize what emerges from your lips” (Devorim 23:24)? Some suggest that from this seeming redundancy the Rishonim derived the above halocha not to annul nidrei hekdesh and consequently nidrei tzedaka. Though obligated by the Torah to uphold our commitments, nonetheless we can annul them through hataras nedarim. Dovid Hamelech said despite that outlet, when it comes to “my vows to Hashem, I shall pay” and not annul them (Hissororus Teshuva Y.D. 203).

Another reason for not annulling promises to tzedaka is the methodology of the annulment. As we wrote above, when one wishes to absolve a neder, he must express sincere regret for committing himself to his initial intention. To express regret with regard to giving tzedaka is inappropriate. As such only in extenuating circumstance may one do so (Shu”t Maharlbach 4).

 

An Ounce of Prevention

While backing out of a commitment to tzedaka is not ideal, avoiding this potential issue is quite easy. The Rosh (Nedarim 1:8) says that when pledging funds to tzedaka one should explicitly say, “Bli neder,” thereby removing the entire concern (see Shulchan Aruch 203:4 and Taz, Shach ibid). A verbal declaration that what he says does not constitute a neder suffices. But what if one forgot to add this personal disclaimer. Is there another out?

Every year on Erev Rosh Hashana each Jew performs a general hataras nedarim. At the end of the declaration annulling previous vows, we add the following statement (abridged): “Behold I make a formal declaration and I cancel from this time onward all vows and oaths etc. that I will accept upon myself, and should I forget this declaration and I make a vow from this day onward, from this moment I retroactively regret them and declare them totally null and void.” We declare our future vows null. This is akin to making a blanket statement of “bli neder” for all future situations. Hagaon Rebbi Shlomo Zalman Orbach ztz”l writes that this suffices to prevent the neder commitment to tzedaka even if one forgot to say bli neder. Ideally one should not rely on this declaration but rather say, “Bli neder” (Minchas Shlomo 1:91, Halichos Shlomo 1:7 fn12, 2:1 fn37).

 

Of Thoughts and Actions

The Gemora (Shavuos 26b) says that a vow’s effect is not obligatory based on a mental commitment alone. Rather it is necessary to verbalize the vow. There are however exceptions, such as sanctifying an item or pledging a donation to the Beis Hamikdash. For these, a firm and resolute mental commitment to carry through a pledge suffices to create an absolute obligation.

The Rishonim differ as to whether tzedaka is comparable to sanctifying or not. The Mordechai (Bava Basra 491) and others (Ohr Zarua, Tzedaka 6) compare tzedaka to hekdesh and therefore a mental commitment alone is binding. The Rosh (Shu”t 13:1), however, writes that in our days any pledge towards tzedaka or the like is not obligatory unless it is explicitly voiced. The Rishonim point out that the Rosh contradicts himself elsewhere (Taanis 1:13), and his conclusive opinion is in fact in line with the Mordechai (Maharik 161, see Taz O.C. 562:12 that differs). The Rema (Y.D. 258:13) cites both opinions but declares the stringent approach primary. Therefore, if one makes a final and absolute mental decision to give tzedaka, he must do so, if he had a specific amount in mind (Aruch Hashulchan ibid 39). Notably, there are some who add the qualification that only with regard to giving to a specific poor person is one obligated, but not with regard to a general community charity fund (Shu”t Maharam Brisk 2:9).

Though the halocha is to be stringent and fulfill this commitment, nonetheless it is permissible to annul a non-verbalized pledge unlike general nidrei tzedaka that we discussed above (see Shu”t Beis Shlomo Y.D. 2:87, Maharsham 1:201).

 

This brings us to our question about the person who reaches into his pocket to find change for a beggar and by the time he gets the money the beggar has already walked away. Need he run after him? Clearly he intended to give, otherwise he would not have reached for his coins. Therefore he is obligated to fulfill his mental commitment. However here we find a convenient distinction which will save the giver from running after the beggar. When mentally committing to give tzedaka to one who is needy, the extent of the commitment is limited to the obligation to give tzedaka, without regard to the specific recipient. As such he may redirect the money to another worthy individual and not chase down the first poor person (Tzedaka U’mishpat 4 fn13, Chazon Ish cited in Derech Emuna Matnos Aniyim 8 tziyun 88).

Summary

We are committed by what we say.

It is best not to make nedarim, and if one does he should have them annulled.

Pledges to tzedaka should not be annulled.

Mental commitments to tzedaka should be fulfilled, though one may annul them.

If one only committed mentally to give a certain needy person a donation, he may redirect it to another (See Alon Hamishpot issue 23, din 4 where the issue is discussed at length).

 

B’ezras Hashem, in the merit of teshuva, tefila, and tzedaka, we will be blessed with a sweet new year.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *