Casting A Doubt ?
‘Shall We Say Non-Specific Abbreviations Are Not Valid?’
(Nedarim 5a-7a)
The Gemara introduces the concept of a yad – a non-specific suggestion or abbreviation – as pertains to a vow and whether it is valid or not, and the Gemara cites the dispute between Abaye and Raba, Abaya maintains that it is a valid vow, while Raba maintains not, since they are non-specific. The Gemara (infra 7a) questions, regarding charity, whether a non-specific pledge to charity is binding, but leaves the issue unresolved.
Ramban (Hiddushei HaRamban ad loc.) and Rashba (Novellae ad loc.) rule that since the Gemara does not resolve this question, one must opt for stringency and treat a non-specific charity pledge to be binding as a matter of practical halacha, in line with the general rule of safek issura lechumra – a doubtful violation is treated stringently.
A Monetary Doubt
The Ran (ad loc.) disagrees and maintains that this matter falls into the category of a monetary doubt since the question is whether the person who made the vow may retain the money or has to give it to the poor.
Indeed, the Gemara (Chullin 134a) explicitly states that one may conduct oneself leniently when in doubt regarding an obligation of ma’tenos aniyim [gifts allocated to the poor, such as leket, stalks dropped in the field, which the Torah requires one to leave for the poor]. It is clear from this Gemara that in cases of halachic doubt regarding monetary issues, one may adopt a lenient position and retain the money until the doubt is resolved – even when money intended for the poor is at stake.
A Violation or a Prohibition?
In defense of Ramban and Rashba, the Emek Yehoshua (siman 16) and Machaneh Ephraim (Hilchos Tzedaka 2) distinguish between safek leket (a doubt regarding the leket obligation) and a doubt regarding one’s tzedaka pledge. A doubt regarding one’s charity (tzedaka) pledge is deemed safek issura – a possible doubt regarding a violation – because failure to fulfill one’s pledge is a violation of a neder [which is a violation of the biblical prohibition of (Bamidbar 30), “Lo yachel devaro” – He shall not let his vow lapse]. Therefore, one must be stringent in cases of doubt and give the tzedaka so as not to risk a violation of one’s vow. The Gemara in Chullin (loc. cit.) permits one to be lenient regarding safek leket [and other such gifts intended for the poor] because there is no vow involved in those cases.
The Essence of the Vow
The Ran does not recognize this distinction because he is of the opinion that a charity pledge is not a vow to physically transfer charity funds to the ownership of the poor, but is, rather, a vow to designate a certain amount of money to charity, for as soon as the funds are so designated, they belong to the poor. The vow is fulfilled the moment the pledge is verbalized, for the money pledged immediately assumes the status of charity funds.
Of course, one is obligated to take the designated funds and give them to the poor. However, this obligation is not the result of a vow but rather the fulfillment of a biblical precept. Therefore, if there is doubt regarding such a pledge, it is similar to a doubt regarding leket and one may act leniently.
