21 Nov RELIGIOUS INSPIRATION IN RESPONSE TO CRISIS

I. Aliyah in Response
to Crisis
We learn from Ya’akov
that the common
response to danger,
to plead with G-d, is
proper. People promise
to become better if
they or their loved ones survive the crisis.
They genuinely grow in religious devotion.
Sometimes this growth lasts and sometimes
it disappears as life returns to normal. If this
religious growth is temporary, does it have
any value? To answer that, we can look to a
major debate about the laws of vows.
The Bible (Ecc. 5:5) says “It is better that
you should not vow than that you should
vow and not pay.” The Gemara (Chullin 2a)
says that the best is not to vow at all. You can
avoid even the possibility of failing to fulfill
a neder by not taking a vow at all. Tosafos
(Chullin 2b, s.v. aval) point out that Ya’akov,
when leaving his parents’ home for a distant
place, took a neder in order to secure divine
protection: “And Ya’akov vowed a vow,
saying, If G-d will be with me, and will keep
me in this way that I go, and will give me
bread to eat, and clothing to wear so that I
return to my father’s house in peace…” (Gen.
28:20-21). The midrash (Bereishis Rabbah

70:1) generalizes from this action that it is
a mitzvah to take a neder. Tosafos explain
that while it is normally improper to make
a neder, a time of distress is different. The
proper response to a crisis, a mitzvah, is to
take a vow of religious behavior.
Today, we see a surprising number of people
making aliyah, moving to Israel, during a
time of war. They are profoundly moved by
the tragic attacks and the subsequent war
to rise to a new level of connection to G-d
and the Jewish people. This is not a new
phenomenon. We see in Renaissance times
that people would vow to make aliyah in
response to crisis. The question then arose
whether, after the crisis passed, they have to
fulfill their vows.
II. Undoing a Vow
Rav Yehudah Mintz (15th cen., Italy) was
asked by someone who vowed during a
time of crisis to make aliyah but afterwards
regretted the neder. Rav Mintz permitted the
neder based on what he observed from his
teachers. However, he subsequently sent the
question to his cousin and his mechutan, Rav
Moshe (Maharam) Mintz of Poland and Rav
Yosef Kolon (Maharik) of Italy, respectively.
Maharam Mintz (Responsa, no. 79) agrees
with the permission while Maharik (New

Responsa, no. 6) disagrees
(Rav Yehudah Mintz’s question
is in the recent edition of his
responsa, no. 18, and Maharik’s
new volume of responsa, no.
5). On this issue, the two Rabbi
Mintz cousins seem to be in the
minority, although their reasoning
is fascinating. Maharam Mintz’s
responsum is one of the main
sources from which we know
that Rav Yehudah Ha-Chasid
(13th cen., Germany) said that
it is dangerous to permit a neder
taken during a time of distress.
Maharam Mintz sees from this that there is
no technical prohibition in permitting such
a neder. It just falls under a mystical danger,
like many other proclamations by R. Yehudah
Ha-Chasid. Maharam Mintz says that just

like those other warnings of R. Yehudah Ha-
Chasid, they are not binding, especially for

people who are not concerned with them. He
uses the language of the Gemara (Pesachim
109b) about the danger of drinking an even
number of cups, which apparently invokes
demons, that those who are not concerned
with the danger do not have to worry about
this. Similarly, Maharam Mintz says that
those who are not concerned with the danger
of permitting a neder taken during a time of
distress need not worry. Rav Moshe Sofer
(Responsa Chasam Sofer, Even Ha-Ezer
1:116) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros
Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer 1:4) use the same
approach regarding marrying a spouse
with the same name as your parent. Those
who are not concerned with the danger do
not have to worry.
Maharik says that the custom is not to
permit a neder made during a time of
distress. He explains this custom based on
the rule that you can only permit a neder
regarding someone else in his presence
(Nedarim 65b). The subject of the neder
must consent to its dissolution. A neder
made in a time of distress is a promise
to G-d. It is as if you are making a deal
with G-d to save you or your loved one
in exchange for this religious stringency.
While, of course, everything is in the
presence of G-d, you cannot permit
such a neder without divine consent.
Absent a bas kol, we do not have divine
consent to permit such a neder. Maharik’s
contemporary, Rav Yisrael (Mahari)
Bruna (15th cen., Germany; Responsa, no.
77) agrees with Maharik that a neder made
in a time of distress cannot be permitted.
Another contemporary of theirs, Rav
Binyamin Ze’ev (15th cen., Greece;
Responsa, no. 266), follows the same
approach but allows a rabbi to permit such
a neder when there is a mitzvah need.
Significantly, Rav Moshe Isserles (Rema,
16th cen., Poland; Gloss to Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 228:45; Responsa,

no. 103) rules like Rav Binyamin Ze’ev.
III. Is This a Vow?
Rav Yehudah Mintz’s grandson-in-law
and successor, Rav Meir Katzenellenbogen
(Maharam Padua, 16th cen., Italy; Responsa,
no. 72), agrees that the general practice is
not to permit a neder made during a crisis.
However, he suggests that perhaps a neder to
make aliyah is not binding at all. After all, a
neder is about an object while a shevu’ah is
about an action. You can take a neder that all
the fruits in the world are forbidden to you
if you do not make aliyah. But a neder that
you will make aliyah is actually a shevu’ah,
which does not apply to mitzvos. Therefore,
suggests Maharam Padua, perhaps the neder
is null and void. However, because he seems
to be a minority in making such an argument,
he defers to others but he is willing to permit
a neder made during a time of distress if the
individual is incapable of fulfilling it due to
issues beyond his control.
The consensus and normative practice
requires someone to hold to his commitments
made during a time of crisis. Maharam Mintz
says something surprising but powerful. Even
if you do not fulfill your end of the bargain,
assuming you do so with rabbinic permission,
the very fact that you turn to G-d in your time
of distress is itself a sign of religious growth.
In times of need, we find strength in our faith.
Indeed, everyone may agree that the very act
of making the promise is the point and the
fulfillment is merely a detail. The only debate
is whether you may later undo that vow, with
rabbinic permission.