Q&A: Placing Oneself in a Position to Lose a Fifth
Placing Oneself in a Position to Lose a Fifth
Question
I heard the following question on the Sabbath:
He made a formal transaction and said to his fellow, “A fifth and a perutah of my property are hereby transferred to you if I fulfill the positive commandment of blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.” It sounds absurd to say that he is now exempt from blowing, since he would lose more than a fifth of his assets. Is that indeed absurd, and why?
Answer
At first glance, this is a question about a case of placing oneself into duress, which is discussed extensively in the Talmud and by the halakhic decisors. But here this is not duress; it is a certain monetary loss. So by simple reasoning it is obvious that he is obligated to blow. If he decides to throw his money into the sea—health to him.
Discussion on Answer
Why does the blowing cost him nothing? The blowing fulfills the condition, and then the money passes automatically to his fellow (even retroactively). True, that only comes together with the blowing and not before the blowing, but why should that matter?
As for placing oneself into duress, seemingly just the opposite: if he put himself into duress, then at the moment he is under duress and there is no obligation upon him. Rather, regarding reward and punishment and all kinds of “definitions,” he is considered as though he acted willingly. Suppose, for example, he places himself into a life-threatening duress situation such that if he blows the shofar they will kill him. Maybe he is “considered” to have neglected a positive commandment, but at the end of the day, right now, simply speaking, there is no command upon him to blow the shofar and die. (Say he smeared poison on the entire shofar, and if he blows he will depart this life.) So why do you say here that he is actually obligated to lose more than a fifth of his assets?
In your formulation, indeed the money passes automatically. But that makes no difference to my reasoning.
If he places himself into mortal duress, then of course there is no obligation to blow, but he will have neglected a positive commandment. But monetary loss is not duress, as I wrote.
By the way, let him blow, because the blowing itself costs him nothing. And now, after he has blown, he is compelled to give a fifth of his assets, because otherwise he would violate the prohibition of “he shall not break his word.”