May a person who says he is going to donate to tzedaka change his mind? TB Baba Kama 36-37

TB Baba Kama 36b-37a delineates the difference between a sela medina, a provincial sela, and a sela tzuri, a Tyrian sela. “Generally speaking, during the time of the Talmud there were two types of coins. Matbe’ah tzuri was a silver-based coin that was viewed as being biblical money. Kesef medina were coins that had the same names as the more valuable matbe’ah tzuri, but were made of cheaper metals and were worth 1/8 the value of kesef tzuri. Different values for coins with identical names were not uncommon in the ancient world and this phenomenon still exists in some places today, where paper money may have the same name as a gold coin, for example, but is worth significantly less. It is therefore essential to determine which coin is being discussed. (https://steinsaltz.org/daf/bavakamma36/)” A sela tzuri was worth 1/8 of a Tyrian sela or ½ zuz.

An interesting question and practical halakha arises out of a story found at the very bottom of our daf. May a person who says he is going to donate to tzedaka change his mind? Can we hold that pledging your donation it is as if it is already given just as in the case of making a donation to the Temple (אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט-one’s declaration to the Most High, i.e., when one consecrates an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person, and the item is acquired by the Temple treasury through his mere speech. (Mishna Kiddushin 1:6, Sefaria.org translation)?

“There was a certain man who slapped another. Rav Toviya bar Mattana sent an enquiry before Rav Yosef, asking him whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a Tyrian sela, which is worth four dinars, or whether the sela we learned about in the mishna is referring to a provincial sela, worth only half of a dinar, or one-eighth of a Tyrian sela.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara ultimately explained: “The Sages resolved it based on that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All references to coinage mentioned in the Torah refer to Tyrian coinage, whereas all mentions of coinage in the statements of the Sages refer to provincial coinage. Therefore, a person who slaps another is fined a provincial sela, worth half of a dinar.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Because the fine was so small i.e. ½ zuz, at first the man who was slapped said he didn’t want and it should be given to the poor. “Following the verdict, that man who was slapped said to Rav Yosef: Since the fine is only half a dinar, I do not want it, as it is beneath me to collect such an amount. Instead, let him give it to the poor. Then he retracted his decision, and said to Rav Yosef: Let him give it to me, and I will go and sustain [ve’avri] myself with it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav Yosef basically told him he could not change his mind because we treat the poor just as we treat the orphans. “Rav Yosef said to him: Since you already committed to give it to charity, the poor have already acquired it and it now belongs to them. And although there are no poor people here to acquire it, we, the court, are the hand, i.e., the legal extension, of the poor. We represent them, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Orphans do not require a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] by transferring the right of collection to the court. The reason that orphans do not require this document is because the court is legally considered to be their steward, and their debts are therefore transferred to the court automatically, even without a prosbol.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Rif provides several answers. Once you say you’re giving the money to charity, it is as already given based upon “when one consecrates an item through speech, is equivalent to transferring an item to a common person.” In our case the key phrase is “a common person.” The man can’t change his mind because he made his declaration in front of a court of three. If he didn’t make such a declaration front of the court of three people, he could change his mind.

Alternately, in our case he can’t change his mind because Rav Yosef had already acquired the money. It the fine had not yet been paid, and wasn’t in Rav Yosef’s domain, the offender person could change his mind.