by Chaim Weber

When former Yahoo employees Brian Acton and Jan Koum created Whatsapp in 2009, they did not foresee the tzedakah revolution that would result.

Thankfully, Whatsapp has made the mitzvah of tzedakah accessible like never before.

But what happens if one’s tzedakah commitments conflict with a family need?

Specifically, what if Reuven sets aside money for tzedakah and then sadly discovered that a family member lost their means of parnassah and needs the money instead? Can Reuven retract his pledge and give to his family member instead?

The Mordechai (Bava Basra 493) discusses this exact case and notes that a proof can be brought from a Gemara in Bava Kamma.

The Gemara in Bava Kamma – the Principle of “Ada’atah D’Hachi”

The Gemara in Bava Kamma discusses the halacha of stealing from a convert.

If someone steals from a convert who dies and leaves no inheritors, the only way to achieve atonement is by returning the money to the Kohanim, paying an additional fifth, and then bringing a korban.

The Mishnah in Bava Kamma rules that if the thief paid the money to the Kohanim but died before bringing the korban, his heirs can’t force the Kohanim to pay them back.

The Gemara (110b) proves from here that payment alone (even without a korban) must effect a partial atonement for the thief, as if it only effects atonement together with the korban, surely the thief would never have given money knowing that the korban wouldn’t be brought!

This concept – that the subsequent fact that the thief can no longer bring a korban could’ve potentially forced the Kohanim to return the earlier payment – is called  “ada’ata d’hachi – with this knowledge in mind.”

The Gemara proceeds to apply ada’ata d’hachi to other areas of halacha – that subsequent knowledge about a change in circumstances can void an earlier transaction.

The Mordechai rules that based on ada’ata d’hachi, if Reuven gave tzedakah but then found out that his relative needs the money, Reuven can divert that money to his relative instead, as he never would’ve given to a stranger if he knew a family member needed the money. (Although the Mordechai quotes a dissenting view, that view appears to only disagree where the tzedakah donation was given on the giver’s deathbed, where it’s assumed one would want immediate atonement.)

Rav Elchanan Wasserman zt”l (Kovetz Shiurim, Bava Basra 444) notes that the Mordechai rules this way even if the relative was in good financial shape at the time of the tzedakah pledge and only became needy afterwards.

Ada’ata D’hachi applies not only if one found out about a change in circumstances after making a transaction – it applies even if the change in circumstance happened after the transaction took place! The subsequent change in circumstances can still void the transaction that previously took place!

Rav Elchanan notes that the Maharam Bar Baruch disagrees.

The Maharam Bar Baruch argues that only if the giver’s relative had already become poor at the time of the donation but the giver didn’t know about it – only then can the giver retract. Not if the relative didn’t need the money at the time and only became poor after the donation.

Other Applications of Ada’ata D’Hachi – Eglah Arufah

When a human corpse is found outside of a city, lo aleinu, the Torah describes the process of Eglah Arufah.

Beis din brings a calf to a barren valley, recites a supplication and completes the process outlined at the end of Parshas Shoftim.

But what if the murderer was found after they brought the calf down into the valley?

The Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 10:8) rules that the calf goes free.

Many Rishonim and acharonim ask why. After all, the Rambam himself rules that once the calf descends into the valley, it becomes consecrated. Furthermore, the Gemara in Kereisos (24b) indicates that the calf doesn’t lose its consecrated status?

R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l explains that the Rambam’s ruling is based on the principle of ada’ata d’hachi.

When the calf was sanctified as an eglah arufah, it was under the assumption that the murderer wouldn’t be found. If the murderer is found, the calf goes free, as the premise behind its initial consecration is no longer true.

Although the Gemara in Kereisos appears to indicate otherwise, the Rambam learned that the Gemara in Bava Kamma disagrees with the Gemara in Kereisos, as it formulates the principle of ada’ata d’hachi and applies it to all manners of transactions, including hekdesh. The Rambam rules like the Gemara in Bava Kamma and therefore codifies the halacha that the calf goes free.

Prioritizing Relatives – An Allowance or an Obligation?

The premise of the Mordechai that one would prioritize giving tzedakah to a relative over a stranger isn’t just an allowance.

It’s an obligation.

The Rambam (Matnos Aniim 7:13) rules that one must prioritize giving tzedakah to one’s relatives over strangers. The Rambam later describes tzedakah to one’s relatives as a “tzedakah gedola – a great tzedakah.” This halacha is brought in Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 251:3). The Pischei Teshuva notes that this applies to a spouse’s relatives as well.

The Chacham Tzvi (Teshuvos 70) adds that this also applies to spiritual matters – if one has the opportunity to help others perform mitzvos, one should prioritize helping relatives perform mitzvos over others.

The idea behind this is not to encourage elitism or nepotism, chas veshalom – but rather to be aware of one’s personal responsibilities towards family – towards one’s flesh and blood. In fact, it’s this responsibility that led to the formation of klal yisrael.

When Yaakov left eretz yisrael and went to live by Lavan, Lavan agreed to host Yaakov because he was his “bone and flesh.” Even the greedy Lavan knew that one has to care for relatives.

The result of this was Lavan asking Yaakov what he wanted for wages – to which Yaakov responded that he be rewarded for his work with a marriage to Rachel, leading to the formation of klal yisrael.

An archive of these weekly articles on the Daf can be found at fromthedaf.com