First, we urge the beit knesset to consider stipulating that these commitments will not have the status of a neder, as we are generally supposed to avoid making nedarim.[2] Although we do make an exception regarding a neder involving Torah-learning goals, as well as those involving other mitzvot,[3] this is only when there is no particular concern that the one making the neder might not abide by it.[4] Although it can sometimes be a complicated matter to determine whether a specific commitment is classified as a neder, we will work with the assumption that the pledge being discussed is considered a neder.
It is problematic to do hatarat nedarim on a neder to fulfill a mitzva in which one is anyway obligated, such as accepting to learn a specific amount of Torah.[5] However, hatarat nedarim can be done even in such a situation when there is enough need for it.[6]
Is there is an added problem if the neder was made as a means of receiving gain from one’s counterpart (in this case, the other members of the congregation)? The gemara[7] cites stories from Tanach that are relevant to our discussion: Hashem told Moshe that he required permission from Yitro to return to Egypt because of Moshe’s oath to stay with him, even though hatarat nedarim would have had obvious justification (i.e., to help orchestrate yetzi’at Mitzrayim). Also, King Tzidkiyahu was punished for not keeping his oath to Nevuchadnetzar to keep an embarrassing secret quiet, even though he too had a good reason for the hatarat nedarim that he did. According to the understanding of many Rishonim,[8] the gemara teaches that such a neder can only be undone in the presence of, and with the agreement of, the affected counterpart.[9]
Rishonim deal with many related questions, including whether hatarat nedarim works b’dieved if done when it should not have been done. On the one hand, Tzidkiyahu was a righteous king, so he ostensibly would not have relied on an invalid hatarat nedarim. On the other hand, perhaps the fact that he was punished is a sign that his hatarat nedarim did not work.[10]
In our case, it would seem clear that the one who made the neder needs permission to undo his oath, as he gained something (an honor) as a result of his learning pledge. There is an opinion that if there is a mitzva need for the hatarat nedarim, it is permitted without obtaining permission from those from whom he gained as a result of the neder.[11] One example of a mitzva need is when the load of learning the person has accepted is taking away from his more important/appropriate service of HaShem. Although it is far from clear that this leniency is accepted,[12] the Noda B’Yehuda[13] maintains that when there is a mitzva purpose to undoing the neder and no one loses out by the person not keeping the neder, all permit hatarat nedarim.
To analyze our case, it is possible, but far from simple, to determine that it is a mitzva need to release the person from his learning obligation. In terms of whether this should be considered a situation involving loss to others, the matter is tricky. On the one hand, if people can receive kibbudim[14] by making pledges they will not keep, the system of making pledges will not work. Additionally, the one who would otherwise have received the honor might be considered to be losing out retroactively. On the other hand, if the pledge was sincere and realistic at the time, but the circumstances changed, does anyone gain by holding the person to his pledge?
In practice, our standard halachic advice would be that if there is a serious need, the pledger should ask permission from an appropriate representative of the congregation (preferably the rabbi) to do hatarat nedarim. It also makes sense for him to change the pledge for which he won the kibbud to another appropriate task of parallel seriousness that he can handle. However, the specifics of each case need to be considered.
We conclude by again urging congregations to consider explicitly making such bidding bli neder.