Hilkhos Bli Neder

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

swearby R. Gil Student

I. No Vow

A common feature of Orthodox speech is the phrase “Bli Neder,” a disclaimer that the speaker does not intend to vow. We are careful not to invoke a biblical oath in our promises because if we fail to fulfill the promise completely, we may violate a prohibition. While we certainly intend to keep our word, we wish to limit the potential price of failure.

However, we would be wrong to utilize this halakhic phrase improperly. There are cases when it is necessary and cases when it is superfluous. The pedantic among us, in whose number I occasionally count myself, want to use the phrase appropriately. Therefore, we should explore when saying “Bli Neder” is warranted.

II. Plain Vow

A typical vow (neder) or oath (shevu’ah) invokes God’s name. However, the concept of yados nedarim (extensions of vows) means that even a partial language, such as that excluding God’s name, is also considered a vow or oath.

Additionally, the concept of kinuyei nedarim (idioms of vows) includes language other than the word “vow.” Even if you promise or commit to do something, or use any similar language, you are accepting an oath.

With all this in mind, it seems that if you promise to do something, you are effectively committing yourself with an oath. Therefore, it is appropriate to include a “Bli Neder” whenever promising, swearing or committing about anything. The Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (67:4) states:

It is good to become used to [saying “Bli Neder“] even when you say you will do something religiously neutral (devar reshus), so you do not stumble on the sin of nedarim.”

Note that you must still fulfill your promises even if you say “Bli Neder.” The Torah commands: “He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth” (Num. 30:3). Saying “Bli Neder” only removes the additional prohibition against violating a vow.

III. Mitzvah Vow

The Shulchan Arukh uses ambiguous language about committing to do a mitzvah. In one place (Yoreh De’ah 203:6), it says that someone who says he will do a specific mitzvah, such as learn this chapter of Torah, may take a vow to encourage himself. The implication is that merely stating that he will do the mitzvah is not a vow in itself. Elsewhere (ibid., 213:2), it states that someone who says he will learn a chapter of Torah (Rema adds: or any other mitzvah) is as if he vowed to do it. Is it a vow or not?

Shakh (203:4) notes this apparent contradiction and dismisses the earlier language. He quotes multiple sources that rule that saying you will do a mitzvah is binding as a vow. You can take an explicit vow in order to strengthen your implicit vow, as a form of personal encouragement. But even without that addition, you have still effectively vowed to perform that mitzvah.

The Chida (Birkei Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 213:2) leans in the other direction. Saying you will do a mitzvah is “as if” you take a vow but is not quite it. You are not technically bound by a vow.

However, it seems that the consensus follows the Shakh. See, for example, Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (67:4) and Ben Ish Chai (Re’eh, year 2, no. 4), cited approvingly by R. Mordechai Eliyahu (Responsa Ma’amar Mordekhai, vol. 2 Yoreh De’ah no. 17). Therefore, whenever you say you will do a mitzvah, you should add “Bli Neder.” Otherwise, the penalty for failure is even greater than otherwise.

IV. Mitzvah Act

Customs are binding as vows. While this subject is deep and requires greater elaboration, a relevant manifestation of this phenomenon is the acceptance of a new practice. If you begin a new mitzvah practice or custom, and you know it is not required but are doing it anyway, you are accepting it as a vow. Therefore, the Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De’ah 214:1) recommends that anytime you begin a new stringency or custom, you say that you are doing it “Bli Neder” so it does not become binding as a vow.

V. Charity

The Shulchan Arukh states twice (Yoreh De’ah 203:4, 257:4) that when you pledge to charity, you should add “Bli Neder.” This addition, which is directly from the Rosh (Nedarim 1:8), applies to a Mi She-Beirakh pledge made in many synagogues after being called to the Torah. When asked how much you are donating, you should say the amount “Bli Neder.” However, this requirement for charity vows goes further than for other vows.

The Shulchan Arukh (Choshen Mishpat 212:8) quotes two opinions regarding thinking about giving to tzedakah. According to some, if you decide in your mind to give to tzedakah, that is a binding vow even though you did my verbalize the commitment. According to others, it is only binding if you say it. The Shulchan Arukh concludes that all opinions would agree that nowadays, when donations cannot be made to the Temple in Jerusalem, a charitable vow must be verbalized.

However, the Rema (ad loc.) disagrees with that conclusion and rules like the first view. If you decide conclusively that you will give a specific amount to charity, you are bound by a vow to give it. If you wish to change your pledge, you must try to get the vow annulled. The Rema similarly quotes both opinions in Yoreh De’ah (258:13) and sides with the second view. Therefore, you even need to the “Bli Neder” about charity pledges.

V. Precedence

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, in his Darkhei Eliyahu footnotes to Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (67:2), that order counts when saying “Bli Neder.” Tosafos (Beitzah 20a sv. Nazir) say that when making a vow, once the words come out of your mouth you cannot revoke them. Therefore, Rav Eliyahu states, you must say “Bli Neder” before the language that would otherwise imply a vow. If you say “Bli Neder” after, it’s too late.

Based on this, during a Mi She-Beirakh after being called to the Torah, when asked how much you pledge, you should say (for example), “Bli Neder 18 dollars” rather than “18 dollars Bli Neder.”

About Gil Student

Rabbi Gil Student is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TorahMusings.com, a leading website on Orthodox Jewish scholarly subjects, and the Book Editor of the Orthodox Union’s Jewish Action magazine. He writes a popular column on issues of Jewish law and thought featured in newspapers and magazines, including The Jewish Link, The Jewish Echo and The Vues. In the past, he has served as the President of the small Jewish publisher Yashar Books and as the Managing Editor of OU Press. Rabbi Student serves on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America and as Director of the Halacha Commission of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. He also serves on the Editorial Boards of Jewish Action magazine, the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and the Achieve Journal of Behavioral Health, Religion & Community, as well as the Board of OU Press. He has published five English books, the most recent titled Search Engine volume 2: Finding Meaning in Jewish Texts -- Jewish Leadership, and served as the American editor for Morasha Kehillat Yaakov: Essays in Honour of Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks.


  1. What is the basis for saying that ככל אשר יצא מפיו applies in a case where bli neder was said?

  2. Thank you for this extremely informative summary. A few observations:

    The actual Torah obligation of ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה refers only to oaths and vows; see Rambam Nedarim 1:4. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. The Shela, however, in a hortatory admonition, homiletically interprets the verse as applying to anything a person says (See Shela, Matos, Derech Chaim on this passuk).
    Does “promise” actually qualify as the vernacular for shevua? I wonder. I don’t think people think of a “promise” like an oath. Certainly “committing” to do something has nothing to do with a shevua. (Kitzur S.A. clearly suggests saying bli neder for discretionary matters simply so that one does not inadvertently omit in mitzvah context.)
    I don’t think Chida disputes that declaration of intent to perform a mitzvah is halachicaly binding. That is explicit in all Rishonim. The question is only whether the obligation is on par with that of an actual neder. I am not convinced there is any debate between Shach and Chida, and if there is, it has to do only with the strength of the obligation, not with whether or not one is obligated.

  3. There’s hubris involved in making vows! It presumes the ability to predict the future with regard to the object of the vow.

    Everyone knows from experience that, despite our best efforts, we don’t control every aspect of our lives. How, then, could anyone “vow” to do anything?

    The only possible excuse is doing so as a motivational tool. But, then, the so-called “vow” was never intended to be a “vow” to begin with.

  4. B Feldman: The actual Torah obligation of ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה refers only to oaths and vows

    When I was writing, I had in mind Teshuvos Ve-Hanhagos 2:476.

  5. R. Student: Thanks for the reference. I looked it up, as well as R. Shternbuch’s other work that he references there. He is clearly addressing specifically דבר מצוה, which is binding. In his sefer on Chumash he is simply suggesting a novel Biblical source for the previously known halacha, that a commitment to do a mitzva is binding even if no neder terminology is used. He is certainly not suggesting that there is any obligation to fulfill anything that one says, even with discretionary matters.

    (BTW, R. Shternbuch’s thesis, that bli neder doesn’t remove the issue of קבלה לדבר מצוה, seems to be contradicted by a simple reading of the S.A that you reference who states that one should say bli neder, implying that at that point it is no longer binding.)

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter

The latest weekly digest is also available by clicking here.

Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter



%d bloggers like this: