Can a regular person make a deal with Hashem, such as giving years of his life to someone else, or suffering for someone else?

It has been done...
You might need a "beis din" though....

רבונו של עולםֿֿֿֿֿ מיר וועלן מאכן א בייט...

My mom made a "deal" with hashem, she would start covering her hair if he would help my brotherstraighten out his crazy life. I don't know if it worked but he definitely stopped getting arrested. I know it might not have been for the right reasons, but now my mom covers her hair.

You can say what you want, but it doesn't mean it will be effective. Is there a concept of a regular person having the ability to do this, or is it just arrogance on their part?


It's nice to think that it did work, isn't it? If it didn't, at least your mother covers her hair now.

I think there is, though I can't cite a source. I probably heard it from someone chassidish...

The same way we can pray for anything without knowing the answer, we should be able to offer a deal. On our deathbed will we know if we would've lived another x amount of years had it not been for y and z? No. So go for it.

I heard it from Rabbanit Kook (Tiveria, wife of R' Dov Kook). She highly encourages all Jews to make deals with Hashem. Her big thing is Tehillim, but she says don't stop there.

My question would be what you're allowed to offer up in the deal. Years of your life seems like a big one that had ought to be in the realm of HKB"H, but taking on a mitzva or taking on some learning or Tehillim seems like fair game to all Yidden. (JMO).

Personally, I have some issues with the concept of making deals with God although I don't have a problem with entreating God to do Y and if good things are happening then we need to acknowledge those good things through hoda'ot of some types.
That said, if bad things are happening, then we need to examine our deeds. So it makes sense to improve our mitzvah observance when bad things are happening so it makes sense to let's say take on laudable act X if bad things are happening [assuming of course we are already perfect in our observance of obligatory acts so only the laudable but non obligatory acts are left]. But that's different than taking on laudable act X if and only if God does Y. It's also different than taking on laudable act X and telling God now He must do Y in return.
On the other hand, Yaakov Avinu made a deal with God of sorts provided he returned to EY safely...so I don't know.
Also, we all do things with an expectation that therefore God will do Y, such as bringing shaliach mitzvah money with the expectation that therefore God with make it a safe trip...it's complicated.
Good question, notreallyhere, gives a lot to think about.

One of my dad's older non-Orthodox cousins was married in her early 20s and was unsuccessful in becoming pregnant for a long period of time, so apparently she eventually made a promise to G-d that if she was blessed with children, she and her husband (and future kids) would become Orthodox. She eventually went on to have two healthy kids in her early/mid 40's (and this was approx. 40 years ago, so this all occurred without any medical intervention), and her family has been completely observant ever since.

I've made deals with God but I'm not entirely sure what his answer was.

I like this story. I think many people would find a rationalization not to follow through on their promise.

Thank you for putting into words why I get so confused when thinking of this topic.

ditto Notreallyhere

Me, too. To me, a deal sounds like, 1. if you do X, then I will do Y, or 2. if I do Y, I expect you to do X.

The problem with 2. if I do Y, I expect you to do X is that we perform mitzvot because God said so, not because we have expectations of God. Yes, God has promised certain consequences, but we are not making deals with God. Rather, God has made deals with us.

The problem with 1. if you do X, then I will do Y, is that our mitzvah observance should not be contingent on "simanim" from God. The popular exception, of course, is tzedakah, but there too it's NOT that if God makes us rich [or some other outcome, such as finding my lost car keys] then, and only then, will I give tzedakah.

That said, I'm not sure how to understand Yaakov's promise, although at least according to the Ramban, "if" is not the right translation:

20. And Jacob uttered a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and He will guard me on this way, upon which I am going, and He will give me bread to eat and a garment to wear;
21. And if I return in peace to my father's house, and the Lord will be my God;
22. Then this stone, which I have placed as a monument, shall be a house of God, and everything that You give me, I will surely tithe to You.

We learned from Yaakov that the only time one may make a "deal" with Hashem- if I do X, then I will receive Y- is with giving maaser. If we give maaser, we can expect a livelihood.
Otherwise, it's not up to us how Hashem rewards us for our good deeds.

That said, I second (and third) what has been said above- I think it's ok to "dedicate" your good deed to a certain zechus, but it shouldn't be conditional. You'll do it, and hopefully, but not necessarily, will it mitigate a bad circumstance.

Right, and hence the exception of tzedakah. But Yaakov was NOT saying to himself, "I will give ma'aser, and therefore I can expect God to feed and clothe me". Rather, Yaakov said, "If and only if God feeds and clothes me, then I will give ma'aser".

I think one can assume that if Yaakov did would not have returned alive or with anything to tithe, he would not have been able to tithe. The contradiction is not that major.

Then why play Let's Make a Deal? Yaakov could have just said, "When I get back, bli neder I will tithe then". Why say, "If I come back, and if you, God, clothe and feed me, then, and only then, will I tithe when I get back".

Because he wasn't whole in his emunah that he'd return.

end LH / MSR (depends on whom you ask)

Then say, "If I return, then I will tithe when I get back". [Mind you, why couldn't he tithe while abroad for those many years?]. Why say, "If I return, and if You, God, clothe and feed me, then I will tithe when I get back"?

Just to add another piece to all this...

In the beginning of Masechet Rosh Hashanah, the gmara says that someone who gives tzedakah, and says, "this is for the health of my children," then he is a tzaddik gamur, and Rashi adds that such a person should only be considered a tzaddik gamur if he does it consistently.

Obviously not exact, but the point is that, according to Rashi, someone who gives tzedakah for a motive other than it being a "laudable act," still achieves that motive, if its their habit... not sure how that factors in...?

Thank you for bringing up that gemara. You're right, it's a deal of sorts. It's not, "If God does X then I will do Y", which is the ultimate deal with God, but it's still, "If I do Y, then I expect God to do X". Which isn't really a deal as much as an expectation that God's promises will be kept. But you're right that it's relevant to the discussion.
On the other hand, the Rishonim deal with the problem that "If I do Y, then I expect God to do X" seemingly contradicts the dictum that one should not act laudably for the prize but one should do mitzvot because God so commanded.
The commentators saw that passage in the gemara as problematic and were forced to deal with it. Here is the Shteinzaltz commentary that summarizes some of the opinions:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v336/mel...ddikgamur-1.jpg

But keep in mind that tzedakah is a special case since Chazal opened the window for it being singular as a vehicle for testing God. As well, it depends on the person's primary motivation and the manner in which it is being done.

I don't know.
However, at least to my eyes, it seems that all of those were an expansion of the general idea of 'if I return' and were all related to the predicate. (I wish I'd have a MG available to pick and choose from, but alas, they are floating around in boys' schools and places other than the bookcase.)
I also don't know why he couldn't tithe while abroad, however, firstly, how was he to know at that time that he'd become wealthy at Lavan's? Also, he didn't get paid in the first years he was there.
Rereading 28:20-22 again in the full context makes the deal seem even less as a deal.