The 33 Chilean miners rescued on October 13 made a pact with each other while trapped underground for 69 days that they wouldn't share publicly the details of their experiences. But in the midst of their own poverty combined with significant media attention, some of them have broken that pact. Are they allowed to break a promise to each other in order to take care of themselves and their families?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 33 Chilean miners rescued on October 13 made a pact with each other while trapped underground for 69 days that they wouldn't share publicly the details of their experiences. But in the midst of their own poverty combined with significant media attention, some of them have broken that pact. Are they allowed to break a promise to each other in order to take care of themselves and their families?

 

Within the Jewish tradition the pronouncement of an oath is taken very seriously.  Once one is made, only a court of Jewish law can release someone from it.  However, in a technical sense, from a halakhic (Jewish legal) point of view, an oath involves a Jew making a promise that invokes God's name.  Therefore, standard halakha is not directly relevant in this case.  Yet, the value our tradition places on promises does inform the discussion.   

 

From an ethical point of view, with so little knowledge on the exact terms of the pact, it is very difficult to judge.  While Jewish tradition clearly places a heavy premium on an oath, or promise, it places an even larger premium on the preservation of life.  If the pact was broken to save a life, it is likely that Jewish tradition would stand by that decision.  On the other hand, it is important to think about how one person’s breaking of the pact would affect the other miners.  If doing so would cause them tangible harm, this could complicate the ethics of such a decision.  Still, the sanctity of life remains supreme.

In Jewish law, we would ask whether the miners’ pact has the status of a vow (neder) or an oath (shevu`ah). If so, then they would have to undertake a formal legal process to cancel or annul the promise. This would require that a court (beit din) find some valid reason why the promise should not be enforced. This valid reason usually takes the form of “regret” - charatah - that is, the person who made the promise says with sincerity that “had I only known that thus-and-such would be the case, I never would have made the promise.” We could argue that this applies in our case: had the miners thoroughly understood their situation, many of them may not have entered into the agreement.

On the other hand, they did make the promise, a promise that binds them to each other, and if some of them decide not to honor it, they may well be causing harm to their fellow miners. Our tradition places a great value upon living up to the promises we make. As we read in Psalms 15:4, the person who receives God’s blessing is “the one who keeps his oath, even to his own disadvantage.”

It is difficult for any of us to stand in judgment of persons who have experienced what these miners have. But they really should try to honor the pact that they made.