Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a situation where someone pledges a smaller item but then brings a larger item. Is that considered a fulfillment of the pledge or is it a different pledge and he still must bring his original sacrifice since he has not kept his word.

If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull instead, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.

The idea that too much is not good enough is an important theme that manifests in Halacha and psychological dimensions of life. Rav Breuer, who was a leader of the Yekke German Community known for its precision and punctuality, is famous for having remarked to someone who showed up early for a meeting: “Early is ALSO not on time.” 

In Halacha we find principles such as kol hamosif goreya - one who adds on to a mitzvah what is not commanded detracts from the fulfillment (Sanhedrin 29a), or kol yeser ke-natul - any addition is considered as if it is missing. This comes up in the laws of Tereifos. For example a missing hind leg renders the animal unkosher as a tereifah. So too, an animal with three hind legs is also tereifah. Presumably, the additional hind leg causes as much dysfunction and is disruptive to the animal’s health as a missing hind leg. (See Chulin 58b).

As we have remarked many times, God designed nature, Torah and psychology, so often similar dynamics apply. Psychologically, people who overcommit often end up under performing. This is due to many factors. The obvious one is that since it was an overcommitment, the person did not have the true capacity to deliver. Perhaps guilt, impulsivity or poor self awareness fed the overcommitment and thus the project was set up for failure. Even worse, if the person has perfectionistic tendencies that motivated the over pledging, then the frustration in noticing that he cannot fulfill the pledge fully could lead to despair and avoidance of fulfilling it all together!

The more subtle point is an ego defense known as Reaction Formation. That is when a person is conflicted and feels he SHOULD conform to an internal or external expectation, but deep down, does not want to. In order to fight with the inner conflict, he overshoots by making an unrealistic (for him) emphatic declaration that He WILL ABSOLUTELY do it. What is really going on is that he is externalizing an internal unacknowledged battle. In the words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” This is also related to the adage of the sages, “The righteous say little and do much, whereas the wicked say much and do not do even a little.” (Bava Metzia 87a).

I’ll conclude with a real life practical application. I commute between Florida and New York weekly because I have offices in both locations. I am therefore dependent on flights being on time and I have become attuned to the inflection and tonality of the pilot. When the pilot announces something such as “We have a slight maintenance issue and after we file the paperwork we should be getting out with only a small delay…” The pilot’s tone and inflection makes a difference. If he is overly confident and cheerful, then I get worried and start looking for alternate back-up flights. If he says it matter of factly, usually it is only a minor delay. Similarly, when you are in the exam room and the assistant says, “The doctor will be right with you”, that means a moderate delay, since after all, if the doctor was really coming right away, why announce his arrival like the Messiah and Elijah on the white donkey? Furthermore, if the assistant announced, in an overly cheerful and emphatic voice, “The doctor will be RIGHT with you..” then you know he’s stuck in traffic, still in surgery, arguing with his ex-wife or who knows what, but for sure he is NOT coming RIGHT AWAY.