"You shall heed the issuance of your lips and you
shall do . . . "
In Mishne Lamelech on the Rambam (chapter 10)
a very interesting question is posed: We find
mentioned in several places in the Torah vows made
between different people to one another, even
before the giving of the Torah which mandates that
one must keep one's word. Both Avrohom and Yitzchok
vowed faithfully to Avimelech. Eisov made a vow to
Yaakov concerning the selling of his birthright.
Eliezer made a vow to Avrohom that he would not
take a wife for Yitzchok from the daughters of
Canaan. The Mishne Lamelech wonders at the
power which such vows have if the Torah had not yet
been given and there was nothing to bind people, to
obligate them to keep their words. We know that the
ovos did keep the mitzvos even before the
giving of the Torah, but what about Eisov? Why did
Avimelech demand a vow of protection? And what was
the significance of Pharaoh eliciting a vow from
Yosef not to reveal to the people that he was
fluent in one language more than he? Keeping one's
promise is not one of the seven Noachide laws!
The same question arises with regard to the vow at
Mt. Sinai described in Mishpotim which was
the basis for the giving of the Torah. Also with
regard to the later covenant that was made, as
described in Nitzovim. Would we not think
that so long as the Jews had not accepted the code
of the Torah, they were not bound to honor their
vows? And once they had received the Torah, it was,
indeed, incumbent upon them by virtue of the
commandment that "He shall not profane his word"
and "You shall heed the issue of your lips," and if
so, why is this warning more powerful than or
supernal to the other warnings in the Torah? How
can the vow add impact or validity to the warnings
of the Torah at the time that the vow itself is no
more than another warning?
We find an illuminating answer in the works of two
leading acharonim: HaGaon R' Elozor Moshe
Horowitz, zt'l, of Pinsk, in his responsa
Ohel Moshe (138) and the Sochotchover Gaon in
his responsa Avnei Nezer, "two prophets
prophesying in the same vein."
Their joint premise is that it stands to reason
that when someone gives his word to another person,
he is expected to keep it. He becomes morally
obligated. The Torah does not need to provide any
further warning, for if a person gave a promise to
another, and the other relies on his keeping it, he
is naturally morally compelled to do so -- to be
responsible for his promise. This was the nature of
the vows made by Avrohom, Yitzchok, Eliezer and
Yosef, and the vow made by Israel to Hashem. They
promised -- and what one promises, one must keep,
because that is a tacit agreement, this is
expected. A word one gives has validity, it is not
meaningless or worthless.
This was a primary axiom that preceded the giving
of the Torah just like derech eretz kodma
laTorah -- primary human decency, good sense,
ethics, propriety, integrity, courtesy or whatever
you choose to call it which is the foundation of
all human social behavior.
Different is the dictum of the Torah which warns a
person to guard the issue of his mouth, the
utterance of his lips, and not to profane it by
violating his own words. These commandments,
however, were said with regard to a person who
makes a personal commitment, a vow of something he
will do or not, which involves himself alone: that
he will eat something or refrain from eating it and
so on. In these utterances, he does not in any way
become beholden to another other person, not even
to Hashem. For how can he know if Hashem is
interested in that particular self-promise, be it
to do or to desist? Nevertheless, the Torah does
command that he keep his commitment and not profane
his word, but forthwith execute whatever he says or
verbally commits to do.
Chazal condemn those people who give money to
another with the purpose of buying something from
him and then regret having made the bargain and
demand their money back. Even if halachically the
exchange is not yet valid and can be cancelled,
nevertheless, the buyer who rescinds is cursed!
Yes! The beis din declares to his face that
"Whoever punished the Generation of the Flood and
the Generation of the Dispersal and the Egyptians
at the sea shall impose His punishment upon one who
does not keep his word." In one fell swoop this
person is lumped together in the same category with
dor hamabul, dor haflogo and with the
Egyptians. He resembles them. They did injustices
that negate rational, human common decency.
This very sin contributed to the destruction of
Jerusalem. "Jerusalem was laid waste for the lack
of men of faith within it" (Shabbos 119). The
phrase "men of faith" denotes men who could be
relied upon, who were trustworthy, people who kept
their word absolutely. When it came to business
matters, they upheld whatever promises they made,
even if these promises had not been definitive or
binding in any way. If a man merely said that he
would transact something -- he stood by his word,
he gave what he had promised (Bovo Metzia
49).
"The tongue is the pen of the heart," writes
Chovos Halevovos. The manner in which one
relates to a word that has been uttered directly
reflects the faithfulness, integrity and
trustworthiness of his heart!
