The general obligation to be honest in business and keep one’s word:[1]

One is to beware to deal honestly in business and not change his word [from whatever agreements that were discussed, and from whatever promises were made].[2] This means that when a person speaks and agrees to something with a yes or no, then one must try to fulfill his word and align them with his actions.[3]

The severity – Like idolatry:[4] Whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry.[5]

Personal matters versus matters between man and his fellow:[6] The above requirement for one to keep his word only applies regarding matters that are between man and his friend, however, matters that are personal, between him and his personal needs, then there is no need to fulfill them, if it does not involve any aspect of a Mitzvah, even if he expressed that he will do so. [This applies even if one did not say Beli Neder at the time he expressed his resolve.[7]]

Thoughts of the heart – One who decided in his mind to do a certain deal:[8] Once someone decides even in his mind to buy a certain item, or agree to a certain matter, then it is proper for every G-d fearing person to fulfill it.[9] However, as stated above, this only applies regarding matters that are between man and his friend, however, matters that are personal, between him and his personal needs [that he decided in his heart to perform], then there is no need to fulfill them, if it does not involve any aspect of a Mitzvah.[10]

Matters of a Mitzvah:[11] One who resolves, even in his heart, that he will do a certain Mitzvah related matter, is obligated to do so due to the rules of a vow. One is certainly obligated to do so if he verbalized his resolution with his mouth.

Telling a lie for the sake of peace:[12] One may not tell a lie to his friend even for the sake of peace. Now, although the Sages[13] state that it is permitted [and even a Mitzvah[14]] to change the facts [i.e. lie] for the sake of peace, nevertheless, one may only lie for the sake of peace regarding a past event. However, he may not tell a lie regarding future matters. [Nevertheless, this matter needs further analysis, as an argument can be made that it is permitted to lie for the sake of peace even regarding a future matter.[15]]

____________________________________________________

[1] Admur 156:2; Michaber 156:1 “Veyisa Viyiten Bemuna”; Tur 156; Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13

Biblical, Rabbinical, or Midas Chasisdus: Biblical: Some Poskim rule that the above obligation is Biblical as it is based on an explicit verse in Scripture. [Possible understanding of Admur 156:2 who brings Pasuk of Hin Tzedek as source; Braisa Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Shelah ibid; Minchas Chinuch 259; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Smeh ibid, Rashi Kesubos 86a, Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah] Rabbinical: Other Poskim, however, rule that it is merely Rabbinical. [Implication of Admur Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1 who brings Pasuk of Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yasu; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a “Eino Over Al Esei Deoraiysa”; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Rif, Rosh, Ramban in Milchamos, Admur ibid, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; See Hamaor Hagdol on Rif ibid; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:9 Shaar Hatziyon 36 and Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”] Whatever the case, there is a prohibition to change one’s word. [See Rama “Assur Lachzor”; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a “Sheiyn Mutar Lachzor”; Mordechai Gittin 3:363; Implication of Admur 156:2 from Sanhedrin 92a that whoever does not keep to his word and swerves from his promises is considered as if he has served idolatry; See Beis Yosef end of 204; Rashbam Bava Basra 133b; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnote 54 and 79-80, and Vol. 1 footnote 17; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:4 Shaar Hatziyon 21-25] Midas Chassidus: However, from other sources it is evident that this is a mere act of properness or of piety and not an obligation at all. [Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber C.M. 204:7 who use the term “Rauiy”; Shita Mekubetzes Bava Metzia 49a in name of Raavad that he is not called a Rasha; See Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13 “The business transactions of a Torah scholar are done with truth and honesty. He answers honestly to yes and no questions. He obligates himself to a business agreement in areas that the Torah did not obligate him, in order so he can keep his word and not change from it.” However, see Kesef Mishneh ibid for a second version in which it states that he does not obligate himself, which simply means that he does not give his word to agreements in order to prevent a situation that he must go back on it.] See Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid Vol. 44 footnotes 131-136; See Mishpitei Chaim 6; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Viein Ruach Chachamim”

Other opinions in Talmud: Some are of the opinion that one always retain the right to retract from a promise of giving a gift or business agreement, whether the agreement and gift is small or large, and doing so does not consider one as not trustworthy, as so is the way of business for people to change their mind due to a variety of factors. [Rav Bava Metzai 49a, brought in Admur ibid Kuntrus Achron 1]

[2] The reason: 1) As the verse [Kedoshim 19:36] states, “Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach,” which is interpreted to mean that one’s “yes” and “no” should be justified. [Admur O.C. ibid; Braisa in Bava Metzia 49a in understanding of question of Gemara; Smeh 204:12; Rav Ovadia Bartenura and Tosafus Yom Tov and Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Shevi’is 10; Minchas Pitim 204:11 in name of Ittur and that so is the opinion of Rav Yochanon and Razah; Minchas Chinuch 259; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 67-73] This means that when a person speaks and says yes or no to something, then one must try to fulfill his word and justify them. [Admur ibid; Rashi ibid] 2) Alternatively, this is learned from the verse [Tzefanya 3:13] which states “Sheiris Yisrael Lo Yaasu Avla Velo Yidabru Chazav.” [Admur C.M. Hilchos Mechira Halacha 1; Rashi Bava Metzia ibid; Mordecai Bava Metzia 4 Remez 312 in name of Maharam of Rotehnberg; Darkei Moshe 243:20; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a; Shaareiy Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yona 183; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 74-76]; Regarding the apparent contradiction in Admur O.C. ibid versus Admur C.M. ibid as to the source in Scripture for this requirement, See: Imrei Yaakov Biurim “Eiyn”; Yagdil Torah 68:36; Pischeiy Choshen Halva 1:38

Other opinion of Admur: Elsewhere, Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 2 interprets this verse of Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh Lach to refer to the concept that there is a Biblical prohibition against one making a promise without intent to follow through at the time the one is making it. In his words: To speak one way in one’s mouth and one way in one’s heart is Biblically forbidden as the verse [Vayikra 19:36] which discusses the obligation for one to have honest and justified weights in commerce states, “Eifas Tzedek Vehin Tzedek Yihyeh.” Now, why does the verse repeat the term weights using the word “Hin,” as was this term not already included in the word “Eifas?” Why the redundancy? Rather, it is coming to teach us that one’s yes and no should be justified. [Admur ibid; Rambam Deios 2:6; Abayey in Bava Metzia 49a in his interpretation of Braisa ibid; Rebbe Yaakov Ben Zavdi in Yerushalmi Shevi’is 10:4; Rosh Bava Metiza 4:12; Rif Bava Metzia 29b; Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 49a and Hamaor Hagadol in explanation of Rif ibid that so applies even according to Rebbe Yochanon [However, see Minchas Pitim 204:11 that this applies only according to Rav]; Yerushalmi end of Shevi’is; Rashi Bava Metzia 49a; Minchas Pitim ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos, Shita Mekubetzes Kesubos 86a; Poskim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnotes 62-66]

[3] Admur ibid; Rashi of Bava Metzia ibid

[4] Admur 156:2; Sanhedrin 92a

[5] Perhaps this is compared to idolatry because it is considered as if one denies Hashem’s sovereignty and that the agreement was meant to happen. He rather believes that he will benefit from changing the deal.

[6] Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses regarding a resolve though and even speech “However his own personal needs, so long as they do not contain any aspect of a Mitzvah, he does not have to fulfill even if he explicitly said that he will do so””; Admur 156:2 regarding thought

[7] See Chasam Sofer Y.D. 222; Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid 1:7 Shaar Hatziyon 32

[8] Admur 156:2 “Even the thoughts of one’s heart that one has decided in his mind, it is proper for every individual who has fear of heaven to fulfill it.”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “A God-fearing man is to fulfill even the thoughts of his heart.”; Bava Basra 88a; Makos 24a; Hagahos Ashri 21; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Michsurei Emuna” Vol. 44 pp. 300-301

[9] The reason: As the verse [Tehillim 15:2] states “Vedover Emes Bilivavo/and a person who speaks truth in his heart.” [Admur O.C. ibid and C.M. ibid; Bava Basra ibid]

[10] Admur 156:2; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 in parentheses (“And other matters of the like, between man and his fellow, he should fulfill the words of his heart if he resolved to do them, such as to do a certain favor for his friend, and he has the ability to do so. However his own personal needs, so long as they do not contain any aspect of a Mitzvah, he does not have to fulfill even if he explicitly said that he will do so”)

[11] Admur 156:2 “Im Ein Bahen Serach Mitzvah”; Admur C.M. Dinei Mechira Umatana Halacha 1 “Kol Sheiyn Bahem Search Mitzvah” and 4; regarding Tzedaka; Kuntrus Achron 1; Rama Y.D. 258:13; M”A O.C. 562:11 regarding a fast; Chasam Sofer E.H. 2:101; See Imrei Yaakov on Admur ibid Biurim “Tzarich Lekayem Machshavto” in length

[12] Admur O.C. 156:2; M”A 156:1; Sefer Chassidim 426; Tosafos Bava Metzia 23b; Rambam Deios 5:7; Semag 107; Pela Hayoeitz “Hasheker”

[13] Yevamos 65b;

[14] Admur in parentheses; Rif in Bava Metzia Perek Eilu Metzios 23b

[15] Admur ibid in parentheses that this above ruling, “Requires slight analysis being that peace is greater than all the other mitzvah’s [see Midrash Raba Chukas 19:27 on verse Tehillim 34:15 “Bakesh Shalom Veradfeihu”; Vayikra Raba 9:9] and the Talmud [Yevamos 65b] permits one to lie for the sake of peace, and the Rif [Bava Metzia Perek Eilu Metzios 23b] even holds that it is a Mitzvah to do so, and hence from where can one conclude that one may not lie regarding future matters, as in truth perhaps it is permitted, as it states Bechol Derachacha Deieihu. [Brachos 63a even for an Aveira and Rashi there that sometimes one should even transgresses if it is for the need of a mitzvah; Midrash Raba Bereishis 1; Elya Raba 156:2; Peri Megadim 156 A”A 2]”

[16] Rambam Hilchos Deios 5:13

[17] See Kesef Mishneh ibid that so is the more correct Nussach. An alternative Nussach states “He accepts obligations in matters of buying and selling for which the Torah does not hold him liable, in order to uphold and not go back on his verbal commitments.” Seemingly, the difference between the two versions is that according to the version recorded above in the main paragraph, he abstains from giving his word and making agreements in order so we can always withhold the right to retract if necessary and not considered dishonest. According to the second version, he abstains from retracting from an agreement once he gave his word. Seemingly, the argument against the second version is due to the fact that not only a Torah scholar is obligated to keep his word but rather every Jew, and hence this matter should not listed as a unique trait of Torah scholars. Vetzaruch Iyun!