Siman 205 — Synthesis: the attachment that does not take hold
Two seifim reduced to what one must be able to say from memory
יורה דעה · סימן ר״ה
דִּין הָאוֹסֵר דָּבָר עָלָיו בְּאִסּוּר תּוֹרָה
📘 Synthesis level · חזרה
✦ ❖ ✦
This page adds nothing: it arranges. The two seifim, the vocabulary, the three rules that carry the rest, the pitfalls one falls into, and the four points the sources leave open.
Subject : Siman 205 — Synthesis: the attachment that does not take hold Source : שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״ה
Compilation : הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1. The siman in one sentence
2. The two seifim, in a table
3. The vocabulary to know by heart
4. The three golden rules
5. The classic pitfalls
6. What remains under discussion
7. The revision checklist
1. The siman in one sentence
One may attach only to a status that a man's word could install. Pork, נבלה, the idol, one's mother, יין נסך are forbidden of themselves: nothing attaches to them, and the word does not bind. But the Shulchan Arukh nonetheless requires of an עם הארץ that he go and seek release — by a פתח, not by a mere חרטה — כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים; and the Rama adds that nowadays all are so judged.
2. The two seifim, in a table
Seif
What is said
The point to retain
א
Attaching to a דבר האסור: כבשר חזיר, כעבודת כוכבים, כנבלות וטריפות, כאמי, כאחותי, כערלה, ככלאי הכרם
Does not bind — there is no נדר
א
If the speaker is an עם הארץ
שאלה required, with a פתח ממקום אחר and not a mere חרטה
א
Rama: י״א — nowadays all are עמי הארץ; י״א — but only for his wife
Disputed — Bach against Shach (ס״ק ד)
ב
“let my wine be יין נסך and my bread פת כותים”
Does not bind — there is no דבר הנדור
ב
The same, said בדרך קנס, and he transgressed
יש אוסרים ויש מתירים — the Shulchan Arukh leaves it open
ב
Rama: a community in the time of the Sanhedrin
Stands — it is no longer an individual vow
3. The vocabulary to know by heart
Term
Meaning
Where it serves
דבר האסור
forbidden by the Torah, not by a word
the whole siman
דבר הנדור
forbidden by a man's word
the opposite — siman 204
עם הארץ
one who does not know his word bound nothing
the stringency of seif א
שאלה לחכם
the request by which a vow is released
required here despite the absence of a vow
חרטה
regret bearing on the vow's origin
set aside here: it does not suffice
פתח
an unknown consequence, which opens annulment
required here — and not by כבוד אמו (Ran)
יין נסך
wine bound up with idolatrous worship
seif ב
פת כותים
the bread of the כותים, a rabbinic prohibition
seif ב
דרך קנס
“if I do this, then…” — a penalty one sets oneself
the second half of seif ב
קלות ראש בנדרים
lightness toward vows
the motive given by the seif itself
4. The three golden rules
1. The criterion is not “forbidden or permitted”, it is “producible or not by a word”. נותר and פיגול are forbidden by the Torah and yet one may attach to them, because the flesh of a קרבן is installed by a word. Pork cannot be. The Rambam formulates it in one line, and the Shach copies it at ס״ק א.
2. “It did not take hold” is not a practical conclusion. The seif says in the same sentence that nothing binds and that an עם הארץ must seek release — and the Rama, in his gloss, adds that nowadays everyone is so judged. The consequence is simple: one never concludes for oneself from “it was nothing” to “I have nothing to do”.
3. A conditional formulation is not an attachment. “If I do this, my wine shall be יין נסך” changes the nature of the act: it is no longer an התפסה but a stringency one imposes on oneself. That is why the authorities divide on it, while they do not divide on the simple formulation. And that is why the Rama can draw from it the power of the community.
5. The classic pitfalls
Thinking that “forbidden by the Torah” is stronger, so binds better. It is the reverse: it does not bind at all.
Thinking that “nothing took hold” closes the matter. The seif nonetheless requires a שאלה of an עם הארץ, and the Rama extends the category to our own day.
Thinking a חרטה suffices. Here it does not: a פתח is required, and not just any (Shach ס״ק ג in the name of the Ran).
Confusing the simple utterance with the conditional one. The first does not bind, undisputedly; the second is disputed.
Forgetting the Shach's precision on “יין נסך”. He must have said explicitly that he meant the wine of the cult (ס״ק ו).
Forgetting the exception of אונס. One who was compelled is not subject to the requirement (Shach ס״ק ב, in the name of the Rashbatz).
6. What remains under discussion
The point
One position
The other position
Nowadays, does the שאלה hold for all vows?
Yes — Bach
No, only for his wife — Rama (י״א), Shach ס״ק ד, Baer Hetev ס״ק ג
The utterance said בדרך קנס, after transgression
Forbids — יש אוסרים, in the name of the Rivash (Shach ס״ק ח)
Permits — יש מתירים (Shach ס״ק ט, Taz ס״ק ג)
“הרי את אסורה עלי כאמי”
A true נדר — Ralbach, via the Baer Hetev (Pitchei Teshuva ס״ק א)
צ״ע — Tashbetz, cited in the same place
The Rosh's responsum on “יאסר ייני על כל ישראל”
It can be explained — the language of איסור holds only upon oneself (Shach ס״ק ז)
It is not to be retained (Taz ס״ק ד); and the Nekudot HaKesef reply that the Bach had already raised the difficulty
7. The revision checklist
I can state the Rambam's rule on what may serve as an anchor.
I can explain why נותר binds while pork does not.
I know that “it does not bind” and “there is nothing to do” are two different things.
I know the difference between חרטה and פתח, and the limit the Ran sets on the latter.
I know the ma'hloket between the Bach and the Shach on the extent of the requirement today.
I know why the utterance said בדרך קנס is treated apart, and what the Rivash brings to it.
I know what the Pitchei Teshuva leaves open, and that the Nekudot HaKesef have but one entry here.
I know that this chapter is for study, and that any real vow is brought before a Rav.
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria: