דיני ידות הנדרים. ובו ה׳ סעיפים:
ידות (פי׳ ידות שהתחיל לנדור ולא גמר הדבור ואעפ״כ הוא נאסר כאילו נדר כל הדיבור כאדם שאוחז ביד הכלי ועל ידי כך משתמש בכלי כאילו אחז בו בעצמו) נדרים כנדרים והוא שיהו מוכיחות קצת על הנדר כיצד האומר לחבירו מודרני ממך שאיני אוכל לך או מופרשני ממך שאיני אוכל לך או מרוחקני ממך שאיני אוכל לך אסור לאכול עמו (וי״א דאפילו אמר שאני אוכל לך באלו לשונות אסור לאכול עמו) (הר״ן בשם יש גורסין ועס״ק ב׳) אבל אם אומר שאיני אוכל לך לבד בלא מודרני ממך לא הוי יד ואם אמר מודרני ממך או מופרשני ממך או מרוחקני ממך ולא סיים דבריו שאיני אוכל לך במודרני ממך אסור לדבר עמו ובמופרשני ממך אסור לשאת ולתת עמו ובמרוחקני ממך אסור לעמוד בד׳ אמותיו:
The ידות of vows are like vows — that is: he began to vow and did not finish the utterance, and despite this he is forbidden as though he had vowed the whole utterance, like a man who holds the handle of the vessel and thereby uses it — provided they somewhat indicate the vow. One who says to his fellow “מודרני ממך that I shall not eat of what is yours”, or מופרשני ממך, or מרוחקני ממך: he is forbidden to eat with him. But if he says “שאיני אוכל לך” alone, it is not a יד. And if he did not finish his words: with מודרני ממך he is forbidden to speak with him; with מופרשני ממך, to do business; with מרוחקני ממך, to stand within his four cubits.
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 206:1 (ה׳ סעיפים)
LEVEL 01
רמת המתחיל
Base — Beginner & Intermediate
The five seifim read one by one, with the Hebrew text of the Shulchan Arukh, a fluent English translation and an explanation of the mechanism: the handle of the vow and the condition מוכיחות קצת, the three formulations of seif א, the letter that separates לך from ממך, the three words of seif ג, כנדרי רשעים against כנדרי כשרים, and the נדר / שבועה pivot of seif ה. The twenty-eight commentary entries — the 10 ס״ק of the Shach, the 7 of the Taz, the 9 of the Baer Hetev and the 2 of the Pitchei Teshuva — are quoted one by one, each with its reference.
📖 Study
LEVEL 02
רמת הלמדן
Lamdan — Talmid Hakham
Pilpul: what מוכיחות means and the ma'hloket of the Rambam against the Rosh, the Tur and the Ran; the three readings of the Rama's silence (the Taz emends, the Shach doubts, the Bach reverses); the Shach's rule of direction at ס״ק ב — a יד cannot run in the direction of the שבועה; לך against ממך after the Ran; the Shach's צ״ע on seif ג; the nullification of the קונם by כנדרי כשרים; and the pivot of the block at seif ה, with the Noda BiYehuda's restriction and the exception of נזירות.
📖 Study
LEVEL 03
חזרה וסיכום
Synthesis — Revision
A recap for revision: the siman in one sentence, the five seifim in a table, the vocabulary (ידות נדרים, מוכיחות קצת, ידים מוכיחות, מודרני, מופרשני, מרוחקני, מנודה, משמתינא, נדינא, כנדרי רשעים, כנדרי כשרים, נדבה, קונם, נזירות), the three golden rules, the six classic pitfalls, the five points left under discussion and the checklist.
📖 Study
LEVEL 04
הלכה למעשה
Halakha lema'asse — the ruling
Halakha lema'asse: the ruling of the siman seif by seif according to the Mehaber, the Rama, the Shach, the Taz, the Baer Hetev, the Pitchei Teshuva and the Rambam — the three formulations finished and unfinished, לך and ממך, the Shach's צ״ע on seif ג, כנדרי רשעים and כנדרי כשרים, and the formulation that does not bind and must nonetheless be released. An eighteen-line ruling table; four points left open; every conclusion refers to the Rav.
📖 Study
Frequently asked questions — Siman 206
What is a יד of a vow, and where does the word come from?
The word יד means hand, but also handle. A יד of a vow is a word begun and not finished that binds nonetheless — the Sefaria edition carries at seif א a gloss saying exactly this: he began to vow and did not finish the utterance, and despite this he is forbidden as though he had vowed the whole utterance, like a man who holds the handle of the vessel and thereby uses it as though he had grasped it himself. But the Shulchan Arukh at once sets the condition: provided they somewhat indicate the vow (מוכיחות קצת). These are rules for study; any vow actually pronounced is brought before a Rav.
What happens if one says “מודרני ממך” without finishing the sentence?
This is the central question of the siman, and the authorities divide three ways. The Mehaber, following the Rambam: each formulation takes the effect of its root — מודרני ממך forbids speaking with him, מופרשני ממך doing business, מרוחקני ממך standing within his four cubits. The Rosh, the Tur and the Ran: the utterance may mean this or that, it is therefore not מוכחת, and it is no vow at all. Both the Shach (ס״ק ג) and the Taz (ס״ק א) judge that this view is missing from the Rama's gloss, and the Taz goes so far as to write the text that should have been there. The Bach, at the opposite pole, holds that even ידים שאינן מוכיחות are ידים. The Shach concludes for halakha that there is no room to be lenient — a real case is brought to the Rav.
Why does “כנדרי רשעים” bind while “כנדרי כשרים” does not?
Because a vow can attach only to something real (that is the rule of siman 204). The Taz (ס״ק ד) gives the observation: the רשעים are wont to vow, the כשרים are not — they give; and he gives the underlying reason: a נדר is said “הרי עלי” and places a liability on the one who vows, hence a risk of fault, whereas a נדבה is said “הרי זו” and places none. The Shach (ס״ק ז) adds: saying “כנדרי רשעים” amounts to saying “this loaf is upon me like a קרבן”, for an ordinary רשע is liable to a קרבן. And there is something stronger still: saying “כנדרי כשרים this loaf is upon me קונם” does not bind either — the first words nullify the קונם (Shach ס״ק ח, Taz ס״ק ה).
Why is “I vow that I shall not eat” not even a יד — and why is a התרה nonetheless required?
This is the pivot of the whole block 204-206, and three sources write it in the same terms: the Shach (ס״ק ט), the Taz (ס״ק ו) and the Baer Hetev (ס״ק ח). A formulation of נדר is one that forbids the thing to the man; a formulation of שבועה is one that forbids the man with respect to the thing. But “that I shall not eat” puts the person at the centre: it is the grammar of an oath. The result: it is not a נדר (wrong direction), and not a שבועה either (he did not swear) — hence not even a יד. And yet, concludes the Shulchan Arukh, a התרה is required, since nowadays it is common in people's mouths to vow in that formulation — so that vows not be treated lightly. Every התרה is done before a Rav or three men, never alone.