Siman 206 — Halakha lema'asse: the word begun, seif by seif

The ruling of the siman line by line, with the source of each verdict — and four points the sources leave open

יורה דעה · סימן ר״ו

דִּינֵי יְדוֹת הַנְּדָרִים

⚖️ Halakha lema'asse · למעשה

✦ ❖ ✦

This level gives the line of the ruling: for each utterance the siman envisages, what binds, what does not, and what remains disputed. Siman 206 is peculiar in that it judges words — their order, their ending, the letter that begins them. Reporting exactly what was said is already not simple; drawing one's own conclusion from it is less so still. The practical conclusion always belongs to the Rav.

Subject : Siman 206 — Halakha lema'asse: the word begun, seif by seif
Source : שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״ו

Compilation : הרב יוסף חיים סממה
DAAT · daattorah.com

📑 Plan of study

1. What this level is, and what it is not

2. Seif א — the three formulations, and the ma'hloket one does not settle alone

3. Seif ב — לך and ממך

4. Seif ג — מנודה, משמתינא, נדינא, and the Shach's צ״ע

5. Seif ד — כנדרי רשעים and כנדרי כשרים

6. Seif ה — the formulation that does not bind and must nonetheless be released

7. The ruling table of the siman

8. What remains open, and what the sources do not give

1. What this level is, and what it is not

This level sets out the ruling as it is read in the sources of the siman — the Mehaber, the Rama's gloss, the Shach, the Taz, the Baer Hetev, the Pitchei Teshuva and the Rambam. It does not replace a Rav, and this siman less than any other: siman 206 judges words, and determining what was actually said, in what order and with what ending, is not an operation one performs on one's own memory. A real case is brought to the Rav with the exact words.

2. Seif א — the three formulations, and the ma'hloket one does not settle alone

Ruling — the clear case. “מודרני ממך שאיני אוכל לך”, and likewise with מופרשני and מרוחקני: the utterance is finished, the יד holds, and he is forbidden to eat with him. The Rambam says it in the same terms.

The disputed case: the unfinished sentence. Three positions, and they do not have the same practical effect. (א) Mehaber (following the Rambam): מודרני forbids speaking, מופרשני trading, מרוחקני standing within his four cubits. (ב) Rosh, Tur, Ran: nothing at all — the utterance is not מוכחת. The Shach (ס״ק ג) and the Taz (ס״ק א) both judge that this view is missing from the Rama's gloss; the Taz goes so far as to write the text it should have carried. (ג) Bach: more stringent still — even eating with him is forbidden.

Conduct. The Shach himself gives the practical orientation, and gives it twice: the Bach “is not the principal view in the Talmud or among the decisors” (ס״ק ג), and as to halakha “there is no room to be lenient” (ס״ק ו). In other words: neither the most stringent reading nor the most lenient applies of itself. A real case is brought to the Rav.

3. Seif ב — לך and ממך

Ruling. “מודר אני לך from eating or benefit”: both are forbidden to each other. “מודר אני ממך from eating or benefit”: he alone is forbidden, and his fellow is permitted to him. The Taz gives the reason in the Ran's name.

The case where neither אכילה nor הנאה is mentioned. Tur: it is no vow at all. Rambam, Mehaber, and with them the Bach and the Prisha: it is a vow, and he may no longer speak with him — exactly as at seif א. The Shach (ס״ק ד), reporting both, adds that the Mehaber deliberately omitted the end of the Tur's words, and notes in passing an inconsistency of the Ateret Zekenim, who copied now one and now the other.

4. Seif ג — מנודה, משמתינא, נדינא, and the Shach's צ״ע

The Mehaber's ruling. מנודה אני לך and משמתינא ממך, finished with שאני אוכל לך: it is no vow, all is permitted. Unfinished: forbidden to stand within his four cubits. נדינא ממך, finished with שאיני אוכל לך: forbidden to eat with him; unfinished: forbidden to benefit. The Rama adds the reminder of those who disagree.

And an important reservation. The Shach (ס״ק ה) judges this position incoherent and concludes with a צ״ע; the Taz (ס״ק ג) decides otherwise — מנודה is not a formulation of vow at all. One therefore cannot lean on seif ג as on a settled rule, neither to forbid nor to permit. This is precisely the kind of case one brings before a Rav.

5. Seif ד — כנדרי רשעים and כנדרי כשרים

Ruling, in four lines. (1) “כנדרי רשעים this loaf is upon me”, or “כנדרי רשעים הימנו” with a loaf before him: forbidden. (2) “כנדרי כשרים”: nothing. (3) “כנדרי כשרים this loaf is upon me קונם”: nothing either — the first words nullify the קונם. (4) “כנדבת כשרים”: it is a vow.

What this seif teaches in practice. A word does not act alone: it acts within a sentence. The same קונם binds or does not bind according to what precedes it. It follows that one cannot judge a vow by isolating the strongest word one hears in it — it is the whole sentence, in its order, that must be reported.

6. Seif ה — the formulation that does not bind and must nonetheless be released

Ruling. “I vow that I shall not eat” / “that I shall eat with you”: it is not even a יד, for this formulation belongs to the register of the שבועה and not of the נדר. The Shach (ס״ק ט), the Taz (ס״ק ו) and the Baer Hetev (ס״ק ח) all three say it in the same terms. And yet: a התרה is required, since nowadays it is common to vow in that formulation — so that vows not be treated lightly.

Three reservations, and they do not run the same way. (1) If he vowed to perform a mitzva: it binds. The Baer Hetev (ס״ק ט) here reports, in the Ralbach's name, a concrete case — one who says “behold I vow a quarter of my body” is liable for צדקה — and the Pitchei Teshuva (ס״ק א) refers to it. (2) A נדר expressed in a formulation of שבועה would be effective under the head of ידות; but the Pitchei Teshuva (ס״ק ב), in the Noda BiYehuda's name, restricts that divergence to the case of a thing having substance (ממש), and writes that otherwise one listens to the lenient view. (3) נזירות expressed in a formulation of שבועה binds by all opinions — the Shach (ס״ק י) reports it from the Radbaz, notes that the point does not appear in the Beit Yosef, that the Mabit contests it, and gives his own proof.

7. The ruling table of the siman

8. What remains open, and what the sources do not give

The words	Verdict	Source of the verdict
מודרני / מופרשני / מרוחקני ממך שאיני אוכל לך	Forbidden to eat with him	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:א · רמב״ם הלכות נדרים א׳:כ״ג
שאיני אוכל לך alone	Not a יד	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:א · ש״ך ס״ק ב
מודרני ממך, unfinished	Forbidden to speak — and disputed: nothing (Rosh/Tur/Ran), eating (Bach)	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:א · ש״ך ס״ק ג · ט״ז ס״ק א
מופרשני ממך, unfinished	Forbidden to do business	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:א
מרוחקני ממך, unfinished	Forbidden within his four cubits	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:א
מודר אני לך from eating or benefit	Both are forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ב · ט״ז ס״ק ב
מודר אני ממך from eating or benefit	He alone is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ב
מודר אני ממך without אכילה or הנאה	Disputed — nothing (Tur) · forbidden to speak (Rambam, Mehaber, Bach)	ש״ך ס״ק ד · באר היטב ס״ק ג
מנודה אני לך / משמתינא ממך, finished	All permitted — but the Shach's צ״ע	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ג · ש״ך ס״ק ה · ט״ז ס״ק ג
the same, unfinished	Forbidden within his four cubits	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ג
נדינא ממך, finished / unfinished	Eating / benefit	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ג · ש״ך ס״ק ו
כנדרי רשעים ככר זה עלי	Forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ד · ש״ך ס״ק ז
כנדרי כשרים, even followed by קונם	It is nothing	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ד · ש״ך ס״ק ח · ט״ז ס״ק ה
כנדבת כשרים	It is a vow	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ד · ט״ז ס״ק ד
הנודר שלא אוכל / שאוכל עמך	Not even a יד — but התרה required	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ה · ש״ך ס״ק ט · ט״ז ס״ק ו · באר היטב ס״ק ח
the same, in a vow to perform a mitzva	Binds	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ה · באר היטב ס״ק ט · פתחי תשובה ס״ק א
A נדר in a formulation of שבועה, and the reverse	Disputed — and restricted to a דבר שיש בו ממש	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ה · פתחי תשובה ס״ק ב
נזירות in a formulation of שבועה	Binds by all opinions	שו״ע יו״ד ר״ו:ה · ש״ך ס״ק י

Four points remain open, and we do not close them. (1) The unfinished formulation of seif א: three positions, from the Rosh's “nothing at all” to the Bach's “even eating”. (2) The state of the text of the Rama's gloss: the Taz restores it, the Shach writes צ״ע, the Bach reads it the other way round. (3) The coherence of seif ג: the Shach concludes with a צ״ע, the Taz decides otherwise. (4) The extent of the “יש מי שאומר” of seif ה, which the Pitchei Teshuva restricts in the Noda BiYehuda's name.

The Nekudot HaKesef. They are the Shach's reply to the Taz, and this siman lent itself to it: the Taz emends a text of the Rama there, and the Shach for his part writes that a gloss is missing. They do not comment on siman 206: no entry is available to us for this siman. The column stays empty, and we do not fill it with a conjecture.

Conduct, finally. This siman judges words — words said quickly, often in anger, and not exactly remembered. That is why the only conduct it permits is this: report to the Rav the sentence as it was said, in full and in its order, and let him judge whether there is a vow, a יד, or nothing — and, in all three cases, whether release is called for.