✦ ❖ ✦
DAAT · LEVEL 3 — SYNTHESIS

Siman 206 — Synthesis: the ידות הנדרים in tables

Five seifim reduced to what one must be able to say from memory
יורה דעה · סימן ר״ו
דִּינֵי יְדוֹת הַנְּדָרִים
📘 Synthesis level · חזרה
✦ ❖ ✦

This page adds nothing: it arranges. The five seifim, the vocabulary, the three rules that carry the rest, the pitfalls one falls into, and the five points the sources leave open.

Subject : Siman 206 — Synthesis: the ידות הנדרים in tables
Source : שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״ו

Compilation : הרב יוסף חיים סממה
DAAT · daattorah.com

📑 Plan of study

1. The siman in one sentence
2. The five 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

A word begun and not finished can bind — as one holds a vessel by its handle (יד) — provided it lets the vow be guessed (מוכיחות קצת). But length does not suffice: what decides is the direction. The נדר forbids the thing to the man; any formulation that forbids the man with respect to the thing belongs to the register of the שבועה and is not even a יד — and yet, says the siman, it requires a התרה.

2. The five seifim, in a table

SeifWhat is saidThe point to retain
אידות נדרים כנדרים, provided they are מוכיחות קצת; מודרני / מופרשני / מרוחקני ממך, finished or notBinds — finished: forbidden to eat; unfinished: speaking / trading / four cubits
אRama: י״א — even with שאני אוכל לךBinds — but the Shach (ס״ק ב) says the formulation is not exact
במודר אני לך / ממך from eating or benefitלך: both · ממך: he alone
גמנודה אני לך / משמתינא ממך / נדינא ממךFinished: all permitted (the first two) · unfinished: four cubits · נדינא: eating / benefit
דכנדרי רשעים / כנדרי כשרים / כנדבת כשריםרשעים: binds · כשרים: nothing, even with קונם · נדבת כשרים: binds
ההנודר שלא אוכל / שאוכל עמך; a נדר in a formulation of שבועה; נזירותNot even a יד — but התרה required; and נזירות binds by all opinions

3. The vocabulary to know by heart

TermMeaningWhere it serves
ידות נדריםthe “handles” of vows — the word begunthe title of the siman
מוכיחות קצתwhich somewhat let the vow be guessedthe condition of seif א
ידים מוכיחותthe technical expression of the same criterionthe ma'hloket Rosh / Rambam / Bach
מודרני ממך“I am vowed away from you”seif א — unfinished: forbidden to speak
מופרשני ממך“I am separated from you”seif א — unfinished: forbidden to trade
מרוחקני ממך“I am distanced from you”seif א — unfinished: four cubits
מנודה · משמתינאwords of excommunicationseif ג — finished: all permitted
נדינאa word from the root of the vowseif ג — forbids benefit
כנדרי רשעים“like the vows of the wicked”seif ד — binds
כנדרי כשרים“like the vows of the upright”seif ד — does not bind, and nullifies the קונם
נדבהthe freewill offering — “הרי זו”, without אחריותseif ד, via the Taz ס״ק ד
קונםsubstitute for the word קרבןseif ד, glossed by the Shulchan Arukh itself
נזירותnaziriteship — it binds the personseif ה, the siman's last word

4. The three golden rules

1. A יד binds by what it lets one guess, not by what it says. That is why the Mehaber gives each unfinished formulation the effect its root indicates. And that is why the Rosh, the Tur and the Ran refuse to see a vow in it: for them, a word that can mean two things indicates nothing.
2. Direction decides, not length. The Shach (ס״ק ב) sets it out in so many words: so long as a man forbids himself with respect to the thing, there is no יד — even if he pronounced a whole sentence, even if he said קונם. The vow can run one way only: from the thing to the man.
« דכל זמן שאוסר עצמו על החפץ לא הוי יד לנדרים » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ו ס״ק ב)
3. “It does not bind” is not “there is nothing to do”. Seif ה shows it to the extreme: the formulation is not even a יד — and yet a התרה is required, since nowadays it is common to vow that way. The siman protects usage, not the utterance.

5. The classic pitfalls

6. What remains under discussion

The pointOne positionAnotherA third
“מודרני ממך” without a sequelNothing at all — Rosh, Tur, Ran (and the Taz restores them)Forbidden to speak — Rambam, MehaberForbidden even to eat with him — Bach
The Rama's gloss at seif אIt is defective; here is the text — Taz ס״ק אIt is probably defective — צ״ע — Shach ס״ק גIt is intact and says the opposite — Bach
The Mehaber's seif גIncoherent — צ״ע — Shach ס״ק המנודה is not a formulation of vow — Taz ס״ק ג—
A נדר in a formulation of שבועהEffective מדין ידות — the “יש מי שאומר” of seif הOnly for a דבר שיש בו ממש — Noda BiYehuda (Pitchei Teshuva ס״ק ב)—
נזירות in a formulation of שבועהBinds by all opinions — Radbaz, in the Shach ס״ק יThe Mabit contests — reported in the same place—

7. The revision checklist

  1. I can explain the image of the handle, and what it teaches about the יד.
  2. I know what מוכיחות קצת means, and why the Rosh draws from it the opposite of the Rambam.
  3. I can give, for each of the three unfinished formulations of seif א, its own effect.
  4. I can explain the difference between לך and ממך, and the reason the Ran gives for it.
  5. I know why the Shach writes צ״ע on seif ג.
  6. I know why כנדרי רשעים binds and כנדרי כשרים does not — and how those words nullify a קונם.
  7. I can state the difference between נדר and שבועה in the terms of the Shach and the Taz.
  8. I know that the siman concludes to a התרה even where nothing bound — and that every התרה is done before a Rav.
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
יורה דעה · סימן ר״ו · Level 3 — Synthesis
♥ Support DAAT
📖Join the khavrouta