Siman 207 — Deformed words that bind (כינויי נדרים)
יורה דעה · סימן ר״ז
דין כנויי נדרים
הלכה למעשה · ש״ך · ט״ז · באר היטב
⚖️ הלכה למעשה · Psak
✦ ❖ ✦
What binds, what does not, and what must be asked
Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״ז (סעיף אחד) ש״ך (ב׳ ס״ק) · ט״ז (ס״ק אחד) · באר היטב (ב׳ ס״ק) · טור · בית יוסף · רמב״ם הלכות נדרים
Written by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
הדין העולה — the line of psak of the siman
שלוש המילים — קונם, קונח, קונס, and what they settle
לשון המקום — the rule that opens the list
לשון שאינה מוכרת — the word nobody knows
כינויי כינויים — the one thing the siman rules out
נדר בכל לשון — the real reach of the siman
נוסח כל נדרי — what the Taz draws from it
מקרים בני זמננו — contemporary cases
1. הדין העולה — the line of psak of the siman
« כנויי נדרים כנדרים » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« הולכים אחר הלשון שרגילין בו » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« שרחוק הרבה מהלשון אינו כנדר: » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
The line of psak. The siman lays down one rule and one exception, and both turn on the same axis: it is the actual usage of speech that determines whether a word binds. Hence four decisions. (1) A deformed word — קונם, קונח, קונס — binds exactly like the proper word. (2) That list is not closed: everywhere one follows the language people are accustomed to. (3) Where the expression is known to nobody there is no vow, even with the words of the Mishnah. (4) The substitute of a substitute, too far removed from the expression, does not bind.
This siman cannot be settled alone, for a reason peculiar to it: all its variables are facts — what the word means in this place, what the speaker said and meant, what his hearers understood. None of these three is read out of a book. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
2. שלוש המילים — קונם, קונח, קונס
« כנויי נדרים כנדרים כיצד קונם קונח קונס שאם אמר קונם או קונח או קונס ככר זה עלי אסור בו » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« הטעם כתב הרמב״ם דיש מקומות שאנשיהם עלגים ומפסידין את הלשון ומכנין על דבר בדבר אחר הולכים שם אחר הכינוי: » (באר היטב יו״ד ר״ז ס״ק א)
What is settled. One who says קונם ככר זה עלי — or קונח, or קונס — has made a full vow, and the loaf is forbidden to him. The ruling depends neither on the correctness of the word nor on the speaker’s learning: it depends on what the word says where it is uttered. The Rambam, whom the Baer Hetev takes up in two lines, gives the reason: there are places where the language is spoiled, and there one follows the spoiled word.
A precision that tells in practice: the siman does not say that these three words are always operative, but that they were so where they were spoken. What a word is worth in a given community is a question of fact, and it is put to a Rav.
3. לשון המקום — the rule that opens the list
« וכן בכל מקום הולכים אחר הלשון שרגילין בו שאם יש להם כנוי לנדר ונדר בו הוי נדר » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« וכן כל כיוצא בזה הולכין אחר לשון כלל העם באותו מקום ובאותו זמן » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ז ס״ק א)
What is settled. The operative rule of the siman is not the list of three words but the clause that follows it: everywhere one follows the language in use. The Rambam frames it with its three variables — the people, the place, the time — and the Shach copies it as it stands. A community that has given itself a word for “vow” has made it operative, without any text having had to foresee it.
In practice this means that an expression current in one community may carry a weight it does not carry elsewhere. It is one more reason not to settle anything from memory: the same sentence does not weigh the same in two places.
4. לשון שאינה מוכרת — the word nobody knows
« (וכן אם אינו מכיר אלו הלשונות שדברו בהם חכמים אע״פ שנדר בהם לאו כלום הוא) » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« ואם באותו מקום ובאותו זמן אין שום אדם מעם הארץ מכיר בלשון הכינויין שאמרו חכמים הנודר בהם לאו כלום הוא » (ב״י יו״ד ר״ז)
What is settled. The reverse is written in the seif itself, as a gloss: where the expression is not known, לאו כלום הוא — it is nothing, even if it is a word of the Mishnah. The Beit Yosef, the gloss’s source, says it of the place: if in that place and at that time no one of the common people knows the language of the כינויים.
Note: the seif writes אינו מכיר in the singular, without saying of whom, while its source speaks of the community. We signal the gap and do not settle it. In practice, such a situation — a man who has used a word whose meaning he does not know — is exactly what is brought before a Rav.
5. כינויי כינויים — the one thing the siman rules out
« אבל כינויי כינויים דהיינו כינוי שרחוק הרבה מהלשון אינו כנדר: » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« וְכִנּוּיֵי הַכִּנּוּיִין מֻתָּרִין בֵּין בְּנִדְרֵי אִסָּר בֵּין בְּנִדְרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ: » (רמב״ם הלכות נדרים פרק א׳ הלכה י״ז)
What is settled. The seif rules out one thing only: the substitute of a substitute, שרחוק הרבה מהלשון. The Shach gives, in one line, the words the Gemara has in view — מקנמנא מקנחנא מקנסנא. The Rambam extends the exemption to both registers of the vow, prohibition and consecration.
It is a leniency, and must be handled as one: it is not extended on one’s own initiative. The seif gives a criterion of distance, not a measure. Where the recognisable word ends and the unrecognisable begins is not written, and that is precisely the kind of judgement that belongs to a Rav.
6. נדר בכל לשון — the real reach of the siman
« (הנדר הוא בכל לשון שיאמר עליו מקרי נדר) » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ז:א)
« וכל שכן שאר לשונות העובדי כוכבים » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ז ס״ק א)
What is settled. The seif’s closing gloss lays down the general reach: a vow is made in any language. The Shach puts it as a כל שכן: if corrupted Hebrew binds, all the more so other languages. The siman is therefore not a chapter about Hebrew formulas: it is a chapter about speech.
A practical and serious consequence: a sentence spoken in everyday language can bind. That is why the widespread practice is to follow any undertaking with בלי נדר. Whether a given sentence constitutes a vow, and what to do if it does, is asked of a Rav.
7. נוסח כל נדרי — what the Taz draws from it
« ומה שזכר בנוסח כל נדרי וקונמי וקנסי וכינויי רצונו לומר קונמי הוא הכינוי היותר פשוע שכן הוזכר במשנה תחילה לכינויים » (ט״ז יו״ד ר״ז ס״ק א)
« על כן אמר אחר כך וכינויי רצונו לומר וכל שאר הכינויים » (ט״ז יו״ד ר״ז ס״ק א)
The Taz’s single ס״ק. The Taz uses his one note to read the formula of כל נדרי, which enumerates וקונמי וקנסי וכינויי. His explanation: קונמי is the commonest כינוי, and the Mishnah names it first; then comes קונס, whence וקנסי; and the general word “וכינויי” covers all the rest.
This is not a rule of conduct but a reading of a text — yet it carries weight: it shows that the author of the formula too held the list to be open, which is exactly the position of the seif. For the conduct of כל נדרי in your community, follow the received usage and ask your Rav.
8. מקרים בני זמננו — contemporary cases
Four present-day situations, taken in the order of the seif’s clauses. None is settled here: each is referred back to the clause that governs it, and referred on to the Rav.
A sentence spoken in French, English or Judeo-Arabic
The seif’s closing gloss and the Shach’s כל שכן answer the point of law: a vow is made in any language. What remains to be established is something else entirely — was what was said a vow, or a resolution? The siman gives no criterion for distinguishing the two, because that is not its subject. That question is put to a Rav, and it comes before all others.
A vow-word used out of habit or in jest
Expressions such as “I swear that…” or “that is קונם for me” circulate without those who use them measuring their weight. The siman touches the case from both sides: the usage of the place makes the vow, and a word unknown to everyone does not. Between the two stands the man who uses a word known to those around him but not to himself. The seif does not answer this explicitly. It is a question for a Rav, not a gap to be filled by reasoning.
An undertaking made publicly, in a customary formula
A pledge of charity, an undertaking to study, a resolution taken before witnesses: the question is whether the formula used in that community says a vow. The siman supplies the criterion — the usage of the place and the time — but the criterion applies to a fact, and the fact must be established. Consult your Rav; and for the future, the practice of saying בלי נדר is the ordinary precaution.
What the Nekudot HaKesef and the Pitchei Teshuva say about it
Nothing, and it should be said plainly: on this siman neither of them gives an entry. No position will therefore be attributed to them. On a siman of a single seif the apparatus reduces to the Shach, the Taz and the Baer Hetev — five entries, all quoted at level 1. The responsa of the Acharonim on vows are found elsewhere in the tractate; they are not here, and this level does not invent them.
This level sets out the halakha as it emerges from the sources quoted; it does not replace a ruling. Vows are a matter in which ordinary speech can have real consequences, and in which one does not rule on one’s own case. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן ר״ז · Level 4 — Halakha lema’asse · דין כנויי נדרים daattorah.com