✦ ❖ ✦ D A A T · L E V E L 3 — S Y N T H E S I S / R E V I S I O N ✦ ❖ ✦
Siman 209 — Answering “amen” to another man’s vow (השומע שחבירו נודר ואמר אמן)
השומע שחבירו נודר ואמר אמן
One seif, two mechanisms: the acceptance that binds, and the ownership that needs no agreement
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״ט · סעיף אחד
ש״ך · ט״ז · באר היטב · פתחי תשובה · נקודות הכסף · טור · בית יוסף · רמב״ם
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
1. The axiom: it is not the formula that binds, it is the acceptance
The axiom. The seif does not say that the word “amen” has force of its own. It says that this word is an acceptance of the words — שהוא קבלת דברים — and it is the acceptance that produces the effect. Two consequences follow at once: any other formula of acceptance is worth as much; and where no acceptance is called for, the question does not arise.
Three consequences. (1) Answering amen to a vow laid on you binds you as though you had uttered it. (2) “Yes”, “agreed”, “I accept it” do the same, and in any language. (3) But forbidding what is yours to another man does not ask his agreement — and that is a wholly different mechanism.
2. The three reflex questions
1. Who spoke? He himself — an ordinary vow, the preceding simanim. Another man, about him — next question.
▼
2. Did he accept? Amen, or any word of the same force, in any language — he is bound. Silence — the vow did nothing to him, except in the following case.
▼
3. Whose is the thing forbidden? The speaker’s — no acceptance is required. And how far does that power reach? Until the thing ceases to be his.
3. Master table — the seif clause by clause
| Seif | The clause of the Shulchan Arukh | What it decides |
|---|
| א | « השומע שחבירו נודר ואמר אמן. ובו סעיף אחד » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א) | The heading: this is about a listener, not a speaker |
| א | « אחד הנודר מעצמו או שהדירו חבירו ואמר אמן » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א) | The man who vows and the man who answers amen stand alike |
| א | « או דבר שעניינו כענית אמן שהוא קבלת דברים אסור » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א) | Any formula of acceptance equals the amen, because the acceptance is what operates |
| א | « אבל כשחבירו מדירו משלו אין צריך לקבל דבריו » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א) | When the other forbids what is his own, no acceptance is required |
4. Who must accept, and who has nothing to accept
| The case | Ruling | Source |
|---|
| He vowed himself | Bound | שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א |
| Another vowed about him, and he answered amen | Bound, on the same footing | שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א |
| He said “yes”, or any word of acceptance, in any language | Bound | רמב״ם הלכות שבועות פרק ב׳ הלכה א |
| He heard and said nothing | Another man’s vow does not bind him | שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א |
| He only said “I too, like you” — nobody put him under oath | Exempt — he is a מתפיס | רמב״ם הלכות שבועות פרק ב׳ הלכה ח |
| … yet he may still not eat it | Forbidden, without lashes or sacrifice | רמב״ם הלכות שבועות פרק ב׳ הלכה ט |
| The other forbids what belongs to the other | No acceptance required | שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א |
| … and if the object is already no longer his? | The prohibition does not take hold | פתחי תשובה יו״ד ר״ט ס״ק א |
5. The open dispute among the commentators
Only one, but a complete one. What does מדירו משלו mean? The Beit Yosef and the Shach: the property belongs to the speaker, and the prohibition holds even against the other man’s will. The Taz: that reading is תמוה, since the stronger case would then have been written; the property belongs to the man addressed. The Nekudot HaKesef: four objections, and back to the Beit Yosef’s reading. The Ba’er Hetev reports all three voices, and notes in small type that the Nekudot HaKesef answered.
6. The vocabulary of the siman
| Term | Meaning |
|---|
| אמן | The word of confirmation; in the Torah, the suspected wife’s answer to the oath |
| קבלת דברים | Acceptance of the words — the reason the seif itself supplies |
| מדיר | The man who imposes a vow on another |
| מתפיס | One who attaches his own prohibition to another’s, unadjured — exempt |
| אוסר נכסיו על חבירו | Forbidding one’s own property to another: an owner’s power |
| בעל כרחו | Against his will — the point the Taz and the Nekudot HaKesef argue over |
| הגבהה קונה | Lifting acquires — the limit set by the Pitchei Teshuva |
| סליחה וכפרה | What is needed by one who ate the forbidden thing, even if he pays |
7. Rules of thumb, a mnemonic, and standard pitfalls
One word, two mechanisms. The first word binds because it accepts. The second half of the seif needs no word at all, because it rests on ownership. Do not confuse the two: accepting is not owning.
Rules of thumb
- What binds is not the formula but the consent it expresses — hence בכל לשון.
- The מתפיס is exempt because two things are missing: he did not speak and nobody adjured him.
- Exempt does not mean permitted: Rambam still forbids the מתפיס to eat what he attached.
- The second half of the seif is not a limitation on the first: it is a second subject.
- The power to forbid one’s property stops where ownership stops.
Standard pitfalls
- Thinking one must have said precisely “amen”: the seif itself writes או דבר שעניינו כענית אמן.
- Reading clause c as a softening of clause a: the first is about accepted conduct, the second about forbidden property.
- Settling the dispute over מדירו משלו from the Taz alone: the Nekudot HaKesef answer him point by point, and the Ba’er Hetev says so.
- Forgetting that the power to forbid property assumes it is still his — the Pitchei Teshuva’s question.
- Counting more than six entries in the apparatus: Sefaria addresses exactly six on this siman.
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria: