Home › Nedarim › Siman 217
סימן רי״זSiman 217

Yoreh De'ah · Nedarim

Siman 217 — the cooked, the salted, pot-work: the language of men makes the law

Forty-eight seifim, and one question asked forty-eight times: what does this word name in people’s mouths? The first seif states it in three conditions — that place, that tongue, that time. The siman then runs through the kitchen (the cooked, the salted, pot-work), the foods (vegetable, meat, milk, dates, wine, oil, bread), things and places (water, clothing, the house, the city), categories of persons, and finally time and undertakings. Its last line refers to intention, that is, to the next siman. (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 217 — 48 seifim)

נדר או נשבע מהמבושל אם דרך אותו מקום באותו לשון ובאותו זמן שקוראין מבושל אפי׳ לצלי ולשלוק הרי זה אסור בכל

He vowed or swore off the cooked: if the usage of that place, in that tongue and at that time, is to call “cooked” even what is roasted and boiled down, he is forbidden in all of them. The siman opens on its three conditions, and everything that follows flows from them.

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 217:1

The 4 levels of study

NIVEAU 01

רמת המתחיל

Base — Débutant & Intermédiaire

The forty-eight seifim in Hebrew, with a fluent English translation and a clause-by-clause breakdown: the three conditions of the first seif, the rule of doubt when the town is divided, the test of the agent, the accompanied name, the change of form, grammatical number, the ibbur of the city, and the fourteen seifim on appellations of persons. The one hundred and thirty-six entries of the apparatus — Chakh, Taz, Baer Hetev, Pit’hei Teshuva, Nekudot HaKesef — cited one by one.

📖 Study

NIVEAU 02

רמת הלמדן

Lamdan — Talmid Hakham

Pilpul: the partition לשון תורה / לשון בני אדם and Rabbenu Yeruham’s rule at ס״ק א; the Taz against the Chakh on what “pot-vegetables” includes; the Ran against the Beit Yossef on whey, and the Chakh’s one-directional reading; the three reasons for date honey and what they presuppose about a name; Rabbi Meir against the Sages on דגן; the one-letter dispute at seif 36 and the Taz’s refusal; the reach of a word governing a list; and the limit of intention between seif 8 and seif 36.

📖 Study

NIVEAU 03

חזרה וסיכום

Synthèse — Révision

A synthesis arranged by mechanism rather than by number — forty-eight seifim are not revised from 1 to 48: what the word names in usage, the foods and their preparations, what falls inside a term and what does not, place and period, persons, time and undertakings. Then a master table restoring the forty-eight seifim to the order of the book, the open disputes, the vocabulary, the golden rules and the classic pitfalls.

📖 Study

NIVEAU 04

הלכה למעשה

Halakha lema'asse — Psak

Practical halakhah according to the ש״ך, the ט״ז, the באר היטב and the פתחי תשובה, then the contemporary cases: a dietary resolution taken in a given tongue and country, a by-product that appeared after the vow, an undertaking with no bound in time, and a communal resolution. Note: the Admour HaZaken did not write a Shulchan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah — a level of psak, not “Daat HaRav”.

📖 Study

Frequently asked questions — Siman 217

What is the underlying question of this siman?

The first seif poses it in three conditions, and the whole siman flows from them:

« נדר או נשבע מהמבושל אם דרך אותו מקום באותו לשון ובאותו זמן שקוראין מבושל אפי׳ לצלי ולשלוק הרי זה אסור בכל » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:א)
Three cumulative conditions: that place, that tongue, that time. Siman 216 settled לשון תורה, what a word makes one hear of itself; this one settles לשון בני אדם. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

And if part of the town calls it so and part does not?

Seif 3 expressly sets aside the expected solution:

« היו מקצת בני המקום קורין לו כך ומקצתן אין קורין » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ג)
« אין הולכין אחר הרוב אלא הרי זה ספק נדרים וכל ספק נדרים להחמיר » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ג)
The majority does not settle usage. But the Chakh, at ס״ק ג, at once opens the way out: if the one who vowed declares he meant the word as the majority means it, he is believed — and he refers to siman 208. Whether such a declaration is admissible in a real case is for a Rav.

How does one know what a word covers?

Seif 4 gives a test of proof, and it is behavioural:

« שכל דבר שהשליח נמלך עליו הוא בכלל המין ההוא » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ד)
« ואם אמר לשלוחו קח לי ירק ואינו מוצא אלא דילועים הוא נמלך בו לומר תרצה דילועין » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ד)
One does not ask a dictionary; one watches what a man sent to market does. But the test is dated: the Taz, at ס״ק ט, and the Chakh, at ס״ק י״א, both note that as to fish the agent no longer consults nowadays. What holds here and now is to be asked of a Rav.

I have forbidden myself a food: is what is drawn from it forbidden as well?

The text permits, and the apparatus adds the missing condition:

« הנודר מן הדגים מותר בציר ומורייס של דגים » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:י״ב)
« מותר בציר ומורייס. היינו דוקא מה שכבר יצא מהם קודם שנדר אבל מה שיצא מהן לאחר שנדר אסור » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק י״ח)
The Chakh, at ס״ק י״ח, and the Taz, at ס״ק ט״ז, lay down the same reservation: the permission holds only for what had separated before the vow, and only if the formula neither designated nor named an act. The Taz expressly extends it to the whey of seif 11 and the date honey of seif 13. Three conditions that cannot be read off the seif: ask your Rav.

Does the siman still hold today, if the language has changed?

That is precisely what the siman provides for, and its commentators say so:

« מותר בירקות שדה. ונראה לי דעכשיו אסור בירקות שדה שגם הוא בלשון ירקות בלשון בני אדם » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ט״ו)
« לעיבורה. ואף על גב דלענין שאר דברים תוך התחום דין עיר עליו » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ל״ה)
The Chakh writes on his own authority that the rule of field-vegetables has changed since, and at ס״ק ל״ה he lays down the siman’s key sentence: in vows, the city stops where ordinary speech stops it. A siman whose material is usage must therefore be re-read in each generation — and that re-reading is a Rav’s business.