The whole practice of this siman fits in one sentence: a word is worth what usage gives it, and usage has an address and a date. The first question before an undertaking is therefore not “what did he mean to forbid?”, nor even “what does this word mean?”, but: where, when and in what tongue did he say it?
« 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)
And that is why this siman does not apply on its own. The decisive variable is a fact of usage, observable and changing: two commentators on the siman write in plain words that the rule they are commenting on had ceased to hold in their day. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
« ונראה לי דעכשיו אסור בירקות שדה שגם הוא בלשון ירקות בלשון בני אדם » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ט״ו)
2. מקום · לשון · זמן — the three conditions, and they are cumulative
The place. At seif 8, “meat” covers fish in a town where the agent comes back to consult, and does not cover it elsewhere. The test is not a definition but an observable behaviour — the question the agent asks at market.
« אם נשבע או נדר במקום זה מהבשר נאסר אף בבשר דגים » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ח)
The tongue. At seif 16, a biblical word used by someone speaking another tongue does not keep its biblical reach. And the Chakh, at ס״ק כ״ד, draws the converse: even one who vows in the holy tongue receives the word as we hear it today.
« הנודר מהתירוש לדידן אסור ביין » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ט״ז)
The period. The Chakh, at ס״ק ט״ו, overturns seif 10 for his time; the Taz, at ס״ק ט, and the Chakh, at ס״ק י״א, overturn seif 8 in the name of the Maharshal. The Chakh, at ס״ק ל״ז, and the Baer Hetev, at ס״ק כ״ג, report from the Mabit that the duration making a “dwelling” had changed in their day.
« כתוב בתשובת מבי״ט ח״א סי׳ ס״א דל״ב ע״ב ובמקומות אלו בזמנינו זה נראה שאינו נקרא דירה בלשון בני אדם במקום אחד פחות מו׳ חדשים » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ל״ז)
A practical consequence, and the most important on this page: one does not transpose a ruling of this siman from one town or century to another. Establishing actual usage is an act of hora’a, not of reading. Ask your Rav.
3. ובכל מקום — what depends on no usage
The siman does not surrender everything to custom. Three places lay down a rule valid everywhere, and they are worth remembering because they bound all the rest.
« ובכל מקום הנודר מהבשר אסור בבשר עופות ובקרבים ובראש וברגלים בקנה ובלב » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ח)
« אבל בשיל יותר מדאי בכלל מבושל הוא בכל מקום » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק א)
Three practical observations. (1) Fowl, innards, head, feet, windpipe and heart are “meat” everywhere; locusts are nowhere. (2) What is over-cooked remains “cooked” everywhere. (3) A fabric people do not clothe themselves in is not “clothing”. These three are not re-argued by locality.
4. אין הולכין אחר הרוב — divided usage, and the one way out
« אין הולכין אחר הרוב אלא הרי זה ספק נדרים וכל ספק נדרים להחמיר » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ג)
This is the most counter-intuitive rule of the siman, and it operates twice: at seif 3 when the town is divided, at seif 17 when two usages coexist. In both cases one is forbidden in both.
« ולא אזלינן בתר רובא דספק נדרים להחמיר וע״ל סעיף ג » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק כ״ה)
The way out, and it is the only one: the Chakh, at ס״ק ג, admits the declaration of the one who vowed — if he says he meant the word as the majority means it, he is believed — and refers to siman 208. Whether such a declaration is admissible here, and in what terms, is for a Rav.
« ומיהו אם הוא אומר נתכוונתי כך כמו שקורין הרוב נאמן » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ג)
5. היוצא לאחר הנדר — the condition the seif does not state
Three seifim permit a by-product — whey at 11, brine at 12, date honey at 13 — and all three are written without condition. This is the point where reading the text alone most surely leads to error.
« היינו דוקא מה שכבר יצא מהם קודם שנדר אבל מה שיצא מהן לאחר שנדר אסור אם אמר קונם דגים שאני טועם » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק י״ח)
« דבר פשוט הוא דהיינו בציר שיצא קודם הנדר אבל לאחר הנדר אסור כמ״ש בסי׳ רט״ז סעיף ט׳ לענין בשר ויין » (ט״ז יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ט״ז)
The practical rule in three steps. (1) Did the product exist before the vow? If so, it is permitted. (2) If it appeared afterwards: was the formula designating (“this”) or verbal (“what I shall eat”)? If so, it is forbidden. (3) The Taz expressly extends this reservation to all three seifim, and the Baer Hetev, at ס״ק י״א, adds it in the name of the Maharshal.
In practice, almost every ordinary resolution is phrased verbally — “I shall not eat…”. The seif’s permission therefore does not apply in the commonest case. Do not conclude from the seif alone: ask your Rav.
6. נדר שאי אפשר לעמוד בו — when there is no vow at all
Two seifim lay down formulas of immense reach — “everything that nourishes”, “the growths of the year”. The apparatus attaches the same bound to both, and it is structural: without a bearable limit of time, the undertaking does not exist.
« ואם אמר כל הזן עלי אסור בכל חוץ ממים ומלח » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:י״ט)
« ומיירי שלא אסר אלא לזמן שיוכל לעמוד בו דאל״כ הוי כנודר מכל פירות שבעולם דאינו נדר כלל כדלקמן סימן רל״ב » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק כ״ט)
« וכב״י בשם הר״ן דהיינו דוקא שלא אסרן עליו אלא לזמן שהוא יכול לעמוד בו אבל לעולם לא הוי נדר כלל שא״א לקיימו » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ל״א)
The Chakh, at ס״ק ל״א, draws from the Ran a finer distinction still, and one of direct application: the first clause of seif 22 — “the fruits of the year” — remains a vow even forever, because kids and lambs remain to him and he can therefore keep it. It is not the breadth of the formula that disqualifies it, but the impossibility of living under it.
An undertaking that makes life impossible is not an undertaking — but the measure of that impossibility, and the reference to siman 232, are not made alone. It is a question for a Rav, and an urgent one.
7. מידות הסימן — the measures, and why they are not those of other tractates
« ואף על גב דלענין שאר דברים תוך התחום דין עיר עליו כמו שנתבאר בא״ח ס״ס תצ״ו » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק ל״ה)
This is the most instructive sentence of the whole apparatus for practice. Everywhere else, the city extends to the tehum — two thousand cubits. Here it stops at seventy cubits and a remainder, because in vows one follows the language of men. One word, two extents, according to the chapter of halakhah one is in.
The other measures, and the same rule governs them. The house begins at the line where the door shuts, not at the edge of the threshold (seif 30); and for one who undertakes to stay, the boundary reads the other way (seif 31). A dweller is thirty days; a son of the city, twelve months (seif 32) — but the Rama at once overturns this: one follows the language of men, by which one “dwells” only by living there with one’s household in a settled way.
« מיהו הולכים אחר לשון בני אדם שאין נקרא דירה אלא בדר שם עם בני ביתו דרך קבוע » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ל״ב)
8. כוונת הנודר — what intention can do, and what it cannot
The siman knows intention and uses it — but it also marks its bound, and the two passages are read together. At seif 8, manifest circumstances retract what local usage had extended. At seif 36, a denied intention does not undo a certain usage.
« ואם מראים הדברים בעת שנדר שלא נתכוין אלא בבשר בהמה בלבד » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ח)
« הואיל והלשון ודאי כך הוא » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:ל״ו)
The line is therefore this: intention decides where usage is open, and not where it is fixed. Seif 47 gives the clearest application: one who reserved “the festivals” is believed if he says he also meant Hanukkah and Purim — because the language of men nearly puts them there, says the Taz at ס״ק ל״ח.
« אם אמר שבדעתו היה להוציא גם חנוכה ופורים מהכלל נאמן » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:מ״ז)
And the railing, put up by the Pit’hei Teshuva at ס״ק ט״ו in the name of the Veshav HaKohen: intention is followed only to narrow the prohibition — never to move it from one object to another. It is the last thing the siman says before handing over to siman 218, and also the easiest to overstep. Ask your Rav.
« מיהו נראה דהולכין אחר כוונתו וכדרך שיתבאר בסימן רי״ח » (שו״ע יו״ד רי״ז:מ״ח)
9. נדר ושבועה — one law, and the siman’s cross-references
« הרמב״ם פ״ט אחר שכתב כל הדינים הכתובים בסימן זה ובכל הדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן דין הנודר ונשבע אחד הוא » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק מ״ג)
That is why so many seifim open with נדר או נשבע. The Chakh specifies, however, referring to siman 239, that the equivalence is not absolute: an oath differs from a vow on several points, listed there.
The siman’s cross-references, to be followed before concluding: siman 208 (declared intention, ס״ק ג and כ״ה); siman 210 (bread, ס״ק כ״ז); siman 232 (the impossible vow, ס״ק כ״ט and ל״א); siman 234 (the moment of speech, ס״ק ל״ט); siman 239 (vow and oath, ס״ק מ״ג); siman 218 (intention, seif 48). And for fasting, Orah Haïm 568 (ס״ק מ״ו).
Two of these cross-references are themselves corrected by the apparatus: the Chakh, at ס״ק מ״ג, writes that the “siman 179” of seif 47 should read “570”; and the Taz, at ס״ק י, that the קונם בשר עלי of seif 9 should read בשר זה. Do not conclude from a cross-reference without checking the reading. And for application, consult your Rav.
« ועיין בא״ח סימן קע״ט. כן הוא בכל הספרים ובעט״ז. וטעות הוא וצ״ל סימן תק״ע » (ש״ך יו״ד רי״ז ס״ק מ״ג)
10. Contemporary cases — and the limit of this page
1. A dietary resolution taken in a given tongue and country. “I shall not eat meat”, said in French in Paris, does not necessarily carry the reach the same sentence would have elsewhere. Seif 8 recalls that a core remains true everywhere — fowl, innards — and that the rest depends on usage. The first thing to establish is not the intention but the sentence and its place.
2. A derived product that appeared after the undertaking. An extract, a powder, a juice obtained from a substance one had forbidden oneself. Seif 12 permits; the Chakh at ס״ק י״ח and the Taz at ס״ק ט״ז forbid if the product came out after the vow and the formula was verbal. This is the commonest case, and exactly the one where the text alone misleads.
3. An undertaking with no bound in time. “I shall never again eat…”. The Chakh, at ס״ק כ״ט and ל״א, and the Taz, at ס״ק כ״ה, lay down that a vow impossible to keep is not a vow, and refer to siman 232. But the Chakh also shows that breadth alone does not disqualify: what counts is whether enough remains to live under the undertaking.
4. A communal resolution. The Rama applies the siman to a communal decree (seif 31) and to a communal ban on praying with a minyan (seif 48). The question stays the same — what does the word used mean? — and the Chakh, at ס״ק מ״ה, adds that one follows intention. A matter of responsa, and of a Rav.
This page is a study exposition, not a decision. Three reasons forbid it that, and they are proper to this siman. One: the decisive variable is a fact of usage — what people call by that name, here and now — and two commentators on the siman write in plain words that this usage had already changed in their day. Two: several points remain open among the Aharonim — pot-vegetables, whey, kondyton, growths of the ground, the two formulas of seif 36. Three: the siman closes by referring to intention, and the next siman will add its weight on top of everything preceding. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן רי״ז · Level 4 — Halakha lema‘assé · כיצד הולכין בנדרים אחר לשון בני אדם daattorah.com