Siman 220 — Halakha lema‘assé: the line of psika

The line of psika of the siman, resting on the Chakh, the Taz and the poskim

יורה דעה · סימן ר״כ

חילוק שבין קונם יין להיום או לזמן ודין הנודר על דבר שאינו קבוע

⚖️ Halakha lema‘assé level · מתקדמים

✦ ❖ ✦

This level says what is practised, and on what condition. Siman 220 is no theoretical siman: each of its seifim answers a question a man really asks — am I still bound tonight? must I go to a Rav? does what I said cover the last day of the festival?. On Yoreh De’ah there is no Shulhan Arukh of the Admour HaZaken: the line is drawn by the Chakh and the Taz, with the Baer Hetev, the Pit’hei Teshuva, the Nekudot HaKesef and the Rambam. Five points remain open and are given as such.

Subject: The line of psika of siman 220
Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״כ (כ״ג סעיפים)

Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה
DAAT · daattorah.com

📑 Table of contents

1. הדין העולה — the line of psika of the siman

Seven propositions sum up what is practised. Each is taken up below with its source.

1. A demonstrative aims at the terminus of the period under way; a numeral counts a span from the hour of the vow. 2. After a vow of היום one does not eat at night without a שאלה — save for a vow of mitzva and save for an accepted fast. 3. After שבוע זה or חדש זה, the Rama requires no שאלה; the Bah does. 4. עד stops at the threshold, עד שיהיה crosses — except for what has no fixed time. 5. The place of the vow, at its hour, fixes the calendar of seasons, to stringency and to leniency. 6. A doubt over the fixity of a terminus is decided stringently. 7. When a vow’s condition may be fulfilled after the prohibition has lapsed, we forbid at once.

2. מתי מתחיל — the count runs from the hour, not from the day

The first practical rule, and the most often misapplied. When the vow counts a span, the starting point is the instant the words were spoken. This holds for the day, the week, the month, the year, the shemitta.

In practice: one who said at three in the afternoon “קונם, no wine for one day” is released the next day at three, not at nightfall. One who said “one week” is released on the seventh day at the same hour. The month runs from date to date, and a defective month suffices.

3. מתי כלה — the terminus falls where the period ends, and nowhere else

When the vow aims at a terminus, the only question is where that terminus falls, and the siman answers scale by scale. Two answers surprise, and must be held: the Shabbat is in, the Rosh Hodesh is out.

In practice: “this week” ends at the going out of the Shabbat that closes it. “This month” ends at Rosh Hodesh, including a two-day Rosh Hodesh. “This year” ends at Rosh Hashana, even if spoken on 29 Elul. “This shemitta” runs to the end of the seventh year.

⚠️ A consequence not to be missed, and it is stringent. One who vows “this month” on the first day of a two-day Rosh Hodesh is bound for the whole coming month — since that day is already called Rosh Hodesh. The Chakh draws it at ס״ק י״ב from the very reasoning that, a day earlier, would have permitted.

4. שאלה לחכם — when one must see a Rav before eating

It is the rule of the siman that touches real life most often, and it is counter-intuitive: the vow is over, and yet a request is needed.

Case	שאלה?	Source
קונם יין שאני טועם היום	Required	סעיף א
נדר של מצוה — ללמוד, לקיים מצוה	Not required	סעיף א
קבלת תענית בעלמא	Not required; one eats from nightfall	רמ״א · ש״ך ס״ק ד
שבוע זה · חדש זה	Not required per the Rama and the Taz; required per the Bah	רמ״א סעיף ג · ש״ך ס״ק י
עד הפסח · עד הגשם	Required per the Bah; the Taz refuses	ש״ך ס״ק י״ט · ט״ז ס״ק ג

The שאלה spoken of here is a rabbinic formality: the Chakh writes at ס״ק ג that it needs no פתח. It remains nonetheless an approach to a Rav, not a thought one has at home. For a vow of יום אחד still running, the request is of the Torah and the regime is quite different.

5. עד and עד שיהיה — the door, or the house

Two formulas, two regimes, and the difference hangs on a verb. The rule is stated generally by the Rambam, and the Shulhan Arukh applies it case by case.

In practice: “קונם, no meat until Pesah” releases at the festival’s entry. “קונם, no meat until Pesah shall be” binds until it goes out. And if the words are עד פני הפסח, the Mehaber releases at the entry but reports a view binding until the exit: doubt, hence stringency.

Is wine an exception? The Bah held so, on Rabbi Yehuda’s mishna — one who vows from wine meant only the hour at which it is drunk. The Chakh refuses, since the Mehaber omitted that mishna where he ought to have brought it: מדהשמיט המחבר לקמן דברים אלו משמע דסבירא ליה כהרמב״ם. We therefore follow the Chakh, and wine has no regime of its own.

6. דבר שאינו קבוע — when the distinction stops operating

As soon as the named terminus has no date, the preceding rule vanishes entirely. Every formula stops at arrival. This is the heading’s second matter, and the simplest rule of the siman to hold — but it requires knowing what “arrival” means.

Two precisions decide everything in practice. The fact, not the season: “until the harvest” lifts when reaping actually happens, not when the reaping season has come without anyone reaping. The place of the vow, not the present place: one who vowed in one region and moved keeps the calendar of the first, whether it suits him or not.

Formula	Lifts when	Verdict
עד הקציר	Wheat is reaped — barley if the town is mostly barley	In fact, not in season
עד סוף הקציר	The whole harvest is done, barley included	Later than “עד הקציר”
עד הקיץ	Figs are brought in in baskets	An observable fact
עד שיעבור הקיץ	The fig-knives are put away	An observable fact
עד הגשם	Rosh Hodesh Kislev, or from 17 Marheshvan if rain fell	A date, disputed
עד הגשמים	Rain falls, from the second revi‘a	A fact, not a date
עד שיפסקו הגשמים	Pesah has passed	A date

⚠️ The dates of the revi‘ot are one of the five open points. The Mehaber follows the Rambam — first revi‘a on 17 Marheshvan, second on the 23rd. The Rosh, the Tur, Rashi and the Raavad hold the 7th and the 17th. The Chakh objects to the Rambam from his own Hilkhot Tefila and ends on וצ״ע.

7. ספק בקביעות — a time one holds in one’s own hand

Seif 15 treats a very concrete case: a father has fixed his son’s wedding date and vows until then. The Mehaber does not decide whether such a time is “fixed”, and applies the rule of doubtful vows.

The general rule that emerges holds for the whole tractate: a terminus the one vowing can himself move is not certainly fixed, and the doubt is decided stringently. In practice one follows the heavier formula: עד שיהא binds until the exit, and a postponement of the feast postpones the vow.

⚠️ The most contested point of the siman. If the son dies before the date, the Rama makes him wait until the appointed day; the Chakh holds the vow has fallen, since it aimed at the feast and not at the date. The Taz recalls that the Terumat HaDeshen himself concluded permissively, and forbade only by a גזירה. The Chakh bows for the bar mitzva — whose date is genuinely fixed — and refuses for the feast, ending on וצ״ע.

8. לשון בני אדם — the word as it is spoken, not as it is defined

The most common practical case of the siman is that of seif 20, since it arises every year at Sukkot. And one must see that the answer comes not from the halakhic category, but against it.

In practice: one who said “no wine during the festival” is bound on Shemini Atseret, even though Shemini Atseret is רגל בפני עצמו in every other respect. A vow is read as the one who spoke it understood it, not as a treatise would define it.

The same principle governs a less visible and equally frequent case: one who vows in his own language. The Taz holds at ס״ק ב that a vernacular word for “week” excludes the Shabbat; the Nekudot HaKesef always include it, save where the object of the vow — meat, wine — shows otherwise. A vow spoken in French or English raises exactly this question, and it is open.

9. שני זמנים בנדר אחד — the retroactive fear

The last three seifim settle the formulas bearing two words of time. Their cases are rare, but the rule they lay down is not: where a vow’s condition may be fulfilled after the prohibition has lapsed, we forbid at once.

The reason is a psychological observation, and a fine one: a man guards what he has sworn not to do, but does not guard the condition under which he swore — because the condition does not look like a prohibition to him. The Taz reports at ס״ק י״ט that this fear does not operate for bills of divorce, where the woman has a direct interest in not transgressing.

⚠️ The siman’s last open point, and it touches a principle: at seif 23, who takes the lashes? The Ran reads that it is the woman, who transgresses לא יחל though she swore nothing; the Rambam reads that it is the husband who gives her the benefit. The Pit’hei Teshuva refers to the Mishkenot Yaakov, who resolves the Ran’s objection. Lashes no longer arise for want of a Sanhedrin; the question of who is the subject of the prohibition stands whole.

10. Contemporary cases — and the limit of this page

Vows are not a matter of former times. They are taken today under other names — a resolution, an undertaking said aloud, a promise of a gift. Siman 220 then governs their duration. The cases that follow are given to show where the question arises, not to decide it.

Case	What the siman supplies	What remains to be asked
היום · יום אחד	A resolution taken “for today” stops at nightfall; taken “for a day”, it runs twenty-four hours	Is the resolution a נדר? That depends on the formula used, and it is a question to ask
דיא ווא״ך	A vow spoken in a vernacular language is judged by the usage of that language	The Taz and the Nekudot HaKesef differ on the Shabbat within “this week”
עד הפסח	An undertaking “until Pesah” ceases at the festival’s entry	The Bah requires a שאלה before benefiting; the Taz does not
עד שיהיה בני בר מצוה	An undertaking until an age runs to that age, even if the event does not occur	The Chakh dissents at ס״ק כ״ז for any terminus one can oneself move
נדר צדקה על תנאי	An explicitly conditional promise falls if the condition is not met	The Rama says so at seif 15 for a stated condition; without one, the undertaking stands

The limit of this page, and it is strict. This level sets out the line of psika of a siman; it does not give a ruling on a case. A real vow depends on the exact words spoken, on the language they were spoken in, on what the speaker had in mind — and that is precisely what a page cannot know. Five points of the siman remain open between the Chakh and the Taz, and the Chakh himself writes וצ״ע twice. A case goes before a Rav, with the exact words.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
סימן ר״כ · Level 4 — Halakha lema‘assé · חילוק שבין קונם יין להיום או לזמן ודין הנודר על דבר שאינו קבוע
daattorah.com