A single seif, eighteen words, and a rule that holds up the tractate: my word has purchase only on what is mine. Telling your fellow that a third party’s produce is forbidden to him produces nothing at all — not “it is permitted” but אינו כלום, nothing happened. And it all turns over on one word, which is not in the mouth of the speaker but of the man he targets: amen. Siman 209 is its exact counterpart. (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 225 — 1 seif; this edition gives it no heading at all.)
האומר לחבירו פירותיו של פלוני אסורין עליך אינו כלום אלא אם כן ענה הנאסר אמן:
One who says to his fellow: so-and-so’s produce is forbidden to you — it is nothing at all, unless the one targeted answered amen. The whole siman is there. The first half annuls; the second reopens, and it places the key in a mouth other than the one that spoke.
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 225:1LEVEL 01
The single seif in Hebrew, its translation, its clause-by-clause breakdown, the vocabulary (הנאסר · אינו כלום · עניית אמן · קבלת דברים · חרם), the sources — נדרים מ״ז ע״א with Rashi, שבועות כ״ט ע״ב, the Rambam, the Tur, the Beit Yosef and siman 209 — and the three apparatus entries quoted one by one.
📖 StudyLEVEL 02
Four questions, and not one more: where the gemara states the rule and in what form; the gap between the Rambam’s formula (the man) and the Tur’s (the thing); what exactly the amen adds, between שבועות כ״ט ע״ב and the קבלת דברים of siman 209; and the adjuration of the Moreh Nevukhim, which nobody ever accepted.
📖 StudyLEVEL 03
The rule in one sentence, the mechanism in five steps, the origin of each half of the seif, the three apparatus entries, the clause-by-clause table, what remains open, the vocabulary, the golden rules and the four classic pitfalls.
📖 StudyLEVEL 04
The practical halakha: the two questions to ask in order (whose is the thing? what did you answer?), the case of a חרם pronounced in public according to the Pitḥei Teshuva, and four contemporary situations. Note: the Admur HaZaken did not write a Shulḥan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah — a level of psak, not “Daat HaRav”.
📖 StudyNo. It is the only one in the block that carries none: its first segment begins directly with « ובו סעיף אחד: » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ה:א), where the other simanim open with a formula “דין … ובו … סעיפים”. The English title of these pages, and the Hebrew descriptor beside it, are our own; they describe the seif, they do not reproduce a heading of the Shulḥan Arukh.
It depends on one question: whose is that thing? If it is his, see siman 209 — the vow takes hold, and no acceptance on your part is required. If it belongs to a third party, this is our siman, and his word produced no effect — unless you answered amen.
No, and the nuance is practical. “Permitted” assumes a prohibition could have existed and was lifted. “אינו כלום” says no prohibition ever took hold. The direct consequence: there is nothing to undo, and one must not go looking for a התרת נדרים for a vow that never happened.
Siman 209 expressly broadens it: what is covered is “any word whose sense is like answering amen, that is, an acceptance” — « או דבר שעניינו כענית אמן שהוא קבלת דברים » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א). Whether what you answered falls into that category is a question of fact and of wording. It goes to a Rav.
That is precisely the Pitḥei Teshuva’s question, concerning the adjuration the Rambam placed at the beginning of the Moreh Nevukhim. He reports from the Shtei HaLeḥem that, despite the word used, it is not an oath but a decree of חרם ונידוי, which asks for no amen. And he concludes that it is forbidden to make light of such adjurations.
The siman runs to a line and a half, and the Shakh says it all in six words. Nothing about the halakha is to be inferred. The Taz is present in force right next door: five entries at siman 223, three at siman 224 — one of them very long on דין חלוקה. No entry has been manufactured here to complete a table.