Siman 225 — halakha lema‘asse: what binds and what does not (יורה דעה רכ״ה)
יורה דעה · סימן רכ״ה
האוסר על חבירו דבר שאינו שלו
אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו · עניית אמן · קבלת דברים · חרם ונידוי
⚖️ הלכה למעשה · Psak
✦ ❖ ✦
What binds, what does not, and what must be asked before concluding
Subject: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רכ״ה (א seif) With the apparatus: ש״ך (א) · באר היטב (א) · פתחי תשובה (א) Foundations: נדרים מ״ז ע״א · שבועות כ״ט ע״ב · רמב״ם הלכות נדרים פרק ה׳ · Tur and Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 225
Written by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
The practical questions
The rule applied
The two questions to ask, in this order
The case of a חרם pronounced in public
Two works with no entry, and what is not to be concluded from it
Four contemporary situations
1. The rule applied
This level sets out the halakha as the Shakh, the Ba’er Hetev and the Pitḥei Teshuva give it on this siman. It does not replace a Rav. And a note about the compartment, true of all Yoreh De’ah: the Admur HaZaken did not write a Shulḥan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah. This level is a level of psak, not a “Daat HaRav”.
The rule. Someone declares to you that a third party’s property is forbidden to you. If you made no reply: אינו כלום. You are not bound, and there is no vow to undo. If you answered amen: you are bound as though you had uttered the formula yourself, and a התרת נדרים will be needed.
« אינו כלום אלא אם כן ענה הנאסר אמן: » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ה:א)
« אינו כלום. שאין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו על חבירו וע״ל סימן ר״ט: » (ש״ך יו״ד רכ״ה ס״ק א)
2. The two questions to ask, in this order
First question: whose is the thing? That is what decides between our siman and siman 209. If the speaker forbids his own property, siman 209 says expressly that no acceptance is required and the vow takes hold by itself. If the property belongs to a third party, we are in our siman and his word can do nothing.
« אבל כשחבירו מדירו משלו אין צריך לקבל דבריו » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א)
Second question: what did you answer? And here, take care — the threshold is not the word amen spelled out. Siman 209 covers “any word whose sense is like answering amen, that is, an acceptance”. An “agreed”, a “so be it”, may fall into that category. This is a question of fact and of wording: it goes to a Rav, it is not settled alone.
« או דבר שעניינו כענית אמן שהוא קבלת דברים אסור » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ט:א)
3. The case of a חרם pronounced in public
This is the only matter in this siman on which the Pitḥei Teshuva speaks, and its effects are modern. A solemn adjuration placed at the head of a book, addressed to all its future readers, receives an amen from nobody. The Pitḥei Teshuva reports from the Shtei HaLeḥem that it is not technically an oath, but a decree of חרם ונידוי — which requires no acceptance. And he closes with a warning which, in practice, is the main thing.
« דאף שהוציאו בלשון שבועה מ״מ אינה אלא גזירת חרם ונידוי » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד רכ״ה ס״ק א)
« ולכן אסור לזלזל בשבועות אלו » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד רכ״ה ס״ק א)
Practical consequence. Do not reason thus: “nobody answered amen, so it does not bind me”. The Pitḥei Teshuva rejects precisely that reasoning for public adjurations. The classification of such a text — oath, חרם, or mere exhortation — is not within the reader’s reach: it must be asked.
4. Two works with no entry, and what is not to be concluded from it
The Taz and the Nekudot HaKesef have no entry on this siman. Nothing is to be inferred from that about the halakha: the siman is short, and the Shakh said the essential in six words. To read the Taz on this matter, see simanim 223 (five entries) and 224 (three, one of them very long on דין חלוקה); and for the Nekudot HaKesef, siman 223, where they answer the Taz. No entry has been reconstructed here.
5. Four contemporary situations
A quarrel and a declaration. In the course of a dispute a man says to another: “the X family’s house is forbidden to you”. The house is not his: אינו כלום. Nothing took hold, and there is no vow to undo. If the second man answered “amen” or the like, the answer changes, and the question goes to the Rav.
A declaration before an assembly. Someone announces publicly that a communal asset is forbidden to a certain person. Two distinct questions arise: is the asset his — that is our siman — and is the declaration a vow or a חרם — that is the Pitḥei Teshuva. Both are asked; neither is decided by oneself.
A document that opens with an adjuration. Exactly the Pitḥei Teshuva’s case, and it still occurs: a preface, a colophon, a solemn clause. Do not conclude from the absence of an amen that nothing binds you — that is the reasoning the Pitḥei Teshuva rejects.
A man forbids himself another’s property. This is not our case, and it takes effect: the gemara says so expressly at the head of the בעיא — « אדם אוסר פירות חבירו על עצמו » (נדרים מ״ז ע״א). The vow holds, and a התרת נדרים will be needed to be rid of it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן רכ״ה · Level 4 — Halakha lema‘asse · האוסר על חבירו דבר שאינו שלו daattorah.com