✦ ❖ ✦ Level 3 — Synthesis / Revision ✦ ❖ ✦
Siman 225 — synthesis and revision (יורה דעה רכ״ה)
האוסר על חבירו דבר שאינו שלו
A siman of a line and a half, arranged for revision
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רכ״ה (א seif)
ש״ך (א) · באר היטב (א) · פתחי תשובה (א)
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
1. The rule, in one sentence
A man’s word reaches only what is his. Forbidding your fellow a third party’s property — אינו כלום. Unless the man targeted answers amen: then he is bound, not by the other’s word, but by his own.
Editorial reminder. This siman carries no heading at all in this edition: its first segment begins directly with « ובו סעיף אחד: » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ה:א). The title of this page is our own.
2. The mechanism, in three steps
A third party pronounces: “so-and-so’s produce is forbidden to you”
▼
The thing is not his — the vow finds nothing to grip
▼
אינו כלום: there is no prohibition, and so nothing to undo
▼
But if the target answers אמן — כמוציא בפיו דמי
▼
He becomes the נודר himself, and the prohibition takes hold on him
3. Where each half comes from
First half — נדרים מ״ז ע״א, not as a ruling but as the premise of Rami bar Ḥama’s question, glossed by Rashi. Second half — שבועות כ״ט ע״ב, Shmuel’s rule on amen, which the Beit Yosef fetched from another tractate because נדרים does not supply it.
4. The three apparatus entries
The Pitḥei Teshuva alone opens a question, and it concerns the public adjurations placed at the head of a book — see level 2. The
Taz and the
Nekudot HaKesef have no entry on this siman; they are found at simanim
223 and
224.
5. The seif, clause by clause
Two lines — that is the whole siman.
| Seif | Text | Meaning |
|---|
| א | « האומר לחבירו פירותיו של פלוני אסורין עליך » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ה:א) | One who says to his fellow: so-and-so’s produce is forbidden to you — |
| א | « אינו כלום אלא אם כן ענה הנאסר אמן: » (שו״ע יו״ד רכ״ה:א) | — it is nothing at all, unless the one targeted answered amen. |
6. What remains open
This siman has no dispute of ruling: nobody contests that a third party’s word does not bind. What remains open is of another order — two questions of reading, and one of classification.
The object or the man? The Rambam writes that no one makes his fellow forbidden by what is not his; the Tur, that no one forbids a thing that is not his upon his fellow. Two possible locations of the defect, with no known divergence in ruling.
The amen: utterance or acceptance? The Beit Yosef grounds it on שבועות — the amen counts as though the man had spoken. Siman 209 speaks of קבלת דברים and extends it to any word of the same sense. The second formulation is the broader one.
Is a public adjuration an oath? The Pitḥei Teshuva reports from the Shtei HaLeḥem that it is not: it is a decree of חרם ונידוי, which requires no amen — and which it is nonetheless forbidden to make light of.
7. Vocabulary
| Term | Meaning |
|---|
| הנאסר | the man the vow targets — and it is he, not the speaker, who must answer amen |
| אינו כלום | “it is nothing” — not “it is permitted”: nothing occurred |
| עניית אמן | answering amen; counts as though one had uttered the formula oneself |
| קבלת דברים | acceptance — the broader category of siman 209 |
| חרם ונידוי | a decree of exclusion; according to the Pitḥei Teshuva it requires no amen |
| חילופין | what is received in exchange for forbidden produce — the real subject of the בעיא in נדרים מ״ז ע״א |
8. Recapitulation
א for אינו כלום: nothing occurred. — מ for מי: who speaks, and whose the thing is. — ן for אמן: the one word that overturns everything. The three letters of אמן, in order, say the whole siman.
Golden rules. (1) Always ask first: whose is the thing being spoken of? (2) Then: did the man targeted answer anything? (3) “אינו כלום” means there is nothing to undo — do not look for a התרת נדרים for a vow that never existed.
Pitfalls. (1) Confusing this siman with siman 209: there the speaker is talking about his own property, and no acceptance is required. (2) Thinking it is the speaker who must say amen — the seif says הנאסר. (3) Thinking a polite acquiescence counts for nothing: siman 209 equates with amen “any word whose sense is like answering amen”, and that is a question to ask, not to settle oneself. (4) Extending the rule to a public חרם: the Pitḥei Teshuva expressly refuses it.
The line of ruling
A third party’s words forbidding you someone else’s property do not bind you: nothing occurred, and there is nothing to undo. They do bind you if you answered amen — or a word that stands for it, and that is where a Rav is needed. A חרם pronounced publicly does not fall under this rule according to the Pitḥei Teshuva, and he concludes that it is not to be taken lightly.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
סימן רכ״ה · Level 3 — Synthesis / Revision · האוסר על חבירו דבר שאינו שלו
daattorah.com