A single seif, seven words, and the end of a three-century controversy: oaths and vows are released, even one sworn on the Name. The Rama then sets three limits — not a priori, never where the release smells of transgression, and an opinion which, in property law, voids the act itself. (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 230 — 1 seif; this edition gives it no heading.)
מתירין שבועות ונדרים [*פי׳ שאדם עושה בינו לבין עצמו] אפילו נשבע בהזכרת השם (כן נהגו על פי ש״ס ופוסקים עיין בית יוסף
One releases oaths and vows — even if he swore with mention of the Name. That is the whole Meḥaber. The bracketed gloss, marked with an asterisk, is a printer’s clarification and not the author’s hand; the closing parenthesis gives the warrant of the rule: such is the practice, grounded in the Talmud and the decisors.
Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 230:1LEVEL 01
The single seif in Hebrew, its translation, its clause-by-clause breakdown, the vocabulary (התרה · הזכרת השם · מדוחק · נדנוד עבירה · אי עביד לא מהני), the sources — נדרים כ״ב ע״ב, the Rambam, the Tur’s long discussion — and the nine apparatus entries quoted one by one.
📖 StudyLEVEL 02
Four questions: why this siman runs to a line where the Tur runs to a column; what אי עביד לא מהני is doing here and the Taz/Shakh split over Ḥoshen Mishpat 208; the Noda BiYehuda’s distinction between an act that is itself the transgression and an act merely accompanied by one; and why the Rama restrains a power he does not dispute.
📖 StudyLEVEL 03
The rule in one sentence, the mechanism, the Rama’s three limits, the nine apparatus entries, the clause-by-clause table, what remains open, the golden rules and the standard pitfalls.
📖 StudyLEVEL 04
The practical halakha: when one releases and when one refrains, the price the Shakh advises attaching to a release after the Maharam Mintz, the vow that guarded against a transgression, and the matter of the sale — which belongs to a beit din. Note: the Admur HaZaken wrote no Shulḥan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah — this is a psak level, not “Daat HaRav”.
📖 StudyNo. Its first segment begins straight away with “ ובו סעיף אחד: ” (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ל:א), where the other simanim open with a formula of the shape דין … ובו … סעיפים. The English title of these pages is our own wording. Nor is the Hebrew descriptor beside it a heading: those are the opening words of the seif itself, “ מתירין שבועות ונדרים ” (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ל:א). Siman 225 is in the same case.
Yes, and that is exactly what the seif says. The Gemara sets it down as settled halakha: “ הִלְכְתָא, פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה, וְנִזְקָקִין לֵ״אלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל ” (נדרים כ״ב ע״ב). That does not mean it is done lightly: see the next question.
Because the power to release and the use made of it are two different things. The Rama writes “ ומ״מ לא ישאל עליו לכתחלה אלא מדוחק ועיין לעיל סימן ר״ג ” (רמ״א יו״ד ר״ל:א). And the Shakh widens it by one case: “ או לצורך מצוה כן הוא בריב״ש בשם הרמב״ן שמביא בית יוסף ס״ס זה והוא פשוט ” (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק ב).
He reports the Maharam Mintz, who did so, and concludes that this is the right thing to do. The reason he gives is social, not penal: “ שאומר מאי אכפת לי אם אשב״ע כל מה שארצה אלך אצל חכם ויתיר לי ” (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א). The remedy is not to refuse the release; it is to give it a price. The measure belongs to the Rav who releases, not to the petitioner.
That is the siman’s open question, and it is not settled one way. The Rama here reports an opinion voiding the sale; in Ḥoshen Mishpat he writes the opposite without qualification; the Sma rules like the opinion here, the Baḥ concludes it is a doubt in law, and the Shakh writes “ אבל הב״ח שם פסק דספיקא דדינא הוי והמע״ה וכן עיקר ” (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק ד). It is a money matter, and therefore a matter for a beit din.
The Pitḥei Teshuva, in the name of the Noda BiYehuda, says there is, and it is a practical distinction. In the first case “ הרי גוף המקח נעשה באיסור ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א); in the second the sale could perfectly well have been done permissibly, and “ והרי זה דומה לשוחט בשבת ויוה״כ ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א) — the Shabbat sheḥita is valid, though the act is forbidden.
The Nekudot HaKesef are the Shakh’s reply to the Taz, and the Taz writes only one entry here, which the Shakh does not take on directly. Nothing about the halakha follows from it. They are found in force close by: four entries at siman 229, four at siman 232. Not one entry has been manufactured here to fill a column.