Siman 230 — halakha lema’asseh: when one releases, and what is left to the beit din (יורה דעה ר״ל)
יורה דעה · סימן ר״ל
מתירין שבועות ונדרים
התרת שבועות ונדרים · הזכרת השם · מדוחק · נדנוד עבירה · אי עביד לא מהני
⚖️ Halakha lema’asseh level · פסק
✦ ❖ ✦
What is released, what is not, and what is not a question of conscience
Subject: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ר״ל (1 seif) With the apparatus: ש״ך (ד) · ט״ז (א) · באר היטב (ב) · פתחי תשובה (ב) Foundations: נדרים כ״ב ע״ב · רמב״ם הלכות שבועות פרק ו׳ · טור ובית יוסף יורה דעה ר״ל
Written by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
What this page covers
What the siman settles, and what it leaves open
When one releases — and when one refrains
The price of release: the Maharam Mintz’s advice
The vow that guarded against a transgression
The act done in breach of an oath — a money matter
Four situations, and the question to ask in each
This level sets out the halakha as the Shakh, the Taz, the Ba’er Hetev and the Pitḥei Teshuva give it on this siman. It does not replace a Rav. A note on the compartment: the Admur HaZaken wrote no Shulḥan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah. This level is therefore a level of psak, not a “Daat HaRav”; not one of its lines rests on a text that does not exist.
1. What the siman settles, and what it leaves open
Settled, without reservation: an oath or vow may be released by a sage, even one uttered with mention of the Name. That is the Meḥaber, and no one in the apparatus disputes it. Bounded: the use made of it. Left open: the validity of an act done in breach of an oath — four decisors, four answers.
« מתירין שבועות ונדרים » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ל:א)
« אפילו נשבע בהזכרת השם » (שו״ע יו״ד ר״ל:א)
2. When one releases — and when one refrains
The Rama’s rule. One does not ask for release a priori; there must be a דוחק.
« ומ״מ לא ישאל עליו לכתחלה אלא מדוחק ועיין לעיל סימן ר״ג » (רמ״א יו״ד ר״ל:א)
The Shakh’s widening, in the name of the Rivash in the name of the Ramban: the need of a mitzvah also counts.
« 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)
In practice. Faced with an oath that weighs, two questions come in order: is there a real constraint here? and does the release serve a mitzvah? If the answer to both is no, the Rama says to bear the oath rather than have it released. And the judgement does not belong to the petitioner: it belongs to the Rav he approaches.
3. The price of release — the Maharam Mintz’s advice
In his very first entry the Shakh reports a practice he expressly endorses. It touches not the right to release but what it is fitting to attach to it.
« מתי שיבא לידי כה״ג להתיר להמון עם הפרוצים בנדרים אני משים עליהם להתענות בה״ב וכה״ג לפי האדם ולפי הנדר » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א)
« וכן ליתן מעות לדבר מצוה זהוב או כהאי גוונא לפי עשרו כדי שלא יזלזלו בנדרים » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א)
« וכן שמעתי מרבותי עד כאן לשונו וכן נכון לעשות » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א)
Whom this line addresses. It addresses the Rav who releases, not the one who asks. A man does not impose a fast on himself of his own accord because he has read this paragraph; he lays out his situation, and it is the Rav who decides whether there is cause — “according to the man and according to the vow”, says the Maharam Mintz, and neither of those two measures is taken by the one being measured.
4. The vow that guarded against a transgression
« כל נדר שיש בהתרתו נדנוד עבירה אין להתירו » (רמ״א יו״ד ר״ל:א)
What must be clearly seen here. The limit is not “grave vows are not released”: it is “one does not release where the release is itself the problem”. A vow not to gamble, not to frequent a certain place, not to return to a certain habit, falls into this category — not because it is solemn, but because releasing it reopens precisely what it had closed.
And it is not an absolute rule. The Shakh refers to siman 228:15, where the cases are set out; there, in the Rama’s gloss, one finds situations where release is granted nonetheless, because not releasing risks a greater mikhshol. That judgement is exactly the kind of thing not done alone.
5. The act done in breach of an oath
This is the unsettled point of the siman, and the surest way to go wrong is to run two questions together. First question: did he transgress? Yes, and no authority denies it. Second question: did the act produce its legal effects? Here they divide.
« י״א כל מי שנשבע שלא לעשות איזה דבר כגון שנשבע שלא למכור חפץ פלוני ועבר ומכרו אין במכירתו כלום הואיל ועבר על שבועתו » (רמ״א יו״ד ר״ל:א)
The Taz sets the opinion aside, on the ground that it was not adopted elsewhere.
« וכבר נתבאר דלא קים לן הכי בח״מ סי׳ ר״ח בדברינו ולעיל בי״ד סימן רכ״ח סעיף ל״ה » (ט״ז יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א)
The Shakh surveys the positions and concludes with the Baḥ.
« והסמ״ע שם פסק כהי״א דהכא שאני ע״ש שהאריך » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק ד)
« אבל הב״ח שם פסק דספיקא דדינא הוי והמע״ה וכן עיקר » (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק ד)
The Pitḥei Teshuva adds the Noda BiYehuda’s distinction, which may reverse the case depending on the wording of the oath.
« הרי גוף המקח נעשה באיסור » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א)
« והרי זה דומה לשוחט בשבת ויוה״כ » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א)
The practical line. A dispute of this kind is a money dispute, and a money dispute goes before a beit din — not before the conscience of one of the two parties. The Shakh concludes that it is a ספיקא דדינא, which in law means that whoever would take the money out of the other’s hands must prove his right. Neither seller nor buyer may rely on this paragraph to decide the fate of the property alone.
6. Four situations
“I swore in anger and I regret it.” Release is possible. The prior question is that of דוחק or צורך מצוה — Shakh ס״ק ב. An oath sworn in anger against a relative very often meets both, but it is for the Rav to say so.
“I vowed never to return to something that harmed me, and I would like to be released.” This is the case of נדנוד עבירה. The Rama says not to release, and the Shakh at ס״ק ג refers to where the exceptions are discussed. Do not conclude alone, either way.
“I swore not to sell, I sold, and the buyer wants to keep the property.” Two things: the transgression, which is certain and belongs to teshuva; and the ownership, which belongs to the beit din. The Shakh concludes “ אבל הב״ח שם פסק דספיקא דדינא הוי והמע״ה וכן עיקר ” (ש״ך יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק ד).
“My oath said: ‘without so-and-so’s agreement’.” Then the Noda BiYehuda’s distinction comes into play, and it may change the answer: “ אבל אם נשבע שלא למכור כ״א בידיעת פלוני ועבר ומכר עד שלא שאל את פלוני א״כ המקח היה יכול להיו׳ בהיתר ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ר״ל ס״ק א). Bring the Rav the exact wording of what was sworn — that, and not the summary made of it, is what decides.
What this level does not say. It does not say how the release is performed — that is at siman 228. It does not say what becomes of a vow released in part — that is at siman 229. And it does not say who is qualified to release — that is at siman 231.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן ר״ל · Level 4 — Halakha lema’asseh · מתירין שבועות ונדרים daattorah.com