Siman 117 — Not Trading in Forbidden Food (Sechora be-Issur): the Chelev Exception, the Incidental Case, and Rabbinic Prohibitions
Principle, lending against a pledge, exception, incidental case, a non-Jew's debt — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קי״ז
שלא לעשות סחורה מדבר איסור
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 117: a single seif of the Mehaber and the gloss of the Rama, the Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. Why is it forbidden to trade (סחורה) in food prohibited by the Torah, even when it is permitted for benefit? The principle (שמא יבוא לאכול), lending against a pledge, buying to feed one's workers, the exception of chelev (יעשה לכל מלאכה), the incidental case of the hunter (נזדמן, שלא יתכוין), collecting a debt from a non-Jew (כמציל מידם), and the prohibition of selling a nevila as kosher.
Topic: Not trading in forbidden food — principle, exceptions, incidental case Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קי״ז
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the single seif, broken into its ~7 rules
2.Context: why the Torah forbids trade, not only consumption
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.The chakira: is the prohibition de-oraita or only a rabbinic decree?
8.Modern practical cases: investing, selling treif, feeding, the exceptions
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the single seif, broken into rules
Siman 117 has only one seif (סעיף אחד), but a very dense one: it states a general principle — it is forbidden to trade (סחורה) in food prohibited by the Torah — then illustrates it, extends it, and carves out exceptions. The Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) and the gloss of the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) weave into it close to seven rules. Let us discover them one by one.
Group A — The principle and its two extensions
Rule 1 — The principle: no trade in food forbidden de-oraita
Anything forbidden by the Torah (אסור מן התורה) — even though it is permitted for benefit (מותר בהנאה) — if it is an item destined for food (דבר המיוחד למאכל), it is forbidden to trade in it (אסור לעשות בו סחורה). The Beit Yossef, in the name of the Rashba, gives the reason: גזרה שמא יבוא לאכול מהם — "a decree, lest one come to eat of it."
The central idea: the point is not merely to refrain from eating the prohibition, but from making it one's trade. The rule targets precisely an item destined to be eaten (דבר המיוחד למאכל): it is the proximity to food that worries. According to the Rashba, the concern is practical — one who trades in it might come to taste or eat it (שמא יבוא לאכול). The fact that the item is otherwise permitted for benefit (מותר בהנאה) changes nothing: one does not enrich oneself through its food trade.
Rule 2 — Extension: also forbidden to lend against it as a pledge (להלוות עליו)
(אוֹ לְהַלְווֹת עָלָיו) (תרומת הדשן סימן ר׳)
It is likewise forbidden to lend against it as a pledge (להלוות עליו) — that is, to accept such a forbidden food destined to be eaten as security for a loan. The Mehaber learns this from the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 200), which calls the matter מכוער ("ugly," unseemly); and according to the Rashba's reasoning (שמא יבוא לאכול), the prohibition is a real one.
Rule 3 — Extension: forbidden to buy it even to feed one's non-Jewish workers
(וַאֲפִלּוּ לִקְנוֹתוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לְפוֹעֲלָיו עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר) (כך משמע מבית יוסף מהגהות מיימוני פ"ח דמאכלות אסורות)
It is even forbidden to buy it to feed it to one's non-Jewish workers (לקנותו להאכילו לפועליו עובדי כוכבים) — so the Beit Yossef deduces from the Hagahot Maimoni (chap. 8 of Maakhalot Assurot). One might think that buying to feed others is not "trade"; the Mehaber forbids it nonetheless.
The principle (rule 1) does not stand alone: it extends to acts close to trade — accepting the prohibition as a pledge (rule 2) and buying it to feed others (rule 3). The very breadth of the prohibition (over lending, over buying) shows how seriously the Rashba's reason (שמא יבוא לאכול) is taken.
Group B — The exceptions to the principle
Rule 4 — The chelev exception: "יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה"
Except for chelev (forbidden fats): it is permitted to trade in it, for it is said about it "יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה" ("let it be used for any work" — Vayikra 7:24). The Torah explicitly permitted it for use: by that, it removed the concern of shema yavo le'echol, and its trade is permitted.
Why does chelev escape the rule? Because the Torah itself specified that it "would be used for any work" (יעשה לכל מלאכה). This explicit permission of use carries the permission of trade: where the Torah opened a mundane use, the fear of coming to eat no longer holds. The exception illuminates the rule: the prohibition of trade hinged on the purely alimentary destination.
Rule 5 — The incidental case (נזדמנו) of the hunter: shema yavo le'echol, sell at once
If a hunter or fisherman (tzayad) — whose trade this is — incidentally comes upon (נזדמנו) impure animals, birds, or fish (or if a nevila / treifa incidentally falls to someone at home — gloss of the Tur), he may sell them — provided he did not intend it (ובלבד שלא יתכוין לכך). Gloss of the Rama: and he must sell it at once (מיד), not waiting until it "fattens" in his keeping (עד שתהא שמינה אצלו).
Incidental ≠ trade. The prohibition targets the deliberate dealing in the forbidden item. Here, however, the forbidden item arrives by accident (נזדמנו) into the hands of a professional: this is no longer trading in a prohibition, but disposing of an unsought windfall. The condition is twofold: not having intended it (שלא יתכוין) and — per the Rama — selling it without delay (מיד), not keeping it to fatten it, which would tip it into deliberate trade.
Rule 6 — Collecting a debt from a non-Jew (כמציל מידם); but no sale בחזקת כשירה
Likewise, it is permitted to collect a debt in impure items from a non-Jew (לגבות דברים טמאים בחובו מן העובד כוכבים), for it is like saving from their hands (כמציל מידם — Rashba in a responsum): recovering what one is owed is not trade. But it is forbidden to sell a non-Jew a nevila as kosher (בחזקת כשירה) — that is fraud; see Choshen Mishpat siman 228.
Two important nuances here: collecting a debt (כמציל מידם) is not trading — one does not seek the prohibition, one recovers what is one's own. By contrast, passing off a nevila as kosher (בחזקת כשירה) adds to the prohibition of trade that of deception (genevat da'at / commercial fraud, Choshen Mishpat 228).
Rule 7 — A prohibition only mi-derabbanan: trade permitted in every manner
And anything whose prohibition is only rabbinic (אין איסורו אלא מדבריהם) — it is permitted to trade in it (מותר לעשות בו סחורה). The whole prohibition applied only to a prohibition of the Torah (mi-de-oraita); a prohibition that is only rabbinic (mi-derabbanan) falls outside the rule.
The de-oraita / de-rabbanan boundary. The seif opens with "anything forbidden by the Torah" and closes with "anything whose prohibition is only rabbinic." The prohibition of trade is therefore reserved for Torah prohibitions. For a purely rabbinic prohibition, trade is permitted in every manner (and per the Taz, even the "at once" restriction of the incidental case does not apply to it — see below).
2. Context — where this siman fits
The preceding simanim dealt with the consumption of prohibitions (treifa, nevila, sheratzim…). Siman 117 takes a decisive step sideways: it no longer asks "may I eat this?" but "may I trade in it?" The answer is, in principle, no — even when the item is otherwise permitted for benefit (mutar be-hana'a). Why? Because dealing in a forbidden food draws dangerously close to the table.
The great questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
Trade in a de-oraita prohibition
Rule 1
Forbidden (shema yavo le'echol), even mutar be-hana'a
The cross-cutting idea: trade is not consumption, but it is close to it. The prohibition is broad (lending, buying to feed), yet it vanishes the moment the fear of coming to eat falls away — whether because the Torah permitted the use (chelev), because the prohibition does not arrive by being sought (incidental, debt), or because the prohibition is only rabbinic.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 117, you need to master a small technical vocabulary that describes what the forbidden "trade" is, what triggers it, and what removes it.
סחורה — Trade / commerce: to make the prohibition the object of commerce (buying to resell, dealing in it for profit). This is the act targeted by the whole siman — distinct from mere consumption and even from a one-off profit.
דבר המיוחד למאכל — An item destined for food: the condition of the prohibition. Trade is forbidden only in a forbidden item made to be eaten. The Shach (s.k. 1) excludes horses, donkeys, and camels (setaman li-melakha — by default destined for work, not for the table).
מותר בהנאה — Permitted for benefit: some prohibitions of consumption remain permitted for use / benefit. The siman stresses that even so, the food trade remains forbidden — proof that it is the destination to the table, not the value, that worries.
שמא יבוא לאכול — "Lest one come to eat of it": the reason for the prohibition per the Rashba (cited by the Beit Yossef). One who deals in a forbidden food, through handling it, might come to taste it. This reason explains the breadth of the prohibition (lending, buying to feed).
נזדמן / שלא יתכוין — Incidental case / without intent: the prohibition that falls by chance (nizdamen) to the professional (hunter, fisherman) may be sold, provided he did not seek it (shelo yitkaven). This is the boundary between a windfall and deliberate dealing.
כמציל מידם — "Like saving from their hands": collecting a debt in impure items from a non-Jew is not trade, but the rescue of one's property (Rashba). One does not seek out the prohibition; one recovers what is owed.
Two poles to remember:מדאורייתא vs מדרבנן — the prohibition of trade is reserved for Torah prohibitions; and בחזקת כשירה — selling a nevila presented as kosher adds the offense of fraud (Choshen Mishpat 228).
4. The table — forbidden or permitted?
The whole seif can be summed up in a table. We cross the nature of the prohibition with the act envisaged, and see whether trade is permitted or forbidden.
Situation
Status
Reason
Trading in a food forbidden de-oraita
🔴 Forbidden
Shema yavo le'echol (Rashba)
Lending against a pledge / buying to feed one's workers
🔴 Forbidden
Extension of the principle (Te"H, Hagahot Maimoni)
Trading in chelev
🟢 Permitted
"Yei'aseh le-khol melakha" (use permitted)
Selling a prohibition that fell by chance (nizdamen)
🟡 Permitted
Shelo yitkaven + sell at once (Rama)
Collecting a debt in impure items from a non-Jew
🟢 Permitted
Ke-matzil mi-yadam (Rashba)
Selling a nevila be-chezkat kesheira
🔴 Forbidden
Fraud (Choshen Mishpat 228)
Trading in a rabbinic prohibition
🟢 Permitted
The prohibition applies only to the de-oraita
The logic in one sentence: trade in a food forbidden by the Torah is forbidden (lest one come to eat) — but this prohibition yields the moment the Torah permitted the use (chelev), the prohibition does not arrive by being sought (nizdamen, debt), or it is only rabbinic; and it is compounded by fraud if one presents the prohibition as kosher.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aruch is never read on its own. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure the practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the standard nos'ei kelim of Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berura here, which comments only on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — an abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). It is the standard commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth.
The Taz (ט״ז) — an abbreviation of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach.
A key entry of the Taz
Taz s.k. 1 — The reason for the decree, and the objection from Pesachim 23
The Taz first cites the reason of the Beit Yossef in the name of the Rashba: a decree lest one come to eat (gezeira shema yavo le'echol) — which would make it a rabbinic prohibition. But the Taz objects: in פסחים דף כ״ג, it appears to be a Torah prohibition (de-oraita), derived from the verse "לָכֶם" — "that it be yours" — implying what is destined for you. The foundation of the prohibition (a rabbinic decree or a Torah law) thus remains an open chakira (investigation).
A key entry of the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — Davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal: what is in, what is out
The Shach clarifies the condition davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal: it excludes horses, donkeys, and camels, for by default they are destined for work (setaman li-melakha), not for the table. He cites Rabbenu Tam: other impure items, if one raises them to coat hides with their fat or to give light, are permitted for trade; but the pig (chazir) — all is forbidden (trade as well as use), because of an event that occurred (mishum maaseh she-haya).
One sees the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they dig into the foundation (the Taz: a rabbinic decree or de-oraita?) and delimit the field (the Shach: what is a davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal? the special case of the pig). This is exactly what is studied in depth at the Lamdan level, with the Taz's chakira and the Shach's distinctions.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the text of the Mehaber glosses that reflect Ashkenazi practice and clarify how the law is applied. Here are his interventions in our siman.
On the incidental case — sell at once (mi-yad)
Gloss of the Rama: וצריך למכרה מיד ולא ימתין עד שתהא שמינה אצלו — "and he must sell it at once, not waiting until it fattens in his keeping" (B"Y in the name of the Or'hot Chaim). The Rama adds the condition of time: the prohibition that fell incidentally (nizdamen) must be disposed of without delay. Keeping the item to fatten it would turn it into actual trade, which would revert to the prohibition.
On the incidental case — the nevila / treifa that fell at home
The Rama (in the name of the Tur) extends the incidental case of the hunter to one to whom a nevila or treifa falls at home (וכן מי שנזדמנה לו נבילה וטריפה בביתו): he too may sell it, under the same conditions (shelo yitkaven, mi-yad). The unsought windfall is not reserved for the professional hunter alone.
The Rama carefully distinguishes the tolerated incidental case (selling the prohibition that fell by chance, at once and without having intended it) from deliberate trade (buying, keeping, fattening, disposing on purpose), which remains forbidden. His precision "mi-yad" is the practical key: it is the delay that betrays the intent.
7. The chakira — de-oraita or a rabbinic decree?
The seif deserves a pause on its foundation. Is the prohibition of trading in a forbidden food a mere rabbinic decree (gezeira de-rabbanan) or a genuine Torah law (de-oraita)?
Everything rests on the reason for the prohibition. Two paths open:
A rabbinic decree (Beit Yossef in the name of the Rashba): it is only a decree, shema yavo le'echol. This is what explains its extension (lending, buying for workers) and the leniency for a rabbinic prohibition.
A Torah law (objection of the Taz, Pesachim 23): the verse "lachem — shelachem yehe" would make it a prohibition of the Torah. This would give the principle a stronger reach.
Path
Source
Consequence (nafka mina)
Rabbinic decree (shema yavo le'echol)
Beit Yossef / Rashba
Explains the extension and the leniency for the rabbinic
Torah law ("lachem")
Taz s.k. 1 (Pesachim 23)
Stronger reach for the principle
The Taz's "kelal"
Taz (disputed by Chavot Yair, Panim Meirot)
"What the Torah explicitly permitted, the Sages do not forbid"
This chakira is not merely theoretical: it governs the breadth of the prohibition (down to lending, down to buying to feed) and the strength of the exceptions. The Taz draws from it a principle — "what the Torah explicitly permitted (chelev: yei'aseh le-khol melakha), the Sages do not forbid" — which other Acharonim (Chavot Yair, Panim Meirot) disputed. This is the heart of the Lamdan level.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply today? Here are four common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — Investing in or owning a non-kosher business
Holding shares in a pork or seafood company, opening a treif restaurant or a non-kosher food truck: this is the very heart of the issur of sechora in a davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal forbidden de-oraita (rule 1). The pig in particular is entirely forbidden even for use (Shach s.k. 1, mishum maaseh she-haya). For how this applies to your situation, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Selling treif, nevila, or chametz she-avar alav ha-Pesach
Selling treif / nevila meat, or chametz kept in one's possession over Pesach: one must distinguish the sale itself from fraud. Presenting the prohibition as kosher (be-chezkat kesheira) adds the offense of deception (Choshen Mishpat 228, rule 6). And a prohibition that is only rabbinic falls outside the prohibition of trade (rule 7). For how this applies to your situation, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — Feeding one's employees or animals
Buying forbidden food to feed one's workers or pet food containing nevila: the Mehaber forbids this even to feed (rule 3). But the Shach (s.k. 3) and the Pri Chadash qualify — buying to feed, and not to resell, is not "ke-ein sechora" and would be permitted (cf. Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 4). For how this applies to your situation, consult your Rav.
Case 4 — The exceptions: chelev, blood, the rabbinic prohibition, the incidental case
Trade remains permitted for chelev for industrial uses ("yei'aseh le-khol melakha," rule 4); for blood (dam), likened to water (hukash le-mayim, Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 1); for a prohibition that is only rabbinic (rule 7); and for the item that fell by chance (nizdamen) to the professional, provided one sells it at once and did not seek it (rule 5). For how this applies to your situation, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the four cases: before concluding, ask yourself three questions — is the prohibition de-oraita or only rabbinic? is the item a davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal, or did the Torah permit its use (chelev, blood)? is this a sought-after deal, or an incidental windfall / a debt? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the details of the case. Consult your Rav.
9. Summary of Siman 117
The essence of Siman 117 in a few sentences:
It is forbidden to trade (sechora) in a food forbidden de-oraita, even mutar be-hana'a (reason: shema yavo le'echol, Rashba).
The prohibition extends to lending against a pledge (le-halvot alav) and to buying to feed one's non-Jewish workers.
The chelev exception: permitted, for "yei'aseh le-khol melakha" — the Torah permitted its use.
Incidental case (nizdamen) of the hunter / the nevila that fell: permitted to sell, shelo yitkaven and — Rama — at once (mi-yad).
Collecting a debt in impure items from a non-Jew: permitted (ke-matzil mi-yadam).
A prohibition that is only rabbinic: trade permitted in every manner.
The Shach (s.k. 1) delimits davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal (excludes horses/donkeys/camels; the pig entirely forbidden); the Taz (s.k. 1) opens the chakira de-rabbanan / de-oraita (Pesachim 23).
Memory table
Situation
Status
Trade in a food forbidden de-oraita
🔴 Forbidden (shema yavo le'echol)
Lending against a pledge / buying to feed one's workers
🔴 Forbidden
Trade in chelev
🟢 Permitted (yei'aseh le-khol melakha)
A prohibition that fell by chance (nizdamen)
🟡 Permitted if shelo yitkaven + sell at once
Collecting a debt from a non-Jew
🟢 Permitted (ke-matzil mi-yadam)
Selling a nevila be-chezkat kesheira
🔴 Forbidden (fraud, C"M 228)
Trade in a rabbinic prohibition
🟢 Permitted in every manner
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What is the principle of the seif? Why does it target a דבר המיוחד למאכל, and what does its being מותר בהנאה change?
What reason does the Beit Yossef give in the name of the Rashba? How does it explain the extensions (lending, buying for workers)?
Why does חֵלֶב form an exception? Which verse permits it?
What is the incidental case (נזדמן)? What are the two conditions (shelo yitkaven, mi-yad), and who adds the second?
Why is collecting a debt from a non-Jew permitted (כמציל מידם)? What remains forbidden (בחזקת כשירה) and why?
What does the seif say about a prohibition that is only מדרבנן?
What does the Shach (s.k. 1) exclude from the definition דבר המיוחד למאכל? What is the special case of the חזיר?
What chakira does the Taz (s.k. 1) raise from פסחים כ״ג ("lachem")?
Distinguish the tolerated incidental case from deliberate trade: what detail (per the Rama) betrays the intent?
Cite three exceptions where trade in a forbidden item remains permitted.
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the chakira on the foundation (rabbinic decree / de-oraita, Pesachim 23), the Taz's "kelal" disputed by Chavot Yair and Panim Meirot, the blood likened to water (Pri Toar, Noda BiYhuda, Chatam Sofer), and the Shach's distinctions (davar ha-meyuchad le-maakhal, Rabbenu Tam, the pig)
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (forbidden / permitted, de-oraita / de-rabbanan), the golden rules, and quick memorization of the ~7 rules
⚖️ Level 4 — Halacha lema'asse: practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Chadash, Pitchei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on concrete cases
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: