Basis of the sugya in Shas:
Avodah Zarah 31a (חותם בתוך חותם for wine) · 39a (Rav’s חבי״ת) · 39b (Rav Kahana’s emendation, Shmuel’s lists, the piece of fish with no mark) · 40a (the marks of fish) · 61a (יוצא ונכנס; מפתח וחותם) · 61b and 70a (fear of being seized as a thief) · Chullin 94a (חיתוכא דגוי — the thigh and the nikkur)
Written and edited by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
Opening the sugya — the three instruments: seals, recognition marks, fear and trust
The reason behind the rule of seals — the machloket of Rashi and the Rashba, חבי״ת and חמפ״ג (ט״ז ס״ק א׳, ש״ך ס״ק א׳)
One seal or two — the shitah of ר״ת, the suspect Jew worse than the non-Jew, the question of מפתח וחותם (seifim 1–2)
What counts as a seal — letter and stamp, key, sack and stitches, writing “for one who recognises it” (seifim 3–4)
The mark of the nikkur — the thigh and visual recognition, why shechitah is no mark, de’oraita and derabanan (seifim 5–6)
Fear and trust — a public thoroughfare, the trust placed in an am ha’aretz, a seal or the word “kosher” (seifim 7–9)
Leaving a non-Jew in one’s house — going in and out, not having told him, gaining nothing by it (seif 10)
Two pots — mixture of bodies, maidservants and mishap (seifim 11–13)
The whole siman turns on one question: how is the kashrut of food sent (שולח) or deposited (מפקיד) in the hands of a non-Jew preserved, when no one watches it continuously? The Sages placed three instruments in our hands: the seal — an impression its owner recognises; the recognition mark — a mark borne by the substance itself (nikkur, the shape of the cut); and fear — a permission that rests only on the non-Jew dreading that he will be caught. The siman is built in degrees: from the absolute seal (seif 1) down to bare fear, which is no more than an assessment (seif 10); and at every step one asks whether that instrument suffices at the outset (לכתחילה) or only after the fact (בדיעבד).
Three underlying questions run through the siman:
How many seals — one or two, and on what it depends (seifim 1–4).
What counts as a sufficient mark — letter, stamp, key, nikkur — and when it helps only “for one who recognises it” (seifim 3 and 5).
When one relies on fear alone — a public thoroughfare, going in and out, the trust placed in an am ha’aretz (seifim 7–12).
The entire siman rests on dividing foods into two groups — those that require two seals and those for which one is enough; and the whole weight of the Taz’s analysis (ס״ק א׳) falls on the reason for that division.
The foundation — חבי״ת and חמפ״ג (ט״ז ס״ק א׳):
The Taz takes from the Tur the two mnemonics. חבי״ת — חתיכת דג, בשר, יין, תכלת — requires two seals; חמפ״ג — חילתית, מורייס, פת, גבינה, and whatever is forbidden only by rabbinic law — is satisfied with one. Both mnemonics come from the gemara, and the order in which it lays them down matters. Rav states his first, and his חבי״ת opens with milk:
Rav Kahana then emends Rav’s list — it is Rav’s and not Shmuel’s — removing milk and putting in its place the piece of fish that bears no mark, which is the ח of חבי״ת as the poskim read it:
The ת of חבי״ת is therefore תכלת — dyed wool, which is not food and does not recur in the siman — and the ח, since Rav Kahana, is חתיכת דג. That is why the Mechaber places milk (חלב) with the single-seal group, alongside vinegar, muryas, bread and cheese, and not with meat and wine. This is no mere counting: two distinct reasons stand behind the division, and that is the heart of the sugya.
Two reasons for one division — Rashi and the Rashba:
Shitah
Reason for the חבי״ת group (two seals)
Nafka mina
רש״י (as the Tur reports him)
דמיו יקרים and חיבת נסך — what is costly, or what carries the attachment of idolatrous libation (wine), a non-Jew will take the trouble to counterfeit when there is only one seal
turns on price and attachment, not on the severity of the prohibition
הרשב״א
חשש איסור דאורייתא — the items of חבי״ת may harbour a Torah prohibition; those of חמפ״ג are only rabbinic (מדרבנן), and one seal is enough
turns on the severity of the prohibition (de’oraita / derabanan)
“ אבל הרשב״א תולה הטעם דחבי״ת איכא בו חשש איסור דאוריי׳ וחמפ״ג דרבנן ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק א׳)
Practical nafka mina — how far the list reaches (ט״ז ס״ק א׳): the disagreement is not theoretical. For Rashi, anything costly, or carrying חיבה, will require two seals even though its prohibition is only rabbinic; for the Rashba the line is sharp: a Torah prohibition — two seals, a rabbinic one — a single seal. And it is the Rashba’s way that the Mechaber’s own formulation follows:
“ וכל שאיסורו מדברי סופרים שהפקידו ביד עובד כוכבים מותר בחותם אחד ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:א)
The Taz at once brings the question of the Derishah: milk too may harbour a Torah prohibition — were it exchanged for the milk of a non-kosher animal; why then does one seal suffice for it? And the answer: the admixture itself is only rabbinic.
“ והקשה בדרישה דהא חלב הוא גם כן איסור דאורייתא בחילוף חלב טמא ותירץ דהתערובות הוא מדרבנן ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק א׳)
The Shach’s point (ס״ק א׳) — חותם בתוך חותם for meat: the Shach infers from the word ובשר that meat requires חותם בתוך חותם even where the butchers are Jews.
“ משמע דהא דצריך בבשר חותם בתוך חותם היינו אפילו במקום שהטבחים ישראל ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק א׳)
And nothing can be learned from the leniency of siman 1, seif 4: there the case is of one who finds his animals and birds properly slaughtered in the market, and we follow the majority of Jewish butchers because we do not know who slaughtered them; here the meat is in a non-Jew’s hands, and we must say he swapped it for a נבלה he had. The concern is therefore not about the slaughterer but about the substitution of the piece on the way.
“ דהתם לא ידעינן מי שחטן הלכך אזלינן בתר רובא אבל הכא שהבשר ביד עובד כוכבים אית לן למימר שהחליפו בנבלה שהיה לו ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק א׳)
The Pit’hei Teshuvah’s detail (ס״ק א׳) — non-kosher milk: the Pit’hei Teshuvah refers to the Shach: kosher milk is white and non-kosher milk greenish, so that a substitution of all or most of it would be noticed; only a small addition remains to be feared, and that is merely rabbinic, since מין במינו בטל ברוב מדאורייתא.
“ אם היה מחליף כולו או רובו מינכר וא״כ אינו אסור אלא מדרבנן דמין במינו בטל ברוב מדאורייתא ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק א׳)
But he immediately wonders at this: the Shach himself, at siman צ״ח ס״ק ו׳, concludes that we follow taste — and the taste of non-kosher milk differs from that of kosher milk, so that sixty would be needed by Torah law.
He then brings the Noda BiYehudah (תניינא, או״ח סי׳ ס״ו), who raises the same difficulty and resolves it: טעם כעיקר is of Torah force only for prohibitions carrying lashes; non-kosher milk does not, and its taste is therefore forbidden only rabbinically.
“ דוקא באיסורים דכוותייהו שהם לאוין שיש בהם מלקות ולא בלאוין שאין בהם מלקות כגון חלב טמא וכיוצא לא אמרינן טעם כעיקר מן התורה רק מדרבנן אסור ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק א׳)
The Pit’hei Teshuvah does not decide between the two approaches: the question is left open. (And at ס״ק ב׳: one who sends butter by a non-Jew — the responsum of מהר״י הלוי סי׳ י״ד permits it even without a seal, and the Taz brings it in his name at siman קכ״ז ס״ק ז׳.)
“ דאם שלח חמאה ביד עובד כוכבים שמותר אף בלא חותם ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ב׳)
The chakirah — what does the second seal add? If one seal already shows that no stranger’s hand has touched, what does the second add? For if the non-Jew can counterfeit one seal, he will counterfeit two. The Rishonim’s answer does not turn on possibility but on trouble: the term is טרח ומזייף — will he take the trouble to counterfeit? For wine, to which חיבת ניסוך attaches, he will do so even against a seal:
“ מ״מ כתב הרשב״א דמשום חיבת ניסוך עליה טרחי ומזייפי אף בחותם א׳ ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ה׳)
and for Rashi it is the high price that decides him:
“ ורש״י פירש הטעם דביבח״ד דמיו יקרים טרח ומזייף בחותם א׳ משא״כ שאר דברים ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ה׳)
On whom were two seals decreed — the Mechaber and the Rama:
Shitah
חבי״ת in a non-Jew’s hands
Source
The Mechaber (unattributed view)
חבי״ת sent by a non-Jew → two seals in fact
מחבר ס״א
יש אומרים (in the Mechaber)
Two seals only for the sender’s messenger, who will not see the seal again; a depositor, who will see his own seal, is satisfied with one, for he is afraid
מחבר ס״א
The Rama (in the name of ר״ת)
Two seals only for a suspect Jew; in a non-Jew’s hands all is permitted with one seal, and after the fact one may rely on this
רמ״א ס״א; טור בשם ר״ת
The foundation — a suspect Jew is worse than a non-Jew (ט״ז ס״ק ב׳):
A great novelty in the name of ר״ת: the non-Jew dreads substituting, lest he be found out; therefore in his hands one seal suffices. But the suspect Jew, who has already broken through, is confident that he will be believed and does not fear as much — and it is precisely of him that two seals were required.
“ שהוא גרע מעובד כוכבים שבטוח שיאמינוהו ולא מירתת כל כך ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ב׳)
And the Shach specifies what “suspect Jew” means here: suspected of substituting, not merely of eating.
“ ופי׳ ישראל חשוד הוא שחשוד להחליף ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ט״ז)
The question of Tosafot — מפתח וחותם (ט״ז ס״ק ג׳): Tosafot set two passages against each other. Here we are told that wine, which belongs to חבי״ת, requires two seals; and earlier, in that very chapter, the halakhah is held like רבי אליעזר, who says that מפתח וחותם — and in other readings מפתח or חותם — is enough.
“ דהכא אמרינן ביין שהוא בכלל חבי״ת שצריך שני חותמות ולעיל בההיא פירקא אמרינן הלכה כר״א דאמר מפתח וחותם ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ג׳)
ר״ת’s answer, and the objection of Tosafot (ט״ז ס״ק ג׳): ר״ת answers that the passage about חבי״ת speaks of a suspect Jew, and the earlier one of a non-Jew.
“ ע״כ תירץ ר״ת דההיא דחבי״ת מיירי בישראל חשוד ולעיל מיירי בעובד כוכבים ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ג׳)
Tosafot object to him and draw a different distinction — between the messenger (שליח) and the depositor (מפקיד), which is the distinction the Shulchan Arukh brings as יש אומרים in seif 1.
“ והקשו התוס׳ עליו ופירשו דיש חילוק בין שליח למפקיד ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ג׳)
To this is added a divergence of text: ר״ת reads מפתח or חותם, the Rashba reads מפתח and חותם; for the latter a key is no seal at all where only one seal is required, and helps only in combination where two are required — as the Shulchan Arukh writes in seif 4.
What the Taz draws from this, and what the Rama did not write (ט״ז ס״ק ג׳ and ו׳): since the Rama rules here that after the fact one relies on ר״ת to permit a single seal with a non-Jew, it follows — on ר״ת’s reading — that a key alone suffices as well; the Taz therefore wonders that the Rama did not add, at seif 4, that after the fact a key helps there. He concludes that in law it is indeed so, and that the Rama was brief where the leniency should have been written.
“ כבר כתבתי בסעיף א׳ דלדידן כשר בדיעבד במפתח אפילו במקום שאין צריך רק חותם א׳ ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ו׳)
The ruling after the fact — in our time all agree (ט״ז ס״ק ד׳): the Taz concludes that nowadays one seal suffices by all views; and his reason is not an indulgence of circumstance. The principal reason two seals are required for wine, although it is forbidden only rabbinically, is חיבת יין נסך — that is how the Taz names it, עיקר הטעם:
“ דהא עיקר הטעם דחיישי׳ ביין שצריך שני חותמות אע״פ שהוא דרבנן הוא מצד שחיבת היין נסך עליו ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ד׳)
and the non-Jews of today are not idolaters, so that this attachment no longer applies:
“ ובזמן הזה לאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הם ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ד׳)
from which it follows that all agree one seal is enough.
“ ממילא לכ״ע די בחותם אחד ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ד׳)
Even so, at the outset one makes two seals for חבי״ת as the Mechaber writes, and as the Shach wrote regarding meat. The Rama himself speaks only of after the fact:
The Rama’s innovation — the conditions of the concern (טור וב״י בשם תוס׳): a broken seal does not forbid of itself; it forbids only where the conditions of the concern are met: (a) נהנה בחליפין — the non-Jew gains by the exchange; or (b) it is wine, where one fears he rendered it forbidden by touch. But if the item is seen as it was sent and the non-Jew would have gained nothing by exchanging it, there is no concern, even though the seal is broken.
“ אבל אם רואה הדבר ששלח או הפקיד והוא טוב כמו ששלח ולא נהנה העובד כוכבים אם החליפו לא חיישינן אף שהחותם מקולקל ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ב)
This is a governing principle of the whole siman: the concerns hang on the non-Jew’s gain; with no gain, no fear of substitution. (And this seif is repeated at siman ק״ל ס״ח — see there.)
4. What counts as a seal — letter, stamp, key and sack
The foundation — seals are counted by acts of sealing:
One letter counts as one seal, two letters as two seals — for each letter is written separately and takes its own trouble to counterfeit.
“ אות אחת חשוב כחותם א׳ שתים הוי כשתי חותמות ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ג)
But a stamp bearing several letters counts as only one seal, “since they are set down at one stroke”: there is only one act of sealing here, and counterfeiting it is like counterfeiting a single letter.
“ ודפוסים אע״פ שיש בהם כמה אותיות לא חשיבי אלא כחותם אחד כיון שקובעין אותם בבת אחת ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ג)
The count of seals therefore depends on the number of distinct acts of sealing, not on the number of shapes.
Writing as a mark — only “for one who recognises it” (seif 3): where apostates and Kutim who can write are found, writing is a mark only for one who recognises that writing — the owner’s own hand. One who does not recognise it cannot rely on it, since another could write the same.
“ אין כתב סימן אלא למי שמכיר הכתב ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ג)
This is the measure of טביעת עין applied to writing: a mark that holds good only for its owner and those who know him, not an absolute mark. (This seif is repeated at siman ק״ל ס״ו.)
Key, sack and stitches (seif 4 and the Rama’s gloss): a key together with a seal counts as two seals.
“ מפתח וחותם הוי ב׳ חותמו׳ ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ד)
But where a single seal would suffice, a key alone does not count as a seal.
“ אם לא היה בו אלא מפתח לא חשיב חותם ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ד)
So too a sealed sack does not count even as one seal — for one can undo the stitching and sew it again.
“ אם שולח איזה דבר בשק וחתם השק אינו אפילו כחותם א׳ ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ד)
unless one turned the stitches inward, in which case an opening would be noticed;
“ אא״כ הפך התפירות לפנים ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ד)
and if one sealed both the item and the sack, that counts as two seals. Nothing, then, counts as a seal unless its opening would be noticed.
5. The mark of the nikkur — the thigh and visual recognition
The foundation — a mark in the substance itself (טביעת עין, ט״ז ס״ק ח׳):
Against the seal, which is an external mark, the nikkur is a mark in the flesh itself: the shape of the cut of the thigh after the sinew has been dug out, the removal of the חוט דידא and the חוט שאצל החזה — work a non-Jew does not know how to do, and which one who knows it recognises at a glance as having come from a Jewish hand.
“ וכן כל חתיכה שניכר בה ניקור הישראל כגון בנטילת חוט דידא וחוט שאצל החזה ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ה)
The Taz refers for this to what he wrote at siman ס״ג in the name of the Mordechai: whatever one has טביעת עין of in what was sent by a non-Jew is permitted.
“ דכל שיש לו ט״ע במה ששלח לו על ידי העובד כוכבים שרי ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ח׳)
After the fact only (ט״ז ס״ק ח׳–ט׳): the Taz notes that the leniency of the thigh holds only after the fact, once it has already been sent without a seal; at the outset one does not send without a seal, as seif 7 will say.
“ משמע דוקא דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ח׳)
And for a hen (ס״ק ט׳) he takes it as plain that this includes one in which the nikkur of the neck sinews is recognisable, as Jews do it.
“ שבכלל זה תרנגולת שניכר בה ניקור הגידין של צואר כמו שישראל עושין ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ט׳)
So too the Pit’hei Teshuvah (ס״ק ו׳) brings, in the name of a great rabbi, the leniency of a hen in which it is recognisable that it was singed over fire on straw and stubble as Jews do (see siman ס״ח) — and he ends with a צריך עיון.
“ שהתיר כמו כן בתרנגולת שניכר בה שהובהבה באש על קש ותבן להסיר שיורי נוצות שעליה כמו שישראל עושין ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ו׳)
The foundation is one: visual recognition in the substance itself stands in for a seal.
Chakirah — why is the mark of shechitah no mark (seif 6)? An animal or bird slaughtered and sent without a seal is forbidden:
“ שאין סימן שחיטה סימן לסמוך עליו ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ו)
And this calls for explanation: shechitah too is Jewish work! But the cut of shechitah carries no טביעת עין of its own — one cut looks like another, and the non-Jew could substitute a נבלה cut in the same way. Only a cut bearing a distinctive mark helps, not any cut at all. The Shach (ס״ק כ״ו) bears this out from the incident he brings from the Mordechai: a slaughtered hen sent by a non-Jew with no watchman was permitted only because its owner recognised it — the slaughterer had no טביעת עין of it.
“ והתרתי אותה כיון שבעל התרנגולת היה מכירה ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק כ״ו)
Nafka mina — de’oraita and derabanan in the fear of substitution (רמ״א ס״ה): as to the other pieces sent along with the thigh, where there is reason to fear they were substituted —
for meat and any other Torah prohibition → they are forbidden, for one does not rule leniently in a doubt of Torah law.
“ ודוקא בבשר או שאר איסור דאורייתא ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ה)
for a rabbinic prohibition (cheeses) → if one recognises some of them as not substituted, and those are the better ones that were sent, they are all permitted.
“ אם מכיר קצתם שלא הוחלפו כולם מותרות אם אותן שלא הוחלפו הם היותר טובים ששלח ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ה)
for the reason is that one who substitutes would take the best:
“ דודאי אם החליף היה לוקח הטובים שבהם ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ה)
The foundation — fear stands in for a seal (ט״ז ס״ק י׳):
A public thoroughfare permits even without a seal, because the bearer dreads being seized as a thief:
“ שהוא ירא שמא יראנו אחד מהעוברים ויתפס עליו כגנב ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ז)
And the Taz adds that even where the passers-by are not Jews but non-Jews, the fear operates: this non-Jew dreads that others will see him and tell the Jew (and so too at siman קכ״ט ס״ד).
“ פירוש אפילו במקום דלא שכיחי רבים ישראל אלא עובדי כוכבים מסתפי זה העובד כוכבים שלא יראוהו עובדי כוכבים ויגידו לישראל ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק י׳)
The fear therefore does not depend on Jews being present, but on being seen at all. Even so, at the outset one does not send without a seal — one does not rely on an assessment לכתחילה.
“ ומיהו לכתחילה לא ישלח על ידי עובד כוכבים בלא חותם ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ז)
The trust placed in an am ha’aretz (seif 8):
Shitah
The am ha’aretz by whose hand meat was sent
Source
The Mechaber (unattributed view)
He is believed, although he is not held to be scrupulous; we do not fear he will substitute; and even Jewish servants and maidservants are believed
מחבר ס״ח
יש מי שאומר
One suspected of eating what the public does not treat leniently is also suspected of substituting
מחבר ס״ח
“ נאמן עליו אף על פי שאינו מוחזק בכשרות ואין חוששין שמא יחליף ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ח)
“ שאם הוא חשוד לאכול דברים שאין דרך הרבים להקל בהם אף הוא חשוד להחליף ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ח)
The root of the disagreement — presumption of scrupulousness and presumption of guarding: on the first view, even an am ha’aretz not held to be scrupulous raises no fear of substitution, for no one departs from the errand entrusted to him without gaining by it; the יש מי שאומר holds that one who has already broken through by eating what is forbidden has lost even the presumption of guarding. The reading meets the chakirah of seif 2: does the concern hang on gain or on the breach itself? The siman does not decide, and brings both views.
A seal or the word “kosher” — the presumption of Jewish origin (seif 9): meat found in a non-Jew’s hands bearing a seal or the word כשר is kosher, though one does not know who wrote it.
“ דמידע ידיע שהוא של ישראל ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ט)
and that is on condition that no non-Jews who can write are found there.
“ והוא שלא יהיו מצוים שם עובדי כוכבים היודעים לכתוב ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ט)
This is the measure of אומדנא: a mark used by Jews alone testifies to itself. And in the Rama’s gloss: one may likewise buy cheeses sealed in the way Jews seal them (מרדכי פרק אין מעמידין), and specifically where there is no fear that the stamps remained in non-Jewish hands (א״ו הארוך); others forbid in all of this, since we do not know who wrote or sealed it (מהרי״ק סוף שורש ל״ג), and after the fact one need not be stringent.
“ ויש אוסרים בכל זה מאחר שלא ידענו מי כתבו או חתמו ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:ט)
7. Leaving a non-Jew in one’s house — going in and out
The chakirah — what is the root of the leniency, fear or the absence of gain? This seif gives two distinct grounds. (a) Fear — “he will come now and see me”; this is why going in and out, or not having told him, permits even where the non-Jew would gain by the exchange.
“ לפי שהוא מתיירא בכל שעה לאמר עתה יבוא ויראני ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:י)
(b) The absence of gain — if the non-Jew gains nothing, he will not substitute merely to make the Jew stumble.
“ כיון שאין לו הנאה בדבר ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:י)
And it calls for examination whether these are two separate leniencies, or whether one is the root of the other.
The two leniencies and their relation:
Where he gains by the exchange — the leniency rests on fear alone: he must be going in and out, or must have stayed long without having been told, and the house must not have been locked upon him. But if he told him he intended to stay, the fear lapses — “he knows I shall not come” — and it is forbidden.
“ אבל אם הודיעו שדעתו לשהות אסור ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:י)
Where he gains nothing — it is permitted in every case, even if he told him, for there is no reason he should substitute to make him stumble with nothing to gain. The absence of gain is therefore a broader leniency than fear.
“ ואם אינו נהנה בחליפין מותר בכל ענין ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:י)
Nafka mina — “he told him”: the whole distinction between “he told him” and “he did not tell him” applies only where he gains by the exchange; the reason is that telling him dispels the fear, since the non-Jew now knows the owner will not appear. Where he gains nothing, telling him makes no difference at all (and see the beginning of siman קכ״ט). This is the practical application of the whole regime of “leaving a non-Jew” in a Jew’s house and among his vessels. And in practice — ask your Rav.
The foundation — what must one guard against at the outset: substitution or splashing?
The Mechaber permits two pots set side by side, and fears neither that the non-Jew substituted while the Jew turned his face away, nor — even with their mouths uncovered — that ניצוצות should fly from one into the other.
“ ואין לחוש שמא יתזו ניצוצות מזו לזו ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יא)
What remains is the gloss’s reservation: at the outset one should be careful even with two pots.
“ אבל לכתחלה יש ליזהר אפילו בב׳ קדרות ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יא)
And on the reason for that reservation, the Taz and the Shach part company.
The Taz (ס״ק י״ב): the reason is lest they be interchanged one for the other; he derives it from the chapter כיצד צולין, where two pesach offerings are not roasted in one oven, not even a kid and a lamb, משום תערובת גופים.
“ והטעם שלא יתחלפו זה בזה ויליף לה מפ׳ כיצד צולין דאין צולין שני פסחים בתנור א׳ ואפילו גדי וטלה משום תערובת גופים ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק י״ב)
The Taz’s nafka mina: where the two pots are both a Jew’s, one of meat and one of milk, there is no prohibition even at the outset in cooking them in one oven, since the fear of interchange has no place there.
“ אי הוי שתי קדירות של ישראל אחת של בשר ואחת של חלב אין איסור אפילו לכתחלה לבשלם בתנור אחד כיון דאין שייך שם לחלופי ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק י״ב)
The Shach (ס״ק ל״ו): the reason is splashing, and that is why the gloss says “even”; hence his nafka mina — when their mouths are not uncovered, there is no need to be careful with two pots.
“ פירוש משום ניצוצות וזה שכתב אפילו ולפי זה כשאין פיהן מגולה אין צריך ליזהר בשתי קדרות ” (ש״ך יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ל״ו)
At the outset and after the fact, and where the gloss comes from (seif 11): although the law permits, the gloss concludes that at the outset one should be careful even with two pots, and one will not set a permitted pot beside a forbidden one in a non-Jew’s hands. The whole siman is thus built on two planes: the law, which permits by fear and assessment, and the precaution at the outset, which calls for a seal or for distance. As to the source of that gloss, the Taz corrects those who ascribed it to the Tur: it comes from the דרכי משה in the name of the מרדכי (פרק אין מעמידין).
“ והדורשים מראה מקום כתבו שדברי רמ״א הם בטור וטעות הוא ” (ט״ז יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק י״ב)
Maidservants and mishap (seif 12, and the Rama’s gloss): leaving the pots with the maidservants when no Jew is in the house — the Mechaber writes that one should be stringent,
“ יש להחמיר שלא להניח הקדרות אצל השפחות כשאין ישראל בבית ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יב)
and the Rama adds: “and he is not going in and out” (תשובת הרא״ש כלל י״ט), for then there is no fear. And if a mishap occurred and a maidservant put something forbidden into the pot, one does not feed her that dish (ב״י בשם שבולי הלקט) —
“ אין להאכילה אותה מאכל שלא ירגילה בכך ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יב)
The Pit’hei Teshuvah (ס״ק ז׳) brings from the תפארת למשה a distinction: if she did it out of spite, it is forbidden to give that dish even to other non-Jews; if she did it for her own benefit, it may be given to other non-Jews, since her intent was not fulfilled.
“ שיש חילוק אם נתנה להכעיס אסור להאכיל גם לעובדי כוכבים אחרים אבל אם נתנה להנאתה שרי להאכיל לעובדי כוכבים אחרים דהא לא נתקיימה מחשבתה ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קי״ח ס״ק ז׳)
The forgotten stamp — two concerns (seif 13): a Jew who forgot his wooden stamp in a non-Jew’s house raises two concerns: (a) that the non-Jew may counterfeit other cheeses with that stamp; (b) that he may have smoothed the face of the cheeses with pig fat. The Mechaber rules that neither is to be feared — it is not trouble a non-Jew takes.
“ אין חוששין שמא זייף העובד כוכבים וחתם אחרים באותו דפוס ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יג)
“ וכן אין לחוש שמא החליק העובד כוכבים פני הגבינו׳ בשומן חזיר ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יג)
For the Rama (יש אומרים), one permits only if the stamp was left resting on the cheeses the Jew made — for then it is evident that they were not touched;
“ אלא אם כן הניחו מונח על הגבינות שעשה הישראל ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יג)
without that, one fears he may have made small cheeses and exchanged them for larger or better ones, and it is forbidden — but where there would be a loss, one permits in every case.
“ ובמקום הפסד יש להתיר בכל ענין ” (שו״ע יו״ד קי״ח:יג)
This is the very foundation of seif 5 (one substitutes for the better) and of seif 2 (the non-Jew’s gain).
The overall chakirah of the siman: what is the instrument that permits what was sent by a non-Jew — an absolute seal, a mark in the substance itself, or the bare assessment of fear?
The reason behind the rule of seals — Rashi (high price / attachment of libation) or the Rashba (de’oraita for חבי״ת, derabanan for חמפ״ג); nafka mina in how far the list reaches (ט״ז ס״ק א׳).
How many seals — two for חבי״ת by the letter of the law; and for ר״ת one suffices with a non-Jew because he is afraid, the suspect Jew being worse than he (ט״ז ס״ק ב׳).
What counts as a seal — a distinct act of sealing whose opening would be noticed (a letter, not a stamp; a sack only with the stitches turned inward).
The mark of the nikkur — visual recognition in the flesh; shechitah is no mark; de’oraita and derabanan in the fear of substitution (ט״ז ס״ק ח׳–ט׳).
Fear and trust — a public thoroughfare, going in and out, the trust placed in an am ha’aretz; all of it turning on the non-Jew’s gain.
Practical nafka mina (as the Acharonim cited here set it out):
חבי״ת (חתיכת דג, בשר, יין, תכלת) → at the outset two seals; חמפ״ג and whatever is forbidden only rabbinically — including milk, which the Mechaber places with them — one seal (מחבר ס״א).
In a non-Jew’s hands, after the fact, one relies on a single seal (ר״ת, רמ״א ס״א); and in our time, for want of חיבת נסך, all agree to it (ט״ז ס״ק ד׳).
A broken seal forbids only where the non-Jew gains by the exchange, or for wine (touch); with no gain there is no concern (רמ״א ס״ב).
Recognisable Jewish nikkur renders the piece permitted after the fact; shechitah alone is no mark (מחבר ס״ה–ו׳; ט״ז ס״ק ח׳–ט׳).
A public thoroughfare, going in and out, not having told him → permitted by fear, and at the outset one does not send without a seal (מחבר ס״ז, ס״י).
A letter = one seal; a stamp = one; a sack only with the stitches turned inward
מחבר ס״ג–ד׳; רמ״א
A broken seal
Forbids only where he gains by the exchange, or for wine
מחבר ס״ב; רמ״א
A thigh bearing Jewish nikkur
Permitted (after the fact), by visual recognition
מחבר ס״ה; ט״ז ס״ק ח׳–ט׳
An animal or bird slaughtered, with no seal
Forbidden — shechitah is no mark
מחבר ס״ו; ש״ך ס״ק כ״ו
A public thoroughfare, with no seal
Permitted (fear); at the outset one does not send thus
מחבר ס״ז; ט״ז ס״ק י׳
A non-Jew left in the house — going in and out
Permitted even where he gains; if he told him and he gains — forbidden
מחבר ס״י; ר״ס קכ״ט
Two pots side by side
Permitted; at the outset one guards against it — interchange for the Taz, splashing for the Shach
מחבר סי״א; ט״ז ס״ק י״ב; ש״ך ס״ק ל״ו
Table — the central machlokot of the siman
Subject
First shitah
Second shitah
The reason behind the rule of seals
רש״י — high price / attachment of libation
הרשב״א — חבי״ת de’oraita, חמפ״ג derabanan
On whom two seals were decreed
The Mechaber — on חבי״ת in a non-Jew’s hands
ר״ת (רמ״א) — only on a suspect Jew; with a non-Jew one seal suffices
Messenger and depositor
The Mechaber’s first view — two seals for both alike
יש אומרים — the depositor, who will see his seal again, is satisfied with one
The trust placed in an am ha’aretz on an errand
The Mechaber — he is believed, we do not fear substitution
יש מי שאומר — suspected of eating, suspected of substituting
Sealed cheeses / a forgotten stamp
The Mechaber — counterfeiting is not to be feared
רמ״א (יש אומרים) — only if he left it resting on the cheeses; and where there is loss, he permits
The precaution at the outset for two pots
ט״ז ס״ק י״ב — lest they be interchanged (תערובת גופים)
ש״ך ס״ק ל״ו — because of splashing, hence: mouths covered, nothing to fear
Table — the sources of the sugya
Gemara: עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א (חותם בתוך חותם for wine) · ל״ט ע״א (Rav’s חבי״ת) · ל״ט ע״ב (Rav Kahana’s emendation, Shmuel’s lists, the piece of fish with no mark) · מ׳ ע״א (the marks of fish) · ס״א ע״א (יוצא ונכנס; מפתח וחותם) · ס״א ע״ב and ע׳ ע״א (dreading to be seized as a thief) · ס״ט ע״ב (המניח … בחנותו) · חולין צ״ד ע״א (חיתוכא דגוי — the thigh and the nikkur)
Rishonim: רש״י · רבנו תם · תוספות · רמב״ם (מאכלות אסורות פ״ח) · רשב״א (תורת הבית ומשמרת הבית) · רא״ה (בדק הבית) · ר״ן · רא״ש (פרק גיד הנשה · פרק קמא דעבודה זרה · תשובות כלל י״ט) · מרדכי (פרק אין מעמידין · פרק גיד הנשה) · תרומת הדשן (סי׳ ר׳) · מהרי״ק (שורש ל״ג) · טור · כל בו · איסור והיתר הארוך (כלל כ״ב, כ״ג, מ״ז)
Acharonim: בית יוסף · רמ״א (תורת חטאת) · דרישה ופרישה · ב״ח · ש״ך · ט״ז · לבוש · באר היטב · פתחי תשובה · נודע ביהודה · תפארת למשה · ערוך השולחן