Siman קכ״ג — Stam yeinam and yayin nesekh: which wine is forbidden, and why
From the trodden grape to the poured glass — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קכ״ג
כַּמָּה דִּינִין מִיֵּין נֶסֶךְ
🌱 Foundations level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 123: the 26 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. This is the longest siman of the wine block, and the one that lays down the definitions on which the next fifteen will live. Two prohibitions cross here — yayin nesekh, actually poured out in libation, and stam yeinam, a non-Jew’s ordinary wine — and two questions run through them: which liquid counts as wine, and from what moment in the working of the grape it becomes one.
Subject: Stam yeinam and yayin nesekh — the benefit prohibition, cooked wine, temed, hamshakha, treading Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ג
Compilation: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of the study
1.The Mehaber’s text : the 26 seifim, in thematic groups
2.Background : where yayin nesekh and stam yeinam come from
3.The key concepts : יין נסך, סתם יינם, יין מבושל, תמד, המשכה, טופח על מנת להטפיח…
4.The table of liquids : what the decree catches, and what escapes it
5.The Taz and the Shach : the two grounds of the decree
6.The Rama’s glosses : the seven interventions
7.Modern practical cases : wine in a restaurant, grape juice, vinegar, the winery, the flavouring
8.Synthesis : and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber’s text — the 26 seifim
Siman 123 is the longest in the whole wine block, and it is not long by accumulation: it is long because it lays down the definitions. The fifteen simanim that follow — a non-Jew’s contact with the barrel (124), his force (125), mixture and נצוק (126), the credibility of one who forbids another’s wine (127) — all presuppose two questions that this siman settles. First: which liquid counts as wine? The siman answers with a long series of trials — cooked wine, spiced wine, a cooked dish, vinegar, verjuice, after-wine, marc, lees, shards, dried residue, brandy. Second: from what moment in the working of the grape does wine exist? The answer lies in one word — המשכה, the flowing off — and occupies seifim 17 to 21. The Rama intervenes in seven seifim; his gloss on seif 1 is by itself among the most consequential in all of Yoreh De‘ah.
Group A — The principle: stam yeinam and yayin nesekh (seifim 1-2)
Seif 1 — Stam yeinam: forbidden even in benefit, and the Rama’s leniency
כמה דינין מיין נסך (ואיזו יין נאסור משום יין נסך). ובו כ״ו סעיפים: סתם יינם של עממים עובדי כוכבים אסור בהנאה וה״ה למגעם ביין שלנו: הגה משום גזרת יין שנתנסך לאלילים ובזמן הזה שאינו שכיח שהאומות מנסכים לעבודת כוכבים י״א דמגע עובד כוכבים ביין שלנו אינו אסור בהנאה רק בשתייה וכן סתם יין שלהם אינו אסור ליהנות ממנו ולכן מותר לגבות בחובו מן עובד כוכבים סתם יינם מפני דהוי כמציל מידם (טור בשם רשב״ם והרא״ש ומרדכי) וה״ה בשאר הפסד כגון אם עבר וקנה או מכר אבל לכתחלה אסור לקנותו ולמכרו כדי להשתכר בו (הגהות מיי׳ פ״ח דמאכלות אסורות והגה׳ אשיר״י ומהר״ם פדואה סי׳ מ״ו) ויש מקילין גם בזה וטוב להחמיר וע״ל סימן קל״ב (שם בשם סמ״ג ואגור בשם הגאונים):
The ordinary wine (סתם יינם) of idolatrous nations is forbidden in benefit, and the same applies to their contact with our wine.
Rama’s gloss. [This is] because of the decree concerning wine poured out in libation to idols. And nowadays, when it is not common for the nations to pour libations to idolatry, some say that a non-Jew’s contact with our wine is not forbidden in benefit, only for drinking; and likewise their ordinary wine is not forbidden to benefit from. Therefore one may collect a debt from a non-Jew in stam yeinam, since it is like rescuing one’s own from their hand. And the same holds for any other loss, for instance if one transgressed and bought or sold. But at the outset it is forbidden to buy and sell it in order to profit from it. Some are lenient in this too, and it is good to be stringent; see below siman 132.
Two prohibitions, not one — and that is the key to the whole siman.Yayin nesekh proper is wine actually poured out to an idol: forbidden by Torah law, and forbidden in benefit. Stam yeinam — “their ordinary wine”, wine about which nothing is known — is a rabbinic institution. The Mehaber nonetheless places it on the same footing: forbidden in benefit. The Rama does not dispute the rule; he records a fact — today’s nations no longer pour libations — and draws the consequence: the drinking prohibition stands whole, the benefit prohibition eases. All the commercial practice in this siman (a debt paid in wine, buying, reselling) turns on that distinction.
Seif 2 — A bath of stam yeinam for a sick person not in danger
אסור לעשות מרחץ מסתם יינם לחולה שאין בו סכנה. (ועיין לקמן סוף סימן קנ״ה):
It is forbidden to make a bath of stam yeinam for a sick person who is not in mortal danger. (And see below, at the end of siman 155.)
The seif that proves what was at stake in the previous one. Bathing in wine is not drinking it: it is deriving benefit from it. Were stam yeinam forbidden only for drinking, the question would not arise. The Mehaber, consistent with his position in seif 1, forbids it — and forbids it even for a sick person, so long as life is not at stake. The cross-reference to siman 155 is to the laws of healing with a forbidden substance.
Group B — What is no longer quite wine (seifim 3-8)
Seif 3 — Cooked wine (יין מבושל), and from when it counts as cooked
יין מבושל שלנו שנגע בו העובד כוכבים מותר ומאימתי נקרא מבושל משהרתיח על גבי האש:
Our cooked wine that a non-Jew touched is permitted. And from when is it called “cooked”? Once it has boiled over the fire.
The most-used opening in the entire block. Cooked wine was not offered as a libation, so the Sages did not include it in the decree. Hence the whole practice of yayin mevushal in contemporary kashrut — pasteurised wines served in restaurants, at weddings, in hotels. The Mehaber gives the threshold without a number: boiling over the fire. The Shach supplies the physical test expected — דהיינו שיתמעט ממדתו על ידי רתיחה, that the volume be reduced by the boiling (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ז) — which has fed centuries of debate about modern pasteurisation.
Seif 4 — Wine mixed with honey and pepper: when the taste has changed
יין שמערבין בו דבש ופלפלין אם נשתנה טעמו מחמתם אינו נאסר במגע עובד כוכבים. (והוא הדין בדבש לחוד או פלפלין לחוד (ב״י בשם תשובת רשב״א):
Wine into which honey and pepper are mixed: if its taste has changed on their account, it is not rendered forbidden by a non-Jew’s contact. (And the same applies with honey alone or pepper alone.)
It is no longer quite wine. The test is not the amount of additive but the taste: once the mixture is no longer drunk as wine, it falls outside the decree — as with cooked wine, and for the same underlying reason, it was not fit for libation. The Shach expressly extends this beyond honey and pepper: כל שנשתנה טעם היין — whatever changes the taste of the wine (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ח). Note: the parenthesis in this seif is left unclosed in the printed text, and we reproduce it as it stands.
Seif 5 — A cooked dish containing wine, and the Rama’s qualifications
תבשיל שיש בו יין ונגע בו העובד כוכבים אפי׳ קודם שהרתיח אין בו משום יין נסך: הגה ודוקא תבשיל שאין היין ניכר בו בעין אבל בשומן וחרדל שנתנו בו יין והוא בעין צף למעלה הוי בו משום יין נסך (תוס׳ בשם ריצב״א) ונראה דוקא אם לא נשתנה טעמו מחמת דבר המעורב בו (ד״ע) ואם נתערב ביין מבושל אם יש בו דבש לכולי עלמא שרי דהא לא גרע מאילו היה דבש לחוד (הג״א פא״מ וד״ע) ואם אין בו דבש י״א דמשערין כאילו היה המבושל מים (ב״י בשם רשב״ץ והג״א שם) וי״א דאם המבושל רוב אין בו משום מגע עובד כוכבים (ב״י בשם גדולי הדור) ויין שנקרש אין בו משום מגע עובד כוכבים (חידושי אגודה) . וכ״ש אם נגע בחרס הבלוע מיין (הגהות אשיר״י):
A cooked dish containing wine that a non-Jew touched — even before it boiled — is not subject to yayin nesekh.
Rama’s gloss. And this applies specifically to a dish in which the wine is not visible to the eye; but in fat or mustard into which wine was put and it remains visible, floating on top, there is yayin nesekh. And it appears that this holds only if its taste has not changed on account of what is mixed into it. And if it became mixed with cooked wine: if it contains honey, all agree it is permitted, for it is no worse than honey alone. And if it contains no honey, some say we reckon as though the cooked wine were water, and some say that if the cooked wine is the majority there is no non-Jew’s-contact issue. And congealed wine is not subject to a non-Jew’s contact. And all the more so if he touched a shard saturated with wine.
The seif where the Rama works hardest. The Mehaber gives a simple rule: once cooked into a dish, wine is no longer wine. The Rama immediately supplies the condition that makes it workable — the wine must no longer be visible — and then settles the borderline case: ordinary wine that fell into cooked wine. Three views follow in order, from the strictest (count the cooked wine as water, so it does not help to nullify) to the most lenient (a majority of cooked wine suffices). This is the Rama’s typical shape: he does not overturn the permission, he draws its outline.
Seif 6 — Vinegar that bubbles
חומץ שמבעבע כשמשליכין אותו על הארץ אינו נאסר במגע עובד כוכבים (רשב״א ור׳ ירוחם ומרדכי):
Vinegar that bubbles when thrown on the ground is not rendered forbidden by a non-Jew’s contact.
A physical test, because taste no longer suffices. Wine that has turned to vinegar is no longer fit for libation; but one must know when it turned. The Mehaber refuses to rely on the palate and adopts a visible trial: thrown on the ground, the liquid effervesces. The Shach gives the reason — כל שאינו מבעבע א״א בקיאין אם הוא חומץ או לאו (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״ג): we are no longer expert enough to decide otherwise.
Seif 7 — The barrel found soured: the three retroactive days
אם נמצא חבית יין שנתחמץ עד שמבעבע כשמשליכין אותו על הארץ ותוך שלשה ימים למפרע נגע בו העובד כוכבים אין לחוש למגעו (נמוקי יוסף פרק המוכר פירות):
If a barrel of wine is found to have soured to the point of bubbling when thrown on the ground, and within the three preceding days a non-Jew touched it — one need not be concerned about his contact.
Seif 6 gives a test; seif 7 carries it backwards in time. The test says nothing about yesterday: the wine may have turned only this morning, in which case yesterday’s contact was with wine still wine. The Mehaber answers with a presumption about duration: full vinegar does not form in a day. The Shach gives the reason in the name of the Ran — שבודאי שלשה ימים קודם לכן היה חומץ גמור בריחו וטעמו (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״ד).
Seif 8 — Unripe-grape juice (מי הבוסר), and diluted wine
מי הבוסר נאסרים במגע עובד כוכבים: הגה יין מזוג כל זמן שיש בו טעם יין אסור (טור) ויש מתירין בששה חלקים מים (ב״י בשם הרשב״א) כמו שיתבאר סימן קל״ד:
The juice of unripe grapes is rendered forbidden by a non-Jew’s contact.
Rama’s gloss.Diluted wine: as long as it has the taste of wine, it is forbidden. And some permit with six parts water, as will be explained in siman 134.
The direction reverses. After five seifim of leniencies — cooked wine, spiced wine, a cooked dish, vinegar — this one tightens. Unripe-grape juice is not wine, and yet it is caught by the rule: the Shach gives the reason, לפי שא״א בקיאים מתי נקרא בוסר (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ט״ו) — we can no longer say where verjuice ends and wine begins. It is the same argument as in seif 6, but inverted: here our lack of expertise compels stringency.
Group C — The by-products: temed, marc, lees, shards (seifim 9-16)
Seif 9 — Temed: water poured over our own grape-skins
מים שנותנים על החרצנים שלנו שנדרכו ברגל ולא נעצרו בגלגל וקורה פעם ראשון ושני אסור אפילו לא מצא כדי מדתו ואם נעצרו בגלגל אין בהם משום יין נסך אלא א״כ נתן ג׳ מדות מים ומצא ד׳ ויש מי שאומר שאין להתיר מגע עובד כוכבים בשום תמד (פי׳ מים שנותן על החרצנים והזגין וקובלת טעם היין) כל שהוא משובח לשתייה משום דמחליף ביין גמור:
Water poured over our own grape-skins that were trodden by foot and not pressed with wheel and beam: the first and second time it is forbidden — even if he did not recover the measure he poured in. And if they were pressed with the wheel, there is no yayin nesekh in them unless he poured in three measures of water and found four. And there is one who says that a non-Jew’s contact is not permitted in any temed (explanation: water poured over the skins and pips, which takes on the taste of wine) so long as it is good to drink, because it could be mistaken for real wine.
What is done with what is left.Temed is thin after-wine: water is poured over the spent marc and yields a weak drink. The question is whether it is enough “wine” to be caught by the decree. The Mehaber answers with a measure: if you recover more than you poured in, the marc gave up wine — the Shach explains that “four” is not an exact figure but the threshold beyond which the wine is no longer nullified in six parts water (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״ח). The closing yesh mi she-omer shifts the criterion entirely: not measurement, but the risk of confusion with real wine.
Seif 10 — Having the marc taken out of the vats
יש להזהר מלהוציא החרצנים והזגים מהגתות על ידי עובדי כוכבים או כנענים אפילו אחר שהוציאו מהם יין ראשון ושני:
One should take care not to have the skins and pips removed from the vats by non-Jews or by Canaanite servants — even after the first and second wine has been drawn from them.
A precaution of the workfloor, not a rule of substance. Spent marc is no longer wine; but a little always remains, and nobody watches the hauling as they watch a vat. The Shach gives the reason: דשמא יש בו טופח יין ואוסר (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״ט) — enough wine-damp may remain for the contact to take hold. This is the first of the seifim that look at the actual work of the winepress rather than at the liquid itself.
Seif 11 — Our lees and theirs
שמרים שלנו שתמדן ולא מצא אלא כדי מדתן פעם ראשון אסור אם נגע בהם העובד כוכבים ופעם שני מותר אבל שמרים של עובדי כוכבים לעולם אסורים אפילו לא מצא אלא כדי מדתן אפי׳ תמדן כמה פעמים. (יין צמוקים פי׳ שנתן מים על ענבים יבשים הרי זה כיין ומתנסך) (בארוך סוף כלל כ״ב ותשובת ר״ל ב״ח סימן מ״א):
Our own lees on which temed was made and from which only the measure poured in was recovered: the first time it is forbidden if a non-Jew touched them; the second time it is permitted. But the lees of non-Jews are forbidden for ever — even if he recovered only the measure, and even if he made temed from them several times.
Gloss. (Raisin wine — meaning that water was poured over dried grapes — is like wine and can be poured in libation.)
The symmetry breaks. With our lees, the second extraction is permitted; with theirs, never. The reason lies not in the substance but in the origin: their lees come from wine already forbidden, and no amount of extraction erases the trace. The gloss on raisin wine matters greatly in practice: it places juice reconstituted from dried grapes in the category of wine. The Taz (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ז) notes a tension between this seif and the yesh mi she-omer of seif 9.
Seif 12 — The barrel cleared of its lees and rinsed
חבית שפינה שמריו ושכשכן במים אין לחוש אחר כך לשום מגע לפי שהיין בטל במים ששכשך בהם:
A barrel whose lees were cleared out and which was rinsed with water: thereafter one need not be concerned about any contact — because the wine is nullified in the water with which it was rinsed.
Seif 13 — Shards saturated with wine
חרסים שבלעו יין של עובד כוכבים הרבה עד שכששורין אותם במים פולטים יינם אסורים בהנאה:
Shards that absorbed so much of a non-Jew’s wine that, when soaked in water, they give off their wine — are forbidden in benefit.
The counterpart of seif 12. There, water sufficed to nullify what remained; here the earthenware holds enough to give it back. The Shach draws the practical consequence from the Gemara: דאסור לסמוך בו כרעי המטה (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק כ״ה) — one may not even prop a bed-leg with it, for that would already be deriving benefit.
Seif 14 — Non-Jews’ marc and lees: the twelve months
החרצנים והזגים של עובדי כוכבים וכן שמרי יין שלהם תוך י״ב חדש אסורים בהנאה ולאחר י״ב חדש מותרים אפילו באכילה וה״מ כשתמדן במים בתחילה אבל אם לא תמדן אסורים לעולם אפילו יבשם בתנור: הגה וזה לא מיירי אלא בחרצנים שהיו על יין נסך אבל אם שלה החרצנים מן הגת קודם שהמשיך היין כמו שיתבאר אינן אסורין (ב״י בשם הרי״ף והרשב״א) וכן אלו שדורכים הענבים בחבית אע״פ שהיין צף עליהם למעלה מותרים (כל בו):
The marc and pips of non-Jews, and likewise their wine lees: within twelve months they are forbidden in benefit; after twelve months they are permitted even to eat. And this applies when temed was first made from them with water; but if no temed was made, they are forbidden for ever — even if dried in an oven.
Rama’s gloss. And this speaks only of marc that lay on yayin nesekh; but if the marc was skimmed from the vat before the wine was drawn off, as will be explained, they are not forbidden. And likewise those who tread grapes in a barrel: even though the wine floats above them, they are permitted.
Time as a form of kashering. Twelve months: whatever wine remained is deemed wholly gone. But the condition is surprising — temed must first have been drawn, failing which nothing helps, not even the oven. The Taz raises the difficulty this poses against the Gemara in Ḥullin (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ח). The Rama’s gloss already anticipates seif 17: so long as there has been no hamshakha, there is no wine — hence no forbidden marc.
Seif 15 — Dough leavened with forbidden lees
המחמיץ בשמרי יין של עובדי כוכבים תוך זמן איסורם כל העיסה אסורה בהנאה. (ואם דרך העובד כוכבים לחמץ בהם אם מותר לקנות מהם עיין לעיל סי׳ קי״ד):
One who leavens [dough] with non-Jews’ wine lees during the period of their prohibition: the entire dough is forbidden in benefit. (And if it is the non-Jew’s practice to leaven with them, as to whether one may buy from him — see above siman 114.)
Why quantity does not save it. One would expect nullification in sixty. The Shach answers in a phrase: ואפילו באלף לא בטיל דלטעמיה עבידי (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק כ״ח) — what is put in to act, a leaven, is not nullified even in a thousand. It is not a mixture; it is an active ingredient.
Seif 16 — The dried deposit on the barrel wall
יש מי שאומר שתמצית יין הנקרש על דופני החבית והקנקנים נהגו בו היתר שמשתמשין בכלי עובדי כוכבים לאחר י״ב חדש או לאחר מילוי ועירוי ואין מקליפין התמצית הנקרש עליו שכיון שנתייבש כל כך כבר כלה כל לחלוחית יין שבו וכעפר בעלמא הוא:
There is one who says that as for the wine residue congealed on the walls of barrels and jugs, the custom has been to permit: one uses non-Jews’ vessels after twelve months or after filling and emptying, without scraping off the congealed residue — since, having dried out to that extent, all the wine-moisture in it is already gone and it is mere dust.
A custom reported, and at once tempered. The Mehaber presents the permission in the form reserved for isolated views — יש מי שאומר — and on the strength of a custom, not an argument. The Taz adds the recommended conduct: ומ״מ אין להקל לכתחלה (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ט) — one washes the inside well and scrapes carefully.
Group D — At what moment wine is born: hamshakha (seifim 17-21)
Seif 17 — From when is there “wine”: hamshakha
מאימתי נקרא יין ליאסר במגע עובד כוכבי׳ משהתחיל לימשך דהיינו משנמשך על הגת בעצמו כי הגת הוא מדרון ואם פינה החרצנים והזגים והיין לבדו נמשך מצד העליון לצד התחתון ונשאר היין לבדו עומד נקרא המשכה ונאסר כל מה שבגת אפי׳ לא נגע אלא בחרצנים ובזגים אם יש בהם טופח על מנת להטפיח אבל כל זמן שלא הבדיל היין (עד שולי הגת) (ב״י בשם תוספות והרא״ש ומרדכי) מן החרצנים והזגים לא הוי המשכה:
From when is it called “wine”, such that a non-Jew’s contact forbids it? From when it begins to flow — that is, once it flows in the vat itself, for the vat is sloped. And if he cleared away the skins and pips and the wine alone flowed from the upper side to the lower side and remained standing alone, that is called hamshakha, and everything in the vat becomes forbidden — even if he touched only the skins and pips, provided there is on them enough moisture to wet another thing (טופח על מנת להטפיח). But so long as he has not separated the wine (down to the floor of the vat) from the skins and pips, there is no hamshakha.
The pivotal seif of the whole siman. Until now the question was: is this liquid wine enough to be forbidden? Here it becomes: at what moment in the working of the grape is wine born? The answer is mechanical, almost hydraulic: when the juice separates from the solid and runs. Before that instant a non-Jew may tread, touch, handle — there is nothing that is wine. After it, everything in the vat is caught at once. This threshold governs seifim 18 to 22, and it explains the Rama’s gloss on seif 14.
Seif 18 — The cup and the basket: two ways of separating
אם מילא מהגת כוס יין וכיון לשלותו (פי׳ להסירו מענין של נעלך) מהחרצנים והזגים הוי המשכה וכן אם נתן סל לתוך הגת או גיגית דרוכה נקרא המשכה (סה״ת וסמ״ג) כיון שהיין צלול נכנס לתוך הסל ונבדל מהחרצנים והזגים אבל אם לקח החרצנים עם היין לא הוי המשכה ואפילו אם לקחן עובד כוכבים ביחד מותר להחזיר המותר:
If he filled a cup of wine from the vat intending to draw it off (explanation: to remove it, from the sense of of your shoe) from the skins and pips — that is hamshakha. And likewise if he placed a basket into the vat or into a trodden tub, that is called hamshakha, since the clear wine enters the basket and is separated from the skins and pips. But if he took the skins together with the wine, it is not hamshakha; and even if a non-Jew took them together, it is permitted to return the remainder.
Two tiny gestures, one threshold crossed. A cup drawn with the intention of separating, a basket set at the bottom — and wine exists. The Mehaber thereby shows that hamshakha requires neither press nor volume: the parting of clear from solid suffices. And he shuts the opposite door: taking both together separates nothing, so generates nothing — hence the counter-intuitive closing permission to pour the remainder back.
Seif 19 — The tub of trodden grapes in a non-Jew’s house
גיגית מלאה ענבים דרוכים עומדת בבית העובד כוכבים יש לאסור שמא המשיך ממנה:
A tub full of trodden grapes standing in a non-Jew’s house — one should forbid it, lest he drew wine off from it.
The threshold of seif 17, applied to what cannot be seen. Nothing proves there was hamshakha; but the tub stands in his house, out of sight. The Taz pins down the scope: אם הוא של עובד כוכבי׳ לקנות ממנו (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״א) — the concern applies when the tub is his and one wishes to buy from it; if it belongs to a Jew, the non-Jew would be treated as a thief and there is no concern.
Seif 20 — The stopped, full vat and the straining basket
גת שהיא סתומה ומלאה דלא שייך בה המשכה וירד ממנה יין וחרצנים ביחד לתוך סל שלפני הגת שהיין מסתנן בו אין על מה שבגת תורת יין אלא על מה שבסל בלבד ואם נגע עובד כוכבים בסל נאסר ואם החזירו לגת נאסר מה שבגת משום תערובת יין שבסל שנתערב בו ואם יש בחרצנים וזגים שבגת ס׳ כנגד יין שנפל בו מהסל מותר:
A vat that is stopped and full, in which hamshakha does not apply, from which wine and skins came down together into a basket set before the vat, where the wine is strained: what is in the vat does not have the status of wine, only what is in the basket. And if a non-Jew touched [what is] in the basket, it becomes forbidden; and if he returned it to the vat, what is in the vat becomes forbidden on account of the admixture of the basket’s wine that mingled into it. And if the skins and pips in the vat contain sixty against the wine that fell in from the basket — it is permitted.
Wine is where it runs, not where it was born. A vat filled to the brim has no free slope: nothing can flow, so nothing becomes wine. Wine appears only in the basket, downstream. Hence the surprising consequence: the non-Jew may touch the vat harmlessly, but not the basket. And running it backwards — pouring the basket into the vat — does not turn the marc into wine: it only introduces a mixture, nullified in sixty. The Shach explains this by the principle סלק את מינו כמי שאינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק מ״א).
Seif 21 — Not treading together with a non-Jew
אין דורכין עם העובד כוכבים בגת (או גיגית) (מרדכי ותוספות פ׳ ר״י ומהרי״ק שורש ל״ב) שמא יגע בידים וינסך ואפילו היה כפות: הגה ואם דרך כל מה שנמשך מכחו ויצא לחוץ נאסר (ב״י) וע״ל סימן קכ״ד והא דאין דורכים עם העובד כוכבים היינו בגיגית או בגת שדרך להמשיך משם היין וגזרינן קודם המשכה אטו לאחר המשכה אבל בעריבה שאין דרך למשוך משם מותר לדרוך עמו וכן לקנות ממנו ענבים דרוכות בעריבה הואיל ואין דרך למשוך בעריבות (מהרי״ק שורש ל״ב ועס״ק מ״ו):
One does not tread with a non-Jew in a vat (or tub), lest he touch with his hands and pour a libation — and even if he were bound.
Rama’s gloss. And if he did tread, whatever flowed by his force and went outside becomes forbidden; see below siman 124. And this rule — that one does not tread with a non-Jew — applies in a tub or in a vat from which the wine is customarily drawn off, and we decree the pre-hamshakha state on account of the post-hamshakha state. But in a kneading-trough, from which it is not customary to draw off, it is permitted to tread with him, and likewise to buy from him grapes trodden in a trough, since it is not the practice to draw wine off in troughs.
A decree by anticipation. Before hamshakha there is no wine — so, in strict law, nothing to fear. The Rama says why it is forbidden anyway: we decree the “before” on account of the “after”. Treading is continuous work; one cannot ask a man in the vat to freeze at the second the juice begins to run. And the decree is measured by usage: where wine is never drawn off — the trough — the decree does not apply. The Taz, for his part, reports having heard many sages forbid buying trodden grapes in any vessel whatever (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק ט״ז).
Group E — The margins: force, the mark, brandy, honey (seifim 22-26)
Seif 22 — He trod without touching: force, not hand
עובד כוכבים שדרך היין ולא נגע בו והרי ישראל עומד על גבו וישראל הוא שכנסו בחבית הרי זה אסור בשתייה:
A non-Jew who trod the wine and did not touch it, while a Jew stood over him and it was the Jew who gathered it into the barrel — it is nevertheless forbidden to drink.
Every safeguard in place, and the prohibition stands. He did not touch; a Jew watched; the Jew barrelled it. One thing remains: the wine flowed by his force (כוחו). The Taz explains that this is the whole point: לפי שאין כאן אלא כח עובד כוכבים דהא לא נגע אפילו ברגל (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״ז). And note the calibration: a non-Jew’s force forbids drinking only, never benefit. That is precisely the subject of siman 125, on koaḥ and koaḥ koḥo.
Seif 23 — The forbidden barrel stored among the others
אם חבית של יין נסך מונחת עם חביות כשירות צריך לעשות לה היכר:
If a barrel of yayin nesekh is lying among permitted barrels, one must make a distinguishing mark for it.
Seif 24 — Grape brandy (אגוא״ה ארדיינט״י)
אגוא״ה ארדיינט״י של עובד כוכבים אסור בהנאה כיין עצמו: הגה ופירוש דבריו יין שרוף שעושין מיין נסך אע״פ שאינו רק זיעה מן הנסך הרי הוא כאיסור עצמו (ריב״ש סי׳ רצ״ה):
The agua ardiente of a non-Jew is forbidden in benefit, like the wine itself.
Rama’s gloss. And the meaning of his words: brandy made from yayin nesekh — although it is only the “sweat” of the forbidden wine, it is like the prohibited substance itself.
The foreign word, left as it stands. The Mehaber writes a Spanish term in Hebrew characters — agua ardiente, burning water, our brandy — and the Rama translates it for his readers as יין שרוף. The rule is the rule of the distillate: the vapour of a prohibited thing remains prohibited. This is the seif that governs, today, the question of spirits and vinegars distilled from wine and everything industry draws from the marc.
Seif 25 — Coriander comfits
מותר ליקח מהעובד כוכבים קוליינדר״י קונפיט״י אע״פ שנותנין הקוליינדר״י בחומץ (משום דהוי נתינת טעם לפגם ועיין לקמן סוף סימן קל״ד):
It is permitted to buy coriander comfits from a non-Jew, even though the coriander is put into vinegar (because it imparts a spoiling taste; and see below, at the end of siman 134).
The previous siman returns in one line. A non-Jew’s wine vinegar is forbidden; the coriander soaked in it; and yet the confection is permitted. The reason is the whole subject of siman 122: נותן טעם לפגם, a taste that spoils does not forbid. Two neighbouring simanim answer one another, showing how far Yoreh De‘ah is a fabric rather than a series of chapters.
Seif 26 — The “honey” of the Ishmaelites, and the fast of one who drank unwittingly
דבש של ישמעאלים אסור: הגה מי ששתה יין נסך בשוגג י״א שיתענה ה׳ ימים נגד ה׳ פעמים גפן שבחומש (ר״ל לבד משנה תורה) ויתכפר לו. (תשובת הרא״ש):
The honey of the Ishmaelites is forbidden.
Rama’s gloss.One who drank yayin nesekh unwittingly: some say he should fast five days, corresponding to the five occurrences of the word גפן in the Ḥumash (that is, apart from Deuteronomy), and he will be forgiven.
Beware the false friend. This is not bees’ honey. The Taz explains: פי׳ שהוא תחלתו יין גמור ואח״כ מבשלין אותו עם מיני בשמים עד כי נעשה דבש (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק י״ח). It is grape must boiled down to a syrup — wine in disguise, not a product of the hive. The Shach says so plainly: אבל פשיטא דדבש ישמעאלים של דבורים או תמרים אין בו חשש איסור (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק מ״ט). And the siman closes on a wholly different note: not a rule but a repair — five days of fasting, one for each occurrence of the word “vine” in the first four books.
2. Background — where yayin nesekh and stam yeinam come from
The starting point is biblical. Wine poured out before an idol is likened to the sacrifice offered before it, and the sacrifice is forbidden in benefit. The Gemara in Avoda Zara draws the consequence in a few words:
But almost the whole of our siman is not about that wine. It is about the ordinary wine of a non-Jew, of which nobody knows whether it was libated or not. That prohibition is rabbinic, and belongs to the “eighteen decrees”. The Gemara gives the chain of reasons — each decree a fence for the next:
And it is again the Rambam who supplies the key without which half our siman would stay opaque. If the decree was made on wine because it can serve as a libation, then it can only reach wine that could actually serve as one:
That is why cooked wine, honeyed wine, a cooked dish and vinegar all escape through the same door: they are no longer altar wine. The Gemara had already ruled so for cooked wine:
Keeping the two tiers apart is already to have understood the siman. Yayin nesekh: a Torah prohibition, forbidden in benefit, with no minimum measure. Stam yeinam: a rabbinic decree, of which the Rama will observe in seif 1 that one of its two grounds — fear of an actual libation — no longer holds, while the other — closeness with the nations — stands whole.
3. The key concepts
יין נסך — libation wine
Wine actually poured out before an idol. Forbidden by Torah law, forbidden in benefit, and — because the prohibition stems from idolatry — with no minimum measure. It is the rare case; it gives the siman its name and everything else its measure.
סתם יינם — their ordinary wine
A non-Jew’s wine of which it is unknown whether it was libated — and, by extension, our own wine that a non-Jew touched. Forbidden by rabbinic decree. Twenty-five of the twenty-six seifim speak of it.
יין מבושל — cooked wine
Wine that has boiled over the fire. No longer offerable on the altar, it falls outside the decree: a non-Jew’s contact does not forbid it (seif 3). It is the most-used way out in all of wine kashrut.
תמד — after-wine
Water poured over spent marc, drawing from it a remnant of wine flavour. Seif 9 measures it: if you draw off more than you poured in, wine has indeed come out.
חרצנים וזגים — skins and pips
What remains of the grape after the press. Those of non-Jews are forbidden in benefit for twelve months (seif 14); ours behave according to what they still give off.
המשכה — the flowing off
The moment the clear juice separates from the solid and runs off. Before it, there is no wine; after it, everything in the vat has the status of wine. A cup drawn with intent to separate, or a basket set at the bottom, suffices (seifim 17-18).
טופח על מנת להטפיח
Damp enough to wet in turn whatever is set on it. This is the measure of moisture that decides whether contact with the marc counts as contact with wine (seif 17).
מגע · כוח — contact and force
Two distinct degrees. Direct contact brings the full stringency; force — wine moved by the non-Jew’s action without his touching it — forbids only drinking (seif 22). Siman 125 is devoted entirely to this gradation.
4. The table of liquids
The siman proceeds by successive trials. Here, in the order it takes them, is what each liquid becomes under a non-Jew’s contact.
The liquid
Under a non-Jew’s contact
Where
Their ordinary wine (סתם יינם)
Forbidden — even in benefit; the Rama eases the benefit side
1
Cooked wine (יין מבושל)
Permitted
3
Wine with honey and pepper, taste changed
Permitted
4
Cooked dish, the wine invisible
Permitted — but forbidden if it floats (Rama)
5
Vinegar that bubbles
Permitted — and retroactively for three days
6-7
Unripe-grape juice (מי הבוסר)
Forbidden
8
Diluted wine still tasting of wine
Forbidden (Rama)
8
After-wine from our foot-trodden marc
Forbidden the 1st and 2nd time
9
Our lees, second drawing
Permitted — theirs, never
11
Barrel emptied and rinsed
Permitted — the wine is nullified
12
Shards that give off their wine
Forbidden in benefit
13
Their marc and lees, after twelve months
Permitted even to eat — if temed was made
14
Vat before hamshakha
Not yet wine — nothing is forbidden
17
Vat after hamshakha
Everything in the vat is caught
17
Wine moved by his force alone
Forbidden to drink only
22
Brandy distilled from their wine
Forbidden in benefit, like the wine
24
Coriander comfits in vinegar
Permitted — נותן טעם לפגם
25
“Honey” of the Ishmaelites (boiled must)
Forbidden
26
5. The Taz and the Shach — the two grounds of the decree
The whole of seif 1 — and through it the practical half of the wine block — turns on a single question: why was their ordinary wine forbidden? If there are two distinct grounds, one may fall without the other. The Taz opens his commentary there:
פי׳ משום בנותיהם אסרוהו בשתייה ומשום גזירת י״נ אסרוהו אף בהנאה
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק א
Two grounds, two scopes. Fear of closeness and intermarriage forbade the drinking; fear of an actual libation extended the ban to benefit. The Taz goes on to show that on this reading the Rama’s leniency follows of itself — בטל הטעם והותרה הגזירה — whereas on the Tur’s opening formulation no leniency is possible, since דדבר שנאסר במנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו.
כלומר אסור מדרבנן משום יין שנתנסך לעבודת כוכבים שאסור מדאורייתא וכן משום גזירת בנותיהן
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ג ס״ק א
The Shach says the same thing differently, and adds the point that matters: stam yeinam is rabbinic, resting on a Torah prohibition. Everything that follows depends on it — precisely because the prohibition is rabbinic, a doubt, a majority, a twelve-month delay or even a mere custom can set it aside, which would be unthinkable for true yayin nesekh.
6. The Rama’s glosses (הגה) — seven interventions
The Rama intervenes in seven seifim — 1, 5, 8, 14, 21, 24 and 26 — with a dozen short parentheses besides. The division is clear: the Mehaber writes the law of wine; the Rama writes what one does, in Europe, when that law meets a market, a vintage and a neighbourhood.
On seif 1 — the leniency with the heaviest consequences
The Rama does not argue with the rule: he observes that the nations of his day no longer pour libations, and infers that the benefit prohibition falls away for many, while the drinking prohibition stands whole. Three increasingly lenient degrees follow: collecting a debt in wine (כמציל מידם), recovering an already-incurred loss, and — refused at the outset — trading for profit. On that last point he still cites lenient views, but concludes: וטוב להחמיר.
On seif 5 — the wine one can still see
Four contributions in one gloss: the condition that the wine be invisible in the dish, the exception of fat and mustard where it floats, the case of mixture with cooked wine (three views, from strictest to most lenient), and the permission of congealed wine.
On seif 8 — how far water nullifies
The Mehaber spoke of verjuice; the Rama continues to diluted wine and gives the two positions: taste as the criterion, or a fixed ratio — six parts water. He refers to siman 134, where the matter is settled.
On seif 14 — marc taken before hamshakha
A gloss of great practical reach: the twelve months apply only to marc that lay in yayin nesekh. Skimmed from the vat before the flowing off, it never touched wine — and is permitted. The Rama applies here, in advance, the threshold of seif 17.
On seif 21 — the anticipatory decree, and the trough
The most constructed gloss of the siman. It explains why treading together is forbidden when there is not yet any wine — גזרינן קודם המשכה אטו לאחר המשכה — and then measures the decree by usage: in a trough, from which no one ever draws off, it does not apply; hence the permission to buy grapes trodden in a trough.
On seif 24 — translating a Spanish word
The Mehaber had written agua ardiente in Hebrew characters; the Rama, writing for central Europe, translates — יין שרוף — and states the rule of the distillate: the vapour of a prohibited thing is prohibited.
On seif 26 — the last gloss is not a rule
The siman ends on a penance: five days of fasting for one who drank yayin nesekh unknowingly, one for each occurrence of the word גפן in the first four books. This is no longer halakha in the strict sense but a teshuva — and it says how far the gravity attached to this wine exceeds the reckoning of permissions.
A single line runs through these seven glosses: the Rama carries the siman from the winepress to the market. The Mehaber describes a world in which one makes one’s wine; the Rama writes for a world in which one buys it, sells it, takes it in payment, distils it, and meets it in the neighbour’s shop. Hence his interventions cluster on seifim 1, 21 and 24 — money, a shared vintage, and the processed product.
7. Modern practical cases
Case 1 — Wine poured by another, in a restaurant or under the ḥuppa
An open bottle, a waiter pouring: this is the commonest situation in the whole siman. Seif 1 places it under contact — וה״ה למגעם ביין שלנו — and seif 3 supplies the answer: cooked wine cannot be reached. Hence the near-universal use of yayin mevushal in restaurants and at weddings. Two questions remain, which this level raises without settling: does industrial pasteurisation meet the Mehaber’s threshold (the Shach requires the volume to be reduced), and do a screw cap or opening by the guest change anything? A real case goes to a Rav.
Case 2 — Grape juice, concentrate, raisin juice
Unfermented grape juice falls under the same regime: it is the wine before fermentation. The gloss on seif 11 expressly extends the rule to juice reconstituted from raisins — הרי זה כיין ומתנסך. The question of concentrate and industrially reconstituted juice has thus been on the table for four centuries, and this is the seif to open before any modern reasoning.
Case 3 — Wine vinegar, flavourings and distilled spirits
Three seifim answer one another. Seif 6 permits full vinegar — provided it really is full, and the test is physical. Seif 24 forbids in benefit brandy made from their wine, distillate included. And seif 25 recalls that an ingredient that spoils forbids nothing. This is precisely the terrain of flavourings, colourings, potable alcohols and tartrates derived from the vine, where the three lines of reasoning meet.
Case 4 — The winery and its workforce: a visit, a machine, a vintage
Seifim 17 to 21 are the charter of production. The threshold is the flowing off: so long as the must has not been separated from the solid, handling by a non-Jew does nothing; once crossed, everything in the vat turns at once. Seif 20 draws a counter-intuitive and entirely current consequence: in a full, stopped vat, the wine “is” in what runs downstream, not in the vat. And seif 21 says why joint work is nonetheless forbidden — a hand cannot be stopped to the second.
Case 5 — What industry draws from the marc
Pips, skins, lees, tartrate, yeasts: nothing is thrown away in a modern winery. Seifim 13 to 16 met them all under other names. Three markers emerge: the twelve months as the delay that extinguishes (seif 14, on the condition of temed); the leaven that is never nullified because it is there to act (seif 15); and the dried deposit turned to dust, permitted by custom but which the Taz advises scraping (seif 16).
Case 6 — Receiving, giving, reselling
A bottle received as a gift, an inherited stock, a lot taken over with a business: this is the gloss on seif 1, and it is graded. Recovering a debt or limiting an already-incurred loss: the Rama permits. Buying in order to resell at a profit: he refuses at the outset, cites lenient views, and rules וטוב להחמיר. And seif 23 adds the concrete gesture when a forbidden bottle stays in the house: make a mark on it, so that no absent-minded hand mistakes it.
8. Synthesis of Siman 123
In one sentence: wine actually poured to an idol is forbidden by Torah law, even in benefit; the Sages extended that prohibition to a non-Jew’s ordinary wine and to our wine that he touched — and the twenty-six seifim do nothing but answer two questions: which liquid is still wine enough to be caught (seifim 1-16, 24-26), and from what moment at the press wine exists (seifim 17-23).
Memory table
The question
The criterion
Where
What is the basic prohibition?
Stam yeinam forbidden in benefit, contact included
1
What remains of it today?
Rama: drinking forbidden, benefit eased
1
Is benefit only drinking?
A bath for a non-critical patient: forbidden
2
How does one escape it?
Cook the wine — from boiling
3
And if something is added?
The taste must have changed
4
Wine inside a dish?
Permitted — unless it is visible (Rama)
5
Vinegar?
Permitted if it bubbles — and 3 days back
6-7
Verjuice, diluted wine?
Forbidden — we are no longer expert
8
After-wine?
One measures: three poured, four drawn
9
Our lees and theirs?
Ours are exhausted, theirs never
11
Shards and earthenware?
Rinsed = nullified · what gives off wine = forbidden
12-13
Their marc, their lees?
Twelve months — provided temed was made
14
A forbidden leaven in dough?
Never nullified — לטעמיה עביד
15
The dry deposit on the wall?
Like mere dust — lenient custom
16
When is there wine?
At hamshakha — never before
17
What suffices to make it?
A cup drawn, a basket set
18
A trodden tub in his house?
Forbidden — one cannot see what he did
19
A full, stopped vat?
The wine is in the basket, not in the vat
20
Tread with him?
No — except in a trough (Rama)
21
He trod without touching?
His force forbids drinking
22
A forbidden bottle at home?
Make a mark on it
23
Brandy from their wine?
Like the wine — the vapour follows
24
Comfits soaked in vinegar?
Permitted — נותן טעם לפגם
25
The “honey” of the Ishmaelites?
Boiled must, not honey — forbidden
26
And one who drank unknowingly?
Five days of fasting (Rama)
26
Comprehension questions
Seif 1 forbids stam yeinam in benefit, and the Rama at once eases it. What fact — not what argument — licenses that easing, and why does it not touch the drinking prohibition?
Why does seif 2 speak of a bath rather than a glass? What exactly does it prove about the Mehaber’s position in seif 1?
Cooked wine (seif 3), honeyed wine (seif 4) and a cooked dish (seif 5) are permitted. Which sentence of the Rambam supplies the common ground for all three?
Seifim 6 and 8 both invoke the fact that we are no longer expert. How does the same argument lead here to permission and there to prohibition?
In seif 9, what exactly is the point of comparing the volume poured in with the volume drawn off? What is really being measured?
Seif 14 permits the marc after twelve months, but on an unexpected condition. Which one, and what difficulty does the Taz raise against it?
Explain, from seif 20, how a non-Jew may touch the vat without forbidding anything, and yet render forbidden what is in the basket before it.
In seif 22 everything was done properly — no contact, a Jew present, a Jew barrelling it — and the wine is still forbidden to drink. What exactly made it so? And why does the prohibition stop at drinking?
Going further
This level installs the vocabulary of the block. Level 2 (Lamdan), Level 3 (Synthesis) and Level 4 (Halakha lema‘aseh) of Siman 123 take up, respectively, the Rishonim’s pilpul on the basis of the decree, the revision tables, and the practical ruling. And the siman continues naturally into its neighbours: siman 124, a non-Jew’s contact with the barrel; siman 125, wine moved by his force and by the force of his force; siman 126, mixture and נצוק; siman 127, the credibility of one who comes to forbid another’s wine.
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria: