A first approach to Siman 124: the 27 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text and a fluent English translation. The previous siman asked which wine is forbidden; this one asks who forbids it and by what gesture. It answers in two movements: a list of persons, from the child to the apostate, each placed on a three-rung ladder; and then an anatomy of the gesture — touching, agitating, lifting, pouring, stopping a hole — up to the question on which all present-day practice turns: what is the standing of a touch by someone with no intent of libation at all?
Subject: Who makes yayin nesekh — the persons, the three conditions, שכשוך, כח, the barrel and the spigot Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ד
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The Mehaber’s text: the 27 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Background: where the prohibition on touch comes from, and why two degrees
4.The summary table: the three degrees, and who stands on each
5.The Taz and the Shach: two key passages
6.The Rama’s gloss (הגה): where he intervenes, and why
7.Modern practical cases: the waiter, the wine merchant, the mover, the opened bottle
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber’s text — the 27 seifim
Siman 124 is one of the longest in this block, and one of the best built. It reads in two halves. The first (seifim 1-9) answers the question in its title: who renders wine forbidden? This is not an ethnic list but a gradation, running from the child incapable of intent to the fully responsible apostate, by way of the ger toshav, the circumcised slave and the anussim. The second (seifim 10-27) answers the question of the gesture: what counts as touching? Seif 10 lays down the three conditions, seif 11 gives the definition — to touch and to agitate — and the sixteen seifim that follow test it against a single set: a barrel, a spigot, a crack, a hand. The Rama glosses eleven seifim, and his most important gloss, at seif 24, is the one on which the practice of every following century depends.
A note on the count: the siman’s heading announces ובו כ״ו סעיפים — twenty-six seifim; the editions and the Sefaria API divide it into twenty-seven. The actual division of the text is what governs here, and the twenty-seven blocks below reproduce the siman in full and in order.
Group A — Who renders wine forbidden? The persons (seifim 1-9)
Seif 1 — A non-Jewish child: two degrees of prohibition
תינוק עובד כוכבים שאינו מזכיר עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה אינו אוסר יין במגעו אלא בשתייה:
A non-Jewish child who does not mention idolatry or its appurtenances does not forbid wine by his touch — except for drinking.
The siman opens with its unit of measure. There is not one prohibition but two: forbidden to benefit from (אסור בהנאה) — it may not be sold, given away or used — and forbidden to drink only (אסור בשתייה), the wine remaining sellable. The whole siman reads as a ladder between these two degrees and a third, full permission. The very first case, the child, stands at once on the middle rung: he forbids, but not for benefit.
Seif 2 — The ger toshav, and a convert circumcised but not immersed
גר תושב דהיינו שקבל עליו שבע מצו׳ וכן גר שמל ולא טבל מגען אוסר בשתייה: הגה וכל זמן שלא טבל כראוי מיקרי לא טבל (ר״ן פ׳ השוכר והגהות מרדכי דיבמות פרק החולץ) ויש מקילין אפילו במגע גר תושב (טור בשם הרא״ש ותוס׳ ומרדכי) אבל יין שלו ודאי אסור (ב״י):
A ger toshav — that is, one who has accepted upon himself the seven commandments — and likewise a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse: their touch forbids the wine for drinking.Rama’s gloss: so long as he has not immersed properly, he is called one who did not immerse. Some are lenient even about a ger toshav’s touch; but his own wine is certainly forbidden.
Seif 3 — A slave circumcised and immersed: permitted at once
הלוקח עבדים מהעובד כוכבים ומלו וטבלו מיד אין מנסכין ויין שנגעו בו מותר בשתייה ואף על פי שעדיין לא נהגו בדתי ישראל ולא פסקו שמות העבודות כוכבים מפיהם:
One who buys slaves from a non-Jew and had them circumcised and immersed: at once they no longer make libation, and wine they touched is permitted to drink — and this although they have not yet taken on the ways of Israel and the names of the idolatries have not ceased from their mouths.
It is not culture that decides, but status. The Mehaber expressly sets aside the criterion that would spring to mind — does he still speak the language of his former religion? The Gemara did know an opinion requiring twelve months, until idolatry had “sunk out of their mouths.” The Shulḥan Arukh does not follow it: circumcision and immersion suffice, and they act immediately.
Seif 4 — The maidservants’ children: the older and the younger
בני השפחות העובדות כוכבים שנולדו ברשות ישראל ומלו ועדיין לא טבלו הגדולי׳ אוסרי׳ היין בשתיי׳ במגען אבל מגע הקטני׳ מותר אפי׳ בשתיי׳ כיון שמלו אע״פ שעדיין לא טבלו:
The children of non-Jewish maidservants born in a Jew’s domain, who were circumcised but have not yet immersed: the older ones forbid the wine for drinking by their touch, but the touch of the younger ones is permitted even for drinking, since they were circumcised, even though they have not yet immersed.
“Older” and “younger” here are not about age. The baraita defines them by knowledge: “older” is one who knows the nature of idolatry and its appurtenances. It is the same criterion as in seif 1 — does he mention idolatry? — but applied to someone already half within Israel: hence a permission that here extends to drinking.
Seif 5 — When the maidservant immersed for servitude
אם השפחה טבלה לשם עבדות יש מי שאומר שאין בנה עושה יין נסך אפילו עבר רבו ולא מל אותו בין גדול בין קטן:
If the maidservant immersed for the sake of servitude, there is one who says that her son does not make yayin nesekh — even if his master transgressed and did not circumcise him, whether he is older or younger.
Seif 6 — A non-Jew who is not an idolater
כל עובד כוכבים שאינו עובד אלילים יינו אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנאה ומגען ביין שלנו שוה ליינם שאסור בשתייה:
Any non-Jew who is not an idolater: his wine is forbidden to drink and permitted for benefit; and his touch of our wine is like his wine — forbidden to drink.
The hinge of the siman. The Taz explains the division: the prohibition to drink rests on a social ground — משום בנותיהן, the risk of intermarriage — whereas the prohibition to benefit rests on idolatry itself. Where idolatry is not in question, the second ground falls away and the first remains. This reasoning, applied to the nations of today, will carry the whole of Rama’s gloss at seif 24.
Seif 7 — One degree lower still
יש מי שאומר שכל מקום שאמרו ביין שלנו שהוא מותר בהנאה ואסור בשתייה מפני צד נגיעה שנגע בו העובד כוכבים כשהיה העובד כוכבים עובד אלילים אבל אם היה איסורו בגלל עובד כוכבים שאינו עובד אלילים שנגע ביין שלנו שלא בכוונה או שטפח על פי החבית הרי זה מותר בשתייה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
There is one who says that wherever they said of our wine that it is permitted for benefit and forbidden to drink because of some aspect of a non-Jew’s touch — that is when the non-Jew was an idolater. But if its prohibition came about through a non-Jew who is not an idolater, who touched our wine unintentionally, or who tapped on the mouth of the barrel — this is permitted to drink; and so in all like cases.
Two leniencies that compound. Seif 6 lowered the non-idolater by one degree: from a benefit prohibition to a drinking prohibition alone. Seif 7 applies the very same descent a second time when, in addition, the touch was unintentional: and then one reaches full permission. This is the mechanism of נחתינן דרגא, which the Taz will place at the heart of the halakha of our own time.
Seif 8 — The mashukh be‘orlato and the apostate
משוך בערלתו אינו עושה יין נסך ומומר אע״פ שהוא מהול עושה יי״נ במגעו ונאמן לומר ששב בתשובה:
One who has effaced his circumcision does not make yayin nesekh; and an apostate, although he is circumcised, does make yayin nesekh by his touch — and he is believed when he says that he has returned in repentance.
Two symmetrical, opposite cases, and one lesson. The first is a Jew in fact who has erased the sign; the second bears the sign and has left the facts. The siman judges neither appearance nor body: what forbids the wine is not circumcision, it is the relation to idolatry. And the door stays open: his own word is enough to bring him back.
Seif 9 — The anussim: believed about others’ wine, not their own
האנוסים אפילו הטובים שבהם אינם יכולים ליזהר ממגע עובד כוכבים וכיון שהם חשודים עליו אינן נאמנים על שלהם אפילו בשבועה אבל נאמנים על של אחרים: הגה ואין אוסרין יין במגען ודוקא אותם שדרים עדיין בין העובדי כוכבים ועושין עבירות בפרהסיא מפני אונס רק בצנעה נזהרים ואפשר להם לברוח על נפשם רק שממתינים משום ממון או כיוצא בו אבל אם עוברין גם בצנעה על עבירות אע״פ שעשו מתחלה באונס הרי הם כעובדי כוכבים (ריב״ש סי׳ ד׳):
The anussim — those converted under duress — even the best among them cannot guard against a non-Jew’s touch; and since they are suspect in this, they are not believed about their own wine, even under oath, but they are believed about the wine of others.Rama’s gloss: and they do not forbid wine by their touch. This means specifically those who still dwell among the non-Jews, commit transgressions publicly under duress but are careful in private, and could flee and save their lives yet delay for money or the like. But if they transgress in private as well, even though they began under duress, they are like non-Jews.
A page of history inside a code of law. The Mehaber, born in Toledo, and the Rama, in Poland, are writing here about the Jews of Spain and Portugal forced to baptism. Rama’s distinction is not suspicious but exact: it separates the man whom duress holds from the man whom comfort detains. And the Mehaber’s formulation keeps a remarkable dignity — they are not believed about their own wine, they are believed about the wine of others: the suspicion falls on their circumstances, not on their word.
Group B — The three conditions, and what counts as a touch (seifim 10-11)
Seif 10 — The three conditions for forbidding benefit
מגע עובד כוכבים לאסור בהנאה צריך שלשה תנאים אחד שיתכוין ליגע לאפוקי תינוק שנגע דלאו בר כוונה הוא וכן לאפוקי נפל לבור ועלה מת שני שידע שהוא יין ושלישי שלא יהא עוסק בדבר אחר:
A non-Jew’s touch, in order to forbid benefit, requires three conditions.One: that he intend to touch — excluding a child who touched, who is not capable of intent, and likewise excluding one who fell into the vat and came up dead. Two: that he know it is wine. Three: that he not be occupied with something else.
The pivot of the siman. These three conditions are the grid that governs everything that follows: the first explains seifim 1, 20 and 24; the second explains the barrel taken for oil (seif 12); the third explains the man who measures, taps or rescues the wine (seifim 19 and 23). Each missing condition lowers the case by one degree — and the siman consists, in the main, of knowing how many degrees one goes down.
Seif 11 — What counts as a touch? Hand, foot, object, mouth
כיצד היא הנגיעה שאוסר בה העובד כוכבים היין בהנאה שיגע בידו או ברגלו (וי״א דאם נגע ברגלו אינו אוסר בהנאה דאין דרך נסוך בכך) (בב״י) או בדבר אחר (שבידו) וישכשך אפילו בפיו כגון ששתה ממנו או שמצץ במינקת בחבית והעלהו לפיו כל היין אסור בהנאה מכל מקום כלי שיש לו חוטמין כמו שיש לכלי שנוטלים ממנו לידים ויש בו יין יכול ישראל למצוץ מחוטם זה ועובד כוכבים מחוטם זה כאחד ובלבד שיפסוק הישראל קודם שיפסוק העובד כוכבים. אם נגע ברתיחה שעל היין הוי כנוגע ביין עצמו (מרדכי פרק בתרא דעבודת כוכבים וב״י לדעת רי״ף ורמב״ם):
How is the touch by which a non-Jew forbids wine for benefit? That he touch with his hand or his foot(gloss: and some say that if he touched with his foot he does not forbid benefit, since that is not the manner of libation)or with another object(that is in his hand)and agitate it. Even with his mouth — for instance if he drank from it, or sucked through a siphon in the barrel and raised it to his mouth: all the wine is forbidden for benefit. Nevertheless, a vessel that has spouts — like the vessel from which hands are washed — containing wine: a Jew may suck from this spout and the non-Jew from that one at the same time, provided the Jew stops before the non-Jew stops. Gloss: if he touched the froth on the wine, it is as though he touched the wine itself.
Touching is not enough: there must be agitation. This is the Rambam’s definition, reproduced here word for word, and the Shach draws the express consequence — mere touch, without agitation, does not forbid benefit. Hold on to the word שכשוך: the fifteen seifim that follow mostly do no more than ask whether a given gesture is one. As for the two-spouted vessel, it is no curiosity: it shows that wine still flowing toward the non-Jew stays joined to what remains — the intuition of nitzok, the subject of siman 126.
Group C — The hand, the finger and the spigot (seifim 12-16)
Seif 12 — The non-Jew who came in looking for wine
עובד כוכבים שנכנס לבית או לחנות ישראל לבקש יין ופשט ידו כשהוא מחפש ונגע ביין ושכשכו נאסר בהנאה ואם נתערב באחר דמי היין המשוכשך אסור בהנאה והשאר מותר בהנאה אבל אם הושיט ידו לחבית כסבור שהוא של שמן ונמצאת של יין מותר בהנאה:
A non-Jew who entered a Jew’s house or shop to ask for wine, stretched out his hand while searching, touched the wine and agitated it: it is forbidden for benefit. And if it became mixed with other wine, the value of the agitated wine is forbidden for benefit and the rest is permitted for benefit. But if he stretched his hand into a barrel thinking it was oil and it turned out to be wine: permitted for benefit.
The second condition of seif 10, staged. The very same gesture — a hand in the barrel — yields opposite results according to what the man knew. He was looking for wine: he knew, and so he forbade benefit. He thought it was oil: the condition falls away, and one goes down a degree. The end of the seif settles the practical question: the whole vat is not lost; one deducts the value of the wine that was touched.
Seif 13 — The hand seized before it was withdrawn
הרי שפשט ידו לחבית של יין (ליטול משם דבר שנפל שם) (תוספות ורא״ש ור״ן וטור) ותפסו ידו קודם שיוציאנה ולא ינידה ופתחו החבית מלמטה עד שיצא היין וירד למטה מידו מותר בהנאה:
If one stretched his hand into a barrel of wine(to take from there something that had fallen in)and they seized his hand before he withdrew it, and he did not move it; and they opened the barrel from below until the wine came out and went down below his hand: it is permitted for benefit.
Seif 14 — A finger in the bunghole, and the spigot pulled out
חבית שנטלה ממנו הברזא והכניס בה עובד כוכבים אצבעו עד שנגע ביין כולו אסור וכן אם הוציא הברזא התחובה בנקב והיתה נוגעת עד היין שא״א שלא שכשך: הגה ודוקא כשידע שהברזא עוברת כל השולים אבל אם לא ידע הוה ליה מגע עובד כוכבים שלא בכוונה על ידי דבר אחר דמותר אפילו בשתייה (מרדכי פ׳ רבי ישמעאל והגה״מ פי״ב ופשוט הוא כדלקמן סעיף כ״ד כמו שיתבאר לקמן) . אבל אם אינה עוברת כל עובי השולים בענין שאי אפשר לו לשכשך כשמוציא הוי כמו כחו ומה שנשאר בחבית מותר אפילו בשתיה ומה שיצא אסור בשתיה: הגה ואם הוציא שלא בכוונה אף מה שיצא לחוץ שרי דכח עובד כוכבים שלא בכוונה שרי ועיין לקמן סי׳ קכ״ה אם היתה ברזא ארוכה תוך החבית ובתוך אותה ברזא נקב ונותנים בו ברזא קטנה לסתום נקבו אם לא הוציא רק הברזא הקטנה כאינה עוברת עובי השוליים דיינינן לה (ב״י בשם מרדכי וכל בו):
A barrel whose spigot was removed, into which a non-Jew inserted his finger until he touched the wine: all of it is forbidden. So too if he pulled out the spigot lodged in the hole and it reached down to the wine, since it is impossible that he did not agitate.Rama’s gloss: and this specifically when he knew that the spigot passes through the entire base; but if he did not know, it is a non-Jew’s touch unintentionally, by means of another object, which is permitted even for drinking. But if it does not pass through the whole thickness of the base, so that he cannot agitate as he withdraws it, it is like his force: what remains in the barrel is permitted even to drink, and what came out is forbidden to drink. Gloss: and if he withdrew it unintentionally, even what came out is permitted, since a non-Jew’s force without intent is permitted — see below, siman 125. If there was a long spigot inside the barrel with a hole in it stopped by a small spigot, and he removed only the small one, we judge it as one that does not pass through the thickness of the base.
The densest seif in the siman — and the most instructive. The same barrel yields four different outcomes here according to the depth of the spigot and the knowledge of the man: all forbidden for benefit; permitted even to drink; partly permitted; entirely permitted. Rama introduces a new notion here, כח — force, distinct from touch — which siman 125 will develop in its own right.
Seif 15 — The deranged non-Jew
עובד כוכבים שוטה שנכנס לבית שיש בו חבית של יין ונכנס ישראל אחריו ומצא היין יוצא דרך הנקב שהברזא תחובה בו מותר אפילו בשתיה:
A deranged non-Jew who entered a house containing a barrel of wine, and a Jew entered after him and found the wine running out through the hole in which the spigot is lodged: permitted even to drink.
Seif 16 — The spigot jiggled: tight or loose
אם נדנד עובד כוכבים הברזא ולא יצא מן היין לחוץ והברזא ארוכה ועברה הדופן ונכנסה בתוך היין אם הברזא אינה מהודקת בחזקה נאסר היין בנדנוד זה אבל אם היתה מהודקת בחזקה מותר:
If a non-Jew jiggled the spigot and no wine came out, and the spigot is long and passed through the wall and entered the wine: if the spigot is not firmly fixed, the wine is forbidden by that jiggling; but if it was firmly fixed, it is permitted.
Group D — Shaking, lifting, pouring: gesture, force and work (seifim 17-19)
Seif 17 — Shaking the vessel without lifting it
יש מי שאומר שאם אחז עובד כוכבים בכלי פתוח של יין ושכשכו אע״פ שלא הגביה ולא נגע ביין נאסר: הגה ורבים חולקים לומר דאם שכשך בגופו של הכלי בלא הגבהה לא מקרי שכשוך (רשב״א וראב״ד והרא״ש ור׳ ירוחם בשם רוב הפוסקים) ולכן אין להחמיר במקום פסידא:
There is one who says that if a non-Jew took hold of an open vessel of wine and shook it, even though he did not lift it and did not touch the wine, it is forbidden.Rama’s gloss: and many disagree, saying that if he shook the body of the vessel without lifting it, that is not called agitation; therefore one should not be stringent where there is a loss.
Seif 18 — Lifting and pouring: koaḥ
נטל עובד כוכבים כלי של יין והגביהו ויצק היין אע״פ שלא שכשך נאסר שהרי בא היין מכחו הגביה ולא שכשך ולא נגע מותר: הגה וכ״ש שאינו אוסר בנגיעת הכלי לחוד (הפוסקים הנ״ל וריב״ש סי׳ ש״י):
A non-Jew took a vessel of wine, lifted it and poured out the wine: even though he did not agitate it, it is forbidden — for the wine came by his force. If he lifted it without agitating and without touching: permitted.Rama’s gloss: and all the more so he does not forbid by touching the vessel alone.
A third category appears alongside touch and agitation: force (כח). The non-Jew touched none of the wine, and yet the wine came from him. Set against seif 17 the contrast is sharp: lifting is not enough, pouring is — what counts is not the gesture upon the vessel but the movement imparted to the wine.
Seif 19 — Measuring, tapping, throwing: the man busy at his work
מדד עובד כוכבים הבור שיש בו יין בקנה או שהיה מטפח על פי החביות הרותח׳ כדי שתנוח הרתיחה או שנטל חבית וזרקה בחמתו לבור מותר בהנאה ואסור בשתיה: הגה שבכל אלו יש הוכחה שלא כוון לנסך רק למלאכתו והוי מגע עובד כוכבים שלא בכוונה ואינו אוסר רק בשתייה וי״א דאפילו מדדו בידו אינו אוסר בהנאה (הרא״ש והר״ן והרשב״א וטור וראב״ד ור׳ ירוחם) הואיל ובמלאכתו הוא עוסק ויש להקל במקום הפסד עובד כוכבים שדרך יין אם שמרוהו וראו שלא נגע בידו אין היין נאסר בהנאה רק בשתייה דהא ג״כ במלאכתו הוא עוסק (טור) ועיין לעיל סי׳ קכ״ג וכן אם הכניס ידו לתוך חבית ואינו יודע שיש שם יין אינו אוסר בהנאה (שם) ואפילו נודע לו שהוא יין אם הוציא מיד שנודע לו מותר בהנאה הואיל וכשהכניסה לא ידע שהוא יין (טור בשם ראב״ד ורא״ש ור׳ ירוחם) ואין לדמות מילתא למילתא בדברים אלו ואין לך בו אלא מה שאמרו חכמים (טור ורא״ש וראב״ד ורשב״א):
A non-Jew measured with a reed the vat containing wine, or was tapping the mouth of the fermenting barrels so that the froth would settle, or took a barrel and threw it in his anger into the vat: permitted for benefit and forbidden to drink.Rama’s gloss: for in all these there is proof that he did not aim at libation but only at his work, and it is an unintentional touch, which forbids only drinking. And some say that even if he measured with his hand he does not forbid benefit, since he is occupied with his work — and there is room to be lenient where there is a loss. A non-Jew treading wine: if he was watched and seen not to touch it with his hand, the wine is not forbidden for benefit but only for drinking, for here too he is at his work; see above, siman 123. Likewise if he put his hand into a barrel not knowing there was wine there, he does not forbid benefit; and even once he learned it was wine, if he withdrew it as soon as he knew, it is permitted for benefit, since when he put it in he did not know it was wine. And one must not compare one matter to another in these things — you have in this only what the Sages said.
The third condition of seif 10, and the most alive. A man absorbed in his work is not thinking of anything else: טרוד במלאכתו. This is not indulgence but a realistic reading of intent. And Rama closes the gloss with a warning that holds for the whole siman: these cases are not to be inferred from one another. The list of excusing “occupations” is closed; one does not invent new ones by analogy.
Group E — Falls, rescues, cracks and leaks (seifim 20-23)
Seif 20 — Fallen into the vat: dead or alive
עובד כוכבים שנפל לבור של יין והעלוהו משם מת מותר בהנאה. ואסור בשתיה אבל עלה חי אסור בהנאה: הגה וה״ה אם נתקל ונתגלגל בתוך היין ונתגלגל גם לחוץ שהיה באנסו גם לבסוף (ב״י בשם הרשב״א):
A non-Jew who fell into a vat of wine and was brought up dead: permitted for benefit and forbidden to drink. But if he came up alive: forbidden for benefit.Rama’s gloss: and the same applies if he stumbled and rolled into the wine and rolled out again, having been under duress right to the end.
Why does death permit and life forbid? The Gemara answers: the man who comes up alive treats the day of his rescue as one of their festival days — he gives thanks, and there libation is born. The dead man never had intent at all: the first condition of seif 10 was never met. Rama’s gloss carries exactly that logic further: what matters is that the duress lasted to the very end.
Seif 21 — The non-Jew who pulls a Jew out
ישראל שנפל לבור של יין ושלח עובד כוכבים ידו ואחז בו והוציאו וישראל אחר היה שם ששמר שלא נגע ביין מותר אפילו בשתייה: הגה ולא מקרי נגיעה מה שנוגע ע״י אדם (ריב״ש סימן ש״י):
A Jew who fell into a vat of wine, and a non-Jew stretched out his hand, took hold of him and brought him out, and another Jew was there who watched that he did not touch the wine: permitted even to drink.Rama’s gloss: and what one touches by means of a person is not called a touch.
Seif 22 — The cracked barrel: the act of a brick
חבית שנסדקה לארכה וקדם עובד כוכבים וחבקה כדי שלא יתפרדו החרסים הרי זה מותר בהנאה אבל אם נסדקה לרחבה ונתן ידו עליה והכביד עליה עד שהדקה ומנע יציאת היין מותר בשתייה משום דלא הוי נוגע ודוחק יין החבית אלא מעשה לבינה בעלמא קא עביד שהרי היא כלבינה הנתונה על פי החבית ומכבידתה ובחבית של עץ שיש להם חשוקים צירקא״ליש בלע״ז גם כשנסדקה לארכה וחבקה עובד כוכבים מותרת בשתייה (ר״ן בשם תוספות והוא בתו׳ שלנו ובהגהת מיי׳ בשם רשב״ם ומרדכי בשם רש״י):
A barrel that split along its length, and a non-Jew hurried and clasped it so that the shards would not come apart: this is permitted for benefit. But if it split across its width, and he laid his hand on it and pressed down until he tightened it and stopped the wine from coming out: permitted to drink — because he is not touching and pressing the wine of the barrel, but is merely performing the act of a brick: it is like a brick set on the mouth of the barrel, weighing it down. And in a wooden barrel that has hoops — circaillis in the vernacular — even when it split along its length and a non-Jew clasped it, it is permitted to drink.
The finest image in the siman. A brick set on a barrel does not touch the wine: it weighs. The non-Jew who draws the lips of a crack together is doing nothing else. A crack along the length, on the other hand, would make his hands the very wall of the barrel — hence the difference. And the hooped wooden barrel escapes the question altogether: it is the hoops that hold, not the hands.
Seif 23 — A hand over the hole: what is above and what is below
חבית שהיה נקב בצדה ונשמט הפקק מהנקב והניח העובד כוכבים ידו במקום הנקב כדי שלא יצא היין כל היין שמראש החבית עד הנקב אסור בהנאה ושמן נקב ולמטה מותר בהנאה ואסור בשתייה: הגה וימכור הכל חוץ מדמי היין האסור בהנאה (ב״י בשם הר״ן וע״פ) ודוקא שהיה שם ישראל להציל היין ובא עובד כוכבים והצילו אבל אם לא היה כאן ישראל להציל ובא עובד כוכבים להצילו לא גרע ממדדו בידו מאחר דבמלאכתו הוא עוסק והכל מותר בהנאה (בית יוסף בשם רשב״א וראב״ד) וכל זה לא מיירי אלא שהניח ידו על הנקב או שתחב ברזא שם ואינה עוברת השוליים אבל אם הכניס אצבעו לפנים או ברזא ארוכה כבר נתבאר דכולו אסור בהנאה (גם זה שם וטור לעיל גם דין ניטל הברזא ותוספו׳ ורא״ש וס׳ התרומה וסמ״ג ורשב״א ועוד פוסקים) . ואם הוא בענין שאילו לא הניח העובד כוכבים ידו על הנקב היה יוצא כל היין כגון שעושין מינקת כפופה שמניח ראשה לתוך היין שבחבית והראש האחר חוץ לחבית ומוצץ היין ועל ידי כן יוצא כל היין שבחבית אם הניח העובד כוכבים אצבעו על פי המינקת ומנע היין מלירד נאסר כל היין שבחבית בהנאה שהכל היה יוצא ונגרר לולי ידו ונמצא הכל כבא מכחו ואם לא נגע עובד כוכבים אלא בקילוח היין שעומד במרזב אסור משום נצוק וכל היין האחר שבתוך הקנקן הוי נצוק בר ניצוק ומותר אף בשתייה:
A barrel that had a hole in its side, whose plug slipped out, and the non-Jew placed his hand over the hole so that the wine would not run out: all the wine from the top of the barrel down to the hole is forbidden for benefit; and what is below the hole is permitted for benefit and forbidden to drink.Rama’s gloss: and one may sell it all apart from the value of the wine forbidden for benefit. And this specifically where a Jew was present to save the wine and the non-Jew came and saved it; but if no Jew was there to save it and the non-Jew came to save it, this is no worse than one who measures with his hand, since he is occupied with his work — and all of it is permitted for benefit. All this speaks only of his laying a hand over the hole, or inserting a spigot that does not pass through the base; but if he put his finger inside, or a long spigot, it has already been explained that all of it is forbidden for benefit. And if it is a case where, but for the non-Jew’s hand on the hole, all the wine would have run out — for instance with a bent siphon, one end set into the wine in the barrel and the other outside, through which the wine is sucked so that all the wine leaves the barrel — if the non-Jew placed his finger on the mouth of the siphon and stopped the wine from descending, all the wine in the barrel is forbidden for benefit, since it would all have run out and been drawn but for his hand, and so all of it comes from his force. And if the non-Jew touched only the stream of wine standing in the spout, it is forbidden because of nitzok; but all the other wine in the vessel is nitzok of a nitzok — and permitted even to drink.
The seif where the siman touches its neighbours. Three notions meet here: force (the wine that would have run out without him), nitzok — the unbroken stream that joins what pours to what remains, the subject of siman 126 — and nitzok of a nitzok, which joins no longer. And Rama adds the most counter-intuitive reversal in the siman: if no one else could have saved the wine, the non-Jew who saves it does not forbid it, because he too is then at his work.
Group F — Touch through another object, unintentionally — and our own time (seifim 24-27)
Seif 24 — Touch through another object, unintentionally — and our own time
מגע עובד כוכבים ביין ע״י דבר אחר שלא בכוונה כגון שהיה יורד מהדקל ובידו לולב ונגע בראש הלולב ביין שלא בכוונה או שהיה מהלך ונגע בכנף בגדו שלא בכוונה וכן אם נתכוין ליגע בו ע״י דבר אחר אלא שאינו יודע שהוא יין מותר אפילו בשתייה: הגה וה״ה אם הכניס ברזא לחבית או הוציאו שלא בכוונה וכמו שנתבאר ובזמן הזה דהאומות לאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הם כל מגען מיקרי שלא בכוונה (מרדכי פר״י והגהות אשיר״י ומהרי״ו בהל׳ סי׳ ט״ו) ולכן אם נגע ביין על ידי דבר אחר אף על פי שיודע שהוא יין וכוון ליגע בו מותר אפילו בשתייה דמיקרי מגע על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה והוא הדין אם נגע אפילו בידו בלא כוונת מגע או שלא ידע שהוא יין שרי ואין לפרסם הדבר בפני עם הארץ (ד״ע וכן מצא בתשובת ר״ל ן׳ חביב מ״א) . יין שהיה מונח ברשות הרבים ובאו עובדי כוכבים ודקרו שם סכין להוציא יין מה שיצא לחוץ אסור ומה שבפנים שרי דכיון דלא כיוון העובד כוכבים רק לנקוב החבית ולא כיוון ליגע ביין אפילו נגע ביין הוה ליה מגע עובד כוכבים על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכוונה ושרי (תשובת ר׳ שמואל במרדכי פרק ר׳ ישמעאל):
A non-Jew’s touch of wine by means of another object, unintentionally — for instance if he was coming down from a palm tree with a frond in his hand and its tip touched the wine unintentionally, or he was walking and touched it with the corner of his garment unintentionally; and likewise if he intended to touch it by means of another object but does not know that it is wine: permitted even to drink.Rama’s gloss: and the same applies if he inserted a spigot into the barrel or withdrew one unintentionally. And in our time, the nations not being idolaters, all their touch is called “unintentional”; therefore if he touched the wine by means of another object, even though he knows it is wine and intended to touch it, it is permitted even to drink; and likewise if he touched it even with his hand without intending to touch, or without knowing it was wine, it is permitted — but one should not publicize the matter before an unlearned person. Wine that was standing in a public thoroughfare, and non-Jews came and drove a knife into it to draw wine out: what came out is forbidden and what is inside is permitted, since the non-Jew intended only to pierce the barrel and not to touch the wine; and even if he did touch the wine, it is a touch by means of another object, unintentionally, and it is permitted.
The seif on which all present-day practice depends. Rama carries out here the descent of one degree announced at seifim 6 and 7, but applies it this time to the nations among whom he lives. The Taz explains the mechanism: they have no intent to make libation — in law they are like the child of seif 1. Note, though, the closing reservation, which is no mere formality: do not publicize the matter before someone who will not know where it stops. The permission is narrow; the sentence that states it is not.
Seif 25 — A wineskin touched from outside
נוד שיש בו יין ונגע עובד כוכבי׳ בנוד מבחוץ אפילו הוא חסר והגיעו דפנות זו עם זו מותר אפילו בשתייה שאין דרך ניסוך בכך:
A wineskin containing wine which a non-Jew touched from outside: even if it is not full and its walls have come together, it is permitted even to drink — for that is not the manner of libation.
Seif 26 — The loose spigot tightened
ברזא שהיתה רפויה בחבית ובא עובד כוכבים והדקה מותר אפי׳ בשתייה:
A spigot that was loose in a barrel, and a non-Jew came and tightened it: permitted even to drink.
The exact opposite of seif 16. There, jiggling an ill-fitted spigot forbade the wine; here, tightening it permits. The difference lies in the direction of the gesture: tightening pushes inward and seals — it agitates nothing and lets nothing out. Two seifim, one object, two directions — that is the way of this siman.
Seif 27 — The leaking barrel, and wine touched out of spite
חבית של עץ שהוא מטפטף או שותת יקח ישראל הנעורת בידו ויניחנה כנגד הנקב שימנע היין קצת מלצאת ויבא עובד כוכבים אומן ויהדקנה בסכין בנקב עד שיסתום היטב ואם היין שותת הרבה צריך ליזהר ביותר שלא יגע העובד כוכבים ביין (בידו אבל בסכין בדיעבד שרי) (טור והפוסקים) והרוצה לעשות מן המובחר יהדק החבית בחבל ויפסוק שתיתת היין ואחר כך יתקננו: הגה עובד כוכבים שנגע ביינו של ישראל להכעיס כדי לאסרו עליו (תוספות פר״י דנ״ח ע״ב ומרדכי ואגודה שם) אפילו אינם יודעים כן אלא באומדנות המוכיחות (ת״ה סימן כ״ו ובנימין זאב סי׳ שמ״ח עיין שם שהאריך) מותר אפילו בשתייה ויש לשתותו בפני העובד כוכבים כדי שלא ירגילו עצמם בכך (תוספות ומרדכי פר״י בשם א״ז):
A wooden barrel that drips or seeps: let the Jew take the tow in his hand and set it against the hole, so that the wine is somewhat kept from running out; and let a non-Jewish craftsman come and press it into the hole with a knife until it is well sealed. And if the wine is seeping heavily, one must take all the more care that the non-Jew not touch the wine(with his hand; but with a knife, after the fact, it is permitted). And one who wishes to act in the choicest way will bind the barrel with a rope, stop the seeping, and repair it afterwards.Rama’s gloss: a non-Jew who touched a Jew’s wine out of spite, in order to render it forbidden to him — even if this is known only from convincing circumstantial evidence — it is permitted even to drink; and it should be drunk in the non-Jew’s presence, so that they not accustom themselves to such behaviour.
The siman closes upon its own rationale. The whole fear was libation; and where the act is plainly aimed at the Jew, there is no libation at all, and the wine stays permitted. The instruction to drink it in front of the man who touched it is not a provocation: it is the only way of stripping the act of its effect, and so of its appeal. A code of law that thinks about deterring harm rather than merely enduring it.
2. Background — where the prohibition on touch comes from
Two distinct prohibitions overlap on a non-Jew’s wine, and the whole siman consists in knowing which one applies. The first, from the Torah, concerns wine actually offered to an idol. The second, rabbinic, concerns wine whose history is unknown — stam yeinam. The Rambam states the bridge between them, which is the foundation of our siman:
In other words: a Jew’s wine that a non-Jew has touched enters the regime of stam yeinam. It remains to be established what “touch” means. The Rambam’s answer, which the Mehaber will reproduce word for word at seif 11, turns on a single verb:
Two prohibitions, or one? Forbidden to benefit from and forbidden to drink are never conflated in this siman. Almost every seif consists in saying which of the two applies — or neither.
Who is capable of rendering wine forbidden? The answer turns neither on origin nor on appearance: it turns on the relation to idolatry and on the capacity for intent (seifim 1-9).
What counts as touching? Seif 11 answers: to touch and to agitate. Seifim 12 to 27 test that definition against ever more indirect gestures.
And when there is no intent at all? That is the question of seif 10, taken up again at seif 24 — and it is there that the Rama shifts the whole practice of his time and of ours.
This siman treats neither the definition of forbidden wine (the subject of siman 123), nor mixtures and nitzok (the subject of siman 126), nor a non-Jew’s force taken in itself (the subject of siman 125). It answers the question that precedes them all: which hand, and which gesture, move a permitted wine into the regime of the forbidden?
3. Key concepts of this siman
יֵין נֶסֶךְ / סְתָם יֵינָם — libation wine and the non-Jew’s ordinary wine. The first was actually offered to an idol: it is forbidden by Torah law, both for benefit and for drinking. The second has nothing of the sort to its name, but what became of it is unknown: its prohibition is rabbinic. A Jew’s wine touched by a non-Jew falls under the second (Rambam, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot, chapter 11, halakha 4).
אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה / אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה — the two degrees. Forbidden for benefit: it may not be drunk, sold or used — the loss is total. Forbidden for drinking only: it is not drunk, but it may be sold. The whole difficulty of the siman is knowing on which of the two degrees — or on full permission — each case falls.
שִׁכְשׁוּךְ — agitation. The gesture which, added to contact, forbids benefit. The word means to stir the wine. The Shach draws the express consequence: mere contact, without agitation, does not forbid benefit (Shach, Yoreh De’ah 124, s.k. 20). It is the reading key for seifim 11 to 18.
כֹּחַ — force. Wine that comes from the non-Jew without his touching it: what he pours by lifting the vessel (seif 18), and what would have run out of the barrel had his hand not held it back (seifim 14 and 23). A category distinct from contact, it has a siman of its own — 125.
טָרוּד בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ — absorbed in his work. The third condition of seif 10, taken in reverse: the man measuring the vat, tapping down the froth or saving the leaking wine has no mind for libation. The Rama immediately closes the list: one does not compare one matter to another in these things (seif 19).
נִצּוֹק / נִצּוֹק בַּר נִצּוֹק — the joining stream. Does an unbroken stream of wine make source and receptacle a single body? The siman touches the question only at seif 23, and refers it to siman 126; but it already draws one consequence: what is joined at second remove is joined no longer.
שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּונָה — without intent. No intent of libation, and sometimes not even an intent to touch. This is the siman’s major mitigation: it lowers a case by one degree. Applied twice — because the non-Jew is not an idolater and because he did not mean to touch — it leads to full permission (seif 7, then seif 24).
אֲנוּסִים — those converted under duress. The Jews of Spain and Portugal forced to baptism. Seif 9 treats them with remarkable precision: they do not forbid wine by their touch, but they are not believed about their own wine — and they are believed about that of others.
4. The summary table — the three degrees
The siman knows only three outcomes. Here they are, with what leads to each.
Degree
What it means
Who, or which gesture
Forbidden for benefit אסור בהנאה
Neither drunk, nor sold, nor used
An idolater who touches and agitates, knowing it is wine, not otherwise occupied (seifim 10-12) · an apostate (seif 8) · a finger in the bunghole (seif 14) · a hand over the hole, for the upper part (seif 23)
Forbidden for drinking אסור בשתייה
Not drunk, but may be sold
A child (seif 1) · a ger toshav and a convert not immersed (seif 2) · the older children of maidservants (seif 4) · a non-idolater (seif 6) · one who measures or taps (seif 19) · one brought up dead from the vat (seif 20)
Permitted מותר אפילו בשתייה
Nothing is forbidden
A slave circumcised and immersed (seif 3) · the younger children of maidservants (seif 4) · a non-idolater acting unintentionally (seif 7) · a deranged non-Jew (seif 15) · a supervised rescue (seif 21) · a crack across the width (seif 22) · touch through another object, unintentionally (seif 24) · a wineskin (seif 25) · a tightened spigot (seif 26) · a touch out of spite (seif 27)
Read the table from the bottom up: that is the siman’s direction of travel. The Shulḥan Arukh does not start from prohibition and hunt for leniencies; it starts from a grave case and goes down one degree each time a condition is missing. Remove intent: down one. Remove idolatry: down again. That is why the third column is the longest.
5. The Taz and the Shach — two key passages
The two great commentaries printed around the Shulḥan Arukh on Yoreh De’ah are the Taz (Turei Zahav, Rabbi David haLevi Segal, 1586-1667) and the Shach (Siftei Kohen, Rabbi Shabtai haCohen, 1621-1662). On this siman, one holds the definition of the gesture, the other the halakha of our own time.
A key passage of the Shach
Shach s.k. 20 — touching is not enough
אבל נגיעה לחוד בלא שכשוך אינו אוסר בהנאה וכדעת הטור ורש״י והרמב״ם
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק כ
But mere contact, without agitation, does not forbid benefit — and this is the view of the Tur, of Rashi and of the Rambam.
One line, and sixteen seifim become legible. If contact alone were enough, there would be nothing to discuss in the cracked barrel, the jiggled spigot or the wineskin touched from outside. It is because the criterion is agitation that each of these gestures must be examined on its own — and that most of them come through permitted.
A key passage of the Taz
Taz s.k. 31 — why, today, all touch is “unintentional”
פירוש שאין להם כוונה לנסך והוי כתינוק דר״ס זה שאינו אוסר אלא בשתייה וכל היכא דאיכא חדא לטיבותא שריא
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״א
That is to say that they have no intent of libation, and so they are like the child at the head of this siman, who forbids only for drinking; and wherever there is one mitigating factor, it is permitted.
The Taz does not merely report the Rama’s gloss: he takes its mechanism apart and gives it its exact address. The non-Jew of today is brought back to the very first case of the siman — the child. From there, every further mitigation (touch through an object, not knowing it is wine, no intent to touch) lowers the case another degree, down to permission. This is נחתינן דרגא turned into a system.
6. The Rama’s gloss (הגה) — where he intervenes
The Rama glosses eleven seifim of this siman — 2, 9, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24 — more than in most. His glosses fall into four families.
Recalling the lenient view he did not adopt
At seifim 2, 11, 17 and 19 the Rama sets alongside the ruling the view that eases it: some are lenient even about a ger toshav’s touch; some say that the foot does not forbid benefit; many disagree that shaking without lifting is agitation. These views do not become the rule — but they become available where there is a loss, a phrase that recurs three times.
Distinguishing by what the man knew
This is the heart of the long gloss at seif 14. The same gesture — pulling out the spigot — yields four outcomes according to whether the non-Jew knew or not how deep it reached, and whether he acted with or without intent. There the Rama introduces the notion of כח, force, and refers expressly to siman 125.
Closing a door that logic would open
At seif 19, having piled up leniencies, the Rama concludes: ואין לדמות מילתא למילתא בדברים אלו ואין לך בו אלא מה שאמרו חכמים — one does not compare one matter to another in these things; you have in this only what the Sages said. The list of excusing situations is closed. The same caution makes him write, at seif 24, that the permission is not to be publicized before someone who will not know where it stops.
Stating the law of his own time
This is the gloss at seif 24, by far the weightiest in its consequences: the nations among whom he lives are not idolaters, and therefore all their touch is called “unintentional”. That sentence, joined to the mechanism of seifim 6 and 7, effectively moves the whole siman one degree toward leniency — and it is the sentence later decisors have argued over, case by case, down to our own day.
One line runs through these eleven glosses: the Rama almost never contests the rule — he delimits its application. Where agitation begins, what the man knew, what counts as a loss, and what must be left unsaid before someone who will not know where to stop. It is work on thresholds, and on measure.
7. Modern practical cases
What follows is not a ruling: level 4 handles that, and a real question is put to a Rav. These cases only show where, within the siman, each situation belongs.
Case 1 — The waiter pouring wine in a restaurant
This is seif 18 in its pure form: lifting and pouring means the wine comes by his force. Seif 11 adds agitation. But seif 24 changes the picture for our own time, and the Taz explains why. The underlying question, however, is not “is it forbidden?” but which wine is at issue — siman 123 says so — and whether the bottle was open. Seif 25 recalls that a sealed vessel touched from outside raises no question at all.
Case 2 — The mover carrying cases of wine
Sealed, corked bottles being carried: seif 25 answers directly — a wineskin touched from outside, even with the wine moving inside, is not the manner of libation. Seif 18 adds, through the Rama’s gloss, that touching the vessel alone does not forbid.
Case 3 — The wine merchant moving a cask, or a workman repairing a vat
This is exactly the setting of seifim 19, 22, 23 and 27. Two criteria cross: is the man at his work (seif 19), and does his gesture agitate the wine or merely press and seal (seif 22)? Seif 27 even gives the protocol: let the Jew place the tow, and let the craftsman press it in with a knife.
Case 4 — Wine spilled and caught
Seif 23, with the Rama’s reversal: if a Jew was present and able to save the wine, the non-Jew’s hand forbids it; if no one else could have saved it, he is at his work, and everything remains permitted for benefit. A rule that rewards genuine urgency.
Case 5 — Wine touched deliberately, to cause harm
Seif 27 and its closing gloss. Where the act is plainly directed against the owner — and the Rama accepts convincing circumstantial evidence, without requiring an admission — there is no libation at all: the wine stays permitted, and it should be drunk in front of the man who touched it.
8. Synthesis of Siman 124
In one sentence: what renders wine forbidden is neither a non-Jew’s presence nor even his contact, but the meeting of three conditions — an intent to touch, the knowledge that it is wine, and a free mind — upon a gesture that agitates or moves the wine; each missing condition brings the case down one degree, from forbidden for benefit to forbidden for drinking, and then to permission — and the Rama observes that in his own day the first condition is always missing.
Memory table
The question
The criterion
Where
Does a child forbid the wine?
Yes, but for drinking only
seif 1
And the ger toshav?
For drinking; his own wine stays forbidden
seif 2
A slave circumcised and immersed?
Permitted at once — no waiting
seif 3
“Older” or “younger”?
Not age: does he know idolatry?
seif 4
A non-idolatrous non-Jew?
One degree lower: sellable
seifim 6-7
The apostate, the anussim?
The relation to idolatry, not the sign
seifim 8-9
When does contact forbid benefit?
Three conditions: intent, knowledge, a free mind
seif 10
What counts as touching?
Touching and agitating (שכשוך)
seif 11
He thought it was oil?
The 2nd condition falls: down a degree
seif 12
A finger in the bunghole?
By the depth and by what he knew
seifim 14, 16
Shaking without lifting?
Rama: not agitation — lenient where there is a loss
seif 17
Lifting and pouring?
כח — the wine comes from him
seif 18
He was measuring, tapping?
טרוד במלאכתו — the 3rd condition falls
seif 19
Fallen into the vat?
Dead: sellable · alive: forbidden for benefit
seif 20
The cracked barrel?
Across: act of a brick · lengthwise: no
seif 22
A hand over the hole?
Above forbidden for benefit · below sellable
seif 23
Touch through an object, unmeant?
Permitted, even to drink
seif 24
And in our own day?
Rama: all their touch is “unintentional”
seif 24
He touched it out of spite?
Permitted — and drink it in front of him
seif 27
Comprehension questions
Seif 1 permits benefit from wine touched by a child, and seif 10 says why. Which condition does the child lack, and which other category in the siman shares exactly that defect?
At seif 3 the Mehaber expressly sets aside a criterion that would seem decisive: which one, and what does that refusal teach us about what renders wine forbidden?
Seif 6 lowers the non-idolatrous non-Jew by one degree; seif 7 lowers him a second time. What further condition is required at seif 7 to reach full permission?
Why does the apostate of seif 8 forbid the wine while one who has effaced his circumcision does not? State the siman’s real criterion in one sentence.
Seif 17 permits (according to the Rama) shaking the vessel without lifting it, and seif 18 forbids lifting and pouring. Where exactly does the line fall?
At seif 22 a crack across the width is treated more leniently than one along the length. Why? What image does the Mehaber use, and what does it say about contact?
At seif 23 the Rama permits more when no Jew was present to save the wine. This looks back to front: explain by which condition of seif 10 it makes sense.
The Rama’s gloss at seif 24 ends with a reservation: do not publicize the matter before an unlearned person. What exactly does he fear — that people will be too lenient, or that they will no longer know where the permission stops?
Going further
If you want to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul — the maḥloket on מגע על ידי דבר אחר, the ḥakira on the nature of שכשוך, and the status of the non-Jew of our time
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (the three degrees, the three conditions, the gestures) and quick memorization of the 27 seifim