How to read this level. Every statement here is anchored either in the text of the Shulchan Arukh and its nossei kelim, or in a named and verifiable posek. On Yoreh De'ah there is no Mishna Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim), and no Shulchan Arukh HaRav / Daat HaRav — the Admur HaZaken did not write Yoreh De'ah. On this particular siman the Arukh HaShulchan is not available to us: its digitisation on Yoreh De'ah breaks off from siman 123 onward — so nothing is attributed to him here, which says nothing about what he wrote. The authorities used here are therefore the Mehaber, the Rama, the Taz, the Shach, the Pitchei Teshuva, the Rambam and the gemara Avodah Zarah. Every concrete application (lema'asse) ends by sending you to your Rav — and this siman says so itself, in a sentence of the Rama worth reading twice: one does not compare one case to another in these matters.
מגע על ידי דבר אחר ו״בזמן הזה״ — קולת הרמ״א וגדרי הש״ך (סעיף כ״ד)
פסיקה בזמננו — ספרדים ואשכנזים
מקרים מודרניים — המלצר, הבקבוק, היין המבושל, הבר, הקידוש, החנות
סיכום מעשי וטבלאות — ולמעשה, שאל את רבך
📜 The text of the Shulchan Arukh — Seif Alef and Seif Yod
מי הוא העושה יין נסך ודיני נגיעת העובד כוכבים בחבית. ובו כ״ו סעיפים: תינוק עובד כוכבים שאינו מזכיר עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה אינו אוסר יין במגעו אלא בשתייה:
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:
Who (seif 1). The siman opens not on the wine but on the person: a non-Jewish child who does not yet name idolatry and its services does not render wine forbidden by his touch — save for drinking. The whole siman turns on that hinge: it is not the touch that forbids, it is the touch of someone.
How (seif 10). Then the key to all the rest: for a non-Jew's touch to forbid wine even in benefit, three cumulative conditions are required — that he intend to touch, that he know it is wine, and that he not be occupied with something else. The seventeen seifim that follow are nothing but the examination of one of those three conditions in a real case.
Why a non-Jew's wine carries two distinct prohibitions. The Taz states the principle that governs the whole siman: the prohibition of drinking is there משום בנותיהן — to prevent social intimacy — and the prohibition of benefit is there משום עבודת כוכבים, because of idolatrous libation. Hence the immediate consequence: a non-Jew who is not an idolater cannot generate the prohibition of benefit, since its motive has fallen away — but the prohibition of drinking remains (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ד).
The rule that governs all twenty-seven seifim — the Rambam puts it in one sentence, and the Mehaber restates it in seif 7:
Two degrees, and one movement: נחתינן דרגא. The vocabulary of the siman is binary — אסור בהנאה (nothing may be gained from it: no drinking, no sale, no use) and אסור בשתייה (forbidden to the mouth alone). The entire mechanism of the siman consists of stepping down one degree: whenever some element weakens the suspicion of libation — a child, a non-idolater, a distraction, an interposed object, an absence of intent — what was forbidden in benefit is forbidden only for drinking; and when two such mitigations combine, nothing is left at all. That movement, and not a list of cases, is what must be retained here.
The talmudic ground of the siman
Seif 1 comes from the statement of Rav and the limit he himself sets on it:
« והא מר הוא דאמר: תינוק בן יומו הוא עושה יין נסך! אמר להו: אימור דאמרי אנא בשתייה, בהנאה מי אמרי? » (עבודה זרה נ״ז ע״א)
Seifim 19 and 20 come from the mishna, which lists the acts where a man is plainly occupied elsewhere:
« נפל לבור ועלה, מדדו בקנה, התיז את הצרעה בקנה, או שהיה מטפיח על פי חבית מרותחת — בכל אלו היה מעשה ואמרו: ימכר, ורבי שמעון מתיר » (עבודה זרה ס׳ ע״ב)
Seif 13 comes from an incident near the end of the tractate — the etrog that fell into the barrel:
« ההוא אתרוגא דנפל לחביתא דחמרא, אידרי גוי ושקליה. אמר להו רב אשי: נקטוה לידיה כי היכי דלא לשכשיך ביה » (עבודה זרה נ״ט ע״ב)
2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the siman, seif by seif
Twenty-seven seifim, two halves. The title of the siman announces both questions and the order in which they come: מי הוא העושה יין נסך — who renders wine forbidden (seifim 1 to 9) — and then ודיני נגיעת העובד כוכבים בחבית — the laws of touching the barrel (seifim 10 to 27). The printed heading announces ובו כ״ו סעיפים, twenty-six; the text counts twenty-seven, and the internal cross-references of the Shach and the Taz follow the twenty-seven numbering. That is the one that holds.
Seif
What it rules
Status of the wine
1
A non-Jewish child who does not yet name idolatry
Forbidden for drinking only
2
A ger toshav; a convert circumcised but not immersed
Forbidden for drinking; Rama: some are lenient
3
Slaves bought, circumcised and immersed at once
They do not render the wine forbidden
4
Sons of maidservants, circumcised but not immersed
Adults: forbidden for drinking; minors: permitted
5
A maidservant who immersed for servitude
Her son does not make yayin nesekh
6
A non-Jew who is not an idolater
Forbidden for drinking, permitted in benefit
7
The same, touching unintentionally or tapping the barrel
Permitted even for drinking
8
משוך בערלתו and a moumar
The moumar forbids; he is believed if he says he repented
9
The anussim (Marranos)
Not believed on their own wine, believed on another's
10
The three conditions of a touch that forbids in benefit
The key to the whole siman
11
What a touch is: hand, foot, held object, mouth — and שכשוך
Forbidden in benefit; the two-spouted vessel, conditionally
12
He enters a house or a shop, searches, touches and stirs
Forbidden in benefit; if he thought it was oil, permitted in benefit
13
His hand is seized before he can withdraw it
Permitted in benefit
14
A finger through the bung-hole; the ברזא pulled out
Forbidden; Rama: if he did not know, permitted even for drinking
15
A deranged non-Jew, wine flowing through the hole
Permitted even for drinking
16
He jiggled the ברזא and nothing came out
Loose: forbidden; tightly fitted: permitted
17
He grasps an open vessel and stirs it without lifting
Machloket; Rama: do not be strict במקום פסידא
18
He lifts and pours — כח
Forbidden; lifting without pouring or touching: permitted
19
He measures, taps the froth, throws the barrel in anger — טרוד במלאכתו
Permitted in benefit, forbidden for drinking
20
He falls into the vat: brought up dead / came up alive
Dead: permitted in benefit; alive: forbidden in benefit
21
He rescues a Jew fallen into the vat, under watch
Permitted even for drinking
22
He clasps a cracked barrel so it will not fall apart
Permitted in benefit; cracked crosswise: permitted for drinking
23
He blocks the barrel's hole with his hand
Above the hole: forbidden in benefit; below: for drinking
24
Touch by an interposed object and without intent — and the gloss “בזמן הזה”
Permitted even for drinking
25
A closed skin-bottle touched from outside
Permitted even for drinking — אין דרך ניסוך בכך
26
He tightens a ברזא that was loose
Permitted even for drinking
27
Repairing a leaking barrel; and a touch made out of spite
Permitted even for drinking, and one drinks it before him
3. מי אוסר במגעו — the person before the act (seifim 1-9)
מי הוא העושה יין נסך ודיני נגיעת העובד כוכבים בחבית. ובו כ״ו סעיפים: תינוק עובד כוכבים שאינו מזכיר עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה אינו אוסר יין במגעו אלא בשתייה:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:א׳
The child. The measure is not civil age but religious awareness. The Taz specifies, from the Tur and the Tosefta, that “grown” means one שיודע בטיב עבודת כוכבים ומשמשיה — who is versed in idolatry and its services — and he dwells on the Mehaber's verb, מזכיר, “he mentions”: not one who happened to hear the name, but one who sets his mind on naming it, knowingly and willingly (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק א). The Shach adds the indispensable counterpart: even a day-old infant renders the wine forbidden for drinking; the leniency of seif 1 bears on benefit alone (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק א).
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:ב׳
The ger toshav, the unfinished convert, and the Karaites
The Mehaber groups together the ger toshav — who accepted before a court the seven Noahide commandments — and the convert circumcised but not yet immersed: their touch forbids drinking, not benefit. The Rama tightens on one side (as long as the immersion was not done properly, it counts as not done) and loosens on the other (some are lenient even about a ger toshav's touch). The Shach devotes a long passage to showing that the Rama's אפילו covers both cases and not the ger toshav alone, and that Tosafot and the Rosh permit both (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ד). The Taz identifies the lenient view as the Rosh's, explains why a slave is the exception — אימת רבו עליו, his master's dread upon him, and not his heart — and reports in the name of the Maharshal that Karaites have the status of a ger toshav and that one may drink with them (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ב).
כל עובד כוכבים שאינו עובד אלילים יינו אסור בשתייה ומותר בהנאה ומגען ביין שלנו שוה ליינם שאסור בשתייה:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:ו׳
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:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:ז׳
Seifim 6 and 7 — the historical hinge of the siman. Seif 6 fixes the status of a non-idolatrous non-Jew: his wine, and ours that he touched, are forbidden for drinking but permitted in benefit. Seif 7 takes the decisive next step: wherever the wine was in any case forbidden only for drinking — because the touch was unintentional, or because the non-Jew merely tapped on the mouth of the barrel — and the non-Jew is not an idolater, there is no prohibition left at all. The Shach lays down the rule: wherever it was said “permitted in benefit, forbidden for drinking because of some aspect of touching”, a non-idolater makes it permitted even for drinking (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק י״א). The Taz supplies the name: the Rambam was speaking of Ishmaelites (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ד) — and the Shach notes that the Mehaber dropped the example, holding that the rule covers every non-Jew whom we hold established not to be an idolater (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק י״ב).
A divergence not to be smoothed over (seif 4). The Mehaber writes that sons of maidservants circumcised but not immersed, if adult, forbid the wine for drinking. The Shach opens with a phrase rare from his pen: לא ידעתי מנ״ל הא — I do not know his source — and demonstrates at length, from the Ran, the Rashba, Tosafot and the Tosefta, that their touch ought to forbid even in benefit, since until they immerse they are still non-Jews. Yet he closes with the exit that runs through the whole siman: in our day, when the nations are not idolaters, every touch of a non-Jew is permitted in benefit where there is loss (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ח).
The moumar and the anussim (seifim 8-9). A Jew whose circumcision has been drawn over does not make yayin nesekh — דניסוך אינו תלוי במילה רק בעובד עבודת כוכבים, libation depends not on circumcision but on worship, and his heart is still turned to Heaven (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק י״ד). A moumar, however, renders wine forbidden by his touch, and he is believed when he declares he has repented. The Shach grounds that trust in a מיגו, and bounds it: one known to have apostatised is not believed (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ט״ו). As for the anussim — the Marranos — seif 9 is a masterpiece of measure: they are not believed about their own wine, even on oath, but they are believed about another's; and the Rama, in the name of the Rivash, draws the exact line between one who sins publicly under duress while keeping careful in private, and one who transgresses in private as well — the latter being treated as a non-Jew.
Lema'asse (the person). Before asking what was done, this siman asks by whom. A child, a non-idolatrous non-Jew, a non-observant Jew, a convert whose process is incomplete: each such status changes the outcome, and two of them are questions of fact that nobody settles alone — the state of a conversion, and the standing of a non-observant Jew. For your own case, consult your Rav.
4. שלושת תנאי המגע האוסר — the three conditions (seif 10)
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:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י׳
The three conditions, verbatim — this is the sentence to know by heart:
« מגע עובד כוכבים לאסור בהנאה צריך שלשה תנאים » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י׳) — שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ד סעיף י׳
Condition
Wording of the seif
What it excludes
1. Intent to touch
שיתכוין ליגע
The child, who is not בר כוונה; and one who fell into the vat and came up dead
2. Knowing it is wine
שידע שהוא יין
One who reaches in thinking it is oil (seif 12); one who pierces a barrel without aiming at the wine (seif 24)
3. Not being occupied elsewhere
שלא יהא עוסק בדבר אחר
One measuring, repairing, rescuing the wine, treading (seifim 19 and 23)
What exactly the three conditions govern. The seif says מגע עובד כוכבים לאסור בהנאה: the three conditions are the threshold of the prohibition of benefit, not of drinking. Lacking one of them, we step down a degree and normally reach “permitted in benefit, forbidden for drinking”. A second mitigation is needed — a non-idolatrous non-Jew (seif 7), or an interposed object (seif 24) — for the drinking prohibition to fall in its turn. The whole practical difficulty of this siman lies in that count: how many mitigations does the case gather?
A fourth requirement, which is not on the list: שכשוך. Seif 10 lists the conditions bearing on the person; seif 11 adds one bearing on the act. The Shach states it plainly: a bare touch, without stirring, does not forbid in benefit — such is the view of the Tur, Rashi and the Rambam (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק כ). The Rambam writes it in the very terms of the Mehaber:
« כֵּיצַד הִיא הַנְּגִיעָה שִׁאוֹסֵר בָּהּ הָעַכּוּ״ם הַיַּיִן. הוּא שֶׁיִּגַּע בַּיַּיִן עַצְמוֹ בֵּין בְּיָדוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר אֵיבָרָיו שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְנַסֵּךְ בָּהֶן וִישַׁכְשֵׁךְ » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה א)
But the Taz refuses to turn this into a permission
The Taz follows the Rashba's reservation: in practice a touch without stirring does not exist — whoever touches necessarily stirs. He concludes therefore ומ״מ לענין הלכה יש לנו לחוש לדברי רשב״א ולאסור במגע לחוד דא״א בלא שכשוך — as to halakha we must be concerned for the Rashba and forbid on the bare touch, since stirring is unavoidable (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק י״א). And on the extent of the stirring the Taz also rules: the Beit Yosef hesitated between a large stirring and any stirring at all; the Rashba, in the משמרת הבית, makes no distinction — everything is forbidden (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ו).
Lema'asse (the three conditions). Facing a real incident, the first thing is not to look for a heter but to reconstruct the facts in the order of seif 10: did he mean to touch? did he know it was wine? was he occupied with something else? and — the question of seif 11 — did he touch the wine itself, or only the vessel? Those four answers, given exactly, are what your Rav needs to hear. For your own case, consult your Rav.
5. נגיעה ושכשוך — what a touch is (seifim 11-13)
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״א
The Mehaber's list. A touch that forbids in benefit is made with the hand, the foot, or an object held in the hand — and stirring must be added. The Rama, in parentheses, brings the view that the foot does not forbid in benefit, דאין דרך נסוך בכך: libation is not performed that way. Then the mouth: one who drank from the vessel, or sucked through a tube and raised the wine to his lips, renders all the wine forbidden in benefit. The Shach specifies the reach of that case: it makes no difference whether he drank from the barrel itself or from the cup — if the Jew poured the remainder back into the barrel, everything is forbidden (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק כ״א). Finally the Rama: touching the froth that floats on the wine is touching the wine itself.
The two-spouted vessel — and why the Taz draws nothing from it
The Mehaber brings from the Talmud a case of tolerance: a vessel with two spouts — the קנישקנין — a Jew sucking from one and a non-Jew from the other at the same time, provided the Jew stops first. The reason is mechanical: while one sucks, nothing is pushed back; it is on stopping that the wine left in the spout runs down. The Shach brings from the Beit Yosef, in the name of Tosafot, that as a matter of piety one should keep away from it, lest the non-Jew stop first (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק כ״ד). The Taz goes further and shuts the door: since neither the Rashba nor the Raavad could establish the exact form of that vessel, אין לנו ללמוד שום קולא מכלי זה ולא ישתה עם העובד כוכבים בשום כלי — we may draw no leniency from it, and one shall not drink with a non-Jew from any vessel (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ח). That is, word for word, this siman's answer to the question of the bar.
The talmudic ground of seif 11 — the market inspector who bored the barrel with a straw:
« דאגרדמים גוי שקדח במינקת והעלה, או שטעם מן הכוס והחזירו לחבית — זה היה מעשה ואסרוהו » (עבודה זרה נ״ח ע״א)
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:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ב
The seif closest to our lives: the shop. Seif 12 stages exactly what still happens today — a non-Jew walks into a place of business, asks for wine, plunges in a hand and stirs: forbidden in benefit. But the Mehaber at once adds two shock absorbers. First quantity: if that wine has mixed with other wine, only the value of the stirred wine is forbidden in benefit, the rest is permitted — and the Shach specifies that one sells the whole to a non-Jew minus the value of the forbidden wine, and that if there is sixty against it, it is permitted even for drinking (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק כ״ז). Second ignorance: if he believed the barrel held oil, it is permitted in benefit — and the Taz concludes for our time: ממילא לדידן מותר אפי׳ בשתייה, it follows that for us it is permitted even for drinking, as emerges from seif 24 (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק י).
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:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ג
The seized hand. Seif 13 is the working out of the etrog incident: his hand was held before he could withdraw it, the barrel was opened from below until the level dropped beneath his hand — and the wine is permitted in benefit. The Rama, following Tosafot, the Rosh, the Ran and the Tur, specifies that this is someone who reached in to retrieve an object that had fallen: he is not making a libation, he is recovering his own property. The Shach explains the two moments: on the way in, his intent was not to pour a libation; on the way out, he does not move the wine, and so he is not stirring (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל).
Lema'asse (touching and stirring). Three working rules. (1) What forbids is not nearness but contact with the liquid, together with movement. (2) A glass a non-Jew drank from is never poured back into the bottle: that is the Shach's express case. (3) Do not drink from the same vessel as a non-Jew, the Taz having expressly set aside the leniency of the two-spouted vessel. What becomes of a mixture already made, by contrast, depends on quantities and goes to your Rav. For your own case, consult your Rav.
6. הברזא, הנקב והסדק — the tap, the hole and the crack
Why six seifim on a piece of wood. The ברזא — the wooden peg that plugs the barrel — is the laboratory of this siman: depending on whether it passes through the full thickness of the stave, on whether the non-Jew knows this or not, and on whether he pulls it out, pushes it in, tightens it or merely jiggles it, one passes in turn through all four possible statuses. This is where the siman teaches how to grade.
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ד
What he does
What follows
Source
He puts a finger through the hole down to the wine
All is forbidden — in benefit
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ד ; ש״ך ס״ק ל״א
He pulls out a ברזא touching the wine, knowing it goes through
Forbidden: it is impossible that he did not stir
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ד
He pulls it out not knowing that it goes through
Touch by an interposed object without intent — permitted even for drinking
הגה יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ד
It does not pass through the whole thickness
This is כח: what remains is permitted even for drinking; what came out is forbidden for drinking
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ד
He pulled it out unintentionally
Even what came out is permitted — כח שלא בכוונה
הגה יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ד
A deranged man, wine flowing through the hole
Permitted even for drinking
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:ט״ו
He jiggles the ברזא, nothing comes out
Loose: forbidden; firmly fitted: permitted
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:ט״ז
He tightens a loose ברזא
Permitted even for drinking
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ו
Doubt leans toward leniency. From seif 14 the Shach draws a rule of method that reaches far beyond it: where we do not know whether the non-Jew knew or not, we lean toward leniency in matters of yayin nesekh. He shows it from the Hagahot Maimoniot in the name of the Semak, confirms it from a responsum of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrahi — דהיכא דאיכא לספוקי אי נגע בכוונה או לא תלינן להקל בענין יין נסך — and gives the reason: this is a rabbinic decree, and in a doubt of rabbinic law we lean to leniency (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ג).
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ב
מעשה לבינה — the act that is no act. Seif 22 introduces an elegant notion: a non-Jew who presses on a barrel cracked crosswise so it will not give way neither “touches” nor “pushes” the wine — he performs only a brick's work, weighing on the barrel as a brick laid on its mouth. Hence the permission even for drinking. The Shach gives both reasons together: דאין דרך ניסוך בכך ועוד דמעשה לבינה בעלמא קעביד (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ע״ה). For a hooped wooden barrel, the permission holds even for a lengthwise crack, the hoops preventing any contact; and there the Shach cites the Ran's formulation: שרי להדק על ידי עובד כוכבים (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק נ״ט).
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:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ג
The hole blocked by hand — and the question: was a Jew there to do it?
Seif 23 divides the barrel in two: what lies above the hole was about to flow out and was held back only by the non-Jew's hand — it is therefore as though he had touched all of it, and it is forbidden in benefit; what lies below would not have come out anyway, and is forbidden only for drinking. Then the Rama introduces the distinction that decides everything: was a Jew present to save the wine? If there was one and the non-Jew got there first, the stringency holds; if there was none, the non-Jew was simply busy at his work — לא גרע ממדדו בידו, no worse than measuring by hand — and all is permitted in benefit. The Shach notes that the Rosh and the Tur reject that distinction and that, to his mind, the rule “the law follows the later authorities” ought to prevail against the Raavad (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ס״ג); he adds, from R. Eliyahu Mizrahi, that a Jew present but further away, or busy with something else, counts as no Jew at all (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ס״ד).
A printing error acknowledged by both commentaries. The Rama, at the close of this gloss, writes that all is מותר בהנאה. Many editions read מותר בשתייה. The Shach writes flatly that it is a scribal error and that one must read “in benefit”, drinking remaining forbidden as in the case of measuring by hand (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ס״ו); the Taz writes the same (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק כ״ה). A useful reminder: on this siman even the printed text has needed adjudication.
Lema'asse (acts of repair). These seifim no longer have a barrel, but they have kept their question: what happens when a non-Jew works on a wine container to repair it, close it or stop it leaking? The three variables are always the same — did he reach the liquid; did he know what he was touching; was a Jew there who could have done it instead. Reconstruct those three, then consult your Rav.
The two seifim everyone comes looking for. Everything that happens today around a bottle — in a restaurant, at a bar, in a shop, at table — is settled by these two seifim, and by the distinction they install: grasping a vessel is not lifting it, and lifting it is not pouring. The first is disputed, the second too, the third is not.
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:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ז
Three positions on a bottle grasped and stirred
The Mehaber, following the Rambam, brings in the name of a single view (יש מי שאומר) that even without lifting and without touching the wine, stirring an open vessel forbids it. The Rama reverses: many disagree — the Rashba, the Raavad, the Rosh, Rabbenu Yeruham in the name of most decisors — since stirring the body of a vessel without lifting it is not called stirring; ולכן אין להחמיר במקום פסידא, one shall therefore not be strict where there is loss. The Shach adds the point that counts: in such a case it is permitted even for drinking (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק מ״א). The Taz goes further still than the Rama: the Rama's wording implies leniency only without lifting, but he holds that there is room to be lenient even if he lifted it, from the Rashba in the תורת הבית and from the Raavad, for whom no stirring forbids apart from contact with the wine itself — and he concludes: וכל זה לענין הנאה אבל בשתייה אסור במגע לחוד, all this as to benefit, but for drinking the bare touch forbids (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ט״ו).
👈 The Pitchei Teshuva — the later authorities' leniency, and its limit
The Pitchei Teshuva brings here the Dagul Mervava: the Rama speaks only of a place where it is known that they are idolaters; otherwise, for us, it is permitted where there is loss even if he lifted and stirred, since it can be no worse than the touch by an interposed object of seif 24. He adds that the same author wrote so in his responsa Noda BiYehuda, second series, Yoreh De'ah — and immediately the limit: all this when the vessel was not full; if it was full, one must be concerned for Rashi's view, since in a full vessel we suspect that he touched, whenever the Jew is not watching over it (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ג). That is, in today's terms, the difference between an opened bottle and one full to the neck.
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח
Seif 18 — the line the Rama's leniency does not cross:
« נטל עובד כוכבים כלי של יין והגביהו ויצק היין אע״פ שלא שכשך נאסר שהרי בא היין מכחו » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח) — שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ד סעיף י״ח
Pouring is כח. Wine flowing from a lifted vessel comes from the non-Jew's force, and that alone forbids it without his having stirred or touched. The Shach refers to the opening of the next siman for the exact reach of that prohibition (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק מ״ב) — and siman 125 states that כח forbids for drinking, what remains in the vessel being further disputed under the heading of נצוק. By contrast, one who lifted without pouring, without stirring and without touching: permitted.
And touching the vessel does nothing whatever. The Rama adds the most useful gloss of the siman: וכ״ש שאינו אוסר בנגיעת הכלי לחוד — all the more does he not forbid by touching the vessel alone (in the name of the Rivash). And the Shach, citing the Darkhei Moshe, protests against the contrary practice: ולכן אני תמה על קצת המחמירין ומפסידין ממונם של ישראל לאסור יין ע״י שנגע העובד כוכבים בכלי בלא שום שכשוך ולכן נראה דאין לחוש כלל — I wonder at some who are strict and cause Jews financial loss by forbidding wine because a non-Jew touched the vessel without any stirring; there is nothing here to be concerned about, and for us all the more so (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק מ״ג).
The act
By law (מן הדין)
What the nossei kelim add
Touching the vessel, closed or open, and no more
Nothing at all
הגה יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח ; ש״ך ס״ק מ״ג — nothing to be concerned about
Grasping an open vessel and stirring it without lifting
Machloket: the Mehaber forbids, the Rama permits
ש״ך ס״ק מ״א: permitted even for drinking · ט״ז ס״ק ט״ו: even with lifting
Lifting without pouring, stirring or touching
Permitted
שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח ; רמב״ם מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה ב
Lema'asse (the bottle). Keep the ascending order in mind: touching the glass or the bottle raises no issue; shaking an open bottle is the subject of a machloket where the Rama, the Shach and the Taz are lenient — and where the Pitchei Teshuva distinguishes an opened bottle from a full one; pouring crosses another line, that of כח, which the great leniency of seif 24 does not cover by itself. That is why the question of a waiter pouring is a separate question, treated below. For your own case, consult your Rav.
8. טרוד במלאכתו — one who is occupied elsewhere (seifim 19-21)
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ט
The third condition, put to the test. Measuring the vat with a rod, tapping the bubbling surface so the froth will settle, throwing a barrel in anger: in each of these, says the Rama, יש הוכחה שלא כוון לנסך רק למלאכתו — there is proof that he did not aim at libation but at his work. The touch is therefore unintentional, and it forbids only for drinking. Then the Rama is lenient again: according to the Rosh, the Ran, the Rashba, the Tur, the Raavad and Rabbenu Yeruham, even if he measured by hand there is no prohibition of benefit, since he is busy at his task; and one may be lenient where there is loss. The Shach fixes the threshold: against the Levush, who requires a large loss, he holds that even a small loss suffices, this being a rabbinic prohibition, and in a rabbinic prohibition the law follows those who are lenient (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק נ).
👈 The most important sentence of method in the siman
The Rama closes seif 19 with a warning, in the name of the Tur, the Rosh, the Raavad and the Rashba:
« ואין לדמות מילתא למילתא בדברים אלו ואין לך בו אלא מה שאמרו חכמים » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ט)
One does not compare one case to another in these matters, and you have here only what the Sages said. The Shach draws the explicit rule: only what is expressly designated as such by the Talmud and the decisors counts as “distraction”; we are not to permit other things by estimation, telling ourselves “surely that one is not aiming at libation” (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק נ״ד). That sentence forbids precisely the most tempting use of this siman: reasoning by analogy from an old case to a modern one. It is the deep reason why each contemporary case below ends by sending the reader to a Rav.
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ׳
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״א
Two limits of duress. One who falls into the vat and is brought up dead never had any intent: permitted in benefit. One who comes up alive had, at some moment, command of his movements: forbidden in benefit. The Rama assimilates to this one who stumbles and rolls into the wine and rolls out again, שהיה באנסו גם לבסוף — because he was under duress to the very end. The Shach adds the counter-test, in the name of the Rashba: if, once the duress has passed, he is still found touching, it is forbidden in benefit, even if the initial duress was not a peril of death (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק נ״ו).
Rescuing a drowning Jew — and a rule of general reach. Seif 21 permits even for drinking the wine of a vat from which a non-Jew pulled out a Jew who had fallen in, provided a second Jew watched that he did not touch the wine. From this the Rama draws, in the name of the Rivash, a rule that goes beyond the case: ולא מקרי נגיעה מה שנוגע ע״י אדם — what one touches by means of a person is not called touching. The Shach pushes the consequence to its end: even if the non-Jew intends to make a libation this way and says so expressly, אין בדבריו כלום — his words are worth nothing (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק נ״ז).
Lema'asse (occupation and duress). Two opposite lessons. The first is lenient: someone plainly busy with something else — carrying, tidying, rescuing, repairing — is not in the situation of seif 10, and many stringencies fall away. The second restrains: the Rama and the Shach expressly forbid extending by analogy the notion of distraction to new cases. In other words, the door this siman opens, it forbids you to widen on your own. For your own case, consult your Rav.
9. מגע על ידי דבר אחר ו״בזמן הזה״ — the great leniency and its limits (seifim 24-27)
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ד
Two layers, not to be confused. Seif 24 of the Mehaber speaks only of a narrow case: a touch through an interposed object and without intent — the palm-branch of one coming down from a date tree, the corner of a passer-by's garment — or a deliberate touch through an interposed object without knowing it is wine. That, he says, is permitted even for drinking. Then comes the gloss of the Rama, which changes the scale: and in our day, the nations not being idolaters, all their touching is deemed unintentional. From this he draws three successive consequences: a touch through an interposed object, even knowingly and deliberately, is permitted even for drinking; a touch by hand without intent to touch likewise; and so too one who did not know it was wine. And he adds the sentence rarely quoted: ואין לפרסם הדבר בפני עם הארץ — this is not to be published before an ignoramus.
👈 The Shach limits the leniency: במקום הפסד, and nowhere else
This is the decisive passage of the whole siman, and it is constantly quoted wrongly. The Shach accepts the Rama's reasoning — since even deliberately he would forbid only for drinking, if he is not an idolater, then unintentionally even drinking is permitted — and then sets the limit, in three steps. First: outside a place of loss, we hold that even in our day they are idolaters, as he established at the opening of siman 123. Next, the responsum of the Maharil (siman 38): a deliberate touch through an interposed object, in our day, may be permitted only where there is large loss — and the Shach observes that the Rama and those who followed him had not seen that Maharil, and that had they seen it they might not have been so lenient. Finally, his own testimony: וכן קבלתי מהגאון אמ״ו ז״ל שאין להקל מטעם עובדי כוכבים בזמן הזה לאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הן אלא במקום הפסד — I received from my master and father that one is lenient on this ground only where there is loss, and that he had seen several great decisors do the same (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ע״א).
And the leniency does not lift what was already permitted in benefit. That same Shach adds an exception that is systematically forgotten: wherever the wine was permitted in benefit by law because the one who touched it is not an idolater — a child, a ger toshav, the cases at the opening of the siman — it remains forbidden for drinking, even where there is loss. The reason is logical: the ground “in our day they are not idolaters” helps nothing here, since even a non-idolater forbids for drinking. The Shach rests this on the very wording of seif 7 (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ע״א).
The Taz — two further limits, and very practical ones
(1) Distraction does not permit drinking. The Rama mentioned only two cases — touching without intent to touch, or without knowing it is wine. The Taz draws the exclusion: if there was intent to touch and knowledge that it was wine, but the non-Jew was busy with something else, that does not permit drinking; and he proves it from the Rosh, for whom one who measures with a rod remains forbidden for drinking (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל and ל״א). (2) כח forbids even today. The Taz writes expressly: although the Rama is lenient about a non-Jew's touch in our day, מ״מ כח העובד כוכבי׳ אוסר אף בזמן הזה — his force does forbid even in our day (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ב). That is why “pouring” does not enjoy the great leniency of seif 24.
The Taz on the hollow reed and the Maharil's responsum. The Taz brings from the Maharil (siman 38) a case of a sealed barrel that a non-Jew could have emptied through a hollow reed: he permits it, even if he did indeed drink that way, because it is a touch through an interposed object — and because the drop of wine that runs back is nullified in sixty. The Taz shows that this reading is that of the Rosh, the Rashba and Tosafot against the Ran and the Tur, and closes with a personal recollection: he saw such a case judged in his youth at Poznań, and all the sages there permitted it; ואין להחמיר בזה במקום הפסד מרובה — there is no room for stringency here where there is large loss (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ב).
נוד שיש בו יין ונגע עובד כוכבי׳ בנוד מבחוץ אפילו הוא חסר והגיעו דפנות זו עם זו מותר אפילו בשתייה שאין דרך ניסוך בכך:
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ה
The closed vessel — the most reassuring seif of the siman. A skin-bottle of wine that a non-Jew touches from outside, even if not full, even to the point where its walls meet: permitted even for drinking, since אין דרך ניסוך בכך, libation is not performed that way. The Taz adds that the same holds even if he shook it a great deal (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ד). The Shach specifies, in the name of the Beit Yosef, that the seif deals with a closed skin-bottle, an open one falling under seif 17 — but that, according to the Rama there, where there is loss even an open one would be permitted (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ע״ד). The Rambam gives the principle in its broadest form:
« כְּלִי סָתוּם מֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ הָעַכּוּ״ם מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מִתְנַדְנֵד שֶׁאֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַנִּסּוּךְ » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה ד)
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):
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ז
👈 A touch made to harm — and the instruction to drink before him
The siman closes on a gloss of the Rama of singular reach: a non-Jew who touches a Jew's wine out of spite, precisely in order to render it forbidden to him, does not render it forbidden — it is permitted even for drinking. And proof is not required: אומדנות המוכיחות, conclusive circumstantial indications, suffice. The Taz tells the case of the Terumat HaDeshen from which the rule came: non-Jews walking past a vat of new wine, whispering to one another, one of them dipping a finger and sucking it, then going off laughing — and, when questioned, answering that they had not known this rendered the wine forbidden; the Jews, from the whispering, understood the intent to harm, and he permitted it (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ו). The Rama adds the instruction: ויש לשתותו בפני העובד כוכבים כדי שלא ירגילו עצמם בכך — and one should drink it before him, so that they do not make a habit of this.
Lema'asse (seif 24 and its limits). This seif is the most often invoked and the most badly quoted. What to retain: (1) the Rama's rule exists and is real; (2) the Shach restricts it to situations of loss, and reports from the Maharil that a large loss is required; (3) it does not lift what was already forbidden for drinking on another ground; (4) according to the Taz, it covers neither distraction nor כח. A concrete case therefore requires knowing whether there is loss, how great, and which of the four acts was done. That is exactly the question one puts to a Rav. For your own case, consult your Rav.
10. פסיקה בזמננו — the two traditions of psika
A note on method. The streams that follow extend the principles of siman 124 set out above. Where their authors are not inside the verifiable corpus of the siman, they are presented in prose, without quotation marks and without a precise responsum reference: naming a work one cannot quote is honest, putting a sentence into its mouth would not be. Nothing in this section applies without your Rav's agreement.
a) The Sephardic tradition
The Sephardic starting point is the Mehaber as he stands, and the Mehaber is stringent here: he did not adopt the Rama's “in our day” gloss, and he rules in seif 17 that grasping an open vessel and stirring it renders the wine forbidden. That is why, in Sephardic practice, the ordinary precaution is not to look for a leniency in seif 24 but to keep the wine out of a situation that raises the question: a closed bottle, or mevushal wine. Contemporary Sephardic decisors — the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef, in Yabia Omer and Yechaveh Daat, and Yalkut Yosef — work on that ground, and are known to rely readily on the status of mevushal, on the distinction between the prohibition of benefit and the prohibition of drinking, and on the fact that non-Jews today are not idolaters, in order to be lenient after the fact. Each of these points has its exact measure in their responsa, which must be read, or read out, before acting.
b) The Ashkenazi tradition
Here, unlike the previous case, the stream is entirely documented within the corpus of the siman: the Rama, the Taz, the Shach and the Pitchei Teshuva are real, verifiable Ashkenazi sources, and their positions have been cited one by one above. The line that emerges is clear and reduces to three propositions. (1) The Rama's gloss on seif 24 is accepted: in our day a non-Jew's touch is deemed unintentional. (2) The Shach limits it to situations of loss, and reports from the Maharil that a large loss is required. (3) The Taz excludes כח — pouring — and mere distraction. The Pitchei Teshuva, finally, transmits the later authorities who are more lenient: the Dagul Mervava and the Noda BiYehuda on a bottle that was grasped, with the reservation about a full vessel, and the Chatam Sofer on several neighbouring cases (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ג ; ס״ק א ; ס״ק ז).
Chabad — only from real sources. The Shulchan Arukh HaRav does not cover Yoreh De'ah; there is therefore no “Daat HaRav” on siman 124, and no ruling is to be ascribed to the Admur HaZaken that he did not write here. For Chabad practice on these questions one turns to the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek and to the Sefer HaMinhagim Chabad where they treat a point explicitly.
What we do not have on this siman. Two real absences, and two unavailabilities. Absences: there is no Mishna Berurah — it comments only on Orach Chaim — and no Shulchan Arukh HaRav, the Admur HaZaken not having written Yoreh De'ah. Unavailabilities: the Arukh HaShulchan on Yoreh De'ah is not digitised from siman 123 onward, and neither is the Pri Chadash on Yoreh De'ah — so nothing is attributed to them here, which says nothing about what they wrote. When one meets elsewhere a “quotation” from one of these works on siman 124, one should ask where it came from.
11. מקרים מודרניים — the restaurant, the bar, the table, the shop
How this siman reads today. The barrel is gone, the question is not. Five tools from the siman suffice to read almost every contemporary case: (1) the three conditions of seif 10; (2) the requirement of שכשוך in seif 11; (3) the distinction grasp / lift / pour of seifim 17-18; (4) the Rama's leniency in seif 24 and its limits; (5) the status of the closed vessel in seif 25. Two questions, by contrast, are settled outside this siman: mevushal wine (siman 123) and wine left alone with a non-Jew (simanim 128 to 131).
a) Mevushal wine — the key that is not in this siman
The rule, in the previous siman. The Shulchan Arukh states it in one line:
« יין מבושל שלנו שנגע בו העובד כוכבים מותר ומאימתי נקרא מבושל משהרתיח על גבי האש » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:ג)
Our cooked wine that a non-Jew touched is permitted; and it is called “cooked” from the moment it has boiled over the fire. The Rambam gives the underlying reason, and draws its social consequence:
« לְפִיכָךְ יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ הָעַכּוּ״ם אֵינוֹ אָסוּר וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת עִם הָעַכּוּ״ם בְּכוֹס אֶחָד » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״א הלכה ט)
The decree fell only on wine fit to be offered on the altar; cooked wine not being fit, it falls outside the decree, and it is permitted to drink with a non-Jew from one cup. That is why, in contemporary practice, mevushal wine settles at a stroke the waiter, the bar, the reception and the guests.
But what “mevushal” means today is not in the text. The seif says משהרתיח על גבי האש — from when it has boiled over the fire. Whether industrial pasteurisation, flash pasteurisation, vacuum heating or a given temperature answers to that is a question of fact and of measure, on which contemporary decisors differ, and which no line of siman 124 settles. A bottle bearing a “mevushal” certification rests on the trust placed in that certification. Do not decide this alone: consult your Rav.
b) The cases, one by one
Contemporary case
Tool from the siman
Direction, with its source (to be confirmed with your Rav)
A non-Jewish waiter pours the wine into the glasses
Seif 18 (כח) · Taz sk 32
This is the express case of seif 18: he lifted and poured, the wine came from his force, and it is forbidden even though he neither stirred nor touched. The Shach refers to siman 125, where כח forbids for drinking. Above all, the Taz writes that the Rama's great leniency for our time does not cover כח, which forbids even today (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ב). Hence the established practice: one does not have non-mevushal wine poured by a non-Jewish waiter, and mevushal wine is used instead (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:ג).
An opened bottle that a non-Jew grasped or moved without pouring
Seif 17 + הגה · Taz sk 15 · Pitchei Teshuva sk 3
This is the machloket of seif 17. The Mehaber forbids; the Rama holds that stirring the body of the vessel without lifting it is not stirring, and that one shall not be strict where there is loss; the Shach adds that it is then permitted even for drinking (ס״ק מ״א); the Taz is lenient even if he lifted it (ס״ק ט״ו); and the Pitchei Teshuva brings the Dagul Mervava and the Noda BiYehuda, who permit it where there is loss even with lifting and stirring — but only if the bottle was not full; when full, we suspect the hand may have touched the wine (ס״ק ג). There is therefore ground to permit, and the conclusion depends on the loss, on the level in the bottle, and on the tradition followed.
He only touched the bottle, the glass, the tray
הגה seif 18 · Shach sk 43
Nothing at all. The Rama: all the more does he not forbid by touching the vessel alone. And the Shach, citing the Darkhei Moshe, protests at those who forbid wine on account of a vessel touched without the slightest stirring — there is nothing here to be concerned about (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק מ״ג). This is the commonest case, and the most plainly permitted.
A sealed bottle carried, shelved, scanned at a till
Seif 25 · Seif 26 · Rambam MA 12:4
Permitted, without reservation. Seif 25 permits even for drinking a skin-bottle touched from outside, שאין דרך ניסוך בכך; seif 26 permits even tightening a stopper that was loose; and the Rambam lays down the general rule of a closed vessel that a non-Jew moves, even though the wine sloshes inside. A cashier, a delivery driver or a shelf-stacker handling a closed bottle raises no question whatever.
Drinking from the same glass, or the same bottle, as a non-Jew
Seif 11 · Taz sk 8 · Shach sk 21 and 24
No, with non-mevushal wine. Seif 11 forbids in benefit wine a non-Jew drank from, and the Shach specifies that pouring back into the bottle the remainder of a glass he drank from forbids everything (ס״ק כ״א). The Talmud's single tolerance — the two-spouted vessel — is set aside by the Taz: since the form of that vessel could never be established, no leniency is drawn from it, and one shall not drink with a non-Jew from any vessel (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ח). With mevushal wine, the Rambam expressly permits drinking together from one cup (רמב״ם מאכלות אסורות פרק י״א הלכה ט).
Kiddush at table before non-Jewish guests
Seif 10 · הגה seif 18 · Seif 24
Nothing prevents a non-Jew from sitting at the table, holding a glass, or passing a dish. What raises a question is his pouring (seif 18), his shaking the open bottle (seif 17), or his drinking from the glass with the remainder then poured back (seif 11). The simple course, and the one that has prevailed: serve mevushal wine, or leave the pouring to the Jewish diners. The Rama himself adds on seif 24 ואין לפרסם הדבר בפני עם הארץ: the leniency exists, it is not a principle for organising a meal.
The bar, the tasting, the sommelier
Seif 11 · Seif 12 · Seif 18
Three different acts, three answers. Serving a glass from the bottle is seif 18 (כח). Putting an instrument, a pipette or a wine thief into the bottle is seif 11 (מגע ע״י דבר אחר, this time knowingly and deliberately). Searching a cellar and handling an open bottle is seif 12. Mevushal wine settles all three; without it, each is put separately to a Rav.
Wine left alone with a non-Jew
Outside siman 124
Siman 124 deals with a touch that is known to have happened. What befalls a bottle left unattended belongs to simanim 128 to 131 — that is the question of ייחוד and of the seal. The Rambam already gives the example: « יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל עִם הָעַכּוּ״ם וְהִנִּיחַ יַיִן פָּתוּחַ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְיַיִן פָּתוּחַ עַל הַדֻּלְפְּקִי וְיָצָא. שֶׁעַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן אָסוּר וְשֶׁעַל הַדֻּלְפְּקִי מֻתָּר » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ח). Do not treat that case with the tools of our siman.
A non-Jew touched the wine on purpose, to forbid it
הגה seif 27 · Taz sk 36
Permitted even for drinking, and conclusive circumstantial indications suffice — proof is not needed. The Rama adds that it should be drunk before him, so that they do not grow accustomed to the device. The Taz gives the case of the Terumat HaDeshen on which the rule rests (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ד ס״ק ל״ו).
Grape juice, must, industrial festival wine
Outside siman 124
What siman 124 governs is what already has the status of wine; from when a grape liquid becomes “wine” for these rules is treated in siman 123, and carrying that over to today's pasteurised grape juices is a question of contemporary psika. Put it to your Rav, and do not reason by analogy from the seifim here — the Rama expressly forbade that in seif 19.
👈 The reasoning in three questions, for a real case
Which wine is it? Mevushal — the question does not arise (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:ג). Non-mevushal — carry on.
Was the vessel open or closed? Closed — permitted, even moved and shaken (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:כ״ה–כ״ו). Open — carry on.
What exactly did he do? Touched the vessel: nothing (הגה יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח). Grasped and shook it: machloket, with real leniencies where there is loss (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ז + הגה). Lifted and no more: permitted (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח). Poured: that is כח (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י״ח). Touched the wine itself: according to intent, knowledge and occupation (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ד:י׳).
Once those three are answered the question is ripe — and it is then that it goes to your Rav, together with the size of the loss, which is the fourth parameter.
Lema'asse. Two symmetrical errors lie in wait on this siman. The first is mechanical stringency, the one the Shach denounces by name: forbidding a bottle because a non-Jew touched it, and causing a Jew a needless loss of money. The second is leniency by analogy, which the Rama forbids just as expressly: extending “in our day they are not idolaters” on one's own to a case the Sages did not foresee. Between the two stands a Rav. For your own case, consult your Rav.
12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables
טבלה — the four statuses, and what moves from one to the next
Status
What it means
Typical case in the siman
אסור בהנאה
Nothing may be gained from it: no drinking, no sale, no use
He touched the wine and stirred it, knowing it was wine, not occupied elsewhere (סעיפים י׳–י״ב)
אסור בשתייה, מותר בהנאה
It may be sold, not drunk
An unintentional touch; measuring with a rod; a child's touch; כח (סעיפים א׳, י״ט, כ׳)
מותר אפילו בשתייה
Nothing has happened to the wine
An interposed object without intent; a closed skin-bottle; a tightened stopper; a spiteful touch (סעיפים כ״ד–כ״ז)
מותר במקום הפסד
Permitted where there is a real loss
A vessel grasped and stirred; the “בזמן הזה” gloss according to the Shach (סעיף י״ז, סעיף כ״ד ; ש״ך ס״ק ע״א)
טבלה — who says what
Posek
Decisive contribution, anchored in the corpus
Mehaber (seifim 1-27)
The person before the act (s. 1-9); the three conditions (s. 10); what a touch is, and stirring (s. 11); the shop (s. 12); the seized hand (s. 13); the ברזא from every angle (s. 14-16, 26); the vessel grasped and stirred (s. 17); כח (s. 18); the man busy at his work (s. 19); the fall into the vat (s. 20-21); the cracked barrel and מעשה לבינה (s. 22); the hole blocked by hand (s. 23); the interposed object without intent (s. 24); the closed skin-bottle (s. 25); repairing the barrel (s. 27).
Rama (הגה on s. 2, 9, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27)
Incomplete immersion, and the lenient view on the ger toshav; the standing of the anussim, with the Rivash's exact line; the foot that does not forbid in benefit; the froth as wine; the ברזא according to whether he knew; אין להחמיר במקום פסידא for a stirred vessel; touching the vessel alone does nothing; the proof drawn from occupation, and the ban on extending by analogy; the presence or absence of a Jew able to save the wine; the “בזמן הזה” gloss and the order not to publish it; the spiteful touch and the duty to drink before him.
Taz (טורי זהב, ס״ק א–ל״ו)
ס״ק א: what “naming” idolatry means; ס״ק ב: Karaites as a ger toshav, from the Maharshal; ס״ק ד: the two motives — בנותיהן for drinking, עבודת כוכבים for benefit; ס״ק ו: no difference between much and little stirring; ס״ק ח: one does not drink with a non-Jew from any vessel; ס״ק י: the shop, permitted even for drinking in our day; ס״ק י״א: be concerned for the Rashba and forbid on the bare touch; ס״ק ט״ו: be lenient even if he lifted, but forbid drinking on the bare touch; ס״ק כ״ה: the Rama's printing error; ס״ק ל–ל״א: distraction does not permit drinking; ס״ק ל״ב: כח forbids even today, and the Maharil's case; ס״ק ל״ד: the skin-bottle, even much shaken; ס״ק ל״ו: the Terumat HaDeshen case.
Shach (שפתי כהן, ס״ק א–ע״ז)
ס״ק א: even a day-old infant forbids for drinking; ס״ק ד: the Rama's אפילו covers both cases; ס״ק ח: his objection to seif 4; ס״ק י״א–י״ב: the exact reach of seif 7; ס״ק כ: a bare touch does not forbid in benefit; ס״ק כ״א: the remainder of a glass poured back; ס״ק כ״ד: piety at the two-spouted vessel; ס״ק כ״ז: the mixture and the sixty; ס״ק ל״ג: in doubt we lean to leniency; ס״ק מ״א: permitted even for drinking; ס״ק מ״ג: his astonishment at needless stringency; ס״ק נ: even a small loss suffices; ס״ק נ״ד: the notion of distraction is not to be extended; ס״ק נ״ז: what is touched by means of a person is no touch; ס״ק ס״ג–ס״ו: the blocked hole, and the printing error; ס״ק ע״א: the limit of the Rama's gloss — במקום הפסד, the Maharil, and the exception of cases already permitted in benefit; ס״ק ע״ד: the closed skin-bottle.
Pitchei Teshuva (ס״ק א–ז)
ס״ק א: the Chatam Sofer on a moumar through desecration of Shabbat; ס״ק ב: the Chatam Sofer — a touch through a sleeve is no touch; ס״ק ג: the Dagul Mervava and the Noda BiYehuda on a bottle that was grasped, with the reservation about a full vessel; ס״ק ד: the Tiferet LeMoshe's reservation on stirring without intent; ס״ק ה: the Panim Meirot's defence of the Levush; ס״ק ו: the case of barrels loaded onto a cart; ס״ק ז: the Chatam Sofer on a case where an official broke the seal of the wine.
Rambam (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרקים י״א–י״ב)
פרק י״א הלכה ח: the governing rule — an idolater: benefit; a non-idolater: drinking only. פרק י״א הלכה ט: cooked wine, and permission to drink with a non-Jew from one cup. פרק י״ב הלכות א–ב: touching and stirring, then כח. פרק י״ב הלכה ד: the closed vessel that is moved. פרק י״ב הלכה י״ח: open wine left on the table.
Gemara (עבודה זרה)
נ״ז ע״א: Rav on the day-old infant, and his own limitation to drinking. נ״ח ע״א: the inspector who bored the barrel with a tube. נ״ט ע״ב: the etrog that fell into the barrel, and Rav Ashi's order to hold his hand. ס׳ ע״ב: the mishna of acts in which a man is occupied elsewhere.
In substance, this siman does not first ask what was done, but by whom — and only then whether the three conditions of seif 10 are met: intent to touch, knowledge that it is wine, absence of occupation.
The act weighs as much as the person: touching the vessel is nothing; touching the wine without stirring is disputed; touching and stirring forbids in benefit; pouring is a prohibition of its own, that of כח, which the Taz explicitly maintains for our time.
The Rama's great leniency exists — in our day their touch is deemed unintentional — but it is bounded: the Shach applies it only where there is loss, the Maharil only where the loss is large, and it does not lift what was already forbidden for drinking on another ground.
Two structural solutions avoid the question rather than settle it: the closed vessel (seif 25) and mevushal wine (siman 123, seif 3) — the latter even permitting one to drink with a non-Jew from one cup (Rambam).
And for every real case — which wine, which bottle, which act, how great a loss — halakha lema'asse goes through your Rav. The Rama wrote it himself in this siman: one does not compare one case to another in these matters. Consult your Rav.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות פסק והלכה למעשה בדין מי הוא העושה יין נסך ונגיעת העובד כוכבים ביין · סימן קכ״ד · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'asse
⚠️ This content is for study. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are landmarks, not a personal ruling. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.