A first approach to Siman 125: the 11 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text and fluent English translation. The previous siman dealt with a hand laid on the wine; this one deals with what that hand sets in motion without touching it. A vessel lifted, a cart raised, a winepress wheel turned, an object pushed, a barrel carried on the shoulder: each time the same question — did this wine come from his force, and how many removes away?
Subject: Wine moved by a non-Jew’s force — כחו, כח כחו, נצוק, מסייע שאין בו ממש, מזיגה Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ה
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 11 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: where the rule of כֹּחוֹ comes from
3.The key concepts: כחו, כח כחו, נצוק, שכשוך, מסייע שאין בו ממש…
4.The summary table: what is permitted, what is forbidden, and to what degree
5.The Taz and the Shach: four key passages
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה): the three interventions
7.Practical cases today: the waiter, the warehouseman, the mechanised winepress
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 11 seifim
Siman 125 never speaks of a non-Jew who touches the wine — that was the business of siman 124. It speaks of what he sets in motion: a vessel he lifts and which empties, a cart he raises, a winepress wheel he turns, an object he pushes, a barrel he carries. The Gemara calls this כֹּחוֹ, his force. The whole siman measures two things and two only: how many removes the wine stands from that force (seifim 1-3), and whether the force produced anything, and with what intent (seifim 4-11). The Rama intervenes in three seifim — 1, 4 and 10 — each time to draw the exact limit of the permission.
Group A — The non-Jew’s force and its degrees (seifim 1-3)
Seif 1 — He lifts the vessel and the wine comes out: his force, and the nitzok
דין יין הבא מכח עובד כוכבים וכח כחו. ובו י״א סעיפים: נטל עובד כוכבים כלי של יין והגביהו ויצא היין אף על פי שלא שכשך נאסר בשתייה שהרי היין בא מכחו ומה שנשאר בכלי אסור גם כן משום נצוק. (וי״א דלא אסרינן נצוק בכח עובד כוכבים)(טור והרא״ש ומרדכי ור״ן בשם רש״י ותוספות וראב״ן ותשובת מיי׳ המ״א סימן י״א)(ומכל מקום יש להחמיר אם לא בהפסד מרובה כדלקמן סימן קכ״ו) ואם הוא שלא בכוונה שלא ידע שהוא יין (או שלא הגביה הכלי)(בית יוסף סימן קכ״ד) הכל מותר אפי׳ בשתייה:
Title of the siman: the laws of wine that comes from a non-Jew’s force and from the force of his force; eleven seifim. — A non-Jew took a vessel of wine, lifted it, and the wine came out: even though he did not agitate it, the wine is forbidden to drink, since the wine came from his force; and what remained in the vessel is forbidden too, because of the nitzok. Gloss of the Rama:some say that we do not forbid the nitzok where only the non-Jew’s force is involved; nevertheless one should be stringent, unless there is a substantial loss, as stated below in siman 126. And if it was unintentional — he did not know it was wine — (or he did not lift the vessel) — everything is permitted, even to drink.
Three things in a single seif, and they must be kept apart. First the rule: wine that comes out through the non-Jew’s force is forbidden to drink, without contact and without even agitation — this is koaḥ, not maga. Then an extension: what remains in the vessel would be forbidden by the nitzok, the stream that links what leaves to what stays. Finally the limit: without intent, everything is permitted. The Rama refuses to extend the nitzok to mere force; the Shach, in his very first note, is more astonished still — in siman 124 the Mehaber himself permitted what remains inside (see section 5).
Seif 2 — The force of his force, and the third remove: the winepress beam
כח כחו ככחו דמי ואם הוא כח כח כחו כגון קורת הגת שגלגלה עובד כוכבים שיש שם ג׳ כחות הדפין והגלגל והקורה בדיעבד מותר אפילו בשתייה:
The force of his force is like his force.And if it is the force of the force of his force — such as the beam of the winepress that a non-Jew set turning, where there are three forces: the boards, the wheel and the beam — after the fact it is permitted, even to drink.
Here the siman sets its own scale.One remove: the wine comes out of what the non-Jew lifted — koḥo, forbidden. Two removes: the wine comes out of what was moved by what the non-Jew moved — koaḥ koḥo, and the Mehaber rules that it is the same thing. Three removes: the force has been diluted through three mechanical relays — boards, wheel, beam — and after the fact the wine remains permitted even to drink. The Shach at once adds the missing restriction: at the outset it is forbidden even with ten forces (see section 5).
Seif 3 — When the two forces are mixed: the adult, and the child
אם כח ישראל וכח עובד כוכבים מעורבים יחד כגון ששניהם עירו ביחד מותר בדיעבד ואפילו אם היה העובד כוכבים יכול לבדו לערות בלא סיוע ישראל והוא שיהא הישראל המסייע גדול אבל אם היה נער קטן אסור משום דהוי מסייע שאין בו ממש:
If a Jew’s force and a non-Jew’s force are mixed together — for instance if the two of them poured together — it is permitted after the fact, and even if the non-Jew could have poured on his own, without the Jew’s help; provided that the assisting Jew is an adult. But if he was a young child, it is forbidden, because that is assistance with no substance.
Two hands on one act: whose is the force? The Mehaber refuses to decide by sheer strength — even if the non-Jew could perfectly well have managed alone, the Jew’s share counts. What makes it count is that it be real: a child laying his hand on the handle adds nothing, and we fall back on the non-Jew’s force alone. Note the phrase מסייע שאין בו ממש: it returns in seif 4, but there it serves to permit — what adds nothing forbids nothing either.
Group B — What adds nothing, what pushes, what falls (seifim 4-7)
Seif 4 — The wine was already flowing: help that adds nothing
אם היין מקלח מהחבית שבעגלה לתוך הכובא והעובד כוכבים מגביה העגלה כדי שיקלח היין יותר יפה מותר: הגה אבל אם לא היה מקלח בלא הגבהת עובד כוכבים אסור והוא הדין אם ישראל מריק מכלי אל כלי ובא עובד כוכבים ומנענע ידו של הישראל אם היה היין מקלח בלאו הכי שרי (סברת הרב לחלק במה שכתב המרדכי בשם ר׳ פרץ) ואם לאו אסור. עובד כוכבים שבא לפרוק חבית יין מעל העגלה ויצא מכחו יין לחוץ שרי דהוי שלא בכוונה דבמלאכתו הוא עוסק (מרדכי פר״י):
If the wine is flowing from the barrel on the cart into the vat, and the non-Jew raises the cart so that the wine should flow better — it is permitted. Gloss of the Rama:but if it was not flowing without the non-Jew raising it, it is forbidden. And the same applies if a Jew is decanting from one vessel to another and a non-Jew comes and moves the Jew’s hand: if the wine was flowing anyway, it is permitted; if not, it is forbidden. A non-Jew who came to unload a barrel of wine from the cart, and wine came out through his force: it is permitted, since it is unintentional — he is occupied with his work.
The criterion is no longer the quantity of force but its effect. The wine was already flowing; the non-Jew’s act merely speeds it up; it therefore produces nothing, and the Shach supplies the exact term in the name of Tosafot: מסייע שאין בו ממש, assistance with no substance (see section 5). The Rama draws the reverse, which is the real practical difficulty: if nothing flowed without him, everything that flows is his. And he closes the gloss on a second door, that of intent: the workman busy unloading is not thinking about the wine.
Seif 5 — The stone thrown, the object pushed, and the act of anger
זרק אבן או חפץ לתוך היין מותר אפי׳ בשתייה אבל אם החפץ מתגלגל והוא דוחהו עד שנופל לתוך היין אסור אפילו בהנאה ואם עשה כן בחמתו מותר אפי׳ בשתיה:
He threw a stone or an object into the wine — it is permitted, even to drink. But if the object is rolling and he pushes it until it falls into the wine — it is forbidden even to derive benefit from it. And if he did so in his anger — it is permitted, even to drink.
Three very close gestures, three rulings.Throwing: the object leaves the hand, the wine received nothing from the non-Jew’s force — permitted. Pushing it right into the wine: the hand accompanies the object, we are not far from contact by means of an intermediary, and the prohibition rises a degree — even as to benefit. In anger: the gesture is blind, there is no intent. This last case comes straight from the mishna in Avoda Zara — זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְהִכְשִׁירוּ — and the Taz notes in passing that it stands in tension with what the Mehaber wrote in siman 124 (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ח).
Seif 6 — Grapes thrown into the winepress
עובד כוכבים שהביא ענבים בסלים ובדרדורי׳ (פי׳ רש״י גיגיות קטנות) וזרקן לגת שיש בו יין דרוך מותר בדיעבד אף על פי שיש בדרדורים יין שזב מהענבים שבהם ואם ישראל מסייע לעובד כוכבים בזריקתו לגת מותר אפילו לכתחלה:
A non-Jew who brought grapes in baskets and in dardurim — Rashi explains: small tubs — and threw them into the winepress that holds trodden wine: it is permitted after the fact, even though there is wine in the dardurim that seeped from the grapes inside them. And if a Jew assists the non-Jew in throwing them into the winepress, it is permitted even at the outset.
The wine is there, and it does come from his force — and yet. The Shach gives the reason: that wine has not yet flowed together in the winepress, it does not have the status of constituted wine; and if it is nevertheless forbidden at the outset, that is a decree lest one come to pour actual wine (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ט). The last line is surprising: when the Jew assists, the thing becomes permitted at the outset — the very assistance that in seif 3 saved matters only after the fact suffices here to open the door, because there is no substantive prohibition left to overcome, only a decree.
Seif 7 — Water thrown into the wine: it all turns on dilution
עובד כוכבים שזרק מים לתוך היין מותר אפילו בשתיה והוא שאינו מכוין למוזגו כגון שזרק מים לחביות גדולות או לכוס ולא ידע שהוא יין אבל אם מכוין למזוג אסור בשתייה ואם אינו ידוע אם כוון למזיגה אם לאו מותר:
A non-Jew who threw water into the wine — it is permitted, even to drink, provided he does not intend to dilute it: for instance if he threw water into large barrels, or into a cup, and did not know it was wine. But if he intends to dilute it — it is forbidden to drink.And if it is not known whether he intended dilution or not — it is permitted.
Water is not wine. It does not bind to the wine through the nitzok, and its arrival is no libation. What is troubling here is therefore not the substance but the gesture: diluting wine is a wine-server’s act, a way of handling the wine — hence the risk, in the words of the Rashba and the Ran cited by the Taz, that he end up touching it (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק י). That is why the seif sets the large barrel, where nobody dilutes wine, against the cup, where dilution is the very custom. And where doubt remains: a doubt in a rabbinic matter is resolved leniently (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק י״א).
Group C — Pouring, carrying, transporting (seifim 8-11)
Seif 8 — Who pours into whose vessel
עובד כוכבים שמערה מכלי שבידו לכלי שביד ישראל היוצא אסור בשתייה וישראל שמערה מכלי שבידו לכלי שביד עובד כוכבים מותר אפילו בשתייה ואם נדנד העובד כוכבים הכלי נאסר היין:
A non-Jew who pours from a vessel in his hand into a vessel in a Jew’s hand: what comes out is forbidden to drink. And a Jew who pours from a vessel in his hand into a vessel in a non-Jew’s hand: it is permitted, even to drink.And if the non-Jew shook the vessel — the wine is forbidden.
The whole seif rests on one symmetry: the hand that pours makes the force; the hand that receives does not. Hence the closing precision: receiving is not enough, but shaking — נדנד — is already acting upon the wine, and we fall back under the שכשוך of siman 124. Note too, with the Shach, the exact reach of the words היוצא אסור: what comes out is forbidden, what stays inside is not — precisely what the Shach sets against seif 1 (see section 5).
Seif 9 — The wineskin carried, his hand on its mouth
העביר העובד כוכבים נוד של יין ממקום למקום והוא אוחז פי הנאד בידו בין שהיה הנוד מלא או חסר מותר ואע״פ שהיין מתנדנד שאין דרך ניסוך בכך:
A non-Jew carried a wineskin of wine from place to place, holding the mouth of the skin in his hand: whether the skin was full or partly empty — it is permitted, and even though the wine is jolted about, for that is not a manner of libation.
Wine jolted about is not wine agitated. It is the product of no intent, and above all, says the Gemara, that is not how a libation is poured — אֵין דֶּרֶךְ נִיסּוּךְ בְּכָךְ. What remains to be understood is why the text insists on the hand on the mouth: held that way, the Shach explains in the name of the Beit Yosef, the skin is not an open vessel, and no שכשוך is possible in it (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק י״ז).
Seif 10 — The open vessel: full or partly empty, and the Jew’s eye
היה נושא כלי פתוח ובו יין וישראל הולך אחריו אם הוא חסר ולא שכשכו מותר בשתייה (וי״א דאפילו שכשכו בכלי שרי כאן)(רשב״א והראב״ד והרא״ש ור״ן)(וכן עיקר) ואם הוא מלא אסור בהנאה שמא נגע בו ואם הישראל הולך בצדו ונטר ליה אפילו מלא מותר שא״א לו ליגע שלא יראנו ואם היה נושא הכלי במוט בשנים אפילו מלא והישראל הולך אחריו מותר וה״ה לנושא דלי דרך טבעתו (תוספות וסה״ת וסמ״ק):הגה ובלבד שהישראל סייעו כשהכניס המוט בטבעת הכלי (מרדכי בשם ראבי״ה) או שראה כשהכניסו העובד כוכבים שלא נגע:
If he was carrying an open vessel containing wine and a Jew walks behind him: if it is partly empty and he did not agitate it — it is permitted to drink. Gloss of the Rama:some say that here, even if he agitated it in the vessel, it is permitted — and so is the main ruling. And if it is full — it is forbidden even to derive benefit from it, lest he touched it.And if the Jew walks alongside him and watches him — even full it is permitted, since he cannot touch it without being seen. And if he was carrying the vessel on a pole between two — even full, and even if the Jew walks behind him, it is permitted; and the same applies to one carrying a bucket by its ring. Gloss of the Rama:provided that the Jew helped him when he inserted the pole into the ring of the vessel, or that he saw, when the non-Jew inserted it, that he did not touch.
This seif no longer speaks of force but of possible contact — and it reverses the criterion of seif 9: here a full vessel is graver than a partly empty one, because wine level with the rim is touched without effort. What follows is a catalogue of what makes contact impossible: the eye (the Jew walks alongside), distance (the pole carried between two), the grip (the bucket held by its ring). And the Rama supplies the condition that makes them reliable: one must have seen the beginning of the operation.
Seif 11 — The barrel on the shoulder: force without intent
עובד כוכבים שנושא חבית אפילו על כתיפו ובלכתו יצא מהיין לחוץ שלא בכוונה מותר בשתייה אפילו מה שיצא לחוץ דכחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו:
A non-Jew who carries a barrel, even on his shoulder, and as he walked wine came out unintentionally — it is permitted to drink, including what came out, for over his force without intent they did not decree.
The siman closes on the phrase that gives it its measure:דכחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו. Everything we have just read is rabbinic — the Gemara says so explicitly (see section 2) — and a decree does not stretch beyond what it aims at. Seif 1 had already said as much of wine poured unknowingly; here it is wine that spills of itself. Note the generosity of the wording: even what came out — that is, the very place where the decree ordinarily bites.
2. Context — where the rule of כֹּחוֹ comes from
A non-Jew’s force is not contact. The previous siman dealt with a hand laid on the wine; this one deals with what that hand set in motion without touching it. The Gemara lays down the rule concerning a non-Jew emptying a barrel into a vat held by a Jew:
A non-Jew’s force is therefore forbidden by the Sages; and they decreed over what comes out, not over what stays inside. From this comes the last phrase of seif 11, and this is where the Shach will find his difficulty on seif 1. At the other end, the Gemara supplies the formula that releases — not every movement of wine is a libation:
The Rambam codifies the rule in two sentences, which the Mehaber reproduces almost word for word in seif 1 — except that he writes ויצא היין, “and the wine came out”, where the Rambam writes ויצק היין, “and he poured the wine”:
What is a “force”? Not contact, not agitation: a movement of the wine produced by the non-Jew’s act. Seif 1 says it in so many words — even though he did not agitate it.
How far does it reach? Seif 2 counts the relays: one, two, three. The second remove is still his force; the third is no longer, after the fact.
What must a force have to count? It must produce something (seif 4) and come from a real agent (seif 3). Assistance with no substance counts neither to forbid nor to permit.
And intent? That is the way out of the whole siman: over his force without intent they did not decree (seifim 1, 4 and 11).
This siman deals neither with the non-Jew’s contact with wine (siman 124) nor with the mixture of permitted wine with yayin nesekh (siman 126). It occupies exactly the place between them: the wine was not touched, and yet it moved. The whole question is whether that movement is its own or the non-Jew’s.
3. The key concepts of this siman
כֹּחוֹ — his force. The wine moved because of the non-Jew’s act, without his touching it: he lifted the vessel, raised the cart, pushed the object. The Gemara establishes that this force forbids the wine to drink, and that it is a prohibition of the Sages, not of the Torah.
כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ — the force of his force. A relay has been interposed: the non-Jew set something in motion, and that thing moved the wine. Seif 2 rules that this second remove is like the first. The third — כֹּחַ כֹּחַ כֹּחוֹ, the case of the winepress beam — is permitted after the fact only.
נִצּוֹק — the linking stream. The continuous column of liquid running from the upper vessel to the lower one: is it a connection, so that the prohibition climbs back to what remains above? The Mehaber applies it here; the Rama reports that the nitzok is not extended to mere force. The nitzok itself is treated in siman 126.
שִׁכְשׁוּךְ — agitation. Shaking the wine inside its vessel, even without touching or lifting it. That is the subject of siman 124; here it appears only by contrast — even without agitation, force suffices (seif 1) — and returns at the end of seifim 8 and 10.
מְסַיֵּעַ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ — assistance with no substance. A contribution that adds nothing to the result. The siman uses it twice in opposite directions: in seif 3, the child helping the non-Jew does not count, so we forbid; in seif 4, the non-Jew speeding up wine that was already flowing does not count either, so we permit.
שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה — without intent. He did not know it was wine (seif 1), he was occupied with his work (seif 4), the wine spilled as he walked (seif 11). The rabbinic decree does not apply to what nobody intended: דכחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו.
בַּחֲמָתוֹ — in his anger. The furious gesture of seif 5, taken from the mishna in Avoda Zara. A man who hurls an object in a rage is not thinking of the wine; this is the most visible form of without intent, and the mishna had already declared it permitted.
מְזִיגָה — diluting the wine. Adding water in order to drink it, an ordinary act of wine service. In seif 7 it is the intent to dilute — not the water itself — that raises the problem: it places the non-Jew among those who handle the wine. Hence the contrast between the large barrel and the cup.
אֵין דֶּרֶךְ נִיסּוּךְ בְּכָךְ — that is not a manner of libation. Rav Ashi’s formula, at seif 9: wine jolted about in a skin being carried is nothing like a ritual act. It also explains, by contrast, why seif 10 worries no longer about force but about possible contact.
4. The summary table — what is permitted, and to what degree
The siman rarely answers simply “permitted” or “forbidden”. Three scales cross in it: at the outset or after the fact, forbidden to drink or forbidden to benefit from, and how many removes from the non-Jew’s force. Here are the eleven seifim laid flat.
המקרה
Situation
Ruling
Seif
הגביהו ויצא היין
He lifts the vessel and the wine comes out
אסור בשתייה — and the remainder too, through the nitzok
1
וי״א דלא אסרינן נצוק בכח
Nitzok for mere force
Rama: we do not forbid it; be stringent unless there is substantial loss
1 (Rama)
שלא ידע שהוא יין
He did not know it was wine
הכל מותר אפי׳ בשתייה
1
כח כחו
The force of his force
ככחו דמי — like his force, hence forbidden
2
כח כח כחו · קורת הגת
Three relays: boards, wheel, beam
בדיעבד מותר אפילו בשתייה; not at the outset
2
שניהם עירו ביחד
Jew and non-Jew pour together
מותר בדיעבד, even if the non-Jew could manage alone
3
המסייע נער קטן
The helper is a young child
אסור — מסייע שאין בו ממש
3
מקלח · מגביה שיקלח יותר יפה
The wine was flowing; he speeds it up
מותר
4
לא היה מקלח בלא הגבהתו
Without him nothing flowed
אסור
4 (Rama)
בא לפרוק חבית ויצא מכחו
He unloads, and wine spurts out
שרי — unintentional, דבמלאכתו הוא עוסק
4 (Rama)
זרק אבן או חפץ
He throws a stone into the wine
מותר אפי׳ בשתייה
5
דוחהו עד שנופל
He pushes the object into the wine
אסור אפילו בהנאה
5
עשה כן בחמתו
He did it in his anger
מותר אפי׳ בשתיה
5
זרקן לגת
He throws grapes into the winepress
מותר בדיעבד
6
ישראל מסייע בזריקתו
A Jew helps him throw them
מותר אפילו לכתחלה
6
זרק מים ולא ידע שהוא יין
He throws water without knowing
מותר אפילו בשתיה
7
מכוין למזוג
He intends to dilute
אסור בשתייה
7
אינו ידוע אם כוון למזיגה
His intent is unknown
מותר — a rabbinic doubt is resolved leniently
7
מערה לכלי שביד ישראל
The non-Jew pours, the Jew receives
היוצא אסור בשתייה; what stays inside remains permitted
8
ישראל מערה לכלי שבידו
The Jew pours, the non-Jew receives
מותר אפילו בשתייה
8
נדנד העובד כוכבים הכלי
The non-Jew shakes the vessel
נאסר היין
8
נוד · אוחז פי הנאד בידו
Skin carried, hand on the mouth
מותר — אין דרך ניסוך בכך
9
כלי פתוח · חסר ולא שכשכו
Open vessel, partly empty
מותר בשתייה; Rama: even if he agitated it
10
כלי פתוח · מלא
Open vessel, full
אסור בהנאה — שמא נגע בו
10
ישראל הולך בצדו ונטר ליה
The Jew walks alongside and watches
אפילו מלא מותר
10
במוט בשנים · דלי דרך טבעתו
Carried between two on a pole; bucket by its ring
מותר, provided the start was seen
10
נושא חבית · יצא שלא בכוונה
Barrel on the shoulder, wine spills
מותר בשתייה — דכחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו
11
Read top to bottom, the middle column tells the siman: almost everything forbidden is forbidden only to drink, and almost everything permitted is permitted only after the fact. Two exceptions frame the table — the object pushed in seif 5 and the full vessel in seif 10, the only cases where the prohibition rises as far as benefit; and two ways out run through it — the absence of intent and assistance with no substance.
5. The Taz and the Shach — four key passages
The two great commentaries printed around the Shulchan Aruch of 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 they do not so much comment as measure: how far the decree reaches, and where the Mehaber’s own text contradicts itself.
A key passage of the Taz
Taz s.k. 5 — the smell is enough to know it is wine
בגמרא איתא דאפילו בריחא תליא מלתא דהיינו אם הוא יין ישן ודאי ידע שהוא יין ע״י הריח
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ה
It is stated in the Gemara that even the smell determines the matter: that is, that if it is old wine, he certainly knew it was wine, by the smell.
The permission of seif 1 — he did not know it was wine — is not a declaration but a finding of fact, and the Taz reminds us that it can be checked. Young wine, in a closed barrel, may pass for oil or beer; old wine may not: its smell gives it away. The whole question of intent therefore turns on what the non-Jew could reasonably have known, not on what he says.
Three key passages of the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — the difficulty about the nitzok in seif 1
קשה דלעיל סי׳ קכ״ד סי״ד פסק דמה שנשאר בפנים מותר והיינו משום דלא החמירו כחו בניצוק
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק א
This is difficult: for above, in siman 124 seif 14, he ruled that what remained inside is permitted — and that because they were not stringent to apply the nitzok to force.
The Shach puts his finger on a tension internal to the Shulchan Aruch: the very author who forbids here what remains in the vessel permitted it in siman 124, and will permit it again in seif 8 of our siman — היוצא אסור בשתייה, what comes out, and that alone. He adds a second, more structural difficulty: the nitzok applies only to wine forbidden to benefit from, whereas here what came out is forbidden only to drink. His conclusion is a צ״ע — the question stays open.
Shach s.k. 4 — at the outset, even ten forces do not help
אבל לכתחלה אסור אפילו בעשרה כחות ויותר כן משמע בטור ופוסקים
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ד
But at the outset it is forbidden, even with ten forces and more — so it appears from the Tur and the decisors.
Without this line one would read seif 2 as a simple scale: two removes forbidden, three permitted. The Shach restores the true division: counting forces tells us only what obtains after the fact. At the outset, no number of relays makes the thing permitted — distance cannot be manufactured.
Shach s.k. 7 — the exact term, in the name of Tosafot
כיון דבלא״ה היה נמי היין מקלח ולא הועיל מעשה העובד כוכבים אלא שעי״כ מקלח יותר יפה א״כ מותר דהוי מסייע שאין בו ממש. תוספות
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ז
Since the wine was flowing anyway, and the non-Jew’s act achieved nothing except that it flows better — it is therefore permitted, for it is assistance with no substance. Tosafot.
This is the phrase that gives seif 4 its rule of decision, and it is measurable: the question is not “did the non-Jew act?” but “did his act change anything?”. Note the symmetry with seif 3: the same concept there ruled out the child’s help. Assistance with no substance never counts — neither to forbid nor to permit.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה) — three interventions
The Rama intervenes in only three of the eleven seifim — 1, 4 and 10 — and each time at the same spot: where the Mehaber has laid down a rule and one needs to know how far it carries.
On seif 1 — the nitzok does not follow force
The Mehaber forbids what remains in the vessel. The Rama reports the opposing view — וי״א דלא אסרינן נצוק בכח עובד כוכבים — in the name of a very broad front of Rishonim: the Tur, the Rosh, the Mordechai and the Ran in the name of Rashi, Tosafot, the Ra’avan and the Teshuvot Maimoniyot. Then he does not decide outright: one should be stringent, unless there is substantial loss. The Taz finds the wording ill-fitted (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ד): where there is substantial loss we are lenient even about a genuine nitzok. The Rama further adds, at the end of the seif, a second way out — או שלא הגביה הכלי — which the Shach for his part leaves in doubt (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק ג).
On seif 4 — what the assistance must produce
The most practical gloss of the siman. It turns the seif around: the Mehaber permitted because the wine was already flowing; the Rama infers that if the wine was not flowing, it is forbidden, and at once extends the criterion to another case — the non-Jew who comes and moves the Jew’s hand while he is decanting. Same question, same answer: was the wine flowing anyway? The gloss then closes on a second, independent rule: the workman unloading a barrel and making wine spurt out acts without intent, דבמלאכתו הוא עוסק — he is occupied with his work.
On seif 10 — agitation, and the beginning of the operation
Two contributions. First a leniency: even if he agitated the wine in the vessel, here it is permitted — and the Rama adds וכן עיקר, so is the main ruling. The Shach gives the reason: the vessel in question is a wide one, and one does not willingly agitate a wide vessel, for fear of spilling (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ה ס״ק י״ט). Then a demand for vigilance: carrying between two on a pole helps only if the Jew assisted when the pole was passed through the ring, or saw that the non-Jew did not touch. The permission rests not on the final position but on what was seen at the outset.
One line runs through the three glosses: the Rama does not dispute the rule, he delimits its application. Where the nitzok stops following force, on what condition assistance counts, from what moment one had to be watching. It is work on thresholds — and, as so often, that is where practical life is decided.
7. Practical cases today
Case 1 — The non-Jewish waiter filling the glasses
This is seif 8 exactly, and the commonest case in the whole siman. The hand that pours makes the force: if the waiter holds the bottle and fills the guest’s glass, what comes out is at issue; if the guest pours and the waiter holds out the glass, there is no question. Note too the precision of the seif: what comes out, and not what stays in the bottle. A real case is put to a Rav; this level supplies the structure, not the ruling.
Case 2 — The mechanised winepress and the switch
The winepress beam of seif 2 is the direct ancestor of the modern question: a non-Jew who presses a switch, starts a pump, opens a valve. The siman supplies the grid — count the relays — but not the answer: whether a motor, a controller or a timer constitutes one, two or three “forces” is a question the poskim have treated at length, and it belongs to level 4. Above all, remember the Shach’s line: counting forces holds only after the fact.
Case 3 — The warehouseman unloading the crates
The end of seif 4 and seif 11 meet here: a non-Jewish employee unloads, carries, stacks — and wine spills or spurts. The two texts say the same thing, each in its own way: he is occupied with his work, over force without intent they did not decree. But mind the scope: this siman speaks of uncovered wine. Wine in a sealed bottle is another question, treated elsewhere in this block of simanim.
Case 4 — Help that changes nothing
A non-Jew holds the bottom of a crate while a Jew pours; he holds a door open, steadies a cask that was already flowing. The criterion of seif 4, sharpened by the Shach in the name of Tosafot, is perfectly workable: was the wine flowing without him? If so, מסייע שאין בו ממש. If not, all the wine that flows came from his force. And seif 3 recalls the other face of the same principle: assistance with no substance does not save either.
Case 5 — Water, ice, soda
Seif 7 is subtler than it looks: the problem is not the water but the intent to dilute the wine. Hence a distinction that transposes as it stands: water poured into a large tank is not dilution; water poured into a glass almost always is. And where his aim is unknown, the Taz gives the rule: a doubt in a rabbinic decree is resolved leniently.
Case 6 — Wine carried, transported, jolted
Seifim 9 to 11 form the siman’s manual of transport. A closed container, or one held by the mouth, raises no question: that is not a manner of libation. An open container does, and the question changes in kind — it is no longer about force but about possible contact — with three remedies the seif enumerates: watch, keep at a distance, see the beginning of the operation.
8. Synthesis of Siman 125
In one sentence: wine that a non-Jew has set in motion without touching it is forbidden to drink — but the prohibition is rabbinic, and the eleven seifim do nothing but count what distances the wine from him: the number of relays between his hand and the wine, the real effect of his act, and the intent he did or did not have. Where these three counts fall to zero, the wine remains permitted, even to drink.
Memory table
The question
The criterion
Where
Is contact required?
No: his force suffices, even without agitation
seif 1
And what stays in the vessel?
Mehaber: נצוק · Rama: not extended to force
seif 1
How many relays?
Two removes = his force · three = permitted after the fact
seif 2
And at the outset?
Forbidden even with ten forces (Shach)
seif 2
Two hands on one act?
Permitted after the fact, if the helper is an adult
seif 3
When does a force count?
When it produces something
seif 4
Throwing, pushing, raging?
Throw: permitted · push: even benefit · anger: permitted
seif 5
Grapes thrown into the press?
Permitted after the fact; with a Jew’s help, at the outset
seif 6
Water into wine?
Everything turns on the intent to dilute
seif 7
Pouring, or receiving?
Pouring makes the force; receiving does not
seif 8
Wine jolted about?
אין דרך ניסוך בכך
seif 9
Full or partly empty?
Full = fear of contact; eye, distance, grip
seif 10
And without intent?
לא גזרו — the decree does not bite
seif 11
Comprehension questions
Seif 1 specifies “even though he did not agitate it”. What is that precision directed against, and from which siman does agitation come?
The Mehaber forbids in seif 1 what remains in the vessel, and permits it in seif 8. What exactly is the Shach’s difficulty, and on which word of seif 8 does it rest?
In seif 2, why is the third remove permitted after the fact only? Which line of the Shach requires this?
Seifim 3 and 4 both employ מסייע שאין בו ממש, one to forbid and the other to permit. Show that it is indeed the same principle.
In seif 5, what distinguishes the object thrown from the object pushed, to the point that the second is forbidden even as to benefit?
In seif 7, why do the large barrel and the cup not receive the same answer, when the water is the same?
Seif 9 permits a full wineskin, seif 10 forbids a full vessel. Why do these two neighbouring seifim not contradict one another?
Seif 11 concludes with דכחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו. On which phrase of the Gemara does this conclusion rest (see section 2)?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul — the dispute over כח כחו in Avoda Zara, the ḥakira on the nature of the decree of כחו, and the question of nitzok applied to force
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (degrees of force, drinking / benefit, at the outset / after the fact) and rapid review of the 11 seifim