✦ ❖ ✦
DAAT · LEVEL 4 — HALAKHA LEMA'ASSE / PSAK

שולחן ערוך · יורה דעה

Siman 128 — A non-Jew left alone with the wine: yiḥud — practical psika
סימן קכ״ח · הלכה למעשה
דין מקום שיש בו יין ונתיחד עובד כוכבים שמה
פסק המחבר והרמ״א · הכרעת נושאי הכלים · הסקת ההלכה למקרים בני זמננו
⚖️ פסק הלכה ולמעשה ⚖️
✦ ❖ ✦

Halakha lema'asse — the practical psika

From the ruling of the Mehaber and the Rama, through the arbitration of Taz, Shach
and Pitchei Teshuva, down to the open bottle left on our table

Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ח (ה׳ סעיפים)
עם נושאי הכלים: ט״ז, ש״ך, פתחי תשובה, רמב״ם

⚠ A note on this level:
This level is not “Daat HaRav”: the Shulchan Aruch HaRav
(the Alter Rebbe) does not cover Yoreh De'ah, hence not Siman 128.
It is a level of practical psika: what one does, and whom one asks.

Written and studied by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT

How to read this level. Every statement here is anchored either in the language of the Shulchan Aruch and its nossei kelim (Taz, Shach, Pitchei Teshuva), or in a named and checkable posek (Rambam, Tur, Beit Yosef, Gemara Avodah Zarah, Tosafot). On Yoreh De'ah there is no Mishnah Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim) and no Shulchan Aruch HaRav / Daat HaRav (the Alter Rebbe did not write Yoreh De'ah). Three further authorities one would expect here are not quoted, because they cannot be checked on this particular siman: the Aruch HaShulchan, the Kaf HaChaim and the Pri Chadash — their text on siman 128 is not accessible to us, and one does not quote what one cannot read back. Siman 128 is short — five seifim — and it is made entirely of scenes: a man walked in, a door closed, a hand was holding something. Wherever the question runs past the siman, this level says so and stops: halakha lema'asse goes through your Rav.

📑 תוכן העניינים

  1. שורש הסימן — שלושה חששות שאינם מתים יחד
  2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מפת הסימן בה׳ סעיפים
  3. יחוד והפקדה — ומי שאינו עובד עבודת כוכבים (סעיף א׳)
  4. עובדי כוכבים שבחוצה לארץ — לכתחילה ובדיעבד (הגה סעיף א׳)
  5. מלוה על היין — ומתי אומרים מירתת (סעיף ב׳)
  6. הקצף והברזא — מה שנמצא בידו (סעיף ב׳ והגה)
  7. סגר הדלת במנעול — יין של שניהם בבית אחד (סעיף ג׳)
  8. נקבים בדלת — ומה שמשתנה בלילה (סעיף ג׳)
  9. נתפס כגנב — בית שאין בו אלא יין ישראל (סעיף ד׳)
  10. קולת הרמ״א בזמן הזה — ומה שנשאר לחוש לו (הגה סעיף ד׳)
  11. חביות בשוק — האימה כשומר (סעיף ה׳)
  12. מקרים מודרניים — מן הבקבוק הפתוח עד בית המלון
  13. סיכום מעשי — טבלאות, קישורים, ולמעשה שאל את רבך

📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — Seif Alef

דין מקום שיש בו יין ונתיחד עובד כוכבים שמה. ובו ה׳ סעיפים:
עובד כוכבים שנתייחד עם היין אפילו ברשותנו אפילו שעה מועטת אסור בהנאה אבל מי שנודע לנו שאינו עובד עבודת כוכבים מותר לייחד יין אצלו ברשותנו לזמן מועט כגון כדי שילך כדי מיל או יותר אפילו בעיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים ואפילו הודיעו שהוא מפליג אבל אין מפקידין אצלו יין בביתו ואפילו בבתינו אסור אם הוא לזמן מרובה ואם עבר והפקיד אסור בשתיה. (עובדי כוכבים שבחוצה לארץ אע״פ שאינן עובדי עבודת כוכבים מ״מ אין מייחדים יין אצלם) (ב״י בשם הרשב״א):

The founding scene. Nobody saw anything. A non-Jew was alone with wine — and the Mehaber opens at maximum severity: even on our own premises, even for a brief moment, the wine becomes forbidden to all use, not merely to drinking. The siman does not ask what the man did; it asks what was possible.

Then comes the first distinction, which governs the whole siman. That severity applies only to one who serves idols. Where we know that a man does not: wine may be left with him on our premises, for a short while — the time it takes to walk a mil — even in a wholly non-Jewish town, and even if he was told the Jew is going far. But one does not deposit wine with him, and even on our own premises it is forbidden if it is for a long time.

Two regimes, not one. Hold on to the hinge of this seif: מייחדין (leaving alone for a while) and מפקידין (entrusting as a deposit) are not two degrees of one thing. They answer different fears — which is why the second stays forbidden where the first is permitted.

— Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 128:1 · Sefaria YD 128:1

1. שורש הסימן — three fears that do not die together

What this siman adds to the ones before it. Simanim 123 through 127 dealt with a deed: wine that was touched, poured, mixed — or that somebody says was. Siman 128 begins from the opposite: nothing observed happened at all. A man was alone with the wine, and all we hold is the scene: a door, a distance, a hand. The whole halakha of the siman is a reading of that scene — not in order to guess what took place, but in order to know whether the opportunity was real and whether the man had reason to hold back.
Three distinct fears, and this is the key to everything here. They are constantly run together, and almost every practical error comes out of that confusion.
(1) Nissuch — that he made a libation of this wine. This is the historical fear, and it is the one that forbids the wine even for benefit.
(2) A touch for his own pleasure — that he drank, tasted, opened it, drew from the tap. It has nothing to do with worship: it is a thirsty man.
(3) Substitution — that he swapped his own wine for ours. This one requires no touch at all, only time and access.
The Rama and the Acharonim will hold the first to be out of place nowadays. The other two are not — and they are what decide our cases today.
The Tur opens the siman on the first fear and gives it its criterion. It is not “a non-Jew”, it is one whose way it is to pour libations — and the ruling is stated as a certainty, not as a probability.
« כל מי שדרכו לנסך אין מייחדין יין אצלו אפילו שעה אחת ואם יחדו אצלו אסור בהנאה שאנו תולין לומר ודאי נסכו »
— טור יו״ד סימן קכ״ח
The Shach supplies the reason for the exemption, and it is narrow. It is not that the man is honest: it is that, serving no idols, the act does not enter his mind at all.
« כיון דלא פלח עבודת כוכבים לא נגע ולא מנסך »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א
And at once the Shach closes the door he has just opened. In that same note he limits the argument to a case where the second fear is absent — and for that he points to seif 4 of this very siman. In other words: the reasoning “he serves no idols, therefore he did not touch” protects against nissuch alone. It does not protect against a man who wanted a drink.
« מיהו נראה דהיינו דוקא אם הוא בענין שאין לחוש שנגעו לשתות או להנאה אחרת »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א
The third fear, that of the deposit, is of yet another order. The Shach explains why a long deposit stays forbidden where a brief yiḥud is permitted: the danger is no longer the keeper's hand but an exchange of the barrels.
« דטעמא דהפקיד אצלו אסור משום שאנו חוששין שמא החליפו בשלו ושלו ודאי אסור כיון שאינו חושש על מגע עובד כוכבים »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ג
כלל הפסק של הסימן :
עובד עבודת כוכבים שנתייחד עם היין — אפילו שעה מועטת ואפילו ברשותנו, אסור בהנאה. מי שאינו עובד עבודת כוכבים — מייחדין אצלו לזמן מועט ברשותנו, ואין מפקידין אצלו כלל. ובכל מקום שיש מירתת — שהעובד כוכבים ירא שיראוהו ויפסיד הישראל את יינו — היין מותר. ובזמן הזה נשתייר מן החששות שנגעו לשתות ממנו או להנאה אחרת, לא חשש הניסוך.

2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the five seifim

Siman 128 has five seifim — that is the count announced by its heading (ובו ה׳ סעיפים) and it is also the number of segments the text itself carries. The five form a clear progression: first the general rule of yiḥud and of deposit, then four scenes that grow steadily more open — a house where the non-Jew has an interest, a house where both keep wine, a house where only the Jew does, and finally the street.

SeifSubjectRuling (anchored in the text)
1yiḥud and depositA non-Jew left alone with wine, even on our premises and even briefly: forbidden for benefit. But where we know he serves no idols: wine may be left with him on our premises for a short while — the time it takes to walk a mil or more — even in a wholly non-Jewish town, and even if he was told the Jew is going far. One does not deposit wine with him; and even on our premises it is forbidden for a long time; and if one transgressed and deposited, the wine is forbidden to drink. Rama: non-Jews outside the Land, though they serve no idols, are nonetheless not left alone with wine.
2a non-Jew found in the house, and the creditorIf he holds a lien on that very wine — apotiki, or a pledge — it is forbidden, even if the wine bore a seal. If he has a claim on the Jew but not on the wine, it is permitted, even if he stood right against the barrels within arm's reach, and even with no seal at all: knowing that the Jew would lose his wine, he is afraid to touch it. And even if froth of the kind that rises on wine was found in his hand — permitted, we attribute it to the side of the barrel. Rama: but a thing found only at the mouth — forbidden; and if he holds the tap in his hand, the wine is forbidden.
3both keep wine there, and the door was bolted from withinThe non-Jew entered and bolted the door from inside, so that a Jew could not enter without his consent: the wine is forbidden. If there were holes in the door through which the Jew can see all the barrels: all permitted to drink, even open ones. Otherwise: what can be seen is permitted, the rest forbidden for benefit — even sealed barrels, if he stayed long enough to open, make a fresh bung and let it dry. And all this even if a Jew was living in that house.
4the house holds only the Jew's wineIf the door is not bolted: permitted to drink. If it is bolted, with a key, from inside: where he would not be seized as a thief, forbidden for benefit; where he would be seized for entering, permitted to drink. Rama: some say that nowadays, when non-Jews do not pour libations, it is permitted even where he would not be seized as a thief — unless there is reason to fear they touched it to drink or for some other benefit; and if the mouth of the vessel is wide, or it is a container in which one may fear an absent-minded touch, we do worry.
5barrels in the marketplaceBarrels of wine stood in the street and a non-Jew was found among them: if he is weak, if the fear of the town's judges is upon him, and if he would be seized as a thief were he found touching — permitted to drink. Otherwise, forbidden for benefit. Rama, closing the siman: see further at the next siman for the rest of these laws.

3. יחוד והפקדה — and one who serves no idols

עובד כוכבים שנתייחד עם היין אפילו ברשותנו אפילו שעה מועטת אסור בהנאה אבל מי שנודע לנו שאינו עובד עבודת כוכבים מותר לייחד יין אצלו ברשותנו לזמן מועט כגון כדי שילך כדי מיל או יותר אפילו בעיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים ואפילו הודיעו שהוא מפליג

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:א
Three clauses that are read too fast. On our premises — the permission is domiciled: it holds in our domain, not in his. For a short while — the Mehaber gives the measure: the time it takes to walk a mil, or more. Even if he was told the Jew is going far — this is the strongest clause, since elsewhere (siman 129) that very notice is what removes the permission: a man who knows the owner will not be back soon stops being afraid. Here the Mehaber neutralises it, because fear is not what carries this permission: what carries it is that the act does not occur to him.

👈 The measure of time — and what not to do with it

The Mehaber gives no minutes: he gives כדי שילך כדי מיל, the time of a mil's walk. The duration of a mil is itself a classic dispute among the poskim, and this siman does not settle it. So do not convert that shiur into minutes on this page. Hold on to the structure — an order of magnitude of tens of minutes at most, and a permission that runs out with time — and put the number itself to your Rav, who will tell you which opinion your community follows.

Why does a deposit stay forbidden where yiḥud is permitted? If the man pours no libations, what does duration change? The Taz notes that the question received two different answers, and that they do not cut the siman in the same place.
First reading (the Tur): it is a matter of duration. יחוד denotes a short time, מפקיד a long one — and what separates them is the fear of substitution, which is born only with time.

Second reading (Rashi, as the Taz reports him): it is a matter of place. יחוד is leaving the wine in our house without even appointing him a keeper; מפקיד is putting it in his house — where other non-Jews come in and where he does not mind if they touch it.

The Taz concludes that the Shulchan Aruch was strict on both, and that the permission survives only in the conjunction: on our premises and for a short while.
« דלענין לכתחלה להפקיד אצלם מחזקינן להו כעובדי עבודת כוכבים »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א
And if one deposited it anyway? The Mehaber settles the after-the-fact question inside the seif: ואם עבר והפקיד אסור בשתיה — forbidden to drink, which implies that benefit remains permitted. The Shach notes that the Beit Yosef indeed seems to hold so, but he brings the Bach who disagrees: since the whole fear is one of substitution, and a non-Jew's own wine is certainly forbidden, benefit too should be forbidden as long as we do not know that no exchange took place. There is a real dispute here about the after-the-fact case, and it is a question for a Rav.

4. עובדי כוכבים שבחוצה לארץ — lechatchila and bedieved

(עובדי כוכבים שבחוצה לארץ אע״פ שאינן עובדי עבודת כוכבים מ״מ אין מייחדים יין אצלם) (ב״י בשם הרשב״א)

— הגה, שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:א
The Rama's gloss is the practically weightiest line in the siman. What it says is this: the Mehaber's exemption — “one whom we know does not serve idols” — does not extend of itself to the populations among whom we live. The Rama does not say that they serve idols; he says that wine is not left alone with them even so. This is a ruling lechatchila, and the whole discussion among the Acharonim will be what remains of it after the fact.
The source, as the Beit Yosef reports it in the name of the Rashba. The reasoning is not “they are idolaters” but “it is not in our power to permit”.
« אפילו נכרים שבח״ל שאין עובדין כו״ם אלא מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם מכל מקום כיון שהם מנסכין יין לפני כו״ם אין כח בידינו להתיר לייחד אצלם ואפי׳ בדיעבד אסור »
— ב״י יו״ד סימן קכ״ח
What remains after the fact — the central dispute of the siman.
The Rashba, in the words the Beit Yosef has just quoted, forbids even after the fact. The Shach notes that the Ateret Zahav wrote likewise.
The Shach himself does not hold so, and he gives a root reason: the Rashba is consistent with his own general position (for him a non-Jew's touch and his ordinary wine remain forbidden for benefit nowadays), but we do not follow that position in simanim 123 and 124. His proof is internal to the siman: seif 4, in the Rama's gloss, permits the wine of a house that a non-Jew entered and even locked himself into — and there is no greater yiḥud than that.
« אם כן ה״ה הכא דאם יחדו אצלו שרי בדיעבד כמו גר תושב וישמעאלים אלא דלכתחלה מיהת אסור »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ד
The Pitchei Teshuva then sets two conditions on that after-the-fact permission, quoting the Tzemach Tzedek. And those two conditions are exactly what decides our modern cases.
« דדוקא בזמן מועט שרי בדיעבד ודוקא במקום שאין לחוש לנגיעה ולא לשתיה להנאתו »
— פת״ש יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א
« אבל היכא דאיכא למיחש דלמא נגע להנאתו כדי לשתות כגון שיש לחבית ברזא בולטת לחוץ שבקל יכול למשוך הברזא ולשתות מהיין יש לאסור כל היין אפילו בדיעבד אפילו יחוד בעלמא לזמן מועט »
— פת״ש יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א

👈 The vessel decides, not duration alone

This is the single most directly transposable line in the whole siman. The Tzemach Tzedek sets two containers against each other. A barrel whose opening is a narrow bung, with no tap: the man would have had to work at it, we do not suspect him, and the after-the-fact permission stands. A barrel fitted with a protruding tap that need only be pulled to drink: there we forbid all the wine, even after the fact, even for a brief yiḥud. In other words: the easier the wine is to reach, the less brevity protects. An open bottle, or one closed with a screw cap that turns in one hand, is far closer to the second case than to the first — and a bottle sealed with an intact cork, closer to the first.

Lema'asse (seif 1 as a whole). Lechatchila, uncooked wine is not left alone with a non-Jew and is not deposited with him: on that the Rama is plain, and no workaround should be sought. After the fact there is a real dispute — the Rashba and the Ateret Zahav forbid, the Shach permits — and the Pitchei Teshuva conditions the permission on time and on the vessel. A real case therefore turns on four facts: which wine, which vessel, how long, and was there reason to think he drank from it. Gather them, then put the question to your Rav.

5. מלוה על היין — and when we say מירתת

עובד כוכבים שנמצא בבית שבו יין אם יש לו מלוה על אותו יין כגון שעשאו אפותיקי (או משכנו לו) (טור) אסור ואפילו היה היין חתום בחותם אחד

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
The principle of seif 2 is one of halakhic psychology, and it is very powerful. What guards the wine is neither the seal, nor the distance, nor the lock: it is that the non-Jew has something to lose. The Mehaber says so inside the seif, and that word — מירתת, “he is afraid” — will return in seifim 3, 4 and 5.
אבל אם אין לו מלוה על היין אף על פי שיש לו מלוה על ישראל בעל היין והגיע זמן המלוה מותר ואפילו היה עומד בצד היין סמוך לו ממש בכדי פישוט ידים ואפי׳ אין ביין שום חותם

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
The reason, given by the Mehaber in the name of the Rosh. It is disarmingly simple, and it explains the gap: a man who holds a lien on the wine loses nothing if the wine becomes forbidden — he will be paid out of it anyway, and the Jew will no longer be able to use it. A man whose claim is only against the owner has every interest in the wine remaining saleable.
« מפני שמאחר שהוא יודע שיפסיד ישראל יינו הוא ירא ליגע »
— שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
But is mirtat automatic, then? The Shach lays down the condition one must remember, and which is missing from almost every naive application of this seif: fear works only if the man knows that his touch ruins the wine.
« והיינו דוקא כשהעובד כוכבים יודע דמגע עובדי כוכבים אסור לישראל ויפסיד יינו בכך… הא לאו הכי לא שייך מירתת »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק י״א
The Shach adds a second condition in the name of the Bach, and it is spatial. The Rashba had written that the permission holds even where the barrels are open and bear no seal at all. The Bach narrows it: the place must be open to the public thoroughfare with Jews passing by — otherwise, whom would he fear?
« ומיהו ודאי דוקא בבית הפתוח לר״ה וישראלים עברי ברה״ר הא לאו הכי לא מירתת »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ז
The Rambam had already framed both faces of that same mechanism, and in almost cinematic terms: one who fears that someone may walk in on him suddenly does not touch; and one who stands in an open place where Jews come and go does not touch either.
« מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעַכּוּ״ם מְפַחֵד תָּמִיד וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ פִּתְאֹם וְיִמְצָא אוֹתִי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה א
« הָיָה יַיִן זֶה הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁל עַכּוּ״ם מֻנָּח בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְּבַיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹלְכִים וְשָׁבִים מֻתָּר »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה ה

6. הקצף והברזא — what is found in his hand

ואפילו נמצא בידו קצף שרגיל לעלות על פי היין מות׳ שאנו תולי׳ לומ׳ מדופני החבית לקחו ולא מפיו

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
The scene comes straight from the Gemara, and Rava adds a second layer of leniency there which is often forgotten: even where no froth is left on the side of the barrel, we still say it came her way by chance.
« חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, אֵימַר מִגַּבַּהּ דְּחָבִיתָא שְׁקַלְתֵּיהּ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא תּוּ, אֵימַר אִתְרְמוֹיֵי אִתְרְמִי לַהּ »
— עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״ב
The Rama turns the rule over and thereby exposes its hidden criterion. We do not attribute to chance out of charity: we attribute to what is ordinary. Therefore, if what is found in his hand occurs nowhere but at the mouth of the barrel, there is nothing left to attribute it to — and the wine is forbidden. The principle is stated in four words: דתלינן תמיד בדבר הרגיל.
« אבל דברים שאינם נמצאים אלא על פי החבית אסור »
— הגה, שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
« וכן אם מצא שהעובד כוכבים תופס הברזא בידו היין אסור ולא אמרינן דהברזא מנפשיה נפל והעובד כוכבים הגביהו »
— הגה, שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
How far does that severity reach? The two nossei kelim part ways, and the gap is wide.
The Taz extends the prohibition to everything in the barrel, and refuses to apply here the relief of hefsed merubeh (substantial loss) which is invoked elsewhere for nitzok.
The Shach, by contrast, re-describes the scene: what we suspect is that he pulled out the tap, not that he put a finger inside — and a touch by way of another object, without intent, falls under the lighter regime of siman 124. From there he concludes that nowadays, where there is a loss, the wine is permitted even to drink.
« משמע כל היין שבחבית ולא מהני כאן היתר דהפסד מרובה דניצוק חיבור »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ג
« ולפי זה לדידן בזמן הזה שרי אף בשתיה במקום הפסד דהוי מגע עובדי כוכבים על ידי דבר אחר שלא בכונה »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ח

Lema'asse (what is found in his hand). The rule of the siman is a rule of attribution, not of charity: an indication is tied back to the ordinary explanation. A trace that could come from elsewhere proves nothing; an object that could come only from the wine proves everything. But the reach of that proof — the whole barrel or only what was touched; forbidden for benefit or only to drink; and what a large financial loss changes — is exactly where the Taz and the Shach do not say the same thing. Do not settle that gap on your own: it is a question for a Rav, and the answer will also turn on the size of the loss.

7. סגר הדלת במנעול — both keep wine in one house

בית שיש לישראל ועובד כוכבים יין בתוכו ונכנס העובד כוכבים וסגר הדלת אחריו במנעול מבפנים שאם בא ישראל ליכנס אינו יכול ליכנס שלא מדעת העובד כוכבים היין אסור

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ג
Two elements combine here, and they must be kept apart. (1) The non-Jew too has wine in the house — so there is, as the Rishonim put it, a שייכות, a standing, a title to be there. (2) He bolted from inside — an act with no innocent explanation, and above all one that removes mirtat by removing the possibility of being caught. It is the combination that forbids; seif 4 will show what happens when the first element is absent.
The Gemara supplies the scene and its rule of division, and the Shulchan Aruch will copy it almost verbatim later in the seif: what lies in line with the hole is permitted, what lies on either side is forbidden.
« כֹּל דְּלַהֲדֵי בִּיזְעָא — שְׁרֵי, דְּהַאי גִּיסָא וְהַאי גִּיסָא — אֲסִיר »
— עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א
The Taz lays down the factual condition that is missing everywhere, and it is decisive: one must know that he bolted the door. The mere presence of a bolt inside is not enough; we do not forbid on a doubt. But he immediately adds the opposite restriction, which governs all of real life: at night we presume he bolted it.
« דוקא שידוע שנעלו בפנים אבל אם אין ידוע אע״פ שיש מנעול בפנים אין אוסרים מספק והיינו ביום אבל בלילה אמרינן מסתמא שנעלו »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ה
The Shach says the same and supplies the reason: the nocturnal presumption applies only where the non-Jew has a title in the house. A man at home locks up; a man with no business there does not. And he draws a consequence one would not have expected: at night the holes in the door are of no use either — nobody looks through a hole in the dark.
« מיהו הא דבעינן שידוע שסגר היינו ביום אבל בלילה מסתמא סגר כשיש לו שייכות בבית ואסור »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק י

👈 What “even if a Jew was living in that house” means

The seif ends with a clause read as a detail that is in fact a reversal: ואפילו היה ישראל דר באותו בית. Elsewhere, a Jew living on the premises is what saves everything — it is the very principle of the Rambam in chapter 13. Here it saves nothing, and the Shach explains why: because the non-Jew himself has a title in the house, he can be there without it looking odd, and the bolting stays explicable. Dwelling protects only where one can walk in unannounced — not where one has been locked out.

8. נקבים בדלת — and what changes at night

ואם היו נקבים בדלת שישראל יכול להסתכל ולראות משם כל החביות מותרות בשתיה אפילו הן פתוחות

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ג
ואם לאו את שיכול לראות דרך שם מותר והשאר אסור בהנאה אפילו חביות סתומות אם שהה כדי שיפתח ויגוף ותגוב

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ג
Three measures overlap in these two lines, and they must be separated. (1) The field of vision: what the eye can reach is saved — even where the barrel is open, since a gaze is better than a lid. (2) The seal: outside the field of vision a sealed barrel is not thereby saved — but it is saved as long as there was not enough time. (3) Time: the measure is כדי שיפתח ויגוף ותגוב, long enough to open, make a fresh bung and let it dry. The Mehaber takes care to gloss the last two words himself inside the seif, and points to siman 129 for the detail.
All three measures come from the same mishnah quoted in the sugya. It is worth remembering as it stands, since it is what founds the “open / sealed” regime across this block of simanim.
« חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, סְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב »
— עבודה זרה ס״ט ע״ב
Why is a sealed barrel not enough, given that he fears being caught? The Taz answers in one sentence, and it is among the most useful in the siman: because he has a way out. One knocks, he does not answer, he refits the bung at leisure — and afterwards he will say he was asleep.
« דיכול לישמט ולומר ישן הייתי ולכך לא פתחתי לך »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ו

👈 The general rule that emerges: it all turns on the way out

Three elements of the siman say one thing in three forms. A bolt on the inside gives a way out; the darkness of night gives one; a title to be there gives one. Conversely, an open door, a hole in the door, a public thoroughfare and passing Jews take it away. Before a real case, the question is not “did he touch it?” but: had he done so, could he have talked his way out? The whole siman is built on that.

9. נתפס כגנב — a house holding only the Jew's wine

בית שאין בו אלא יינו של ישראל ונמצא עובד כוכבים בתוכו אם אין הדלת נעול מותר בשתיה ואם הוא נעול במפתח מבפנים אם אינו נתפס כגנב אסור בהנאה ואם הוא נתפס כגנב על הכניסה מותר בשתייה

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
This seif is the pivot of the siman, and it states three positions, not two. (1) Door not bolted: permitted to drink, plainly — the man could have been caught at any second. (2) Door bolted from inside, and he would not be seized as a thief: forbidden even for benefit — he had both the opportunity and impunity. (3) Door bolted, but he would be seized as a thief for entering: permitted to drink — the risk incurred by the break-in itself is enough to restrain him. This is where a house with no wine of the non-Jew's parts company with the house of seif 3: having no title to be there, his entry exposes him.
The two Gemara scenes out of which this seif is made. The first is set in a walled town, the second in an inn — and Rava gives the same criterion twice.
« אִם נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב — חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא — אָסוּר »
— עבודה זרה ס״א ע״ב
« הָהוּא אוּשְׁפִּיזָא דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּיהּ חַמְרָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אִישְׁתְּכַח גּוֹי דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּי דַנֵּי »
— עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א
What exactly does “seized as a thief” mean? The Shach gives the grammatical definition — it is a conditional, not a fact — and the Taz gives its concrete content: he must both fall under the law of the place, and not be powerful enough to escape it.
« בכ״מ שהוזכר נתפס כגנב פירושו שאם ימצאוהו יהא נתפס כגנב »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק י״ב
« פי׳ שאם ימצאהו ישראל יהיה נתפס כדין גנב ע״פ המושל והוא אינו אלם »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ח
Seized for what? A dispute among Rishonim which the Taz sets out in note 9. The Mehaber writes “for entering” — that is the way of the Ri, reported by the Tur. Rashi, in the reading the Tur gives of him, made the matter depend on touching rather than on entering. The Taz notes that the Beit Yosef disputed that reading of Rashi, and that the Maharshal emended Rashi's text accordingly.

Tosafot hold both criteria together and rank them: in a house, being seized for touching is not always enough, since a man who may lawfully enter is not so afraid; but being seized for entering is always enough.
« אבל אי נתפס כגנב על הביאה ודאי חמרא שרי »
— תוספות עבודה זרה ס״א ע״ב ד״ה ההוא כרבא

10. קולת הרמ״א בזמן הזה — and what is left to fear

הגה: וי״א דבזמן הזה שאין העובדי כוכבים מנסכין אפילו אינו נתפס כגנב שרי אא״כ יש לחוש שנגעו לשתות ממנו או להנאה אחרת

— הגה, שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
This is the gloss everyone quotes, and it is the one everyone truncates. It has two halves, and the second cancels the first in most real cases. First half: since the fear of nissuch is out of place, the condition of being “seized as a thief” falls away, and even a man who could have acted with impunity does not render the wine forbidden. Second half: unless there is reason to fear he touched it to drink, or for some other benefit. And that is exactly what we fear today about an open bottle.
מיהו אם פי החבית רחב או שהוא בקנקן שיש לחוש שמא נגע בו דרך מתעסק חיישינן

— הגה, שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
The Rama adds a third situation, distinct from the other two. Neither libation nor a deliberate sip: a merely absent-minded contact — דרך מתעסק — made possible by a wide mouth or by a container of a certain kind. It presupposes no intent whatever. It is a man moving a bottle and putting his thumb into it. The Rama says we worry about it, and this clause is the one that bears most directly on our modern vessels.
And if one nevertheless falls within the fear? The Shach does not let the door close entirely: where the fear is about drinking rather than about worship, there remains — where there is a loss, and nowadays — the permission to derive benefit, even though one does not drink it. For that he points to the opening of siman 123.
« ואפ״ה שרי בהנאה במקום הפסד בזמן הזה »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק י״ג
שני חששות, ושני דינים :
חשש הניסוך — לדעת הרמ״א ורוב האחרונים בזמן הזה שאין העובדי כוכבים מנסכין, אינו במקומו, ולפיכך אין צריך שיהא נתפס כגנב.
חשש שנגעו לשתות ממנו או להנאה אחרת — קיים ועומד, ובו תלויים כל המקרים שלפנינו: בקבוק פתוח, פי החבית רחב, וקנקן שיש לחוש בו למגע דרך מתעסק.

11. חביות בשוק — fear itself as the watchman

היו בשוק חביות יין ונמצא עובד כוכבים ביניהם אם הוא עובד כוכבים חלש שאימת שופטי העיר עליו ואם ימצאוהו נוגע נתפס כגנב מותר בשתייה ואם לאו אסור בהנאה

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ח:ה
The last seif is the most open in the siman, and yet it is the one that sets the most concrete condition. Outdoors there is no door, no bolt, no seal: what guards the wine is the law of the place and the weakness of the man. The seif spells it out: he must be weak, the fear of the judges must be upon him, and he must be liable to be seized if found with his hand on the barrel. Halakha does not assume an honest world here: it assumes a policed one.
Two nuances the seif carries, and which are too readily reversed. (1) The criterion here is touching, not entering — since there is no entering at all: nobody breaks into a street. Tosafot noted exactly this difference in explaining the scene in the walled town. (2) The negative conclusion is heavy: if the man is not in that position — if he is powerful, or the law would not reach him — the wine is forbidden for benefit, not merely to drink. Seif 5 is therefore not a leniency: it is a condition.
And the siman closes on a cross-reference of the Rama's, to be taken seriously: ועיין לקמן סי׳ קכ״ט עוד מדינים אלו. The Rama warns that the subject is not exhausted. Everything about the Jew who comes and goes, the shop, the wagon, the boat, the man who left for the synagogue or the bathhouse — that is, half the situations of ordinary life — is in siman 129, and the regime of seals in siman 130.

12. מקרים מודרניים — siman 128 at our table

Cooked wine: what it changes, and what it does not

Siman 128 says nothing about cooked wine — and that is precisely what settles the question. The whole siman is built on the fear of a touch: libation, a sip, an absent-minded contact. But the Mehaber already ruled, five simanim earlier, that a non-Jew's touch does not forbid our cooked wine. Once that fear has nothing to bite on, the scenes of siman 128 — the bolted door, the man among the barrels, the hand on the tap — lose their driving force.
« יין מבושל שלנו שנגע בו העובד כוכבים מותר ומאימתי נקרא מבושל משהרתיח על גבי האש »
— שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:ג
The Rambam had already placed cooked wine in a lighter category, and precisely for a deposit. Where ordinary wine requires two seals in a non-Jew's hands, cooked wine is content with one. That is not our seif, but it is the same hierarchy.
« יַיִן מְבֻשָּׁל וְהַשֵּׁכָר… אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי חוֹתָמוֹת אֶלָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד דַּיּוֹ »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה י

But do not conclude too quickly that cooked wine settles this whole siman. It extinguishes the fear of a touch; it does not automatically extinguish the third fear of seif 1, that of substitution, which requires no touch at all — and which the Shach puts at the foundation of the ban on deposits. An open bottle on the table, yes: nothing to fear where the wine is cooked. A stock entrusted for weeks to a third party is another matter, and it is not settled here. Likewise, whether a given wine is genuinely cooked in the sense of siman 123 — and not merely pasteurised or flash-pasteurised — is a question of fact and of contemporary psak: your Rav answers it, not a label.

Today's situations, seif by seif

The six questions of the siman. (1) Which wine? — cooked or not (siman 123). (2) Which vessel? — sealed, stoppered, open, wide-mouthed (seifim 2-4 · Pitchei Teshuva). (3) How long? — a moment, a mil's walk, a deposit (seif 1). (4) Where? — our premises or his, open to passers-by or shut (seifim 1-2 · Shach note 7). (5) Could he have been caught? — door, bolt, line of sight, day or night (seifim 3-4 · Taz note 5). (6) Did he have anything to lose? — mirtat, and did he know it (seif 2 · Shach note 11). What is not in this siman: the Jew who comes and goes (siman 129), the regime of seals (siman 130), kosher wine made on a non-Jew's premises (siman 131).
Modern caseTool of the simanOrientation (to be confirmed with a Rav)
An open bottle stays on the table while one steps out of the roomSeif 4 · הגה סעיף ד׳The door is not bolted: the opening clause of seif 4 permits it to drink. But the second half of the Rama's gloss wakes up at once — an open bottle is the textbook case of fearing a touch for drinking. Distinguish an absence of seconds from a prolonged one.
An open bottle, with a non-Jew left alone beside it for a long whileפת״ש ס״ק א · הגה סעיף ד׳This is the Tzemach Tzedek's case: an easily reached container, so brevity no longer protects, and he forbids even after the fact. A question for a Rav, and the answer will turn on the actual duration and on how likely it is that he drank.
A bottle still sealed, capsule intactSeif 3 · פת״ש ס״ק אThis is the regime of sealed barrels: the fear falls away as long as there was not enough time to open and restore it unnoticed. Siman 130 deals specifically with how many seals are required.
The cleaner alone in the kitchen, an open bottle on the worktopSeif 4 · ש״ך ס״ק י״א · פת״ש ס״ק אNo bolted door, so not the grave case of the siman; but no automatic mirtat either — the Shach requires that she know a touch ruins the wine, which today is almost never so. Everything then turns on the fear of a sip. With cooked wine the question does not arise.
A delivery man, a tradesman or a technician there for a few minutesSeif 2 · ש״ך ס״ק זSeif 2 is very broad: even standing against the bottles, within arm's reach, with no seal at all, it is permitted — provided the place is one where a man can be seen, and that he has reason to hold back. The Bach, as the Shach reports him, requires a place open to passers-by.
An employee who is owed money, or who has an interest in the stockSeif 2The seif's distinction is exact: a lien on the wine itself (a pledge, a charge) removes mirtat and forbids — even under a seal. A claim on the employer, even one already due, does not affect it.
A shared cellar or store where a non-Jewish neighbour also keeps wineSeif 3 · ש״ך ס״ק יThis is literally seif 3. His presence there is legitimate, so nothing stops him bolting the door, and at night we presume he did. It is the case where the clause “even if a Jew was living there” saves nothing.
A stock entrusted for several weeks to a non-Jewish third partySeif 1 · ש״ך ס״ק גThis is no longer yiḥud but מפקיד, and the regime is stricter: the fear is no longer a touch but substitution. Siman 130 supplies the seals that answer it.
A hotel room, with a bottle left in the roomSeif 4 · עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״אThe Gemara treats this very case — the inn — and the Shulchan Aruch draws seif 4 from it. A room that staff enter lawfully is no break-in; the question becomes once more one of a feared sip and of the vessel.
In a restaurant: a non-Jewish waiter opens or pours the bottleOutside siman 128Siman 128 deals with a man left alone, not with a man pouring: pouring is an observed touch, and it belongs to simanim 124 and 125. Where the wine is cooked, siman 123 has already answered.
An open room, foot traffic, people coming and goingSeif 2 · ש״ך ס״ק ז · רמב״ם י״ג:הThis is the most favourable configuration in the siman: an open place, passers-by, no chance to be alone. The Rambam treats it in its own right, and the Bach makes it the condition of mirtat.
The corkscrew, or the cork, is found in a non-Jew's handהגה סעיף ב׳ · ט״ז ס״ק ג · ש״ך ס״ק חThis is the Rama's tap: an object that could come only from the bottle is no longer attributed to chance. The Taz extends the prohibition to the entire contents; the Shach re-describes the contact and is lenient where there is a loss. A real gap between them — a question for a Rav.
A trace, a drop or froth is found in his hand or on the tableSeif 2 · עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״בA rule of attribution: where the trace could come from the outside of the vessel or from chance, we tie it there and the wine is permitted. Where it could come only from inside, we no longer do.
A non-Jew is found in a room he locked from the insideSeif 3 · seif 4 · ט״ז ס״ק הFirst one must establish that he did bolt it — the Taz refuses to forbid on the mere presence of a lock. Only then: did he have a title to be there (seif 3) or not (seif 4)? And at night the presumption is reversed.
Cases of wine on a loading dock, in an open warehouse or a delivery areaSeif 5 · ט״ז ס״ק חThis is seif 5: no door and no seal, only the law of the place. The criterion is touching rather than entering, and the negative conclusion forbids for benefit — so it is no default leniency.
Cooked wine in every situation aboveשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:גThe fear of a touch has nothing to bite on, and the scenes of the siman lose their driving force. What remains, for a long deposit, is the separate question of substitution — and the question of fact: is this wine cooked in the sense of siman 123?

Lema'asse. Before putting the question, gather the facts the siman requires, in this order: which wine (cooked or not); which vessel (sealed, stoppered, open, wide-mouthed, fitted with a tap); how long; where (our premises or his, open to passers-by or shut); who (has he a title to be there, a lien, an interest); what he stood to risk (would he be seized, did he know he was ruining the wine); and what was found (nothing, a trace, an object). With those seven, the question becomes askable. Without them no table can answer — and with them, it is your Rav who answers.

13. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables

טבלה — the measures of the siman, in practice

QuestionMeasure (in practice)Source
Left alone with the wine, the man serves idolsForbidden for benefit, even on our premises, even brieflyשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א ; טור יו״ד סימן קכ״ח
He serves no idols, on our premises, for a short whilePermittedשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א ; ש״ך ס״ק א
Measure of “a short while”כדי שילך כדי מיל — the length of a mil is disputed: a question for a Ravשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א
Even where he was told the Jew is going farStill permitted, in that caseשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א
Deposit at his houseForbiddenשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א
A long deposit, even on our premisesForbidden; even in a mostly Jewish townשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א ; ש״ך ס״ק ב
One transgressed and depositedForbidden to drink; the Bach, as reported by the Shach, forbids benefit tooשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:א ; ש״ך ס״ק ג
Populations outside Eretz YisraelLechatchila, wine is not left alone with themהגה יו״ד קכ״ח:א ; ב״י בשם הרשב״א
After the fact, in that caseThe Rashba and the Ateret Zahav forbid; the Shach permitsש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ד
Conditions of that after-the-fact permissionA short time and a vessel not easily reachedפת״ש יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א
A barrel with a protruding tap, easily pulledAll the wine forbidden, even after the fact, even for a brief yiḥudפת״ש יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק א
A lien on the wine itself (apotiki, pledge)Forbidden, even under a sealשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
A claim on the owner onlyPermitted, even within arm's reach and with no sealשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
Condition of mirtatHe must know that his touch ruins the wineש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק י״א
Second condition of mirtatA place open to passers-by — otherwise he fears nobodyש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ז
Froth found in his handPermitted — attributed to the side of the barrelשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ב ; עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״ב
A thing found only at the mouthForbiddenהגה יו״ד קכ״ח:ב
The tap held in his handForbidden; the Taz extends it to the whole barrel, the Shach is lenient where there is a lossהגה יו״ד קכ״ח:ב ; ט״ז ס״ק ג ; ש״ך ס״ק ח
Both keep wine there, and he bolted from insideForbiddenשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ג ; עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א
Holes allowing all the barrels to be seenAll permitted to drink, even open onesשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ג
Partial holesWhat is visible is permitted; the rest forbidden for benefitשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ג
Sealed barrels outside the field of visionForbidden where he had time כדי שיפתח ויגוף ותגובשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ג ; עבודה זרה ס״ט ע״ב
Why a seal is not enoughHe can slip away and say he was asleepט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ו
Must one know that he bolted it?Yes — we do not forbid on a doubtט״ז יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק ה
At nightWe presume he bolted it; the holes no longer helpט״ז ס״ק ה ; ש״ך ס״ק י
A Jew lives in the houseDoes not save it, where the non-Jew has a title there himselfשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ג ; ש״ך ס״ק י
Only the Jew has wine there, door not boltedPermitted to drinkשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
Bolted, and he would not be seizedForbidden for benefitשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
Bolted, and he would be seized for enteringPermitted to drinkשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ד ; עבודה זרה ס״א ע״ב
Sense of “seized as a thief”Conditional: were they to find him he would be seized — under the law of the place, and he is no strongmanש״ך ס״ק י״ב ; ט״ז ס״ק ח
Seized for entering or for touchingA dispute among Rishonim; the Mehaber writes “for entering”ט״ז ס״ק ט ; תוספות עבודה זרה ס״א ע״ב
Nowadays, where he would not be seized as a thiefPermitted — the fear of nissuch is no longer on the fileהגה יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
Exception to that permissionWhere there is reason to fear he touched it to drink or for another benefitהגה יו״ד קכ״ח:ד ; ש״ך ס״ק א
A wide mouth, or a vessel exposing it to absent-minded contactWe do worryהגה יו״ד קכ״ח:ד
Despite that fear, where there is a lossBenefit remains permitted nowadaysש״ך יו״ד קכ״ח ס״ק י״ג
Barrels in the market, a weak man under the law of the placePermitted to drinkשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ה
Barrels in the market, the man is powerful or beyond reachForbidden for benefitשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ה ; ט״ז ס״ק ח
Cooked wine touched by a non-JewPermitted — the fear of a touch has nothing to bite onשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:ג
Cooked wine deposited with a non-JewOne seal is enoughרמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה י
The rest of these lawsThe Rama, closing the siman, points to siman 129; the seals, to siman 130שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ח:ה

טבלה — who says what (nossei kelim of the siman)

PosekDecisive contribution (anchored in the corpus)
Mehaber (ה׳ סעיפים)s.1: the rule of yiḥud and that of deposit, the clause “on our premises”, the measure of a mil, and the after-the-fact case forbidden to drink; s.2: a lien on the wine, mirtat, the froth; s.3: the inner bolt, the holes in the door, the time needed to open and refit the bung, and the clause “even if a Jew was living there”; s.4: the three positions of the door and נתפס כגנב; s.5: the street, the weakness of the man and the law of the place.
Rama (הגה on s.1, s.2, s.4)s.1: populations outside Eretz Yisrael, in the name of the Rashba as reported by the Beit Yosef. s.2: a thing found only at the mouth; the tap held in hand; and the general principle — we always attribute to what is ordinary. s.4: the great gloss of our era — no need for נתפס כגנב, unless there is reason to fear a touch for drinking or for another benefit; and the clause about a wide mouth and absent-minded contact.
Taz (טורי זהב, ט׳ ס״ק)note 1: the two readings of the difference between yiḥud and deposit (duration / place), and why non-Jews are treated as idolaters for a deposit lechatchila; note 3: the tap forbids the whole barrel, and hefsed merubeh does not apply; note 5: one must know that he bolted it, and the nocturnal reversal; note 6: he can slip away and say he was asleep; note 7: the measure of time referred to siman 129; note 8: the concrete definition of נתפס כגנב; note 9: the dispute between the Ri and Rashi on entering and touching.
Shach (שפתי כהן, י״ג ס״ק)note 1: who “one who serves no idols” is, the reason for the exemption, and its limit — it does not cover the fear of a sip; note 2: a deposit is forbidden even in a mostly Jewish town; note 3: the fear behind a deposit is substitution, and the Bach forbids benefit too; note 4: the great discussion of the after-the-fact case, and the proof from seif 4; note 6: a single seal and the cross-reference to siman 130; note 7: the Bach — a place open to passers-by is required; note 8: the tap is an indirect touch without intent, treated leniently where there is a loss; note 10: the nocturnal presumption and the uselessness of the holes at night; note 11: mirtat presupposes knowledge; note 12: what נתפס כגנב means; note 13: benefit remains permitted where there is a loss.
Pitchei Teshuva (note 1)On the Rama's gloss to seif 1: the Tzemach Tzedek sets two conditions on the after-the-fact permission — a short time and the absence of any fear of touching or sipping — and then the converse case, a barrel with a protruding tap, where all is forbidden even after the fact and even for a brief yiḥud. It is the source most directly transposable to our bottles.
Rambam (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג)halakha 1: the driving force of the siman before its time — one who fears that someone may walk in on him suddenly does not touch; halakha 2: he went out without shutting the door, or left the key in a non-Jew's hand; halakha 5: a public place, with Jews coming and going; halakha 10: cooked wine is content with one seal.
Gemara and Rishonimעבודה זרה ס״א ע״ב: the walled town and the criterion of נתפס כגנב; עבודה זרה ס״ט ע״ב: open and sealed barrels, and the measure of time; עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א: the hole in the door, the inn, and the man who can slip away; עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״ב: froth in the hand; Tosafot there: being seized for entering outweighs being seized for touching; Tur and Beit Yosef: the frame of the siman and the position of the Rashba.

Sefaria links (text and nossei kelim)

Shulchan Aruch YD 128: 128:1 · 128:2 · 128:3 · 128:4 · 128:5
Taz (Turei Zahav): 128 note 1 · 128 note 3 · 128 note 5 · 128 note 8
Shach (Siftei Kohen): 128 note 1 · 128 note 3 · 128 note 4 · 128 note 7 · 128 note 11 · 128 note 13
Pitchei Teshuva: 128 note 1
Tur and Beit Yosef: טור יו״ד קכ״ח · בית יוסף יו״ד קכ״ח
Rambam: Forbidden Foods 13:1 · 13:5 · 13:10
Gemara: Avodah Zarah 61b · 69b · 70a · 70b · Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 61b
Neighbouring simanim: YD 123:3 (cooked wine) · YD 129:1 (the Jew who comes and goes) · YD 130:1 (the seals)

👈 הלכה למעשה — the golden rule of this level

  1. Three fears, not one. Nissuch, the sip, substitution. The first is held to be out of place by the Rama at seif 4; the other two decide all our cases. Whoever keeps only the first concludes wrongly in both directions.
  2. The question is not “did he touch it?” but “could he have talked his way out?” A bolt, darkness, a title to be there: each is a way out, and each forbids. An open door, a hole in the door, a public thoroughfare: each is a pair of eyes, and each permits.
  3. Mirtat is not automatic. The Shach sets two conditions on it: that the man know a touch ruins the wine, and that the place be one where he can be seen. Today the first is almost always missing.
  4. Yiḥud and deposit are two regimes. Leaving something for a while is not entrusting it. The second engages the fear of substitution, which the seals of siman 130 answer — and it does not carry the same after-the-fact permission.
  5. The vessel weighs as much as the duration. The Pitchei Teshuva writes it plainly: a container easy to open and drink from forbids everything, even after the fact, even for a moment. Sealed, stoppered, open: these are not three shades but three regimes.
  6. Cooked wine empties the fear of its object — the Mehaber settled that in siman 123 — but it does not by itself answer the question of a long deposit, nor the factual question of whether this wine is cooked.
  7. The siman does not claim to be complete, and says so. It points to siman 129 for the Jew who comes and goes — that is, for most everyday situations — and to siman 130 for the seals.
  8. And for any real case — a bottle, a kitchen, a cellar, a hotel room, a hand on a cork — halakha lema'asse goes through your Rav: ask your Rav.

← Level 3 — Synthesis ↑ Siman קכ״ח — contents
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
פסק והלכה למעשה בדין מקום שיש בו יין ונתיחד עובד כוכבים שמה · סימן קכ״ח · ⚖️ 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.

DAAT דעת — © 5786 / 2026 · Back to home · Siman קכ״ח · ♥ Support

📖Join the khavroutha