✦ ❖ ✦
DAAT · LEVEL 1 — FOUNDATIONS

Siman קכ״ט — Wine left in a non-Jew’s hands, and the Jew who comes and goes

Twenty situations, one question: did the wine stay under someone’s eye?
יורה דעה · סימן קכ״ט
דִּין הַמַּנִּיחַ יַיִן בְּיַד עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס
🌱 Foundations level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦

A first approach to Siman 129: the 20 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. It is the longest siman in the block on yayin nesekh, and the most concrete. Siman 128 asked what happens when a non-Jew has been left alone with wine; this one asks what makes that solitude harmless. The answer is a single Aramaic word — מִירְתַּת, “he is afraid” — and the siman is little more than an inventory of the situations in which that fear holds, and those in which it fails.

Subject: The watching of wine — חזקת המשתמר, מירתת, דרך עקלתון, נתפס כגנב, רוב וקרוב
Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ט

Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה
DAAT · daattorah.com

📑 Plan of study

1. The text of the Mehaber: the 20 seifim, grouped by situation
2. Background: where the rule of יוצא ונכנס comes from
3. Key concepts: מירתת, דרך עקלתון, מפליג, נתפס כגנב, אשתמוטי, רוב וקרוב…
4. The summary table: what guards the wine, and what stops guarding it
5. The Taz and the Shach: five key entries
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה): nine interventions across seven seifim
7. Modern practical cases: the delivery driver, the caretaker’s key, the break-in, the shared cellar
8. Summary and comprehension questions

1. The text of the Mehaber — the 20 seifim

Siman 129 is the longest of the five simanim devoted to wine left unwatched. It does not state a rule and then its exceptions: it unrolls twenty scenes, nearly all drawn from Talmudic narratives, and leaves the reader to draw the law out of them. A man steps out of his shop, another hears the Friday-evening shofar, a third hides from a lion; thieves get into a cellar, a troop enters the town, a barrel comes down the river. The thread is always the same: does the non-Jew still reckon with the possibility of being seen? The first ten seifim answer through the behaviour of an identified man; the next ten, where nobody can be identified, answer through majorities and inferences.

Group A — Wine entrusted, and what destroys the fear (seifim 1-5)

Seif 1 — Three situations, one fear: “now he will come and see me”

דין המניח יין ביד עובד כוכבים וישראל יוצא ונכנס (וכה״ג). ובו כ׳ סעיפים: המניח עובד כוכבים בחנותו ויצא או שהיה לו יין בספינה או בקרון והניחו עם העובד כוכבי׳ והלך לו לבית (הכנסת) או לבית המרחץ או שהיה עובד כוכבים מעביר לו חבית יין ממקום למקום והניחו לבדו עם היין ויצא מותר (לכתחלה לא יניח אדם בביתו יין או חומץ אצל עובד כוכבים לבד כלל אבל בדיעבד מותר) (מרדכי פ׳ ר״י בשם ראב״ן) אפילו שהה זמן רב מפני שהוא ירא בכל שעה עתה יבא ויראני והוא שלא נודע שסגר העובד כוכבים החנות או שהרחיק הקרון והספינה בענין שאין יכולים לראותו (ואפי׳ סגר החנות כל זמן שיש שם סדק או חור שיכולים לראות בתוכו חשוב כפתוח) (שם במרדכי ובסמ״ג) בד״א שיש דרך עקלתון שיכול לבא עליו פתאום שלא יראנו וכן כשהלך לבית המרחץ הלך דרך עקלתון בענין שלא ידע העובד כוכבים שהלך לבית המרחץ אבל אם ראה שהלך ליכנס לבית המרחץ יודע שלא ימהר לבא וכן אם אמר לעובד כוכבים שהניח בחנות שמור לי יודע שנסתלק משמירתו וכן אם אמר לעובד כוכבים המעביר החבית לך ואני אבא אחריך או שהודיעו שהוא מפליג אם החביות פתוחות כיון שנעלמו מעיניו אסורות ואם הם סתומות אם יש בהפלגתו שיעור כדי שיוכל להסיר מגופות החבית כולה בין שהיא של טיט בין שהיא של סיד ולהחזירה ותנגב אסור: הגה וי״א דאם הם סתומות שרי בכל ענין דיין סגי ליה חותם א׳ (דעת ר״ת) ויש לסמוך על זה בהפסד מרובה וע״ל סי׳ ק״ל:
Title of the siman: the law of one who leaves wine in a non-Jew’s hands, the Jew going out and coming in (and the like); twenty seifim. — One who leaves a non-Jew in his shop and goes out; or who had wine in a boat or in a wagon and left it with the non-Jew and went off to the (synagogue) or to the bathhouse; or where a non-Jew was carrying a barrel of wine for him from place to place, and he left him alone with the wine and went outit is permitted.

Gloss of the Rama: at the outset a man should not leave wine or vinegar in his house with a non-Jew alone at all; but after the fact it is permitted (Mordechai, chapter Rabbi Yishmael, in the name of the Raavan).

The Mehaber continues: even if he tarried a long time, because at every hour he fears: “now he will come and see me”. And that is when it is not known that the non-Jew shut the shop, or moved the wagon or the boat far enough away that they cannot see him.

Gloss of the Rama: and even if he shut the shop, so long as there is a crack or a hole there through which one can see inside, it is reckoned as open (ibid. in the Mordechai and in the Semag).

The Mehaber continues: in what case is this said? Where there is a winding path by which he can come upon him suddenly without being seen. And likewise when he went to the bathhouse: he went by a winding path, so that the non-Jew does not know that he has gone to the bathhouse; but if he saw him going in to the bathhouse, he knows that he will not return quickly. And likewise if he said to the non-Jew whom he left in the shop “watch this for me”: he knows that the Jew has withdrawn from watching. And likewise if he said to the non-Jew carrying the barrel “go, and I shall come after you”, or if he informed him that he is going away: if the barrels are open, since they have vanished from his sight, they are forbidden; and if they are sealed, if his absence lasts long enough for him to remove the whole stopper of the barrel — whether of clay or of lime — and put it back, and for it to dry: it is forbidden.

Gloss of the Rama: and some say that if they are sealed it is permitted in every case, for wine one seal suffices (the opinion of Rabbenu Tam); and one may rely on this where the loss is great; and see below, siman 130.
The whole siman rests on one clause of the Mehaber: “he fears at every hour”. The wine is guarded not by a lock but by a possibility — that the owner may reappear. Three arrangements produce it: the shop one goes in and out of, the load that stays in view, the porter one follows. And four acts destroy it, all of them the Jew’s own: saying “watch this for me”, saying “go, I shall follow”, announcing that he is going away, or being seen entering the bathhouse. The condition that keeps it alive is the דרך עקלתון, the winding path: the return must remain unpredictable.

Seif 2 — One non-Jew, not two

הא דשרי כשיש דרך עקלתון דוקא כשהעובד כוכבים לבדו אבל אם הם שנים או יותר אסור שאפשר לאחד מהם לשמור הדרך עקלתון והאחר יגע:
That which is permitted where there is a winding path applies specifically when the non-Jew is alone; but if they are two or more it is forbidden, since one of them can watch the winding path while the other touches.
The winding path is no physical protection: it is a gap in what the non-Jew knows. Two men close that gap at once — one lookout is enough. The Shach (s.k. 12) adds that there is no number beyond which one grows lenient again: “even ten or more”, for they act with one counsel and do not fear one another.

Seif 3 — The porter can always say he was holding the barrel steady

הא דשרי בחביות פתוחות לגמרי בלא פקק הני מילי בספינה או בחנות שאין לו רשות ליגע בחבית עצמו אבל במעביר חבית ממקום למקום לא ואפילו היא חסרה אסורה דחיישינן דילמא נגע ולא יירא כלל שיכול להשמט ולומר להחזיק בה כוונתי שלא תפול:
That which is permitted with barrels wholly open and unstopped applies only in a boat or in a shop, where he has no leave to touch the barrel itself; but with one carrying a barrel from place to place — no. And even if it is partly empty it is forbidden, for we suspect that he touched it, and he will have no fear at all, since he can slip away and say: “I meant only to hold it so that it should not fall”.
Here the fear is neutralised not by distance but by the excuse ready to hand — what the Gemara calls אית ליה לאשתמוטי. One who has an honest reason to lay a hand on the barrel no longer dreads being caught: he will be seen, and he will have an answer. The Taz (s.k. 8) notes that a wooden plug none the less restores the permission, since then contact with the wine itself is no longer plausible.

Seif 4 — A crowd of passers-by replaces the owner’s eye

אפילו הודיעו שהוא מפליג אם החבית פקוקה והוא בזמן שיש הרבה עוברי דרכים כגון בין הגתות מותר שהוא מתירא מעוברי דרכים אפילו הם עובדי כוכבים:
Even if he informed him that he is going away: if the barrel is plugged, and it is at a season when there are many passers-by — such as between the winepresses — it is permitted, for he fears the passers-by, even if they are non-Jews.
Seif 1 had made the announced departure the decisive cause of prohibition; seif 4 shows that it is so only for want of anything better. What the wine requires is not the owner’s presence but a possible witness, and a busy road serves instead. The Mehaber adds the most instructive detail in the siman: even non-Jewish passers-by suffice. The phrase בין הגתות denotes the pressing season, when the vineyard roads are never empty.

Seif 5 — Handing over the key: guarding a key is not guarding a cellar

המוסר מפתח חנותו לעובד כוכבים היין שבו מותר אפילו לא נשאר שום יהודי בעיר אפילו הודיעו שהוא מפליג שלא מסר לו אלא שמירת המפתח והוא ירא ליכנס בו ויש מי שאומר שלא התירו אלא כשאינו יודע שהוא מפליג ואז מותר אפילו מצאו שנכנס אבל אם הודיע שהוא מפליג אפילו אם נתפס עליו כגנב אסור: הגה ויש להקל כסברא הראשונה (היא סברת ר״ח שכ״ה בריב״ש סימן תכ״ד ות״ה סימן ר״ן ורשב״א) ואם עבר העובד כוכבים ונכנס שם אם נתפס כגנב שרי ואם אינו נתפס כגנב ויש לו התנצלות על מה שנכנס אסור ודוקא אם סגר הדלת במנעול מבפנים ואין סדק בחדר שיכולים לראות משם אבל אם הדלת פתוח (ב״י בשם רשב״א) או אפילו רק סדק שיכולים לראותו היין מותר (מרדכי פר״י) ואפילו אמר לו ליכנס שם (שם) אם לא אמר ליה להפליג ויוכל לבא דהעובד כוכבים מירתת ואם העובד כוכבים אינו מירתת כגון עבדי המושל שתפסו היהודי (ומחפשים בבית היהודי) הכל אסור אם אין לו סימן שלא נגעו (ב״י בשם התוס׳ והמרדכי ס״פ ר״י):
One who hands the key of his shop to a non-Jew: the wine in it is permitted, even if no Jew remained in the town, and even if he informed him that he is going away — for he handed him nothing but the keeping of the key, and he is afraid to go in. And there is one who says that they permitted it only where he does not know that the Jew is going away — and then it is permitted even if he found that the non-Jew had entered; but if he informed him that he is going away it is forbidden, even if he would be seized as a thief.

Gloss of the Rama: and one should be lenient like the first opinion (this is the view of Rabbenu Ḥananel, so too in the Rivash 424, in Terumat HaDeshen 250, and in the Rashba). And if the non-Jew transgressed and entered there: if he would be seized as a thief, it is permitted; and if he would not be seized as a thief and he has an excuse for entering, it is forbidden. And this applies specifically where he locked the door with a bolt from within and there is no crack in the room through which one may see; but if the door is open (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba), or even if there is only a crack through which he can be seen, the wine is permitted (Mordechai). And even if he told him to enter there (ibid.), so long as he did not tell him that he was going away and that he might come — for the non-Jew remains afraid. And if the non-Jew is not afraid — such as the governor’s servants who have seized the Jew (and are searching in the Jew’s house) — everything is forbidden, unless he has a sign that they did not touch.
A key is not a house. The Gemara derives it from an innkeeper who handed hers to a non-Jewish woman: she entrusted her with nothing but the keeping of the key. One who receives a key receives a responsibility, not a permission — and if he enters, he enters as a thief. The Rama’s whole gloss enumerates the cases in which that fear of the thief collapses: a door bolted from within, no crack to be seen through, express leave to enter joined to an announced departure, and the extreme case — men who fear nobody, because they act in the name of power.

Group B — The Jew who steps away for a moment (seifim 6-10)

Seif 6 — The shofar at the onset of Shabbat, and the two thousand cubits

ישראל ועובד כוכבים שהיו בספינה ובה יין ושמע ישראל קול תקיעת שופר שתוקעין לשבות ונכנס לעיר והניח היין שבספינה עם העובד כוכבים אם יש דרך עקלתון שיוכל לבא עליו פתאום ואין שם אלא עובד כוכבים א׳ מותר היין אפילו אם יש בינו ליין יותר מאלפים אמה שאין אנו בעיניהם בחזקת שומרי שבת כראוי:
A Jew and a non-Jew who were in a boat with wine in it, and the Jew heard the sound of the shofar blown to call a halt to work and entered the town, leaving the wine in the boat with the non-Jew: if there is a winding path by which he can come upon him suddenly, and there is only one non-Jew there, the wine is permitted — even if there are more than two thousand cubits between him and the wine, since in their eyes we are not presumed to keep Shabbat as we should.
The reasoning is striking: the wine is saved by the low opinion the non-Jew holds of the Jew. Past two thousand cubits a Jew should not return until Shabbat ends, so the non-Jew ought to feel safe. But he does not credit us with it — the Gemara quotes Issur the convert on what non-Jews used to say among themselves — and that mistrust restores the fear. The Shach (s.k. 19) adds the second and more honourable reason: the Jew, remembering his wine, may turn back.

Seif 7 — The table, the sideboard, and the reach of an arm

היו יושבים ישראל ועובד כוכבים לשתות כל אחד מיינו ושמע הישראל שקורין לבית הכנסת והלך שם להתפלל מותר היין אם יש דרך עקלתון שיוכל לבא עליו פתאום אבל אם היו שותים ביחד מיין אחד ויין לפניהם על השלחן ויין אחר חוץ לשלהן והניח העובד כוכבים לבדו שעל השלחן אסור ואת שחוץ לשלחן את שתוך פישוט ידיו אסור ושחוץ לפישוט ידיו מותר ואם אמר לו הוי מוזג ושותה כל החביות הפתוחות שבבית אסורות והסתומות מותרות אא״כ שהה כדי שיסיר המגופה כולה ויחזירנה ותנגב:
A Jew and a non-Jew were sitting drinking, each from his own wine, and the Jew heard the call to the synagogue and went there to pray: the wine is permitted, if there is a winding path by which he can come upon him suddenly. But if they were drinking together from one wine, with wine before them on the table and other wine off the table, and he left the non-Jew alone: what is on the table is forbidden; and of what is off the table, whatever lies within reach of his outstretched hands is forbidden, and what lies beyond is permitted. And if he said to him “mix and drink”, all the open barrels in the house are forbidden and the sealed ones permitted — unless he tarried long enough to remove the whole stopper, replace it, and let it dry.
One absence, three outcomes, according to what the Jew allowed before going out. Nothing said, each with his own wine: all is permitted. Shared wine on the table: that wine is forbidden, and with it whatever an arm can reach. An invitation to help himself: the whole house falls, except what is sealed. The criterion is never distance alone, but distance crossed with implied permission.

Seif 8 — The bolt drawn, the key forgotten

ישראל ששכר בית בחצר העובד כוכבים והניח בו יין וסגר הדלת והכניס הבריח בטבעת ושכח ולא סגרו במפתח והפליג ולסוף ימים הרגיש העובד כוכבים שלא היה סגור במפתח והודיע הדבר ליהודי מותר. (הואיל ולא ידע העובד כוכבים שמפליג הישראל מירתת ולא נגע) (תשובת הרא״ש כלל י״ט סימן י״ג):
A Jew who rented a house in a non-Jew’s courtyard and put wine in it, and shut the door and set the bolt in the ring, but forgot to lock it with the key and went away; and after some days the non-Jew noticed that it had not been locked with the key and informed the Jew — it is permitted.

Gloss of the Rama: since the non-Jew did not know that the Jew was going away, he remains afraid and did not touch (Responsa of the Rosh, klal 19, siman 13).
The case is one of carelessness — and by that very carelessness the wine survives. The bolt set in its ring shows that the closing had been begun; the non-Jew could not conclude that the Jew had left. Yet the two great commentaries stand against the reason given in the parenthesis: the Taz (s.k. 14) and the Shach (s.k. 21) both show that the Rosh’s responsum says the opposite — even had he announced his departure it would be permitted, for the non-Jew would reason that the Jew, remembering the key, will come back to lock it.

Seif 9 — Out in haste: the non-Jew thinks the other is already back

בית שיש לישראל בו יין ועובד כוכבים דר למטה וישראל בעלייה וארובה מהעלייה לבית ויצאו שניהם בבהלה לראות חתן או הספד וחזר העובד כוכבים וסגר הפתח ואחר כך בא הישראל אף על פי שאין לישראל מעבר אלא דרך הבית ואי אפשר לעבור שלא יראנו הרי יין הפתוח שבבית הישראלי בהיתירו שלא סגר העובד כוכבים אלא על דעת שכבר נכנס הישראל לביתו ולא נשאר אדם בחוץ וכמדומה לו שהוא קדמו: הגה ודוקא שיצאו בבהלה וחזרו דאפשר לומר שמתוך בהלתו חזר ולא דקדק יפה בכניסת ישראל אבל שלא בבהלה היין אסור (ב״י בשם הרמב״ם):
A house in which a Jew has wine, a non-Jew living below and the Jew in the upper storey, with a skylight from the upper storey into the house; and both went out in haste to see a bridegroom or a eulogy, and the non-Jew came back and shut the door, and afterwards the Jew arrived: although the Jew has no way through except by the house, and it is impossible to pass without the non-Jew seeing him — the open wine in the Jew’s house remains permitted, for the non-Jew shut the door only on the assumption that the Jew had already gone into his own house and that nobody was left outside, and it seems to him that the Jew got back first.

Gloss of the Rama: and this specifically where they went out in haste and returned, for one may say that in his haste he came back without checking carefully whether the Jew had come in; but if they did not go out in haste, the wine is forbidden (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rambam).
The one fact that permits the wine here is a mistake imputed to the non-Jew: he believes the other man got back first. The Gemara derives it from a quarrel heard in the street, at which both neighbours rush out. The Rama, following the Rambam, turns that detail into a condition of law: without the haste the mistake is no longer plausible, and the wine is forbidden. The Taz (s.k. 15) wonders at this: do we forbid wine on a mere doubt?

Seif 10 — The lion, and the man hiding among the barrels

עובד כוכבים ששמע קול שאגת אריה ומפחדו נחבא בין החביות יין וסגר הדלת אחריו מותר אפי׳ הן פתוחות מפני שהוא אומר שמא ישראל אחר נחבא כאן ויראה אותי כשאגע:
A non-Jew who heard a lion roar and in his fear hid among the wine barrels and shut the door behind him — it is permitted, even if they are open, because he says to himself: “perhaps another Jew is hidden here, and he will see me when I touch”.
A door shut from inside is normally enough to forbid (siman 128): a man who locks himself in has nothing left to fear. Here the very reason that drove him in holds him back — he hid, so another may be hiding. The Taz (s.k. 16) notes that the permission does not depend on his being seized as a thief, and wonders that the Shulchan Aruch omitted the simpler reason still: he fears the owners of the wine as well.

Group C — Those who enter uninvited (seifim 11-13)

Seif 11 — Thieves in the cellar: the majority, the quarter, the hidden money

גנבים שנכנסו למרתף ופתחו חביות יין אם רוב גנבי העיר עובדי כוכבים אסור ואם רובן ישראל מותר ואם רובן ישמעאלים אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה ואם יש ליהודים שכונה לבדם שאין דרך העובדי כוכבים מפסיקתה הולכים אחר רוב בני השכונה אע״פ שרוב בני העיר עובדי כוכבים ובמקום שרגילים להצניע ממון בחביות ומניחים אותם בין חביות יין אפילו אם רוב גנבי העיר עובדי כוכבים מותר דשמא לא באו אלא בשביל הממון וכשראו שהוא יין לא נגעו בו: הגה וכל זה מיירי שראינו ריעותא כגון שהיו תחילה סתומות ונפתחו אבל אם היו סתומות ונמצאו סתומות או שהיו כולם פתוחות ולא נמצא בהם ריעותא הכל שרי (בב״י ריב״ש סי׳ תכ״ד ומרדכי ואגודה וראב״ן) דסתם גנב אינו לוקח יין ואם היה במקצתן ריעותא ונפתחו האחרים שאין אנו רואים בהן ריעותא הכל שרי (בב״י ומרדכי ס״פ ר״י תשובת מוהר״ם) וי״א שכל זה מיירי שיש גנבים ידועים מן העובדי כוכבים (כן משמע במרדכי פר״י והביאו הבית יוסף) אבל אם ידוע גנב אחד מישראל ומעובד כוכבים אינו ידוע תלינן בישראל הידוע ועיין לעיל סימן קכ״ח עוד מדינים אלו:
Thieves who entered a cellar and opened barrels of wine: if the majority of the town’s thieves are non-Jews, it is forbidden; if the majority are Jews, it is permitted; and if the majority are Ishmaelites, it is forbidden to drink and permitted for benefit. And if the Jews have a quarter of their own which the non-Jews’ road does not cut through, we follow the majority of that quarter’s inhabitants, even though the majority of the town’s inhabitants are non-Jews. And in a place where money is customarily hidden in barrels which are set among the wine barrels, then even if the majority of the town’s thieves are non-Jews it is permitted — for perhaps they came only for the money, and when they saw it was wine they did not touch it.

Gloss of the Rama: and all this speaks of a case where we saw something amiss, for instance that they were sealed at first and were opened; but if they were sealed and were found sealed, or were all open and nothing amiss was found in them, all is permitted (Beit Yosef, Rivash 424, Mordechai, Agudah, Raavan), for an ordinary thief does not take wine. And if something was amiss with some of them and the others were opened with nothing amiss visible in them, all is permitted (Beit Yosef, Mordechai, Responsa of the Maharam). And some say that all this speaks of a case where there are known thieves among the non-Jews (so it is implied in the Mordechai, cited by the Beit Yosef); but if one Jewish thief is known and no non-Jewish one is known, we attribute it to the known Jew; and see above, siman 128, for more of these laws.
Here the siman changes method: down to seif 10 it reasoned about the fear of an identified man; from here on it reasons about anonymous probabilities. Three majorities nest inside each other — of the thieves, of the quarter, of the motives for the break-in. The line about Ishmaelites governs everything that follows: not being idolaters, their contact forbids only drinking. The Shach (s.k. 25) draws the general conclusion: the same holds for all non-Jews nowadays. And the Rama prefixes a condition that rules the whole: without an observed ריעותא there is no question at all.

Seif 12 — The troop: in peace one worries, in war there is no time

חיל שנכנס לעיר ונכנס לבית ישראל בשעת שלום חביות פתוחות אפילו הן פקוקות אסורות וסתומות במגופה של טיט מותרות ובשעת מלחמה אלו ואלו מותרות ודוקא בפתוחות מתחלתן אבל סתומות שנפתחו חיישינן להו:
A troop that entered the town and entered a Jew’s house, in peacetime: open barrels — even if plugged — are forbidden, and those sealed with a clay stopper are permitted; and in wartime both these and those are permitted. And this applies specifically to those that were open from the start; but sealed ones that were opened — we are concerned about them.
The Mishnah gives the reason in four words: לפי שאין פנאי לנסך, “for there is no leisure to make libation”. In wartime the plunderer has no time to spare. In peacetime he has — and a wooden plug proves nothing, explains the Shach (s.k. 30), for if he put it back it was not out of fear but out of habit. A clay stopper takes an effort that nobody makes merely to cover his tracks: which is why it counts as proof.

Seif 13 — Standing by the winepress: rinsing, or rinsing and drying

עובד כוכבים שנמצא עומד אצל הגת אם יש בה טופח על מנת להטפיח (פי׳ שהיד הנעשית לחה במגעו תחזור ותעשה לחה גם יד אחרת) צריך הדחה וניגוב ואי לא בהדחה סגי:
A non-Jew found standing beside the winepress: if there is in it “moisture enough to moisten”explanation: that a hand made damp by touching it will in turn make another hand dampit requires rinsing and drying; and if not, rinsing suffices.
After the men and the majorities comes the vessel itself. The criterion is a physical test — טופח על מנת להטפיח — measuring whether enough wine is left for a touch to be a real touch. The Taz (s.k. 23) explains why we suspect a man who has done nothing suspicious: seeing the press almost empty, he does not think he is doing wrong by touching it, and so does not restrain himself. The Rambam, giving the same law, closes it with a phrase: this is an added stringency.

Group D — The harlot, the window, the shared courtyard (seifim 14-16)

Seif 14 — The harlot’s wine

זונה עובדת כוכבי׳ במסיבת ישראל היין מותר שאינם מניחים אותה לנסך אבל זונה ישראלית במסיבת עובדי כוכבים יינה של הזונה גם כן אסור:
A non-Jewish harlot at a Jewish gathering: the wine is permitted, for they do not let her make libation. But a Jewish harlot at a gathering of non-Jews: the harlot’s wine too is forbidden.
The Gemara gives the reason, and its clarity is disarming: נהי דתקיף להו יצרא דעבירה, יצרא דיין נסך לא תקיף להו — the urge to transgress is strong, the urge for yayin nesekh is not. In other words, men who fail on one point do not necessarily fail on every point. The mirror case is explained the other way about: she is on their ground, cheapened in their eyes, and is drawn after them. The Taz (s.k. 24), however, refuses to extend the leniency to his own day, holding that the prohibition of wine had by then grown too light in people’s eyes.

Seif 15 — The open window and the wine found untouched

הניח יין בביתו בחלון פתוח ובא עובד כוכבים והכניס שם זונה וסגר הדלת אחריו ואחר כך בא הישראל ומצא יינו כמו שהניחו מותר:
He left wine in his house with the window open, and a non-Jew came and brought a harlot in there and shut the door behind him; and afterwards the Jew came and found his wine as he had left it — it is permitted.
The seif is short because everything in it has already been settled. The shut door does not forbid, since the window stays open — the rule of the crack in seif 1. And the man did not come for the wine: busy with his own affair, he never went near it, exactly like the thieves who came for money in seif 11. The Shach (s.k. 36) sums it up in the Rosh’s words: דבעבידתיה טרוד ואין לו פנאי לנסך.

Seif 16 — The courtyard divided by stakes, and the roof above

חצר שחלוקה בראשי יתידות בין ישראל לעובד כוכבים אף על פי שחביות פתוחות עומדות סמוך לחלקו של עובד כוכבים תוך פישוט ידיו מותרות וכן אם היה גגו של ישראל למעלה מגגו של עובד כוכבים וחלוקים ביתידות מניח שם יינו אע״פ שידו מגעת שם:
A courtyard divided between a Jew and a non-Jew by the tips of stakes: although open barrels stand next to the non-Jew’s portion, within reach of his outstretched hands, they are permitted. And likewise if the Jew’s roof was above the non-Jew’s roof and they are divided by stakes: he may leave his wine there, even though the non-Jew’s hand reaches it.
Seif 7 made the reach of an arm a decisive boundary; this one shows that a legal boundary outranks a physical one. A few stakes stop no hand, but they make whoever crosses the line a trespasser — and a trespasser, in the Gemara’s own words, is שנתפס עליו כגנב. The Taz (s.k. 25) observes that “and divided” should be read “or divided”: two roofs are already distinct of themselves.

Group E — Wine found with no owner (seifim 17-19)

Seif 17 — The floating barrel: majority against proximity

חבית של יין שצפה בנהר ונמצאה כנגד עיר שרובה ישראל אם יש בנהר מכשולות וסכר (פירוש סתימה) אגמי מים שהיו מעמידים אותה אלו באה ממקום אחר מותרות שאין לתלותה אלא בעיר שנמצאת כנגדה ואם אין בנהר סכר אגמי מים אסורה שאנו תולים אותה ברוב הסביבות שהם עובדי כוכבים ואם נמצאת כנגד עיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים אם רוב הסביבות ישראל ויכולה לבא שם דרך ישרה שלא תטבע מותרת אפילו קרובה הרבה לעיר של עובדי כוכבים עד שמוכיח קורבתה שהיא של עובד כוכבים מניחים הקרוב והולכים אחר הרוב ואם לאו היין אסור בהנאה והקנקן הוא של מוצאו ואם בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן אף היין מותר והרי הוא של מוצאו דכיון דרובה עובדי כוכבים נתיאשו הבעלים (ודוקא שהיא סתומה בפקק אבל פתוחה לגמרי היין אסור דחיישינן שמא נגעו בו) (כך משמע מהר״ן פא״מ וכן הוא בתא״ו ני״ז):
A barrel of wine that floated down the river and was found opposite a town the majority of which is Jewish: if there are obstacles in the river and a damexplanation: a blockageof pools of water that would have stopped it had it come from elsewhere, they are permitted, for it can be attributed only to the town opposite which it was found. And if there is no dam of pools of water in the river, it is forbidden, for we attribute it to the majority of the surrounding places, which are non-Jewish. And if it was found opposite a town the majority of which is non-Jewish: if the majority of the surrounding places are Jewish and it could have come there by a straight course without sinking, it is permitted — even if it is far closer to the non-Jewish town, so much so that its nearness proves it to be a non-Jew’s: we set nearness aside and follow the majority. Otherwise the wine is forbidden for benefit, and the jug belongs to the finder; and if a Jew came and gave an identifying mark on it, even the wine is permitted — and it belongs to the finder, since as the majority are non-Jews the owners have despaired of it.

Gloss of the Rama: and this specifically if it is closed with a plug; but if it is wholly open the wine is forbidden, for we suspect that it was touched (so it is implied from the Ran, chapter Ein Maamidin, and so it is in Toldot Adam veḤava, netiv 17).
Three distinct questions cross in this seif, and it cannot be read without separating them. First: where did the barrel come from? — the answer is רוב וקרוב הולכים אחר הרוב, majority prevails over proximity, even proximity that all but proves the point. Second: the dam. It permits nothing by itself; it eliminates the other possible sources, and the distant majority then ceases to count. Third: whose is the object? — a question of property, not of prohibition: a non-Jewish majority makes the owners despair, and the finder acquires.

Seif 18 — The barrel in the vineyard, and the traveller’s flask

חבית של יין שנמצאת בכרמו של ישראל ויש כרמים אחרים של ישראל סמוכים וכרמים רבים מהם של עובדי כוכבים סביבותיהם אע״פ שרחוקים משל ישראל החבית אסורה דאזלינן בתר רובא אף ע״ג דאיכא קורבא דמוכח דשל ישראל היתה ואין צריך לומר כשאין שם של ישראל אלא אותו כרם וה״ה להקל כגון שנמצא בכרמו של עובד כוכבים אע״פ שיש כרמים אחרים של עובדי כוכבים אי איכא כרמים של ישראל רבים מהם אפילו רחוקים מהם הולכים להקל והוא שיושבת בין ההרים שאינו מעבר לעוברי דרכים הא לאו הכי אסורה שרוב עוברי דרכים עובדי כוכבים הם ושמא מהם נפל והני מילי בבקבוק אבל חבית שאין דרך עוברי דרכים להוליך כיוצא בו אין תולים בהם:
A barrel of wine found in a Jew’s vineyard, where there are other Jewish vineyards nearby and many non-Jewish vineyards around them: even though these are far from the Jew’s, the barrel is forbidden, for we follow the majority — and this even where the nearness all but proves it was a Jew’s. And needless to say where the only Jewish vineyard there is that one. And the same holds for leniency: for instance if it was found in a non-Jew’s vineyard, then even though there are other non-Jewish vineyards, if there are more Jewish vineyards than those — even at a distance — we rule leniently. And this is where it lies among the mountains, off the travellers’ route; otherwise it is forbidden, for the majority of travellers are non-Jews and perhaps it dropped from them. And this applies to a flask; but a barrel, which travellers do not customarily carry, we do not attribute to them.
The same rule as seif 17, but turned over twice so that it should not become a rule of stringency: the majority serves to permit as well. Then a third factor enters, which has nothing to do with vineyards: who travels the roads. A vessel belongs not only to the place where it lies but to those who pass through it — hence the closing distinction, purely material: a flask is carried about, a barrel is not.

Seif 19 — The skins on the road, and those that balance the load

נודות יין שנמצאו מושלכים בדרך אם רוב שופכי יין ישראל מותרים אם הם נודות גדולים אבל אם הם קטנים שדרך עוברי דרכים להוליך כיוצא בהם אסורים שאנו תולים בהם שרובם עובדי כוכבים ואם היו גדולים וקטנים מותרים כולם שהגדולים מוכיחים על הקטנים שהם משופכי יין והרי רובם ישראל והקטנים להכריע המשא באו:
Wineskins found cast on the road: if the majority of those who pour wine are Jews, they are permitted if they are large skins; but if they are small ones, such as travellers customarily carry, they are forbidden, for we attribute them to the majority, who are non-Jews. And if there were both large and small, all are permitted, for the large ones prove of the small ones that they belong to the wine-pourers — the majority of whom are Jews — and that the small ones came to balance the load.
The reasoning grows finer still: it is no longer majorities that decide but an inference from the objects themselves. A mixed lot of large and small skins does not look like a traveller’s burden; it looks like a merchant’s consignment. Rashi, quoted by the Taz (s.k. 28), explains the closing line: when a large skin weighs down one side of the beast, a small one is set against it to even the load.

Group F — The open door, and the maidservant’s word (seif 20)

Seif 20 — The door found open, and the maidservant’s word

ישראל שיש לו יין באוצר שלו ופתח האוצר סגור במפתח אחד ומצא הפתח פתוח ועובד כוכבים אחד מודה שהוא פתחו לשאוב מים מבור שבאוצר כדי לבנות ביתו מותר: הגה בעל הבית שאמר לשפחתו להכין השלחן ומצא יין על שלחנו ושפחתו העובדת כוכבים אומרת שלקחה היין ממרתיפו שבו יין הרבה היין שבמרתף שרי דאין העובדת כוכבי׳ נאמנת ואימר במקום אחר לקחה (תשובת המרדכי פ׳ ר״י) ושעל השלחן אסור וכן באחת שטמנה מפתח מרתף שלה ולא מצאה במקומה ומצאה כד יין טמון בתבן ואומרת שפחה עובדת כוכבי׳ שהיא לקחה היין מן היין שבמרתף שרי ואין השפחה נאמנת (שם ואגודה ובהגהת אשיר״י) אבל גנבים שנכנסו למרתף ומשכו יין והניחו הברזות פתוחות ונמצאו אחר כך הברזות סתומות ואמרה שפחה עובדת כוכבי׳ שהיא סתמתן כיון שנתייחדה העובדת כוכבים עם היין ואינה נתפסת כגנב ואיכא רגלים לדבר שהיא סתמתן היין אסור (מרדכי סוף פ׳ ר״י) מיהו בזמן הזה דאין העובדי כוכבים מנסכים שרי כמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן קכ״ג וקכ״ד:
A Jew who has wine in his storehouse, the storehouse door being locked with a single key, and he found the door open, and one non-Jew admits that he opened it — to draw water from the cistern in the storehouse in order to build his house — it is permitted.

Gloss of the Rama: a householder who told his maidservant to lay the table, and found wine on his table, and his non-Jewish maidservant says that she took the wine from his cellar, in which there is much wine: the wine in the cellar is permitted, for the non-Jewish woman is not believed, and we may say that she took it elsewhere (Responsa of the Mordechai); and what is on the table is forbidden. And likewise with a woman who had hidden her cellar key and did not find it in its place, and found a jug of wine hidden in straw, and the non-Jewish maidservant says that she took the wine from the wine in the cellar: it is permitted, and the maidservant is not believed (ibid., Agudah, Hagahot Asheri). But thieves who entered a cellar and drew off wine and left the taps open, and afterwards the taps were found shut, and the non-Jewish maidservant says that she shut them: since the non-Jewish woman was alone with the wine and is not seized as a thief, and there is circumstantial evidence that she shut them, the wine is forbidden (Mordechai, end of chapter Rabbi Yishmael). However nowadays, when the non-Jews do not make libations, it is permitted, as explained above, simanim 123 and 124.
The siman closes on its own reversal. The Mehaber applies the rule of fear one last time: a man who has forced a locked door is a thief, and a thief does not make libation — the Taz (s.k. 29) stresses that it is the fact that the door had been locked that pins him. Then the Rama adds three cases of a maidservant, and ends with the sentence that empties much of the siman of practical force: “however nowadays, when the non-Jews do not make libations, it is permitted”. The structure stands entire; what has changed is the regime under which it applies.

2. Background — where the rule of יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס comes from

The whole substance of the siman comes from the last chapter of Avodah Zarah. There the Mishnah lays down the rule and its unit of measure — the time it would take to unstop, restop and let dry:

« מַתְנִי׳ נׇכְרִי שֶׁהָיָה מַעֲבִיר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּדֵּי יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, אִם הָיָה בְּחֶזְקַת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר — מוּתָּר. אִם הוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוֹם וְיִסְתּוֹם וְיִגּוֹב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח אֶת הֶחָבִית וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב. » — עבודה זרה ס״ט ע״א

The Gemara at once asks why three cases were needed, and its answer sketches the three situations of seif 1: the shop, the wagon or boat, and the porter.

« הַמַּנִּיחַ נׇכְרִי בַּחֲנוּתוֹ כּוּ׳. הַמַּנִּיחַ יֵינוֹ בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה כּוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא נׇכְרִי — דְּסָבַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי וְחָזֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה — אֵימָא דְּמַפְלֵיג לַהּ לִסְפִינְתֵּיהּ וְעָבֵיד מַאי דְּבָעֵי. » — עבודה זרה ס״ט ע״ב

Then come the narratives, one by one. The Friday-evening shofar gives our seif 6 — and note that Rava speaks not of distance but of what the non-Jew says to himself:

« הָהוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי בְּאַרְבָּא, שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל קָל שִׁיפּוּרֵי דְּבֵי שִׁימְשֵׁי, נְפַק וַאֲזַל. אֲמַר רָבָא: חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, מֵימָר אָמַר: הַשְׁתָּא מִדְּכַר לֵיהּ לְחַמְרֵיהּ וְהָדַר אָתֵי. » — עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א

The lion gives seif 10, and it may be the most elegant case in the chapter: the fear that drove the man in is the very fear that keeps him from touching.

« הָהוּא אַרְיָא דַּהֲוָה נָהֵים בְּמַעְצַרְתָּא, שְׁמַע גּוֹי, טְשָׁא בֵּינֵי דַּנֵּי. אָמַר רָבָא: חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, מֵימָר אָמַר: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּטָשֵׁינָא אֲנָא, אִיטְשָׁא נָמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲחוֹרַיי וְקָא חָזֵי לִי. » — עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א

With the thieves of Pumbedita the chapter changes method: we no longer reason about what one man thinks, but about what most men do. This is seif 11.

« הָנְהוּ גַּנָּבֵי דְּסָלְקִי לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וּפְתַחוּ חָבְיָתָא טוּבָא. אֲמַר רָבָא: חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? רוּבָּא גַּנָּבֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי. » — עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״א

The innkeeper’s key gives seif 5, and the formula the whole siman will reuse: she entrusted her with nothing but the keeping of the key.

« הָהִיא מָסוֹבִיתָא דִּמְסַרָה לַהּ אִיקְּלִידָא (מַפְתְּחָה) לְגוֹיָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, וַאֲמַרוּ: לֹא מָסְרָה לָהּ אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת מַפְתֵּחַ בִּלְבָד. » — עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״ב

Finally the Mishnah of the raiding troop, which gives seif 12 together with its reason in four words:

« מַתְנִי׳ בּוֹלֶשֶׁת שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְעִיר, בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם — חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, סְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת; בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה — אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פְּנַאי לְנַסֵּךְ. » — עבודה זרה ע׳ ע״ב

The Tur, whom the Mehaber follows very closely, opens the siman with the phrase that states its single principle — and explains why seals are almost never mentioned in it:

« כל מקום שהיין בחזקת משתמר דאיכא למיתלי שלא נגע בו הנכרי מותר אפי' בל' חותם » — טור יורה דעה סימן קכ״ט

The great questions of the siman

  1. What guards the wine? Neither lock nor seal, but a probability: that the owner may reappear unannounced. The siman is therefore less about objects than about states of mind.
  2. Who destroys that guard? Almost always the Jew himself, by one word too many: “watch this for me”, “go, I’ll follow”, or the announcement of his departure. In that respect the siman is a treatise on saying nothing.
  3. What happens when nobody can be identified? From seif 11 onward we leave psychology for statistics: the majority of thieves, of the quarter, of travellers — and the rule רוב וקרוב הולכים אחר הרוב.
  4. And today? The Rama closes the siman by recalling that the non-Jews of his time do not make libations; the Shach (s.k. 25) says it in general terms. The siman’s reasoning stands entire, but its stake shifts: from nissukh to the mere suspicion of substitution.
This siman deals neither with what renders wine forbidden (simanim 123-125), nor with yiḥud as such (siman 128), nor with seals (siman 130). It deals with wine left behind — and with the one thing that, in the absence of a seal, can still protect it: the fear of being seen. That is why its last ten seifim leave the wine of a house for wine found on a river, in a vineyard, on a road: where there is no longer anyone to frighten, another instrument is needed, and that instrument is the majority.

3. The key concepts of this siman

חֶזְקַת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר the presumption of being watched. The parent concept, given by the Mishnah and taken up by the Tur in its first line. The wine need not actually be guarded: it is enough that it be in a state of being guarded. The whole siman sets out when that state survives.
מִירְתַּת he is afraid. The single spring of the siman. Not fear of punishment, but the anticipation of a gaze: עתה יבא ויראני, “now he will come and see me”. Wherever that sentence can be said, the wine is permitted.
דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן the winding path. The material condition of the fear: an unannounced return must be possible. The Ran, cited by the Shach (s.k. 8), limits it to the case of the porter; in a shop one goes in and out of, surprise is a given.
הוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג he informed him that he is going away. The destructive act par excellence: the Jew hands the non-Jew information about his own timetable. The Taz (s.k. 4) reports a decisive dispute — must it be said expressly (Raavad, Rashba), or does a vague remark suffice (Rosh)?
כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב enough time to open, restop and let dry. The unit of measure for the whole chapter: it is not absence that forbids, but an absence long enough for the deed to be erased without a trace.
נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב he would be seized as a thief. The second great spring, beside the fear of being seen. A man with no business there does not touch, because he already dreads being found there. It is what saves the wine in seifim 5, 16 and 20.
אִית לֵיהּ לְאִשְׁתְּמוֹטֵי he has a way to slip out of it. The exact opposite of the preceding. A man with an honest excuse — “I was only holding it so it should not fall” — no longer fears being seen: this is the reason of seif 3.
שְׁמִירַת מַפְתֵּחַ בִּלְבָד the keeping of the key alone. The Gemara’s phrase, taken over unchanged by the Mehaber in seif 5: handing over a key is not handing over a place. The Taz (s.k. 10) notes that one need not even stipulate it.
תּוֹךְ פִּישׁוּט יָדָיו within reach of his outstretched hands. The measure of seif 7: beyond it he would have to move, and moving is visible. Seif 16 will show that a legal boundary — a few stakes — none the less overrides this physical measure.
רִיעוּתָא something visibly amiss. The Rama’s own contribution at seif 11, and it governs all that follows: so long as nothing has changed — sealed found sealed, open found open — there is not even a question to ask.
רוֹב וְקָרוֹב majority and proximity. The principle of seifim 17 to 19: between the place a thing plausibly came from and the place most such things come from, the law chooses the second — מניחים הקרוב והולכים אחר הרוב.
טוֹפֵחַ עַל מְנָת לְהַטְפִּיחַ moist enough to moisten. The physical test of seif 13: is there enough wine in the press for a touch to count as a touch? The text itself supplies the definition in parentheses.
בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה nowadays. The siman’s last word, and the key to reading it practically. The Rama and the Shach (s.k. 25) establish that contemporary non-Jews do not make libations; the residual concern is no longer nissukh but that he may have drunk or substituted.

4. The summary table — what guards the wine, and what stops guarding it

The siman never answers simply “permitted” or “forbidden”. Three variables cross: what the non-Jew knows of the Jew’s absence, what he risks if caught, and the state of the vessels. The table sets them side by side, seif by seif.

המקרהSituationRulingSeif
המניח עובד כוכבים בחנותוHe leaves a non-Jew in his shop and goes outמותר1
יין בספינה או בקרוןThe wine stays in the boat or the wagonמותר1
מעביר חבית ממקום למקוםA non-Jew carries the barrelמותר1
אפילו שהה זמן רבThe absence lasted a long timeמותרמירתת1
סגר החנות · הרחיק הספינהIt is established that he shut or moved it awayאסור1
סדק או חורShut, but a crack lets one see inRama : חשוב כפתוח1
אין דרך עקלתוןNo unannounced return is possibleאסור1
אמר לו שמור ליHe entrusted him with the watchingנסתלק משמירתו — אסור1
לך ואני אבא אחריך“Go, I shall follow”אסור1
הודיעו שהוא מפליג · פתוחותDeparture announced, barrels openאסורות1
הודיעו שהוא מפליג · סתומותDeparture announced, barrels sealedאסור אם יש שיעור ; Rama : שרי בהפסד מרובה1
שנים או יותרTwo non-Jews or moreאסור — אחד שומר והאחר נוגע2
מעביר · חבית פתוחהThe porter, with an unstopped barrelאסורהאית ליה לאשתמוטי3
בין הגתותA season when the roads are busyמותר אף בהודיעו שמפליג4
מסר מפתח חנותוHe handed over the shop keyמותרשמירת המפתח בלבד5
עבר ונכנס · נתפס כגנבHe entered none the less, but would be taken for a thiefRama : שרי5
עבדי המושלMen acting in the name of the authoritiesRama : הכל אסור — אינו מירתת5
קול תקיעת שופרHe leaves as Shabbat comes in, more than 2000 amotמותר — אין אנו בחזקת שומרי שבת בעיניהם6
יין על השולחןShared wine left on the tableאסור7
חוץ לשולחן · פישוט ידיוOff the table, but within arm’s reachאסור ; וחוץ לפישוט ידיו — מותר7
הוי מוזג ושותה“Mix and drink”כל הפתוחות אסורות, והסתומות מותרות7
הכניס הבריח ולא סגר במפתחBolt set, key forgottenמותר8
יצאו בבהלהOut in haste, the non-Jew shuts firstבהיתרו ; Rama : שלא בבהלה — אסור9
נחבא מפני האריהHe hid in fear among the barrelsמותר אפילו הן פתוחות10
רוב גנבי העירAccording to the majority of the town’s thievesישראל — מותר ; עובדי כוכבים — אסור11
ישמעאליםThe majority are Ishmaelitesאסור בשתייה ומותר בהנאה11
שכונה לבדםA Jewish quarter no road cuts throughהולכים אחר רוב בני השכונה11
ריעותאNothing changed: sealed found sealedRama : הכל שרי11
חיל · שעת שלוםA troop, in peacetimeפתוחות ופקוקות אסורות, מגופת טיט מותרת12
חיל · שעת מלחמהA troop, in wartimeאלו ואלו מותרות — אין פנאי לנסך12
עומד אצל הגתFound standing by the winepressטופח על מנת להטפיח — הדחה וניגוב ; ואי לא — הדחה13
זונה עובדת כוכביםAt a Jewish gatheringהיין מותר14
זונה ישראליתAt a non-Jewish gatheringיינה אסור14
חלון פתוחDoor shut, window open, wine untouchedמותר15
חצר חלוקה ביתידותCourtyard or roofs divided by stakesמותרות אף בתוך פישוט ידיו16
חבית שצפה בנהרFound opposite a town, with or without a damהולכים אחר הרוב ; סכר — תולין בעיר שכנגדה17
קורבא דמוכחProximity none the less points to an ownerמניחים הקרוב והולכים אחר הרוב17-18
בקבוק · חביתA traveller’s flask, or a barrelבקבוק — תולין בעוברי דרכים ; חבית — אין תולים18
נודות גדולים וקטניםMixed skins found on the roadמותרים כולם — הגדולים מוכיחים19
מצא הפתח פתוחA non-Jew admits entering to draw waterמותר20
שפחה עובדת כוכביםThe maidservant says she took wine from the cellarRama : אינה נאמנת — המרתף שרי, ושעל השולחן אסור20
בזמן הזהNowadays, when no libation is madeRama : שרי20
Read from top to bottom, the right-hand column tells the siman: it begins with a man who can be frightened and ends in a world with nobody left to frighten. The first ten lines speak only of what the non-Jew knows and believes; the last ten do not speak of him at all, but of proportions — thieves, quarters, travellers. And the very last line, added by the Rama, puts the practical reach of almost everything above it in question.

5. The Taz and the Shach — five key entries

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 haKohen, 1621-1662). On this siman they meet at one remarkable point: both correct the Rama on the source he invokes at seif 8, each independently and with the same responsum of the Rosh before him.

Two key entries from the Taz

Taz s.k. 4 — must it have been said expressly?

« ובהך הודעה שמפליג יש מחלוקת, שהראב״ד והרשב״א ס״ל דדוקא שמודיעו בפירוש שמפליג כשיעור האיסור, והרא״ש אוסר אפילו אומר בסתם שיפליג, ויש להקל בזה כדעת הראב״ד והרשב״א דהם רבים לגבי הרא״ש » — ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ט ס״ק ד
On this matter of informing him that he is going away there is a dispute: the Raavad and the Rashba hold that it must specifically be an express notice that he is going away for the length of time that forbids; while the Rosh forbids even if he says vaguely that he will go away. And one should be lenient here like the Raavad and the Rashba, since they are the more numerous against the Rosh.
The whole severity of seif 1 turns on this point. If a bare “I am stepping out” suffices, almost no absence is innocent; if a circumstantial announcement is required, the prohibition becomes rare. The Taz decides by the weight of numbers, and adds a second leniency: where the Jew announced an absence shorter than the shiur, we do not fear that he in fact stayed away longer.

Taz s.k. 14 — the Rama did not check the Rosh’s responsum

« לא דק הרב כזה ולא עיין בתשובת הרא״ש עצמה שכתב בפירוש וז״ל ולא מיבעיא אם לא הודיעו שהוא מפליג דשרי דמימר אמר השתא אתא כל שעה ומרתת אלא אפי׳ הודיעו שהוא מפליג » — ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ט ס״ק י״ד
The Master was not exact here, and did not look at the Rosh’s responsum itself, which writes expressly, and these are his words: “and it is not merely that if he did not inform him that he is going away it is permitted, because he says ‘he comes at any hour’ and is afraid — but even if he did inform him that he is going away…”
The Rama had given a reason in parentheses at seif 8: since the non-Jew did not know that the Jew was going away. The Taz shows that the Rosh, his own source, says precisely the opposite: even if informed of the departure the wine would remain permitted, for the non-Jew reasons that the Jew, realising he did not lock up, will come back to lock. The Taz ends on a harsh phrase — it was the Master’s indolence that led him to it — and the Shach (s.k. 21) reaches the same conclusion by his own road, supposing that the Rama had before him an old and faulty printing of the responsum.

Three key entries from the Shach

Shach s.k. 8 — the winding path is required only for the porter

« והר״ן כתב הא דבעינן דרך עקלתון דוקא כשהעובד כוכבים אוחז החבית בידו או על כתפו, אבל בהניח וישראל יוצא ונכנס לא בעינן דרך עקלתון, דכל שעה מתירא ממנו » — ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ט ס״ק ח
And the Ran wrote: the requirement of a winding path applies specifically when the non-Jew holds the barrel in his hand or on his shoulder; but where the Jew has left it and comes and goes, we do not require a winding path, for at every hour he fears him.
Seif 1 states the requirement of a winding path after listing three cases; to which of them does it apply? The Ran answers: to the third only. A shop the owner walks in and out of is by its nature a place of sudden appearances. The Shach defends the Ran against the Bach, who had criticised him, and supplies the key to the distinction: the porter, seeing the Jew coming, would withdraw his hand in time, which is impossible for one who has already moved away from the barrel.

Shach s.k. 10 — today, we fear only what profits him

« ולדידן ליכא למיחש לנגיעה אלא אם כן יש לו הנאה, כגון שישתה או יחליף » — ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ט ס״ק י
And for us there is no cause to fear a touch, unless he stands to gain by it — for instance that he drink or that he substitute.
One line, and the whole siman changes its object. The Talmud feared a ritual gesture, gratuitous, prompted by nothing but a belief; the Shach observes that there is no longer cause to fear it, and that what remains is the fear of an interest — drinking, or swapping good wine for other. It is the same shift that yields, in the closing lines of the siman, the Rama’s בזמן הזה.

Shach s.k. 25 — the Ishmaelites, and all non-Jews nowadays

« דלאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הן… וה״ה לשאר עובדי כוכבים בזמן הזה » — ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ט ס״ק כ״ה
For they are not idolaters… and the same holds for all other non-Jews nowadays.
The Mehaber had written only a technical line: if the majority of thieves are Ishmaelites, the wine is forbidden to drink but permitted for benefit. The Shach turns it into a principle in three words — וה״ה לשאר עובדי כוכבים בזמן הזה — and it is among the most cited sources in the whole block on stam yeinam. From here the distinction between forbidden to drink and forbidden for benefit becomes the ordinary regime rather than the exception.

6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה) — nine interventions across seven seifim

The Rama intervenes nine times: three times in seif 1, then once each in seifim 5, 8, 9, 11, 17 and 20. The other thirteen seifim are the Mehaber’s alone. Three of these glosses close with a cross-reference to another siman; two others change the practical regime of the chapter.

On seif 1 — three glosses: conduct a priori, the crack, the single seal

The first restores what the Mehaber, in permitting, had left in shadow: a priori one does not leave wine alone with a non-Jew — the siman describes a salvage, not a practice. The second specifies that a closing forbids only if it is complete: one crack is enough to reopen the shop. The third is the weightiest: according to Rabbenu Tam a single seal suffices for wine, and one relies on this where the loss is great — the Shach (s.k. 11) explains that the difficulty was whether a stopper counts as a seal.

On seif 5 — deciding the dispute, then drawing its edges

The Mehaber had reported two views without deciding. The Rama decides for the first — an entrusted key does not admit anyone — and then spends a long page on what happens if the non-Jew goes in anyway. The criterion is constant: would he be seized as a thief? And the gloss ends on the one case where nothing holds: men acting in the name of the authorities, who fear nobody.

On seif 8 — a reason contested by both commentators

A single parenthesis, and much ink has been spilt over it. The Rama grounds the permission in the non-Jew’s ignorance of the Jew’s departure; the Taz (s.k. 14) and the Shach (s.k. 21) show that the responsum of the Rosh he cites says exactly the reverse. The practical consequence is real: according to the Rosh, even an announced departure would not forbid here, since a forgotten key calls for a return.

On seif 9 — haste becomes a condition

The Gemara related that the two neighbours went out in a rush. The Rambam turns this into a condition of law, and the Rama adopts it: without the haste, the wine is forbidden. It is a clear example of how a narrative detail in the Talmud becomes a clause. Here is the text of the Rambam to which the Beit Yosef refers:

« עַכּוּ״ם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ דָּרִין בֶּחָצֵר אַחַת וְיָצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבֶהָלָה לִרְאוֹת חָתָן אוֹ הֶסְפֵּד. וְחָזַר הָעַכּוּ״ם וְסָגַר הַפֶּתַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי הַיַּיִן הַפָּתוּחַ שֶׁבְּבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהֶתֵּרוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא סָגַר הָעַכּוּ״ם אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת שֶׁכְּבָר נִכְנַס הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לְבֵיתוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר אָדָם בַּחוּץ וְכִמְדֻמֶּה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא קְדָמוֹ: » — רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה כ׳

On seif 11 — the anomaly, prior to the whole discussion

The most useful gloss in the siman. The Mehaber discussed majorities of thieves as though the break-in were established; the Rama recalls that one must first observe that something has changed. Sealed found sealed, open found open: there is nothing to examine. He adds that if the anomaly touches only some of the barrels, only those are in question — and that if a Jewish thief is known and no non-Jewish one is, we attribute it to him.

On seifim 17 and 20 — the plug, then “nowadays”

At seif 17 the Rama adds a condition the Mehaber had not set: the floating barrel is permitted only if it is plugged — the Taz (s.k. 26) argues at length whether a wooden plug is meant or specifically a clay seal. At seif 20 he closes the siman with the line that governs its reading today: nowadays the non-Jews do not make libations — referring to simanim 123 and 124, where the rule was laid down.

One line runs through these nine glosses: the Rama does not dispute the Mehaber’s law, he fixes its edges. What one may not rely on a priori, what still counts as open, when a single seal suffices, on what condition haste is plausible, and from what point there is no case to open at all. On one point only — the reason given at seif 8 — the Taz and the Shach hold that he cited the wrong source.

7. Modern practical cases

Case 1 — The driver carrying pallets of kosher wine

This is the third case of seif 1, transposed with almost no adjustment. The driver is not Jewish, and the load travels alone for part of the way. Two things protect it: the bottles are factory-sealed, and he does not know when a check may occur. Two things compromise it: telling him the inspector’s route and time of arrival, and expressly entrusting him with the watching of the load — the two utterances seif 1 forbids. As to substance, the Shach (s.k. 10) recalls that the relevant fear today is no longer nissukh but interest: drinking, or substituting.

Case 2 — A shop run by a non-Jewish employee

Seif 1 in its most literal form, with seif 2 for the adjustment. An owner who drops in unannounced maintains the presumption of watching; an owner who announces his visits destroys it. Seif 2 adds the question of number: one employee, or several? Once there are two, one can watch the door — and the Shach (s.k. 12) notes there is no threshold beyond which one grows lenient again.

Case 3 — The key given to a caretaker, a cleaner, a neighbour

This is seif 5, and probably the most common case of all. The rule is mild: handing over a key is not handing over the premises, and the Taz (s.k. 10) adds that one need not even say so. The tipping point is not the key but the legitimacy of entering: a man who would have something to explain touches nothing; a man with a ready reason to be there — he has come to clean, he has come to repair — no longer fears anything, and that is the maidservant’s case in seif 20.

Case 4 — A warehouse break-in, and what a camera proves

Seif 11 with the Rama’s gloss. The first question is not “who came in?” but “has anything changed?”ריעותא. Sealed cartons found sealed raise no question at all. Only then do the probabilities come in, and the Rama adds the reasoning most pertinent here: an ordinary thief does not come for wine. A camera or a digital seal plays exactly the part the seif assigns to the clay stopper: it makes visible that nothing was opened.

Case 5 — The shared cellar of an apartment building

Seif 16 settles the question better than a lock. A mesh partition, a numbered stall, a painted line on the floor: what matters is not that a hand cannot pass, but that whoever passes his hand is a trespasser. The Taz (s.k. 25) goes so far as to say that two distinct roofs need no physical partition at all — the legal distinction alone makes the neighbour someone שנתפס עליו כגנב.

Case 6 — What the siman still settles, and what it no longer settles

This siman must be read holding both ends. On one side, the Rama and the Shach (s.k. 25) establish that contemporary non-Jews do not make libations: the prohibition of benefit falls away, and much of the chapter’s severity with it. On the other, the Shach (s.k. 10) states exactly which fear remains — that of an interest: that he drink, or that he substitute. In other words the structure of the siman survives entire, but it now serves to protect a supply chain rather than to guard against a cult. The practical ruling, with its distinctions between cooked wine, opened wine and a sealed bottle, belongs to level 4.

8. Summary of Siman 129

In one sentence: wine left with a non-Jew stays permitted so long as he can say to himself עתה יבא ויראני — and it ceases to be so the moment the Jew removes that doubt, by a word (“watch this for me”, “go, I’ll follow”, “I am going away”) or by a fact (a door shut with no crack, a distance taken). Where there is no longer anyone to whom that thought can be attributed — a barrel on a river, skins on a road — the law reasons no longer by fear but by majority. And the Rama, in the last line of the siman, recalls that the danger feared is no longer the Talmud’s.

Memory table

The questionThe criterionWhere
What guards the wine?Fear of an unannounced return — מירתת1
On what material condition?That there be a דרך עקלתון1-2
What destroys it?שמור לי · לך ואני אבא אחריך · הודיעו שהוא מפליג1
How long is too long?כדי שיפתח ויגוף ותיגוב1, 7
One non-Jew or several?Two suffice to forbid — one watches, the other touches2
Can a crowd replace the owner?Yes — בין הגתות, even non-Jewish passers-by4
What is an entrusted key worth?שמירת המפתח בלבד — not a right of entry5
And if he enters anyway?Everything turns on נתפס עליו כגנב5, 20
Why is the porter graver?אית ליה לאשתמוטי — he has a ready excuse3
How far does the table’s prohibition reach?תוך פישוט ידיו, and everything if he said “mix and drink”7
When does a partition suffice?As soon as it makes the other a trespasser — ראשי יתידות16
What when nobody is identified?רוב וקרוב הולכים אחר הרוב17-19
Is an indication needed first?Yes — Rama: without ריעותא, no question11
And nowadays?Rama and Shach: אין העובדי כוכבים מנסכים20

Comprehension questions

  1. Seif 1 lists three permitted situations and four acts that ruin them. Name them, and say which of the four does not depend on something the Jew says.
  2. Why, according to the Ran, is the winding path (דרך עקלתון) required only in the case of the porter? What reason does the Shach (s.k. 8) give?
  3. Seif 3 forbids where seif 1 permitted. What new element enters, and why does it remove the fear?
  4. Seif 4 permits even after an announced departure. What takes the place of the owner’s eye here, and why does the identity of the passers-by not matter?
  5. Explain the phrase לא מסרה לה אלא שמירת מפתח בלבד, and show how seif 20 applies its reverse.
  6. Seif 6 permits the wine although the Jew is more than two thousand cubits away. On what assessment does this leniency rest, and how does it read from the Jew’s own side?
  7. The Taz (s.k. 14) and the Shach (s.k. 21) contest the reason the Rama gives at seif 8. State their objection and the practical consequence it carries.
  8. From seif 11 the siman changes method. Describe the change, then state the prior condition the Rama adds there and why it is decisive.

Going further

If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
יורה דעה · סימן קכ״ט · Level 1 — Foundations
♥ Support DAAT
📖Join the khavroutha