A lid, a knot, two letters — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן ק״ל
דִּינֵי חֲתִימַת הַיַּיִן
🌱 Introductory level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 130: the 10 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text and fluent English translation. Simanim 128 and 129 asked whether the non-Jew had the opportunity to touch the wine. This one begins from the opposite case: the wine is deliberately left unwatched, entrusted or shipped — and the question becomes what takes the place of supervision. The answer is a single object: the seal. How many are needed, on which vessel, and what counts as a seal at all.
Subject : Sealing the wine — חותם בתוך חותם, מפתח וחותם, לא טרח ומזייף, נתפס עליו כגנב Source : שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ל
Compilation : הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 10 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: where the rule of חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם comes from
3.The key concepts: לא טרח ומזייף, מרתת, קרן זוית, נתפס עליו כגנב…
4.The summary table: how many seals, in which situation
5.The Taz and the Shach: five key passages
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה): five interventions across four seifim
7.Practical cases today: transport, the capsule, the warehouse
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 10 seifim
Siman 130 is the technical side of the yayin nesekh block. Simanim 128 and 129 asked whether the non-Jew had the opportunity to touch the wine — a yiḥud, an absence, a coming and going. This one assumes no supervision at all: the wine is handed to a non-Jew, or shipped by him, and the question becomes what takes the place of supervision. The answer is the seal, and the siman reads in three movements. Seifim 1 to 3 state how many seals are required and on which vessel; seifim 4 to 7 state what counts as a seal; seifim 8 to 10 deal with a seal found undone, and then with wine that is not entrusted but stored — in a non-Jew’s courtyard, or in one’s own. The Rama intervenes five times, across four seifim (1, 2, 8 twice, 10).
Group A — Entrusting and shipping: how many seals, and on which vessel (seifim 1-3)
Seif 1 — Two seals, and the vessel that betrays them
דיני חתימת היין. ובו י׳ סעיפים: מותר להפקיד ולשלוח יין ביד עובד כוכבים אם הוא חתום בחותם בתוך חותם או מפתח וחותם והני מילי בחבית של חרס אבל לא בחבית של עץ מפני שיכולין להוציא יין מבין הנסרים ולא ירגישו וכל שכן בנודות שבקל יכולים להוציא יין מבין התפירות ואין להם תקנה אלא שיכניס כל החבית של עץ או כל הנאד בשק שאין בו תפירה מבחוץ ויחתום פי השק: הגה ויש מתירין אפילו בחבית של עץ ואין חוששין שמא יוציא בין הנסרים (מרדכי ריש פרק א״מ וב״י בשם ס״ה וסמ״ג ורשב״א ובא״ו הארוך) וכן נוהגים ובלבד שיזהר שיהא המגופה נסתם כראוי וכן שלא יהיה שם ברזא רק יחתוך כל הברזות וישים עור על המגופה והברזא קבוע במסמרות ויכתוב אותיות חציין על העור וחציין על הברזות שאם יגביה העובד כוכבים העור לא ידע לחזור ולכוון העור כבתחילה (מרדכי פר״י וב״י בשם תוס׳) ואם מצא סכין בחבית שהוציא יין בין הנסרים ע״ל סי׳ קכ״ד:
Title of the siman:the laws of sealing wine; ten seifim. — It is permitted to entrust and to send wine by the hand of a non-Jew if it is sealed with a seal within a seal, or with a key and a seal.And this applies to an earthenware barrel, but not to a wooden barrel, because they can draw wine out from between the planks without anyone noticing; and all the more so with skins, from which wine can easily be drawn out from between the stitches. And for these there is no remedy except to place the entire wooden barrel, or the entire skin, inside a sack that has no stitching on the outside, and to seal the mouth of the sack.
Gloss of the Rama:and some permit even a wooden barrel, and we do not suspect that he may draw [wine] out from between the planks (Mordechai, beginning of chapter Ein Ma‘amidin; Beit Yosef in the name of the Sefer haTeruma, the Semag, the Rashba and the Issur veHeter haArokh) — and such is the custom, provided he takes care that the bung be properly stopped, and likewise that there be no tap there: rather let him cut off all the taps, and place leather over the bung — the tap being fixed with nails — and let him write letters half on the leather and half on the taps, so that if the non-Jew lifts the leather he will not know how to replace and align it as before (Mordechai, chapter Rabbi Yishmael; Beit Yosef in the name of Tosafot). And if he found in the barrel a knife that drew wine out from between the planks — see above, siman 124.
Two requirements, not one. The seif opens the siman with a permission — wine may be entrusted to a non-Jew and sent by his hand — and immediately bounds it twice. First bound, the number: what is required is חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, a seal within a seal, or else מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם, a key and a seal. Second bound, the vessel: all of this holds only for earthenware. A wooden barrel can be siphoned between its planks, a skin between its stitches — and the seal, perfectly intact, then proves nothing at all. The Mehaber knows only one remedy: to put the whole vessel into a sack with no visible stitching, and to seal the sack. The Rama rules otherwise and follows the custom that permits wood — subject to three technical conditions: a properly stopped bung, taps cut off, and letters written half on the leather and half on the wood, which a non-Jew could not realign.
Seif 2 — A single seal: forbidden to drink, permitted for benefit
אם הפקיד ביד עובד כוכבים בחותם א׳ אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה והוא שייחד לו קרן זוית: הגה ויש שכתבו דבדיעבד יש להתיר אפילו בחותם אחד (ב״י לדעת ר״ת ובארוך כלל כ״ב) ואין צריך להכיר חותמו אלא אם כן רואה שחותמו מקולקל אז אסור (ג״ז שם) אבל אין צריך לבדוק אחר זה וכן נוהגין להקל ועיין לעיל סימן קי״ח:
If he entrusted [wine] to the hand of a non-Jew with a single seal — it is forbidden to drink and permitted for benefit.And this is when he assigned him a corner — a designated place for the deposit.
Gloss of the Rama:and some have written that after the fact one may permit even with a single seal (Beit Yosef according to the view of Rabbenu Tam, and the Issur veHeter haArokh, klal 22). And one need not recognise his seal — unless he sees that his seal is damaged: then it is forbidden (ibid.). But one need not go and check into this, and such is the custom, to be lenient; and see above, siman 118.
A single seal does not permit drinking, but it saves the value of the wine. This is the rule laid down in Avodah Zarah: wine deposited with a non-Jew is אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. But only, the Mehaber adds after the Gemara, if he assigned him a corner — without such a designated place the deposit would be treated as having passed into the bailee’s domain, and even the benefit would be lost. The Rama is lenient twice: after the fact a single seal suffices even for drinking; and one is not obliged to go and recognise the seal — one is troubled only if it appears damaged. He refers explicitly to siman 118, the siman of seals on entrusted food: wine is only a stricter instance of a far broader rule.
Seif 3 — Cooked wine, blended wine, vinegar
יין מבושל שלנו וכן יין שלנו שעירבו עם דברים אחרים כגון דבש ושמן וכן חומץ שלנו מותר להפקיד ביד עובד כוכבים בחותם אחד:
Our cooked wine, and likewise our wine that has been blended with other things — such as honey and oil — and likewise our vinegar: it is permitted to entrust them to the hand of a non-Jew with a single seal.
What changes is not the seal: it is the risk. Three products leave the regime of two seals — cooked wine, wine blended with honey or oil, and vinegar. The Taz gives the reason in one line: with these liquids there is no longer any concern of libation; what remains is only the concern of substitution, which a single seal averts, since לֹא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף — one does not take the trouble to counterfeit. In a single seif the siman thus shows that the number of seals is not a ritual: it is the exact measure of the danger to be covered.
Group B — What counts as a seal? (seifim 4-7)
Seif 4 — How a seal within a seal is made
כיצד הוא חותם בתוך חותם סתם החבי׳ בכלי שאינו מהודק כדרך שסותמין כל אדם וטח בטיט הרי זה חותם א׳ היה כלי מהודק וטח עליו מלמעלה הרי זה חותם בתוך חותם וכן אם צר פי הנאד הרי זה חותם אחד הפך פי הנאד לתוכו וצר עליו הרי זה חותם בתוך חותם וכן כל שינוי שמשנה מדברים שאין דרך כל אדם הרי הם כחותם א׳ והטיחה או הקשירה חותם שני:
How is a seal within a seal made?He stopped the barrel with a vessel that is not tight-fitting, in the way everyone stops it, and smeared it with clay: that is one seal.Was the vessel tight-fitting, and did he smear over it from above: that is a seal within a seal.And likewise if he tied the mouth of the skin: that is one seal; did he turn the mouth of the skin inward and tie it over: that is a seal within a seal.And likewise any change he makes, departing from what people do not ordinarily do: that is like one seal — and the smearing or the tying is the second seal.
The definition, and the principle behind it. The Mehaber answers the question כֵּיצַד הוּא חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם with concrete examples — a loose lid plus a smear of clay, a tight lid plus a smear on top, a tied skin, a skin turned inward and then tied — but he ends with the rule that explains all of them: whatever departs from the ordinary way of closing counts as a seal, and the smearing or the tying supplies the second. A seal, then, is not an official stamp: it is a recognisable anomaly. What guards the wine is that a non-Jew could not reproduce exactly what a Jew deliberately did otherwise.
Seif 5 — Two unusual knots
שני קשרים משונים הוי כשני חותמות:
Two unusual knots count as two seals.
The shortest seif in the siman, and one of the most used. Two knots — provided they are מְשׁוּנִּים, unusual — are equivalent to a seal within a seal. The word does all the work: an ordinary knot proves nothing, because anyone can tie it again. From this the Shach will draw, at sign 8, the decisive practical limit: a rope, however elaborate, is no seal when the one who tied it must untie it every day in any case.
Seif 6 — Two letters, and what a stamp is worth
שתי אותיות הוי כשני חותמות והדפוסים אף על פי שיש בהם כמה אותיות לא חשיבי אלא כחותם אחד כיון שקובעין אותם בבת אחת ובמקום שמצויים מומרים ועובדי כוכבים שיודעים לכתוב אין כתב סימן אלא למי שמכיר הכתב:
Two letters count as two seals.And stamps, even though they contain several letters, count only as a single seal, since they are impressed all at once.And in a place where apostates and non-Jews who know how to write are common, writing is a sign only for one who recognises the handwriting.
Two letters count as two seals — but a stamp counts as only one. The reason is mechanically simple: the letters of a stamp are impressed all at once, and so reproduced in a single act; two separately written letters require two acts, and form two signs. The seif closes on a reservation of remarkable sociological clarity: where writing is widespread, writing no longer protects anyone — except one who will recognise his own hand. A sign is worth only what it costs to imitate here.
Seif 7 — A key and a seal
מפתח וחותם אחד הוי כשני חותמות:
A key and one seal count as two seals.
The key is counted with the seal, never on its own. Seif 1 had already given the alternative מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם; seif 7 attaches it to the general scale by declaring it equivalent to two seals. A key is not a stamp: it is an obstacle, and it counts for what it prevents, not for what it signs. The Mehaber never mentions it in isolation — and on this point the two great commentators diverge: the Shach writes at sign 4 that a key alone is not like a single seal, whereas the Taz, at sign 5, infers from the Rama’s leniency that even a key alone would permit after the fact.
Group C — The seal found undone, and wine in storage (seifim 8-10)
Seif 8 — The seal undone, and the duty to inform
חתמו בשני חותמות וחזר עליו ולא הכירו או שמצאו סתור אסור: הגה ודוקא אם רואים שנסתר בכוונה ע״י אדם אבל במקום שיכולים לתלות שנסתר ונתקלקל מעצמו או ע״י בהמה או תינוקת שלא בכוונה מותר בדיעבד (ת״ה סימן ר״ה ובארוך כלל כ״ב) ואפילו אם נתקלקל בכוונה יש להתיר אם ישראל יוצא ונכנס תמיד. (בית יוסף בשם ס״ה וסמ״ג). אבל אינו צריך לחזור עליו אלא אם כן הודיע לישראל שנשתלח לו שהוא חתום בשני חותמות אע״פ שלא הודיעו ענין חתימותיו כיון שמצאו הישראל השני חתום בשני חותמות מותר ומכל מקום נכון הדבר להודיעו צורת החותם כדי שיחזור אחריו: הגה מיהו אם כתב עליו אותיות אין צריך להודיעו דסתם עובד כוכבים אינו בקי לכתוב אותיות (הר״ן והר״י) ואם העובד כוכבים אומר שהחבית היה מטפטף והוא הדקו ונגע ביין אינו נאמן לאסרו ואפילו ניכר עדיין קצת יין מבחוץ ויש אומדנות בדבריו (ת״ה סימן ר״ב):
He sealed it with two seals, then came back to check it and did not recognise them, or found it undone — it is forbidden.
Gloss of the Rama:and this only if one sees that it was undone intentionally by a person; but where one can attribute its having come undone and been damaged by itself, or by an animal, or by a small child without intent — it is permitted after the fact (Terumat haDeshen §205, and Issur veHeter haArokh klal 22). And even if it was damaged intentionally, one may permit it if a Jew is constantly coming and going (Beit Yosef in the name of the Sefer haTeruma and the Semag).
The Mehaber continues:But he is only required to go back and check it if he informed the Jew to whom it was sent that it is sealed with two seals; and even if he did not inform him of the nature of its seals, since the second Jew found it sealed with two seals — it is permitted. And nevertheless it is proper to inform him of the form of the seal, so that he may check after it.
Gloss of the Rama:however, if he wrote letters upon it, he need not inform him, for an ordinary non-Jew is not skilled at writing letters (the Ran and the Ri). And if the non-Jew says that the barrel was dripping and that he tightened it and touched the wine — he is not believed to forbid it, and even if a little wine is still visible on the outside and there are indications in his words (Terumat haDeshen §202).
A seal is useless if it is not read back — but one is not always bound to read it. The seif has three movements. One: a seal unrecognised or found undone is forbidden; and the Rama at once adds the division that governs the whole practice — undone intentionally by a human hand, forbidden; undone by itself, by an animal, by a child, permitted after the fact. Two: the recipient has a duty to check only if the sender told him there were two seals; otherwise, finding two seals in place suffices. Three: the Rama shuts the door on the non-Jew who comes to report that he touched the wine while fixing a leak — he is not believed to forbid it, even with traces to support him.
Seif 9 — A house rented in a non-Jew’s courtyard
ישראל ששכר או קנה בית בחצרו של עובד כוכבים ומילאו יין אם ישראל דר שם ואף על פי שהניח היין בחצר ואין עליו לא חותם ולא מפתח מותר ואפילו היה גם העובד כוכבים דר באותו חצר אבל אם לא היה ישראל דר באותו חצר אם היה ביד ישראל המפתח וחותם מותר וא״צ לומר שני חותמות ואם לאו אעפ״י שהיין באותו בית ששכר או קנה אסור אם העובד כוכבים דר בחצר ואם אינו דר בחצר מותר אא״כ נמצא עומד בצד היין:
A Jew who rented or bought a house in a non-Jew’s courtyard and filled it with wine:if the Jew lives there — even though he left the wine in the courtyard and there is upon it neither seal nor key — it is permitted, and even if the non-Jew too was living in that courtyard.But if the Jew was not living in that courtyard: if the key and the seal were in the Jew’s hand — it is permitted, and there is no need to say two seals; and if not, even though the wine is in that house which he rented or bought — it is forbidden, if the non-Jew lives in the courtyard; and if he does not live in the courtyard — it is permitted, unless he was found standing beside the wine.
We move from the deposit to the warehouse. Until now the wine was handed to a non-Jew; here it stays with the Jew — but in a house taken within a non-Jew’s courtyard. The criterion is no longer the seal, it is residence. Three tiers: the Jew lives there — nothing is required, not even a seal, and it does not matter that the non-Jew lives in the same courtyard; the Jew does not live there but holds key and seal — permitted, and the Mehaber states expressly that two seals are not required here; neither residence nor key — everything then turns on the non-Jew: if he lives in the courtyard it is forbidden; if he does not, it is permitted, unless he was found standing beside the wine.
Seif 10 — The Jew’s own courtyard: the thief, day and night
במה דברים אמורים בשוכר או לוקח בית בחצרו של עובד כוכבים אבל בחצרו של ישראל ממש שלא לקחו ולא שכרו מעובד כוכבים אפי׳ היה עובד כוכבים דר באותו חצר ואין ישראל דר בו מותר ואע״פ שאין מפתח וחותם ביד ישראל לפי שאין לו בה שום שייכות ואפילו נמצא עומד בצד היין שהרי מכ״מ נתפס עליו כגנב וה״מ ביום אבל בלילה אסור: הגה ודוקא בכי האי גוונא יש לאסרו בלילה אבל בשאר מקומות דאמרינן לעיל סימן קכ״ח וקכ״ט דהעובד כוכבים מרתת אין חילוק בין יום ללילה ושאני הכא הואיל והעובד כוכבים יש לו שייכות בחצר ומסתמא נועלו בלילה הואיל ואין ישראל דר שם ואינו מרתת כולי האי ולכן אפילו ביום אם נעל ואין חור או סדק שיכולין לראות היין אסור אבל ע״י חור וסדק מותר ביום אפילו נעלו בודאי ובלילה אסור בכה״ג אפי׳ מסתמא וזהו החלוק שבין יום ללילה:
To what does this apply? To one who rents or buys a house in a non-Jew’s courtyard.But in a courtyard that is properly a Jew’s own, which he neither bought nor rented from a non-Jew — even if a non-Jew was living in that courtyard and no Jew lives in it — it is permitted, and even though there is no key and seal in the Jew’s hand, because [the non-Jew] has no connection to it whatsoever; and even if he was found standing beside the wine, since in any case he would be seized upon as a thief.And this applies by day; but at night it is forbidden.
Gloss of the Rama:and it is specifically in such a case that one should forbid it at night; but in the other places, of which we said above, simanim 128 and 129, that the non-Jew is seized with fear — there is no distinction between day and night. And it is different here, since the non-Jew has a connection to the courtyard and presumably locks it at night, given that no Jew lives there, and he is not so fearful. Therefore even by day, if he locked it and there is no hole or crack through which the wine can be seen — it is forbidden; but by way of a hole or a crack — it is permitted by day, even if he certainly locked it; and at night it is forbidden in such a case even on mere presumption. And this is the distinction between day and night.
The last seif overturns the previous one, and introduces the hour. Everything said so far assumed a house taken from a non-Jew. In a courtyard that is the Jew’s by full right, the non-Jew has no connection whatever: even were he to live there and stand beside the wine, he is נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב — he would be seized upon as a thief, and that fear guards the wine better than a seal. But only by day. At night the Mehaber forbids. The Rama explains why this restriction does not spill over into simanim 128 and 129: there the non-Jew has no title to the place; here he has one, he closes the courtyard at night, and he can always say he closed it for himself. Hence the working criterion: what permits is not the hour, it is the possibility of being seen — a hole, a crack that lets the wine be seen.
2. Context — where the rule of חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם comes from
The whole siman descends from one line of the sugya in Avodah Zarah, which settles the status of wine deposited with a non-Jew: it ceases to be drinkable, but it is not lost.
The Gemara objects at once: a deposit left with a non-Jew is ordinarily deemed his — why should benefit remain permitted? It answers with the very condition the Mehaber will copy in seif 2:
One still needs to know what such a seal looks like. Rava’s answer is purely descriptive — a lid, a smear, a skin turned inward — and it is this that seif 4 follows almost phrase by phrase:
The second half of the siman — seifim 9 and 10 — does not come from there. It comes from a baraita that no longer counts seals but looks at where the wine is and who lives on the premises:
The halakha here follows Rabbi Eliezer. Finally, the requirement of recognising the seal, which seif 8 will temper, appears a little further on, concerning one who ships a barrel:
The Tur gathers this material and gives the seal-within-a-seal the description the Mehaber will take up in seif 4:
« היכי דמי חותם בתוך חותם טח פי החבית וחותמו וכופה כלי ע״ג ומהדקו בענין שיש טורח להסירו הוי חותם בתוך חותם » — טור יורה דעה סימן ק״ל
The great questions of the siman
Why two seals and not one? Because two dangers overlap: libation and substitution. A single seal suffices against the second — לֹא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף — but not against the first.
What makes a closure into a seal? Not its strength: its unusualness. Seif 4 says so in as many words — whatever departs from the ordinary way of closing counts as a seal.
Does a seal protect every vessel? No. Seif 1 excludes wood and leather, from which one can siphon without touching the seal. The Rama follows the permissive custom, but adds three technical precautions.
And when there is no seal at all? Then it is not the seal that guards the wine but fear: a non-Jew with no title to the place would be נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב. Seifim 9 and 10 measure exactly how much title is needed for that fear to fall away.
This siman never asks whether the non-Jew touched the wine — that was the question of simanim 128 and 129. It asks what makes his contact impossible or detectable. Hence its strikingly concrete physiognomy: lids, clay, knots, letters, holes in a wall. It is the only siman in the block where the halakha turns on how an object is made.
3. The key concepts of this siman
חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם — a seal within a seal. The basic requirement of the siman for wine entrusted to a non-Jew. Not two identical stamps set side by side, but two superimposed closures, each of which must be undone to reach the wine, and each of which departs from the ordinary way of closing.
מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם — a key and a seal. The accepted equivalent of the above (seifim 1 and 7). It is not one more seal: it is an obstacle of a different kind — the wine is locked away, and the key is not in the hands of the one keeping it.
לֹא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף — he does not take the trouble to counterfeit. The engine of the whole subject. A seal prevents nothing physically: it makes forgery costly. That is why a single seal suffices against substitution of the wine, which requires work, and not against a libation, which requires only a gesture.
מְשׁוּנֶּה — unusual. The word that defines a seal in seif 4 and seif 5. A knot, a lid, a fold count only if they depart from usage. A sign that anyone can reproduce signals nothing.
קֶרֶן זָוִית — an assigned corner. The condition of seif 2, drawn from the Gemara: the depositor set aside a fixed place for the wine at the non-Jew’s premises. Without it the deposit would be held to have passed into the bailee’s domain, and even the benefit would be lost.
אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה — forbidden to drink, permitted for benefit. The intermediate status of seif 2. It is a reminder that stam yeinam is not libation wine proper: the doubt that hangs over it suffices to forbid drinking it, not to forbid its value.
מְגוּפָה and בָּרְזָא — the bung and the tap. The two weak points of the barrel in the Rama’s gloss to seif 1. The bung must be properly stopped; the taps, quite simply, cut off — for a tap is an opening that leaves no trace of its use.
שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת — two letters. The simplest seal of seif 6, and its limit. Two separately written letters count as two seals; the same letters impressed at one stroke by a stamp count as one. And where many can write, writing counts only for the one who will recognise his own hand.
נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב — he is seized upon as a thief. The pivot of seif 10. Where the non-Jew has no right whatever to the place, his mere presence beside the wine would expose him to being treated as a thief — and that exposure serves as a seal.
מִרְתַּת — he is seized with fear. The same mechanism under its classical name in simanim 128 and 129. The Rama uses it in seif 10 to explain why night changes everything here and nothing there: one who has a connection to the courtyard can always say he locked it for himself, and so fears less.
יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל — cooked wine. Together with blended wine and vinegar, the subject of seif 3. These liquids leave the regime of two seals not by way of leniency, but because the danger of libation no longer touches them: only substitution remains, and a single seal is enough against it.
4. The summary table — how many seals, and in which situation
The siman never simply answers “sealed” or “unsealed”. Three variables intersect: the nature of the liquid, the nature of the vessel, and the place where the wine is. Here are the ten seifim laid flat.
המקרה
Situation
Ruling
Seif
חותם בתוך חותם או מפתח וחותם
Wine entrusted to or shipped by a non-Jew
מותר — permitted
1
חבית של חרס
The vessel is earthenware
The seal suffices to guard it
1
חבית של עץ · נודות
A wooden barrel, or a leather skin
אין להם תקנה but a sealed sack
1
ויש מתירין אפילו בחבית של עץ
Wood, according to the custom
Rama: וכן נוהגים — permitted
1 (Rama)
מגופה · ברזא
The barrel’s bung and taps
Rama: stop it, and יחתוך כל הברזות
1 (Rama)
אותיות חציין על העור
Letters straddling leather and wood
Rama: the non-Jew cannot realign them
1 (Rama)
חותם א׳
Wine entrusted with a single seal
אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה
2
ייחד לו קרן זוית
A corner was assigned to him
Condition for benefit to remain permitted
2
בדיעבד · חותם אחד
A single seal, after the fact
Rama: יש להתיר
2 (Rama)
חותמו מקולקל
The seal appears damaged
Rama: אז אסור
2 (Rama)
יין מבושל · מעורב · חומץ
Cooked wine, blended wine, vinegar
בחותם אחד — one seal suffices
3
כלי שאינו מהודק וטח בטיט
Loose lid plus a smear of clay
חותם א׳ — a single seal
4
כלי מהודק וטח עליו מלמעלה
Tight lid plus a smear on top
חותם בתוך חותם
4
צר פי הנאד
The mouth of the skin is tied
חותם אחד
4
הפך פי הנאד לתוכו וצר עליו
Skin’s mouth turned inward and tied
חותם בתוך חותם
4
כל שינוי
Any unusual way of closing
Counts as כחותם א׳
4
שני קשרים משונים
Two unusual knots
כשני חותמות
5
שתי אותיות
Two written letters
כשני חותמות
6
הדפוסים
A stamp, even with several letters
כחותם אחד only
6
מקום שמצויים … שיודעים לכתוב
Many around know how to write
Writing counts only for one who knows the hand
6
מפתח וחותם אחד
A key and a seal
כשני חותמות
7
לא הכירו · מצאו סתור
Seal unrecognised, or found undone
אסור
8
נסתר מעצמו · בהמה · תינוקת
Undone by itself, or without intent
Rama: מותר בדיעבד
8 (Rama)
ישראל יוצא ונכנס תמיד
A Jew constantly comes and goes
Rama: יש להתיר even if undone on purpose
8 (Rama)
לא הודיע … שהוא חתום בשני חותמות
The recipient was not informed
אינו צריך לחזור עליו
8
עובד כוכבים אומר … ונגע ביין
The non-Jew says he touched the wine
Rama: אינו נאמן לאסרו
8 (Rama)
ישראל דר שם
House in a non-Jew’s courtyard, the Jew lives there
מותר even with no seal or key
9
ביד ישראל המפתח וחותם
He does not live there but holds key and seal
מותר, וא״צ … שני חותמות
9
ואם לאו · העובד כוכבים דר בחצר
No residence, no key, and he lives in the courtyard
אסור
9
אינו דר בחצר
The non-Jew does not live in the courtyard
מותר, save נמצא עומד בצד היין
9
חצרו של ישראל ממש
A courtyard fully belonging to the Jew
מותר — נתפס עליו כגנב
10
וה״מ ביום אבל בלילה
The same courtyard, at night
אסור
10
חור או סדק
A hole or a crack lets the wine be seen
Rama: מותר ביום, forbidden at night
10 (Rama)
Read from top to bottom, the middle column tells the siman: it begins with an object and ends with a place. The first twenty lines speak of nothing but closures — clay, leather, knots, letters — and the wine in them is always in a non-Jew’s hands. From the line ישראל דר שם onwards there is no seal at all: the wine is with the Jew, and what guards it is no longer a closure but a legal relation to the place. The last word of the siman is neither a seal nor a key: it is a crack in a wall.
5. The Taz and the Shach — five key passages
The two great commentaries printed around the Shulchan Arukh of Yoreh De’ah are the Taz (Turei Zahav, Rabbi David haLevi Segal, 1586-1667) and the Shach (Siftei Kohen, Rabbi Shabtai haCohen, 1621-1662). On this siman both leave theory behind very quickly: ten signs for the Taz, seventeen for the Shach, and half of them discuss a wholly concrete problem — carting wine from one town to another.
Two key passages of the Taz
Taz s.k. 1 — the custom permits the suspicion, not the certainty
« ומשמע מכאן דאם היה ברור שהוציא יין מבין הנסרים דאסור » — ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א
And it follows from here that if it were clear that he drew wine out from between the planks — it is forbidden.
The Rama has just permitted a wooden barrel, “and we do not suspect that he may draw wine out from between the planks”. The Taz reads the phrase closely: what is permitted is not to suspect. If it is established that wine actually was drawn off, the permission falls — and he explains at once why this does not conflict with siman 124, where a knife stuck into a barrel does not render its whole contents forbidden: there the object is still in place; here the non-Jew necessarily touched the wine when he stopped the hole up again.
Taz s.k. 6 — why one seal suffices for cooked wine
« דבזה אין שייך ניסוך רק שמא יחליף עם יין שלו וכיון שיש חותם אחד לא טרח ומזייף » — ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ו
For in this there is no concern of libation, only lest he exchange it with his own wine — and since there is a single seal, he does not take the trouble to counterfeit.
In one line the Taz gives the key to seif 3 — and thereby to the whole siman. Two dangers hang over wine left with a non-Jew: that he pour it as a libation, and that he exchange it for his own. Cooked wine is no longer liable to the first. The second remains, and it requires work — and nobody works for nothing. The number of seals is therefore the exact measure of the number of dangers.
Three key passages of the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — what practice made of the Rama’s permission
« מ״מ עכשיו נוהגים שלא להתיר לשלוח יין כלל בחבית של עץ מעיר לעיר אם לא ע״י נאמן ישראל שומר ביום ובלילה » — ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א
Nevertheless, nowadays the custom is not to permit sending wine at all in a wooden barrel from town to town, except by means of a trustworthy Jew who guards it by day and by night.
This is the most important passage of the siman for practice. The Shach cites the Bayit Hadash: the Rama’s permission may well be the halakha, but usage took it back. Carters bore the barrels with a small drill or a knife between the planks; wine is therefore no longer shipped in wooden casks without a trustworthy Jewish escort, by day and by night. The Shach adds the nuance that saves the individual case: this stringency is an a priori matter — after the fact one returns to the Rama’s permission.
Shach s.k. 7 — the two dangers, and the one a single seal covers
« דאי משום איסוכי לא מנסכי ליה אי משום איחלופי כיון דאיכא חותם אחד לא טרח ומזייף » — ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
For if it is because of libation — they do not pour it as a libation; if it is because of substitution — since there is a single seal, he does not take the trouble to counterfeit.
The Shach dismantles seif 3 exactly as the Taz does, but names the two dangers in the language of the Gemara: אִיסּוּכֵי, libation, and אִיחְלוּפֵי, substitution. He adds, in the name of the Beit Yosef, a very concrete precision: a hole in the vessel is no obstacle, so long as it is not large enough to decant wine through it into other vessels. What the seal guards is not tightness — it is the impossibility of emptying and refilling.
Shach s.k. 8 — a rope that must be untied daily is no seal
For what we rely upon, an unusual knot or a seal, is because he does not take the trouble to counterfeit, or else because he is seized with fear.
The case is a covered wagon: the rope runs the length of the cart, back and forth, and is knotted twice. No knot could be more “unusual” than that. And yet, rules the Massat Binyamin cited here, it is no seal — because the carter must untie the cover every day to take out his own food. From this the Shach derives the negative definition of a seal: what counts as a seal is what one has no legitimate reason to undo already.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה) — five interventions across four seifim
The Rama intervenes five times: once at seif 1, once at seif 2, twice at seif 8, once at seif 10. Seifim 3 to 7 and seif 9 are the Mehaber’s alone. Three of these glosses run towards leniency, and the last — at seif 10 — serves on the contrary to prevent a leniency read elsewhere from spilling over into this case.
On seif 1 — permitting wood, and saying how
The Mehaber had declared a wooden barrel beyond remedy save by a sealed sack. The Rama cites the Rishonim who permit and concludes וכן נוהגים — and such is the custom. But he does not stop at the permission: he writes out the instructions. The bung properly stopped; every tap cut off; leather laid over the bung; and letters written half on the leather, half on the wood. That last detail is the subtlest in the siman: it is no longer a matter of preventing, but of making the break-in legible — leather once lifted never goes back exactly as it was.
On seif 2 — two successive leniencies
The Mehaber had said that with a single seal the wine is no longer drinkable. The Rama adds that after the fact one permits it even for drinking, on the strength of the Beit Yosef’s reading of Rabbenu Tam. He then settles the practical question that immediately follows: must one check one’s own seal on return? No — one is troubled only if the seal is visibly damaged. And he refers to siman 118, where the same mechanism is laid down for entrusted food: wine has no separate rule here, it has a higher threshold.
On seif 8, first gloss — who undid the seal?
The Mehaber had ruled curtly: seal undone, wine forbidden. The Rama introduces the distinction that makes the rule livable: undone by a human hand, deliberately — forbidden; undone by itself, by a beast, by a child — permitted after the fact. He even adds that, undone on purpose, one may still permit if a Jew is constantly coming and going — the yotse venikhnas criterion borrowed from siman 129, which here backs up the seal.
On seif 8, second gloss — the non-Jew who incriminates himself
Two additions of a single movement. First: if letters were written on the seal, the recipient need not be warned, since an ordinary non-Jew could not reproduce them. Then the most interesting case: the non-Jew comes to say that the barrel was dripping, that he tightened it, and that he touched the wine. He is not believed to forbid it — and the Rama maintains the rule even when some wine remains visible on the outside. This is siman 127 in action: forbidding demands a credibility this witness does not have.
On seif 10 — why night makes no difference elsewhere
The only gloss in the siman that seeks not to permit but to circumscribe. The Mehaber has just forbidden at night in the Jew’s own courtyard; a hasty reader would have generalised the restriction to simanim 128 and 129. The Rama prevents this: there the non-Jew מרתת, he has no title to the place, and the hour is irrelevant. Here he has one — he locks the courtyard, and he can always say he locked it for himself. Hence the criterion the Rama substitutes for the hour: is there still a hole, a crack through which the wine can be seen?
One line runs through all five glosses: the Rama translates a rule into a device. The Mehaber says what is required; the Rama says how it is done, and what is done when it was not. That is why his glosses on this siman are full of objects — leather, nails, letters, a lock, a crack — where the Mehaber writes only statuses.
7. Practical cases today
Case 1 — The tanker truck and the non-Jewish driver
This is seif 1 in contemporary dress, and the Shach at sign 1 supplies the practical verdict in advance. A tanker whose valves are lead-sealed, the seals bearing a number recorded at departure and checked on arrival, is precisely two seals in the sense of seif 4: the unusual closure, and the seal that covers it. But a cask whose tap remains fitted, however well sealed, falls under the Rama’s warning — יחתוך כל הברזות. And the usage reported by the Shach goes further still: as an a priori matter, one escorts the shipment.
Case 2 — The screw cap and the tamper-evident ring
A modern bottle often combines, without our noticing, the two elements of seif 4: the tight-fitting cap, and the tamper-evident ring that breaks on opening. The ring plays exactly the part of the Mehaber’s smear of clay — it does not prevent opening, it prevents closing again without a trace. Seif 6 supplies the reservation not to forget, however: an industrial mark, impressed at one stroke and available everywhere, is worth no more than a דפוס — one seal, not two.
Case 3 — Cooked wine and pasteurised juice
Seif 3 is today the most used seif in the siman: it underlies the widespread practice of yayin mevushal served by non-Jewish staff. But one must read what the seif actually says — it permits a single seal for a deposit; it does not say that cooked wine is free of every rule. And one must read what it does not say: the definition of cooking, temperature thresholds, and the question of pasteurised wine are not here. They belong to siman 123 and to later poskim.
Case 4 — A warehouse unit rented from a third party
Seif 9 transposes effortlessly: a kosher company rents a unit in a logistics warehouse owned by a non-Jew. Three configurations, three answers. Jewish staff work on site permanently: nothing is required. Nobody on site, but the unit is locked and the single key is held by the Jew: permitted — and the Mehaber states expressly that two seals are not required here. Neither presence nor exclusive key: everything then depends on whether the owner lives on the premises.
Case 5 — A cellar on one’s own premises, and the employee with the key
Seif 10 overturns the previous case, and it is the commonest situation of all. On premises that are fully the Jew’s, a non-Jewish employee who approached the wine would have no title to plead: he would be נתפס עליו כגנב. That is why a company cellar requires no seal. The question becomes serious as soon as he locks the place himself in the evening: the Rama saw this coming, and his answer turns on a material detail — a glazed door, a window, an opening that lets one see, and the daytime becomes permitted again.
Case 6 — The seal found broken
This is seif 8 and its gloss. A broken lead seal, a security label peeled off, a cracked capsule: the first question is not “how serious is this?” but “who did it?”. A break attributable to transport, to a jolt, to a forklift leaves the goods permitted after the fact; a break bearing the mark of a hand does not. The second question, often forgotten: was the recipient told the number and the form of the seals? — for the Mehaber himself exempts from checking anyone who was not informed, while still recommending that he be informed.
8. Synthesis of Siman 130
In one sentence: wine entrusted to or shipped by a non-Jew requires a seal within a seal, or a key and a seal — and only in a vessel that cannot be discreetly pierced; a single seal leaves benefit permitted and is entirely sufficient for cooked wine, blended wine and vinegar; a seal is anything that departs from the ordinary way of closing — two unusual knots, two written letters, a key joined to a seal; and when the wine is not entrusted but stored, what guards it is no longer the seal but the legal relation to the place: one who has no title there would be seized upon as a thief — by day.
Rama: he locks it and is not מרתת; save חור או סדק
seif 10 (Rama)
Comprehension questions
Seif 1 lays down two distinct requirements, not one. Name them, and say which one the Rama relaxes.
Why is a wooden barrel more dangerous than an earthenware one, when the seal on each is the same?
Seif 2 permits benefit while forbidding drinking. What condition makes this possible, and what would happen without it?
Seif 3 is content with a single seal. State the reason given by the Taz at sign 6, naming the two dangers at stake.
Seif 4 ends with a general rule that explains all its examples. Which rule, and why is the word משונה indispensable to it?
Why do two written letters count as two seals, while a stamp bearing five letters counts as only one?
Seif 8 sometimes exempts one from checking the seal. In which case, and why does the Mehaber nonetheless recommend informing the recipient?
Seifim 9 and 10 reach opposite rulings for the same unsealed wine. What separates them, and why does night appear only in the second?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul — the mahloket of the Mehaber and the Rama on the wooden barrel, the ḥakira on the nature of a seal (obstacle or proof), and the Taz’s discussion at sign 7 of the meaning of אַגָּנָא … שְׁרִיקָא וַחֲתִימָא
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (one seal or two, the vessels, the places) and rapid memorisation of the 10 seifim