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

שולחן ערוך · יורה דעה

Siman 130 — Sealing the wine: one seal, two seals — Practical psika
סימן ק״ל · הלכה למעשה
דיני חתימת היין
פסק המחבר והרמ״א · הכרעת נושאי הכלים · הסקת ההלכה למקרים בני זמננו
⚖️ פסק הלכה ולמעשה ⚖️
✦ ❖ ✦

Halakha lema'asse — the practical psika

From the ruling of the Mehaber and the Rama, through the arbitration of the Taz,
the Shach and the Pitchei Teshuva, to the sealed bottle we have delivered

Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ל (י׳ סעיפים)
עם נושאי הכלים: ט״ז, ש״ך, פתחי תשובה, טור, בית יוסף, רמב״ם

⚠ Level note:
This level is not “Daat HaRav”: the Shulchan Aruch HaRav
(Admur HaZaken) does not cover Yoreh De'ah, and so not Siman 130 either.
It is a level of practical psika: what one does, and whom one asks.

Written and studied by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT

How to read this level. Every statement here is anchored either in the text of the Shulchan Aruch and its nossei kelim (Taz, Shach, Pitchei Teshuva), or in a named and checkable posek (Rambam, Tur, Beit Yosef, Gemara Avodah Zarah). On Yoreh De'ah there is no Mishnah Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim) and no Shulchan Aruch HaRav / Daat HaRav (the Admur HaZaken did not write Yoreh De'ah). The Aruch HaShulchan is not quoted here: his text on this siman is not accessible to us, and one does not quote what one cannot verify; the same holds for the Kaf HaChaim and the Pri Chadash on this siman. And one thing must be said at the outset, because it governs everything that follows: industrial packaging appears in no seif at all. The siman supplies a criterion and counter-examples, not a catalogue of products. This level rebuilds the criterion and stops where the text stops: for a real bottle, a real carton, a real seal, a Rav must see the packaging.

📑 תוכן העניינים

  1. שורש הסימן — למה היין לבדו אינו משתמר בחותם אחד
  2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מפת הסימן בי׳ סעיפים
  3. מה נחשב חותם — כלי, טיחה, קשר ואותיות (סעיפים ד׳–ז׳)
  4. הכלי שאפשר לנקבו — חבית של עץ, נאדות ושקים (סעיף א׳)
  5. חותם אחד — שתיה, הנאה, וקרן זוית (סעיף ב׳)
  6. מבושל, מעורב וחומץ — חותם אחד לכתחילה (סעיף ג׳)
  7. הכרת החותם וההודעה — המפקיד והשולח (סעיף ח׳)
  8. חותם שנמצא סתור — ומה שהעובד כוכבים מספר (סעיף ח׳)
  9. הדרך והמנוחה — חידושו של הט״ז בהולכת יין
  10. בית שכור ובית של ישראל — יום ולילה (סעיפים ט׳–י׳)
  11. מקרים מודרניים — הבקבוק החתום, הקרטון והמכולה
  12. סיכום מעשי — טבלאות, קישורים, ולמעשה שאל את רבך

📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — Seif Alef

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:

The founding case. One may deposit wine with a non-Jew, and one may have him carry it, on one condition: that the vessel bear a seal within a seal (חותם בתוך חותם), or else a key and a seal. The Mehaber does not ask that anyone stand watch; he asks that the object itself make an opening visible.

And at once the limit, which is a material one. All of this holds for an earthenware jar. Not for a wooden barrel: wine can be drawn from between the staves with nothing showing — and the seal, which sits on top, will have prevented nothing. All the more so for leather skins, where wine is drawn from between the stitches. Their only remedy is to place the whole barrel or the whole skin inside a sack that has no outer seam, and to seal the mouth of the sack.

The Rama is lenient, and supplies a technique. Some permit even a wooden barrel, and we do not suspect that he will draw wine from between the staves — and so we practice. On three conditions: that the bung be properly closed; that there be no spigot — that one cut off every spigot; and that a piece of leather be laid over the bung, the spigot fixed with nails, with letters written half on the leather and half on the spigots, so that if the non-Jew lifts the leather he will not know how to line it up again. That sentence is the whole siman: a seal is not what closes, it is what cannot be closed again identically.

— Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 130:1 · Sefaria YD 130:1

1. שורש הסימן — why wine alone is not kept by a single seal

The reversal, compared with the two preceding simanim. Simanim 128 and 129 asked: was the wine watched? They reasoned about presence, about the eye, about the fear a non-Jew has of being caught. Siman 130 opens with the opposite admission: nobody is watching this wine at all. It is at the non-Jew's place, or on his cart, for hours or for days. What takes the place of the eye here is an object. The whole siman is the law of that object — of what materially stands in for a guard.
Two fears, not one — and this is the axis of the entire siman. We do not fear one thing from the non-Jew who holds the wine, but two, and they do not cost the same. (1) איסוכי — that he touch the wine and render it yayin nesekh. (2) איחלופי — that he exchange our wine for his own. The Shach says it in a single line, on seif 3, and that line explains the whole economy of the siman:
« 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
This is where the count of seals comes from. Against exchange, one seal is enough: whoever wished to substitute would have to undo and redo the seal, and לא טרח ומזייף — he will not take that trouble. Against contact, one seal is not enough: opening and touching is the work of a moment. That is why wine — and wine alone among foodstuffs — calls for two seals, while everything forbidden only out of fear of substitution makes do with one.
The Gemara states it as a named exception. Rabbi Elazar does not say “wine is graver”; he says that wine is the one case where a seal does not keep:
« הַכֹּל מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד, חוּץ מִן הַיַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד »
— עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א
And the alternative version of the sugya goes further still. In the איכא דאמרי, the dispute is no longer about one seal but about two: for Rabbi Elazar wine is not kept even by a seal within a seal; Rabbi Yochanan permits it — « וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם » (עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א). It is that second view which the halakha follows, and this is why our siman opens on חותם בתוך חותם as a permission and not as a last resort.
The Rambam supplies the formula the Mehaber will copy almost word for word. He does not speak of “two seals” but of two signs, which is more exact:
« מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיד יֵינוֹ בִּכְלִי סָתוּם בְּיַד עַכּוּ״ם וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה ח
The Beit Yosef decides between two schools, and his decision is what we read in seif 1. Rabbenu Tam and part of Tosafot held that one seal suffices in a non-Jew's hands, since he is afraid; the Behag, the Rif, the Rambam and the Rashba require two signs. The Beit Yosef counts the voices and concludes:
« ולענין הלכה כיון דבה״ג והרי״ף והרמב״ם והרשב״א סוברים שצריך חותם בתוך חותם או מפתח וחותם הכי נקטינן »
— בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן ק״ל
כלל הפסק של הסימן :
היין אינו משתמר בחותם אחד, וצריך חותם בתוך חותם או מפתח וחותם. וטעם החותם אינו שהוא נועל, אלא שאין העובד כוכבים יכול לפתחו ולהחזירו כשהיה — לא טרח ומזייף. ולפיכך כל דבר שדרך בני אדם לפתחו ולסגרו בכל יום, אף שהוא סגור היטב, אינו חותם.

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

Siman 130 has ten seifim — that is the count announced by the heading (ובו י׳ סעיפים), and it is also the real count of the text, with no discrepancy. Its construction is clear: seifim 1 to 3 set out the rule and its three regimes; seifim 4 to 7 define technically what a seal is; seif 8 deals with the seal as found; and seifim 9 and 10 leave the vessel behind for the place.

SeifSubjectRuling (anchored in the text)
1depositing and sending winePermitted with a seal within a seal, or a key and a seal. But that holds for an earthenware jar: not for a wooden barrel, from which wine is drawn between the staves, and all the more so not for a skin, where it is drawn between the stitches — their remedy is to put the whole thing into a sack with no outer seam and seal its mouth. Rama: some permit even wood, and so we practice — provided the bung is properly closed, every spigot is cut off, and letters are written half on the leather laid over the bung and half on the spigots.
2a single sealForbidden to drink, permitted for benefit — and only if he assigned the wine a corner (קרן זוית). Rama: some write that bedieved one may permit even with a single seal; one need not recognize one's own seal unless one sees that it is damaged, in which case it is forbidden — but one need not check, and the custom is to be lenient.
3cooked wine, mixed wine, vinegarOur mevushal wine, our wine mixed with other things (honey, oil), and our vinegar may be deposited with a non-Jew under a single seal.
4what a seal within a seal isA loose cover placed the way everyone closes, plus a smearing of clay, is one seal. A tight cover, with the clay above it, is a seal within a seal. Tying the mouth of a skin is one seal; turning its mouth inward and then tying it is a seal within a seal. And any departure from what everyone does counts as one seal, the smearing or the knot being the second.
5two unusual knotsThey count as two seals.
6letters and printed stampsTwo letters count as two seals. But a printed stamp, even bearing several letters, counts only as one seal, since they are affixed all at once. And where people who can write are common, writing is a sign only for one who recognizes that writing.
7key and sealA key and one seal count as two seals.
8the seal as foundIf he sealed with two seals, went back over it and did not recognize it, or found it undone — forbidden. Rama: only if one sees that it was undone deliberately by a person; where it can be attributed to an accident, an animal or a child, it is permitted bedieved; and even if deliberate, there is room to permit if a Jew is constantly coming and going. The recipient need not check, unless he was told there were two seals — and it is proper to describe the shape of the seal to him. Rama: if letters were written, no notice is needed. And a non-Jew who says he touched the wine while tightening a leak is not believed to forbid it.
9a house bought or rented in a non-Jew's courtyardIf a Jew lives in that courtyard, it is permitted even with neither seal nor key, and even if the non-Jew lives there too. If no Jew lives there: permitted if the key and seal are in Jewish hands; otherwise forbidden while the non-Jew lives in the courtyard; and if he does not live there, permitted — unless he is found standing beside the wine.
10a Jew's own courtyardThere neither key nor seal is required, even if a non-Jew lives in that courtyard and no Jew does, and even if he is found standing beside the wine — for there he would be seized as a thief. But that is by day: at night it is forbidden. Rama: this day / night distinction holds only here, where the non-Jew has a tie to the courtyard and locks it at evening; and even by day, if he locked it and there is no hole or crack through which the wine can be seen, it is forbidden.

3. מה נחשב חותם — vessel, clay, knot and letters

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

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ד
The formula hidden in this seif. It has two terms. A seal is (a) an act that is not what everyone doesשינוי שמשנה מדברים שאין דרך כל אדם — and (b) a second act laid over it, the clay or the knot. A cover placed the way anyone places a cover counts for nothing at all; it is the clay that turns it into a seal. A tight cover, on the other hand, is already out of the ordinary: with clay above it, you have both.
The Gemara gives the three examples that the Rambam and the Mehaber transpose.
« אַגָּנָא דְּפוּמָּא דְּחָבִיתָא שְׁרִיקָא וַחֲתִימָא — הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, וְאִי לָא — לָא »
— עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א
« נוֹד בְּדִיסַקַּיָּא, חֲתִימַת פִּיו לְמַטָּה — הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, פִּיו לְמַעְלָה — לָא הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם »
— עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א
A condition the Mehaber does not write and the Taz requires. Does clay count from the moment it is applied? The Taz answers that it does not: while it is wet it can be lifted off and replaced in an instant, and a seal that can be replaced identically is no seal.
« אבל בלא יבישה נראה דלא הוי חותם דבקלות מאד יכול להסיר הטיט הלח ולתת אחר במקומו »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז

The knot: on what condition does it close anything

שני קשרים משונים הוי כשני חותמות

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ה
The decisive word is משונים. The Taz underlines it: an ordinary knot costs no trouble to untie, and so it is no sign at all; only the strangeness of the knot makes it impossible to undo without a trace.
« דקשר שעושין בעלמא ודאי אין טורח כלל להתירה אלא ודאי קשר משונה בעינן »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ח
And from this the Taz draws a consequence that is always forgotten: putting the skin into a sack is not a seal. What seals is the knot and the turning of the mouth — « ולפי זה לא הוה הנתינה בשק שום חותם רק הקשר והפיכת פיו של נבל או כפיפת פיו לתוכו הוה חב״ח » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ח). Packaging that wraps is not packaging that seals. That is exactly the question a closed carton raises today.

Letters, and the printed stamp

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

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ו

The most current seif in the siman, and nobody notices it

This seif says three things, and all three bear directly on our labels. (1) Two written letters count as two seals — because reproducing them exactly costs a trouble the forger will not take. (2) But a printed stampהדפוסים — however loaded with letters, counts as one seal only, כיון שקובעין אותם בבת אחת: what is affixed in one act is re-affixed in one act, and the number of characters changes nothing. (3) And where writing is common, it is a sign only for one who recognizes that particular hand. The Beit Yosef supplies both sources — the Rashba in a responsum for the stamps, and the Ra'ah for the second limit:

« וכתב הרשב״א בתשובה הדפוסים אף ע״פ שיש בהם כמה אותיות לא חשיבי אלא כחותם א׳ כיון שקובעים אותם בבת אחת »
— בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן ק״ל
« וכתוב בא״ח בשם הרא״ה במקום שמצויים מומרים ונכרים שיודעים לכתוב אין כתב סימן אלא למי שמכיר הכתב »
— בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן ק״ל

The key and the seal

מפתח וחותם אחד הוי כשני חותמות

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ז
Does a key alone count as a seal? The Taz writes that it does, referring back to siman 118: « כבר כתבנו בסי׳ קי״ח סעיף א׳ דלפי זה אפילו באין שם אלא אפי׳ מפתח לחוד גם [כן] מותר דהא בהא תליא » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ה). The Shach writes the opposite, referring to the very same siman: « וכן מפתח א׳ לא הוי כחותם א׳ כמ״ש בסי׳ קי״ח ס״ק כ״א » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ד). An open disagreement, and it decides an entire modern case — the storeroom locked with a key and bearing no seal at all. A question for a Rav.

4. הכלי שאפשר לנקבו — wooden barrels, skins and sacks

The methodological lesson of seif 1, and it is decisive for us. The Mehaber has just permitted a seal within a seal — and immediately adds: והני מילי בחבית של חרס. In other words: a seal is worth no more than the vessel it closes. To seal the mouth of a barrel admirably when one can pierce its side is to have sealed nothing. The question is never “does the stopper hold?”, it is “where else can one get in?”.
The Rama is lenient, but with a specification. He brings those who permit even a wooden barrel — « ויש מתירין אפילו בחבית של עץ ואין חוששין שמא יוציא בין הנסרים » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ל:א) — and writes וכן נוהגים. Then he lays down three requirements: a properly closed bung, every spigot cut off, and leather over the bung with letters straddling both. This is no soft permission: it is a leniency under material conditions.
And the Shach opens the siman by bringing the Bach, who closes almost all of it again. The custom of his day, he writes, was not to rely on wood at all:
« 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
« כי שכיח שהעובדי כוכבים נוקבים במקדח קטן או בסכין בין הנסרים ומוציאין יין בגניבה ואין לשנות להקל כלל »
— ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א
But the Shach himself bounds the Bach's stringency. First he gives the technical remedy: « מיהו אם מכסים כל דופני החבית בחשוקים וגם השולים בנסרים יש להתיר » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א) — hoop the whole barrel, base included. Then he writes that all this is said only lekhatchila, and that after the fact one keeps to the Rama's permission. The division is therefore clear: beforehand, one does not ship in a pierceable vessel; afterwards, one does not destroy a consignment over it.

👈 The spigot: the only one of the three conditions that blocks

The Shach distinguishes carefully. Leather, letters, hoops: לרווחא דמילתא, a matter of comfort and not of obligation — « דדין זה לאו לעיכובא אלא לרווחא דמילתא אבל בדיעבד הדבר ברור דסגי בחותם א׳ אף בחבית של עץ » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב). But an uncut spigot ruins everything, even after the fact: « מיהו אם לא חתך הברזות אף דיעבד אסור דהא בקל יכול להוציא הברזא ולהמשיך יין » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב). A tap left on the vessel is not a defective seal: it is a second door. The Taz adds only that after the fact, if the clay has dried around the spigot, one may permit in a case of great loss: « זהו לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד אם טח בטיט ונתייבש סביב הברזא גם כן מותר בהפסד מרובה » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ג).

Why hooping suffices — the Taz's reasoning

The Taz does not merely report the Bach's remedy, he explains it — and his explanation teaches what actually forbids the wine. The danger is not the loss of wine, it is the contact at the moment of closing up again.
« ונ״ל הא דאין לחוש בזה שמכסה כולו בחשוקים שמא יוציא היין מבין החשוקים דהא עיקר האיסור משום שבשעת הסתימה נוגע בו »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
Wine emerging between the hoops is already far from the body of wine: to touch it is to touch a flowing stream, and we do not say ניצוק חיבור for a barrel. Piercing the stave itself, however, means touching the wine in the barrel. The Taz adds an observation of the Maharil that any mashgiach will recognize:
« גם במהרי״ל ראיתי שמחלק בין נקב דק ובין נקב רחב קצת שבשעה שסותם העובד כוכבים את הנקב יש לחוש שנכנס מן בשר אצבעו בפנים ואוסר »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
And the Taz sets the limit of the Rama's leniency. The Rama does not say the wine would stay permitted if the drawing off were established; he says only that we do not suspect it as a matter of course: « ומשמע מכאן דאם היה ברור שהוציא יין מבין הנסרים דאסור » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א). A trace actually seen changes everything — and that is the end of seif 1: if a knife is found stuck in the barrel, one goes to siman 124.

A textual note, for the student. In his ס״ק ג the Shach observes that the cross-reference at the end of seif 1 was printed in his edition as siman 128, and that this is a printer's error: it should read 124. Our printed text today reads 124 — the Shach's correction has entered the edition. It is a good reminder of what a cross-reference is in a transmitted text: one checks it, one does not copy it blindly.

Finally, a remark of the Shach whose reach goes beyond this siman. In that same ס״ק ג, explaining why one may be lenient when the wine was drawn off with a knife, he writes: « דעובדי כוכבים בזמן הזה לאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הן ואם נגעו בכוונה על ידי ד״א כגון שדקרו שם הסכין להוציא יין מותר במקום הפסד וה״ה הכא » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ג). In practice this sentence governs a large share of the great-loss cases across this whole block of simanim — but it is not handled on its own: it is precisely the sort of ground a Rav weighs, and that a private person does not apply on his own authority.

5. חותם אחד — drinking, benefit, and the assigned corner

אם הפקיד ביד עובד כוכבים בחותם א׳ אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה והוא שייחד לו קרן זוית

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ב
Two levels of prohibition, and a surprising condition. With a single seal the wine becomes forbidden to drink but remains permitted for benefit, and so may be sold. Yet this holds only if the Jew assigned the wine a corner at the non-Jew's place. Why that clause? The Taz answers in one line, and it lights up everything:
« דאז הוה כחצרו של ישראל משום הכי מותר בהנאה »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ד
The assigned corner makes the spot a Jewish place — and it is that tie of domain which keeps the prohibition of benefit away. Without it the wine sits plainly in the non-Jew's domain, and we fall back into the heaviest regime. The Rambam says exactly the same thing, in the same words: « וְאִם הִפְקִיד בְּיַד עַכּוּ״ם בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה וְהוּא שֶׁיְּיַחֵד לוֹ קֶרֶן זָוִית » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה ט).

👈 The Rama, and what practice actually does

The Rama adds three chained leniencies, and it is from them that practice lives. (1) « ויש שכתבו דבדיעבד יש להתיר אפילו בחותם אחד » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ל:ב) — after the fact, a single seal permits even drinking. (2) « ואין צריך להכיר חותמו אלא אם כן רואה שחותמו מקולקל אז אסור » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ל:ב) — one is not bound to recognize one's own seal; only a seal visibly damaged forbids. (3) And one need not even go and check: אבל אין צריך לבדוק אחר זה וכן נוהגין להקל. Note the order: the stringency is upstream, in how one seals; the leniency is downstream, in how one receives.

Do not widen the Rama's leniency. The Shach bounds with precision what “one seal” means — and his boundary condemns the commonest case of all:
« דוקא בחותם אבל סתומות במגופה לא הוי בדיעבד כחותם אחד אלא במקום הפסד מרובה »
— ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ד
A vessel merely stopped up is not a vessel sealed. A bung, a stopper, a lid that closes well — this is not one seal, it is no seal, and a case of great loss is needed to make do with it. This is the most useful distinction in the whole siman for anyone looking at modern packaging: closed and sealed are not the same word. On a damaged seal, by contrast, the Shach is lenient: « ואפילו בחותם אחד מקולקל שרי אם לא שנראה בו דאדם קלקלו » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ה).

6. מבושל, מעורב וחומץ — one seal lekhatchila

יין מבושל שלנו וכן יין שלנו שעירבו עם דברים אחרים כגון דבש ושמן וכן חומץ שלנו מותר להפקיד ביד עובד כוכבים בחותם אחד

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ג
The seif that modern life has made central. Three lines, with no long commentary — and yet it is here that almost every real situation is settled today. Once the wine is mevushal, it leaves the regime of two seals and joins that of rabbinic prohibitions: one seal is enough, and that lekhatchila. The Rambam explicitly ranks cooked wine with cheese, milk and vinegar:
« וְכָל שֶׁאִסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁהִפְקִידוֹ בְּיַד עַכּוּ״ם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי חוֹתָמוֹת אֶלָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד דַּיּוֹ »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה י
And why one seal suffices here — it is the Shach's reason quoted above. For these foodstuffs the fear of contact falls away: no libation is made from them. Only the fear of exchange remains — and against exchange a single seal always suffices, since the forger will not take the trouble to redo it. The Shach adds a material detail drawn from the Beit Yosef which deserves to be read slowly:
« ומשמע דאפילו יש בכלי שום נקב שיוכל לשתות ממנו אם אינו גדול שיוכל להריק בו יין לתוך הכלים שרי »
— ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
The criterion is not tightness but the seal's function. Since the seal serves here only to prevent exchange, an opening through which one could drink does not matter; only an opening through which one could decant would. This sentence shows better than any other that the count of seals is not a measure of closure but a measure of what one wishes to prevent. For the whole seif the Shach refers back to his exposition at the beginning of siman 118: « כל הסעיף נתבאר לעיל ר״ס קי״ח » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ו).

7. הכרת החותם וההודעה — depositing and sending

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

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ח

Depositing and shipping are not the same operation

This is the distinction the Tur places at the heart of the siman, and it settles the whole practical regime of delivery. When I deposit my wine with a non-Jew, I shall collect it myself: he knows I will see my seal again, so מירתת, he is afraid, and he does not tamper. When I ship it to somebody else, the man who opens it does not know my seal: the fear falls away, and two seals are needed.

« ויש מחלקין בין להפקיד בידו ובין לשלוח על ידו דודאי להפקיד בידו שרי בחותם א׳ מפני שעתיד לראות חותמו ומירתת נכרי ולא מזייף »
— טור יורה דעה סימן ק״ל
And here is the remedy, which is brutally current. If the sender describes the seal to the recipient, and lets the carrier know that he has described it, the fear returns — and one seal becomes sufficient again:
« ואפילו לפי זה אם הודיע לחבירו צורת החותם וגם הודיע לנכרי שהודיע לחבירו מירתת נכרי וסגי בחותם אחד »
— טור יורה דעה סימן ק״ל
What the Beit Yosef does with it. He ties the distinction to Tosafot and phrases it in his own words: « ויש לחלק בין שולח לחבירו ואינו חוזר ורואה חותמו להכירו דאז צריך חותם בתוך חותם שסבור שהאחר לא יכיר החותם אבל היכא שמניחו ביד הנכרי ועתיד לראות חותמו די בחותם אחד » (בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן ק״ל). Then he rules, as we saw, like the Rif, the Rambam and the Rashba: two signs. In passing the Tur brings the Rosh's remark, which is the real reason behind the custom: « וכ״כ א״א הרא״ש ז״ל דישראל קדושים ונוהגין בשני חותמות ובלבד שיכניסם בכלי שלא יוכל הנכרי להוציא היין שלא ירגיש הישראל » (טור יורה דעה סימן ק״ל).

👈 What exactly the Mehaber asks of the recipient

  1. The recipient need not investigate the seal, unless he was told there were two.
  2. Once told there are two, it is enough that he find two of them, even without knowing what they look like.
  3. It is nevertheless proper (נכון הדבר) to describe the shape of the seal to him, so that he can really check.
  4. And if letters were written, no notice at all is needed: « מיהו אם כתב עליו אותיות אין צריך להודיעו דסתם עובד כוכבים אינו בקי לכתוב אותיות » (הגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח). But seif 6 has already set the limit of that confidence: where writing is common, it holds only for one who recognizes it.

8. חותם שנמצא סתור — the broken seal, and what the carrier says

חתמו בשני חותמות וחזר עליו ולא הכירו או שמצאו סתור אסור

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ח
The Rama does not overturn the rule, he narrows its object. What forbids is not the disorder of the seal, it is the mark of a hand. A seal that came undone by itself, or that an animal or a child undid without intent, says nothing against the wine.
« 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 »
— הגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח
« ואפילו אם נתקלקל בכוונה יש להתיר אם ישראל יוצא ונכנס תמיד »
— הגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח

The case of the Noda BiYehuda, and it is exactly ours

The scene. A Jew handed wine to a non-Jew to transport, and did not travel with him. On arrival, the carrier explains of his own accord that the seal broke by accident, the cart having overturned. The Rama's leniency seems made for it — an accident indeed. The Noda BiYehuda answers that it is not, and his reason has nothing to do with the carrier's honesty.
« היינו במקום שיש לתלות שהעובד כוכבים לא הרגיש ולא ידע כלל שנסתר החותם אבל בנ״ד שהעובד כוכבים ידע שנסתר אפילו אם נאמינו שנסתר באונס הרי אח״כ היין ברשותו מונח והוי כמפקיד אצל עובד כוכבים בלי חותם »
— פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
The point is formidably precise. The Rama's leniency assumes that the non-Jew did not know the seal had fallen — for otherwise, from that very moment, the wine travels unsealed in the hands of someone who knows it is unsealed. A seal broken and known does not raise a doubt about the past: it creates a void in the present.
And the limit the Noda BiYehuda himself lays down. All of this applies to transport; for a plain deposit, with the depositor nearby, we assume the non-Jew told him at once, out of fear of being suspected of having broken the seal on purpose:
« מיהו היינו דוקא בשולח עם העובד כוכבים ממקום למקום ובדרך נתקלקל אבל הפקיד אצל העובד כוכבים ויהודי המפקיד מצוי בכאן ויכול העובד כוכבים להגיד לו אמרינן מסתמא תיכף הגיד לו »
— פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב

Read the last line of the Pitchei Teshuva before drawing any conclusion. The Noda BiYehuda himself did not wish to turn his distinction into a general permission: « ומ״מ לא החליט זה להקל רק בהפ״מ ובאופן שיסכימו עמו חכמים » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב). Great loss, and the agreement of other decisors. The Pitchei Teshuva further cites the Panim Meirot in the same direction: « דזה מיירי שאין אנו יודעים בבירור שהעובד כוכבים ידע מזה אבל אם לא כן אסור » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ג). A parcel that arrives with its seal broken is not judged at home.

The closing words of seif 8 run the other way. If the non-Jew relates of his own accord that he touched the wine while tightening a leaking barrel, he is not believed to forbid it: « ואם העובד כוכבים אומר שהחבית היה מטפטף והוא הדקו ונגע ביין אינו נאמן לאסרו » (הגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח) — and this even if a little wine can still be seen on the outside. A non-Jew's word creates no prohibition; siman 127 established that, and the Shach here refers to the end of siman 129.

9. הדרך והמנוחה — the Taz on wine in transit

The seal at rest and the seal in motion

Here is the most original passage in the siman, and it is not in the Mehaber: it is in the Taz's ס״ק ז, in the course of a long analysis of the Gemara. The Taz has just granted that a bunged barrel smeared with dried clay counts as a seal, and that in a case of great loss one may rely on it. Then he stops short and distinguishes two situations that nothing in the text had distinguished.

« ונ״ל דזהו דוקא כשהחבית מונח בביתו של עובד כוכבים אבל אם מוליכו בדרך לבד ויודע שהפליג הישראל לא מועיל טיחה בטיט כלל »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
The reason is purely material, and admirable as observation. On the road the cart shakes; the wine rises, softens the clay, and it falls off. This is no remote possibility, it is the ordinary course of the trade — wine carriers are constantly repairing the clay around the bung for that very reason.
« כי פשוט הוא שעל ידי שהעגלה מתנענעת תמיד היין הולך למעלה ומרכך הטיט ונופל וזה דבר מצוי מאוד »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
The Taz's conclusion, and it is categorical:
« וע״כ נראה דבשום פנים אין היתר בהולכת יין מחמת טיחה לחוד בלי סימן אחר רק במונח אז מועיל טיחה »
— ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
כלל הפסק :
אין החותם נידון לעצמו, אלא במקום שהוא עומד בו. חותם המועיל במונח — בבית העובד כוכבים — אינו מועיל בהולכה, שהדרך מקלקלתו מאליה. וכל שהחותם עשוי להתקלקל בדרכו, הרי הוא כפתוח לגמרי בלי חותם.

👈 What this means, and what it does not mean

The Taz does not say that a seal is worthless on the road. He says that a fragile seal — one that depends on a material the journey attacks — is worthless on the road. The right question before packaging meant for transport is therefore not “is it properly sealed?” but “will this seal arrive intact, and if so, will I have any way of knowing?”. The Taz further observes, against the Masat Binyamin, that fermenting wine drives the liquid up and spoils the clay — but that wine which is not fermenting rises as well, by the sheer motion of the cart: the distinction does not hold, and it is the motion that decides.

The Shach's counter-example, of the same order. The Masat Binyamin had asked whether the ropes that fasten the covers of a convoy count as a seal: they are tied at the head of the wagon, passed back and forth along its whole length, and tied again at the rear — no knot could be more unusual. The answer: it counts for nothing.
« דמאי דסמכינן אקשר משונה או חותם היינו משום דלא טרח ומזייף א״נ מרתת משא״כ בזה דמוכרח הוא להתיר הקשרים ולפתוח העגלות בכל יום כדי ליקח מאכל שלו שבתוך העגלות »
— ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ח
A seal one is obliged to open is not a seal. Its complexity makes no difference: the reasoning of the seal rests on the non-Jew not taking the trouble, or on his being afraid; here he must open it every day, for his own provisions. Both springs fail together. This is the most useful counter-example in the whole siman for judging packaging: ask first whether the man who holds it has a legitimate, daily reason to open it.

10. בית שכור ובית של ישראל — day and night

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

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:ט
The siman changes its object. Until now the guard was a seal. In seifim 9 and 10 it is a place — more precisely, a legal relation to a place. The Rambam gives the reason in chapter 13, and it is the same as in simanim 128-129: the non-Jew is afraid of being caught in a Jew's house. The question thus becomes: who has a title to enter, and who would be seized as a thief.
« וְאִם הָיָה דָּר בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת לֹא יֵצֵא עַד שֶׁיִּסְגֹּר הַבַּיִת וְיִהְיֶה הַמַּפְתֵּחַ וְהַחוֹתָם בְּיָדוֹ »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה א
The Shach explains why a resident Jew needs no seal — and lays down a condition. The wine is presumed guarded until the Jew goes out and tells him that he is going away: « ואין לעובד כוכבים שייכות ביין אע״פ שיש לו שייכות בבית בחזקת משתמר הוא עד שיצא ישראל ויאמר לו שהוא מפליג » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י). Merely leaving does not lift the guard; it is the announcement of departure that lifts it.
A disagreement the Shach settles against the Bach. Where the non-Jew does not live in the courtyard, the Bach required at least one seal. The Shach shows from the Rashba that nothing at all is required:
« דאפילו בלא חותם כלל שרי מטעמא דכיון דאינו דר שם אינו עתיד לבא שם »
— ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י״ב
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

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ל:י
The dividing line is legal title, not presence. A man who rented or sold me the place retains a residue of connection with it: it is understood that he might come and look at what he rented or sold, so he is no intruder, and if he is found standing beside the wine it is forbidden. The Taz puts it in the plainest terms: « שאדם עשוי לראות מה ששכר או מכר ואין השוכר או הלוקח מקפיד עליו ע״כ יש לו קצת שייכות » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ט). In a Jew's courtyard that he neither rented nor sold, he has no title whatever: there he would be seized as a thief, and that alone keeps the wine.
The Shach adds the condition the seif does not state. “No Jew lives there” does not mean “nobody ever comes”: the Jew must at least be coming and going.
« ומכל מקום הישראל יוצא ונכנס שם דאי באינו יוצא ונכנס כלל או אפילו בהודיעו שמפליג לא עדיף ממניח עובד כוכבים בחנותו »
— ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י״ד

Day and night — and why only here

The Rama carefully bounds the day / night distinction of seif 10: it does not hold in the cases of simanim 128 and 129, where the non-Jew is equally afraid by day and by night. It holds only here, because the non-Jew has a tie to the courtyard, because he locks it in the evening since no Jew lives there, and because he therefore has an excuse — « כלומר שדר שם ואית ליה לאשתמוטי על הנעילה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ט״ז). And the Rama's conclusion makes even the daytime depend on visibility:

« 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 »
— הגה יו״ד ק״ל:י
Situation (a Jew's courtyard, a non-Jew living in it)By dayBy night
Not lockedPermitted — he would be seized as a thiefPermitted: the Taz writes that a wide open door suffices even at night, since he fears the Jew may recall his wine and come
Locked, but a hole or crack lets the wine be seenPermitted, even if he certainly locked itForbidden
Locked, and nothing lets the wine be seenForbiddenForbidden
On the first row the Taz is explicit: « אבל בפתוח הדלת לגמרי מותר אפילו בלילה דמרתת דילמא השתא מדכיר ליה לחמרא ויבוא » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י). On the second, the Shach fixes the exact extent of the leniency: « מותר כל מה שיכולים לראות על ידי חור וסדק » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י״ז) — what one sees, and no more. A storeroom of which only the entrance is visible does not cover what stands at the back.

11. מקרים מודרניים — the sealed bottle, the carton and the container

Before the table, the warning that makes it honest. None of the objects below appears in any seif. The Shulchan Aruch knows jars, skins, clay, knots and letters traced by hand; it knows nothing of the shrink capsule, the screw cap, the induction seal, or the numbered seal of a shipping container. What the siman supplies is not the answer but the criterion and its counter-examples — and here the counter-examples teach more than the criterion. The columns below set a present-day object against the tool of the siman that comes nearest to it; they state no ruling. For real packaging, the Rav must see it.

The six tools of the siman. (1) The count — two signs for uncooked wine, one for whatever is forbidden only rabbinically (seifim 1, 2, 3). (2) The definition of a sign — an act out of the ordinary, and a second act above it (seif 4). (3) The quality of the vessel — a seal is worth no more than the vessel (seif 1). (4) The test of trouble — would the man holding it take the trouble to undo and redo it identically? And does he in any case have a daily reason to open it? (seif 4; ש״ך ס״ק ח). (5) The test of fear — does he know that somebody will check, and know what? (seif 8; טור). (6) The place — in whose domain does the thing sit, and by day or by night? (seifim 9-10).
Present-day caseTool of the simanOrientation (to be confirmed with a Rav)
Uncooked wine, original bottle, cork plus an intact shrink capsule, handed to a non-Jewish carrierSeif 1 · seif 4The structure of seif 4 is this: a tight closure, and a covering above it. But nothing in the siman says that an industrial capsule is a sign in the sense of seif 4 — it is affixed in one act and in series, which is precisely the description of the דפוסים of seif 6. Do not conclude on your own.
A screw cap with a tamper ring that breaks on openingSeif 4 · seif 6 · ש״ך ס״ק חIt makes opening visible, which is the right order of ideas. But the siman's criterion is not merely the trace: it is that one will not take the trouble to redo it, and that one fears a check. A device mass-produced and available everywhere does not by itself satisfy those two conditions.
A hekhsher label stuck across both the cap and the neck of the bottleהגה סעיף א׳ · seif 6This is precisely the Rama's device — letters half on the leather and half on the spigot, so that lifting it shows. But seif 6 is explicit: a printed thing, however loaded with letters, counts as only one sign, and writing is a sign only for one who recognizes it. A printed label is therefore not “two letters”.
The induction seal under the cap of a grape juice bottleSeif 3 · seif 4If the contents are mevushal, or forbidden only rabbinically, seif 3 in any case requires no more than one sign. That is where the great majority of cases actually live.
A closed and taped carton of bottles handed to a courierט״ז ס״ק ח · seif 1The Taz teaches that putting the skin into a sack is not a seal: what seals is the knot, not the wrapper. And seif 1 recalls that the sack helps only if it has no outer seam and is sealed at its mouth. A carton is a wrapper, and not necessarily a seal.
A shrink-wrapped pallet, or a container closed with a numbered sealSeif 8 · טור · seif 6The number brings back the spring of מירתת — provided the recipient has been told the number, which is exactly the Tur's remedy. Without passing on the number there is nothing to check, and therefore nothing for the carrier to fear.
Bag-in-box, a bulk container, or a barrel fitted with a tapSeif 1 (הגה) · ש״ך ס״ק בThis is the case of the ברזא, and it is the one condition of the Rama that the Shach declares binding even after the fact. A tap left in place is not an imperfect seal: it is a second opening.
A bottle simply re-corked, or a vessel with a well-closing lidש״ך ס״ק דThis is not “one seal”, it is no seal: סתומות במגופה לא הוי בדיעבד כחותם אחד, save in a case of great loss. The distinction between closed and sealed is here the whole question.
The parcel arrives, the seal is broken, and the courier explains that the carton fellהגה סעיף ח׳ · פת״ש ס״ק בThis is the Noda BiYehuda's case word for word. The Rama's leniency assumes the carrier did not know; here he knows and says so, so the wine travelled unsealed to his knowledge. His own leniency is opened only for a great loss and with the agreement of other decisors. A question for a Rav, without exception.
The seal is intact but the recipient does not know what it should have looked likeSeif 8The Mehaber does not ask the recipient to investigate, unless he was warned that there were two seals; and then it is enough that he find two. Describing the shape of the seal remains נכון הדבר.
The seal is damaged, and one cannot tell by whatהגה סעיף ח׳ · ש״ך ס״ק הWhat forbids is the mark of a hand. Damage attributable to the journey, to an animal or to a child does not forbid after the fact — and the Shach writes that even a single damaged seal stays permitted so long as one does not see that a person undid it.
A cellar or storeroom rented in a non-Jew's building, with no seal at allSeif 9 · ט״ז ס״ק ה · ש״ך ס״ק דIf a Jew lives on the premises, the seif permits even without key or seal. Otherwise the key and the seal are needed. On the key alone the Taz is lenient and the Shach refuses: an open disagreement, not to be settled by oneself.
A warehouse belonging to the Jew, a non-Jewish employee present, nobody living thereSeif 10 · ש״ך ס״ק י״דThe seif permits, even if he is found beside the wine, since there he would be seized as a thief — but the Shach requires that the Jew be coming and going. A place through which nobody passes any more falls outside the seif.
The same warehouse, at night, with the door lockedSeif 10 (הגה) · ט״ז ס״ק יAt night it is forbidden, unless the door stands wide open. By day the crack through which one sees permits — but only for what is actually seen.
The wine sets out on the road with a fragile seal, or one that will have to be opened on the wayט״ז ס״ק ז · ש״ך ס״ק חThe two great counter-examples of the siman meet here: a seal the journey destroys does not count, and a seal the carrier must open every day counts no more. Check both points before departure, not on arrival.
Cooked wine (mevushal), or mixed wine, or vinegarSeif 3One sign, lekhatchila. This is the regime under which most transport and distribution actually take place today — and it is why the question almost never arises in the terms of seif 1.

Lema'asse. Before putting the question to your Rav, gather the six facts the siman calls for, in this order: which wine (cooked or not, mixed, vinegar — seif 3 decides the count of seals); which vessel (can it be opened anywhere but at the stopper? is there a tap?); which signs exactly (describe them one by one, without counting them in advance); with whom and in whose domain (transport, deposit, rented premises, your own premises); what the man holding it knows (was he told that somebody would check, and what?); and what was found on arrival (intact, damaged, and who knew). With these six the question becomes answerable — and without them no table can answer it.

12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables

טבלה — the measures of the siman, in practice

QuestionMeasure (in practice)Source
Uncooked wine deposited with, or sent by, a non-JewA seal within a seal, or a key and a sealשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:א ; עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א
An earthenware jarSealing the mouth sufficesשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:א
A wooden barrel or a skinPer the Mehaber, put the whole thing in a sack with no outer seam and seal the sack's mouthשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:א ; טור יו״ד ק״ל
The custom adopted by the RamaA wooden barrel is permitted — bung well closed, spigots cut off, letters straddling the leatherהגה יו״ד ק״ל:א
Shipping city to city in wood, lekhatchilaThe Bach does not permit it without a trusted Jew guarding day and nightש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א ; ט״ז ס״ק ב
A barrel fully hooped, base includedThere is room to permitש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א ; ט״ז ס״ק ב
Leather, letters and hoops, after the factNot binding — one seal suffices bedievedש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
An uncut spigotForbidden even bedievedש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
Clay dried around the spigotPermitted bedieved in a case of great lossט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ג
It is established that he did draw wine offForbiddenט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק א
A single sealForbidden to drink, permitted for benefit — and only if he assigned it a cornerשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ב ; רמב״ם מאכלות אסורות י״ג:ט ; ט״ז ס״ק ד
A single seal, bedievedThere is room to permit even for drinkingהגה יו״ד ק״ל:ב
Must one recognize one's sealNo — unless one sees it damaged; and one need not checkהגה יו״ד ק״ל:ב
Merely stopped with a bung, unsealedNot a seal — save in a case of great lossש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ד
A key aloneThe Taz is lenient, the Shach refusesט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ה ; ש״ך ס״ק ד
Cooked wine, mixed wine, vinegarOne seal, and that lekhatchilaשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ג ; רמב״ם מאכלות אסורות י״ג:י
Why one suffices thereNo fear of libation, only of exchange — and the forger will not take the troubleש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
An opening in the vessel, for mevushalTolerated if it is not large enough to decant throughש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
Definition of a sealAn act out of the ordinary, plus the smearing or the knotשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ד ; רמב״ם מאכלות אסורות י״ג:ח
Clay still wetNot a sealט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
Two unusual knotsCount as two sealsשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ה
An ordinary knotCounts for nothingט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ח
Putting the skin into a sackNot in itself a sealט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ח
Two written lettersCount as two sealsשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ו
A printed stamp, however many lettersOne sealשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ו ; בית יוסף יו״ד ק״ל
Where writing is commonWriting is a sign only for one who recognizes itשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ו ; בית יוסף יו״ד ק״ל
Key and sealCount as two sealsשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ז
A seal not recognized, or found undoneForbiddenשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ח
Damage attributable to an accident, an animal or a childPermitted bedievedהגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח
Deliberate damage, but a Jew constantly comes and goesThere is room to permitהגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח
A single damaged sealPermitted, so long as one does not see that a person undid itש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ה
The carrier knew the seal was brokenForbidden — from then on the wine travelled unsealed to his knowledgeפת״ש יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
A deposit, with the depositor nearbyWe assume the non-Jew told him at onceפת״ש יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב
The reach of that leniencyGreat loss only, and with the agreement of other decisorsפת״ש יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ב–ג
Must one check on receiptNo, unless one was told there were two sealsשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ח
Describing the seal's shape to the recipientProper and recommendedשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ח
If letters were writtenNo notice is neededהגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח
Deposit versus shipmentOn deposit one seal may suffice, since he will see his seal again; on shipment it does notטור יו״ד ק״ל ; בית יוסף יו״ד ק״ל
Telling the recipient, and telling the carrier soThe fear returns, and one seal suffices againטור יו״ד ק״ל
The non-Jew says he touched it while tightening a leakNot believed to forbidהגה יו״ד ק״ל:ח
A clay seal on wine in transitWorth nothing on the road; it helps only at restט״ז יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ז
Ropes that must be untied every dayNot a seal, however unusual they areש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק ח
Premises rented from a non-Jew, a Jew living therePermitted with neither key nor sealשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ט ; ש״ך ס״ק י
The Jew leaves announcing that he is going awayThe guard lapsesש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י
No Jew living thereKey and seal in Jewish handsשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ט ; רמב״ם מאכלות אסורות י״ג:א
The non-Jew does not live in the courtyardPermitted even with no seal at allש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י״ב
He is found standing beside the wine, in premises he rented or soldForbidden — a residue of connection remains to himשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:ט ; ט״ז ס״ק ט ; ש״ך ס״ק י״ג
A courtyard belonging to the JewPermitted with neither key nor seal, even if he is found beside the wineשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:י
But no Jew comes and goes at allForbiddenש״ך יו״ד ק״ל ס״ק י״ד
The Jew's courtyard, at nightForbidden — unless the door stands wide openשו״ע יו״ד ק״ל:י ; ט״ז ס״ק י
By day, locked and nothing to be seenForbiddenהגה יו״ד ק״ל:י
By day, a hole or a crackPermitted, for what is seenהגה יו״ד ק״ל:י ; ש״ך ס״ק י״ז
Does the day / night distinction hold everywhereNo — only here, because of the non-Jew's tie to the courtyardהגה יו״ד ק״ל:י ; ש״ך ס״ק ט״ז

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

PosekDecisive contribution (anchored in the corpus)
Mehaber (י׳ סעיפים)s.1: two signs, and the material limit of the vessel; s.2: a single seal — drinking forbidden, benefit permitted, and the assigned corner; s.3: the one-seal regime for mevushal, mixed wine and vinegar; s.4 to 7: the technical definition of a sign — cover and clay, knot and inverted mouth, unusual knots, letters and printed stamps, key and seal; s.8: the seal as found and the duty to inform; s.9-10: the place, legal title, and day against night.
Rama (הגה on s.1, s.2, s.8, s.10)s.1: the custom permits a wooden barrel under three material conditions — bung, spigots cut off, letters straddling the leather; s.2: bedieved one seal suffices, one need neither recognize one's seal nor check; s.8: only the mark of a hand forbids, not an accident; the Jew who comes and goes; letters dispense with notice; the non-Jew is not believed to forbid; s.10: the day / night distinction and its reasons, and the crack through which one sees.
Taz (טורי זהב, י׳ ס״ק)ס״ק א: if the drawing off is established, forbidden; ס״ק ב: why hooping suffices — the contact at closing — and the Maharil's distinction between a fine and a wider hole; ס״ק ג: clay dried around the spigot, bedieved, in a case of great loss; ס״ק ד: the assigned corner counts as a Jewish courtyard, hence benefit is permitted; ס״ק ה: a key alone would suffice; ס״ק ז: wet clay is no seal, and above all the great chiddush — on the road the smearing counts for nothing; ס״ק ח: the knot must be unusual, and the sack is no seal; ס״ק ט: why the seller or landlord is no thief; ס״ק י: a wide open door is permitted even at night.
Shach (שפתי כהן, י״ז ס״ק)ס״ק א: the Bach — do not ship in wood without a Jewish guard — and the remedy of hooping, all of it lekhatchila; ס״ק ב: leather and letters do not block, the spigot does; ס״ק ג: the non-Jews of our time, and the permission in a case of loss; ס״ק ד: a closure is not a seal, nor is a key alone; ס״ק ה: a seal damaged without a human hand stays permitted; ס״ק ו-ז: the reference to siman 118, the twofold fear, and the opening one cannot decant through; ס״ק ח: the convoy ropes, a decisive counter-example; ס״ק י: the guard lapses on the announcement of departure; ס״ק י״ב: without the non-Jew in the courtyard no seal is required; ס״ק י״ג: the landlord's residue of connection; ס״ק י״ד: the Jew must come and go; ס״ק ט״ז-י״ז: the excuse of locking at night, and the exact extent of what the crack permits.
Pitchei Teshuva (ג׳ ס״ק)ס״ק א: the responsa on cutting off the spigots; ס״ק ב: the Noda BiYehuda and the overturned cart — the seal broken and known to the carrier, the distinction between transport and deposit, and the closing reservation (great loss and the agreement of the sages); ס״ק ג: the Panim Meirot, in the same direction.
Tur and Beit YosefThe distinction between deposit and shipment and the role of מירתת; the remedy of the crossed notice to the recipient and to the carrier; the Rosh's remark on the custom of two seals; and the Beit Yosef's ruling in favour of the Behag, the Rif, the Rambam and the Rashba. It is also the Beit Yosef who supplies the two sources of seif 6 — the Rashba for printed stamps, the Ra'ah for recognized writing.
Rambam (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג)הלכה א: the rented house, the key and the seal; הלכה ח: the definition of the two signs, copied almost word for word by the Mehaber; הלכה ט: a single seal — drinking forbidden, benefit permitted, assigned corner; הלכה י: whatever is forbidden only rabbinically makes do with one seal.
Gemara (עבודה זרה ל״א)ל״א ע״א: wine alone is not kept by a single seal, the alternative version that debates even a seal within a seal, and Rava's definition — the smeared cover, the tightened basket, the skin inverted in the saddlebag; ל״א ע״ב: the baraita of one who sends a jar, the recognition of the seal, and the מירתת of a man who fears they will ruin his livelihood.

Sefaria links (text and nossei kelim)

Shulchan Aruch YD 130: 130:1 · 130:2 · 130:3 · 130:4 · 130:6 · 130:8 · 130:10
Taz (Turei Zahav): 130 s.k. 2 · 130 s.k. 7 · 130 s.k. 8 · 130 s.k. 10
Shach (Siftei Kohen): 130 s.k. 1 · 130 s.k. 2 · 130 s.k. 4 · 130 s.k. 8 · 130 s.k. 14
Pitchei Teshuva: 130 s.k. 2 · 130 s.k. 3
Tur and Beit Yosef: טור יו״ד ק״ל · בית יוסף יו״ד ק״ל
Rambam: מאכלות אסורות י״ג:ח · מאכלות אסורות י״ג:י
Gemara: עבודה זרה ל״א ע״א · עבודה זרה ל״א ע״ב
Neighbouring simanim: YD 118:1 (the general law of the seal) · YD 124:24 (the knife stuck in the barrel) · YD 129:1 (great loss)

👈 הלכה למעשה — the golden rule of this level

  1. A seal is not a closure. It is an act that cannot be redone identically. The Shach puts it in the bluntest terms: a vessel merely stopped with a bung does not count even as one seal, save in a case of great loss.
  2. Two signs for wine, one for the rest. Uncooked wine is the single case the Gemara names as not being kept by one seal; cooked wine, mixed wine and vinegar join the ordinary regime of seif 3 — and that, in fact, is where nearly everything is settled today.
  3. A seal is worth no more than the vessel. והני מילי בחבית של חרס: always ask where else one can get in. A tap left in place disqualifies even after the fact.
  4. Two counter-examples are worth more than one definition. A seal the journey destroys does not count (Taz ס״ק ז); a seal the carrier must open every day does not count either (Shach ס״ק ח). Both tests are applied before departure.
  5. Print is not handwriting. Two written letters count as two seals; a printed stamp, however loaded, counts as one sign only — and writing is a sign only for one who recognizes it.
  6. Giving notice changes the law. Telling the recipient what the seal looks like, and letting the carrier know you have told him, restores the fear and lightens the requirement. It is the one place in the siman where speech alters the measure.
  7. On arrival, what forbids is the mark of a hand, not disorder. But if the carrier knew the seal was broken, the Noda BiYehuda forbids, and is himself lenient only in a case of great loss and with the agreement of other decisors.
  8. And for any real case — a bottle, a carton, a pallet, a storeroom, a seal that arrived damaged — halakha lema'asse goes through your Rav: ask your Rav, and show him the packaging.

← Level 3 — Synthesis ↑ Siman ק״ל — contents
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
פסק והלכה למעשה בדיני חתימת היין · סימן ק״ל · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'asse
⚠️ This content is for study. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are landmarks, not a personal ruling. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.

DAAT דעת — © 5786 / 2026 · Back to home · Siman ק״ל · ♥ Support

📖Join the khavroutha