A first approach to Siman 131: the 2 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. The three preceding simanim asked how to guard a Jew’s wine left within reach of a non-Jew. This one reverses the ownership: the wine is the non-Jew’s own, a Jew made it kosher so that it could be sold to Jews, and it stays in its owner’s cellar. Every safeguard of the preceding simanim collapses at once — because all of it rested on the fear of being caught, and a man who touches his own wine has nothing to fear.
Subject: A non-Jew’s wine made kosher and left with him — מירתת, מפתח וחותם, יושב ומשמר, התקבלתי Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קל״א
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 2 seifim, with the Rama’s glosses
2.Background: the mishnah of Avodah Zarah 61a and its sugya
3.Key concepts: מטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים, מירתת, מפתח וחותם, חותם בתוך חותם, יוצא ונכנס…
4.The summary table: the full grid of seif 1
5.The Taz and the Shach: five key entries
6.The Rama’s glosses (הגה): four interventions across two seifim
7.Contemporary cases: the producer’s cellar, the sealed container, the mashgiach who leaves at night
8.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 2 seifim
Siman 131 is the shortest of the whole block on guarding wine, and it is also the one that turns its principle over. Simanim 128 to 130 set the same scene: the wine belongs to the Jew, and a non-Jew is nearby — shut in with it, carrying it, or separated from it by one or two seals. Here the wine belongs to the non-Jew; it is the Jew who came to his premises to make it according to the rules (מטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים) so that it could then be sold to Jews; and the wine stays in its owner’s cellar. Seif 1 unfolds the whole casuistry of that situation; seif 2 examines the mirror case — a Jew’s wine sold to non-Jews who carry it away by sea — and permits it. The Rama intervenes four times: three times in seif 1, once at the end of seif 2.
Seif 1 — The non-Jew’s wine made kosher, and left with him
דין יין כשר שנעשה ברשות עובד כוכבים. ובו ב׳ סעיפים: ישראל שעשה יינו של עובד כוכבים בטהרה כדי שיהא מותר לישראל בין שמכרו לישראל ולא פרע לו מעות בין שלא מכרו לו אלא שהוא מטהרו כדי למכרו ע״י לישראלים אם נתנו ישראל בחצרו של אותו עובד כוכבים עצמו והישראל דר בחצר מותר אפילו בלא חותם אפילו אם העובד כוכבים גם כן דר שם ואם אין הישראל דר באותה חצר אם דר ישראל באותה העיר והבית שהיין בו פתוח לרשות הרבים מותר אם יש לישראל מפתח וחותם (ובדיעבד אפילו בחותם אחד כמו שנתבאר לעיל סי׳ ק״ל) ואם אין הבית פתוח לרשות הרבים אף על פי שישראל דר בעיר או בעיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים אפילו הבית פתוח לרשות הרבים אסור אפילו בחותם תוך חותם עד שיהא ישראל יושב ומשמר ויוצא ונכנס הרי הוא כיושב ומשמר במה דברים אמורים כשהיין בבית העובד כוכבים בעליו אבל אם נתנו בבית עובד כוכבים אחר מותר במפתח וחותם והוא שלא יהא עובדי כוכבים האחר כפוף תחת יד העובד כוכבים בעל היין שאם הוא כפוף תחתיו בענין שאם יבא ליגע ביין אינו רשאי למחות בו הוי כאלו הוא ברשות בעל היין ואם רוכלי ישראל רגילין לבא לעיר ואין לה חומה דלתים ובריח בענין שיכולים לבא שם בכל שעה שירצו חשוב כישראל דרים שם ואם הבית פתוח לאשפה או שיש בחצר כנגד פתח הבית חלון פתוח לרשות הרבים או שיש לישראל דקל כנגד פתח הבית חשוב כפתוח לרשות הרבים (וכבר נתבאר סוף סי׳ ק״ל דחלון פתוח לא מהני רק ביום ולא בלילה) (ראב״ד והגהת אשר״י ממהרי״ח ס״פ ר׳ ישמעאל ותוס׳ שם) ואם כתב העובד כוכבים לישראל התקבלתי אם כשיבא ישראל להוציאו אינו מעכב עליו הרי הוא כיינו ומותר במפתח וחותם (ובדיעבד אפילו בחותם א׳) אפילו בעיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים ואם כשבא ישראל להוציאו אינו מניחו עד שיתן לו מעותיו דינו כאלו לא כתב התקבלתי: הגה ויש מי שאומר שבחותם תוך חותם מותר בכל ענין (טור בשם בעל התרומות) ויש לסמוך עליו להתירו בהנאה אבל לא בשתייה (ר״ן בתשובה):
Title of the siman:the law of kosher wine made on a non-Jew’s premises; and it contains two seifim. — A Jew who made a non-Jew’s wine in purity — that is, according to the rules of wine kashrut — so that it should be permitted to Jews: whether the non-Jew sold it to the Jew and the Jew has not paid him the money, or whether he did not sell it to him at all but is having it made kosher in order to sell it through him to Jews — in both cases the wine is still his.
If the Jew placed it in the courtyard of that very non-Jew, and the Jew lives in that courtyard — it is permitted, even with no seal at all, and even if the non-Jew lives there too.
And if the Jew does not live in that courtyard: if a Jew lives in that city and the house where the wine is opens onto the public domain — it is permitted if the Jew has key and seal.Gloss of the Rama:and after the fact, even with a single seal, as was explained above in siman 130.
And if the house does not open onto the public domain — even though a Jew lives in the city — or in a city entirely of non-Jews, even if the house opens onto the public domain: it is forbidden, even with a seal within a seal, until a Jew sits and guards; and going out and coming in is like sitting and guarding.
To what does this apply? When the wine is in the house of the non-Jew who owns it. But if he placed it in the house of another non-Jew — it is permitted with key and seal; provided that this other non-Jew is not subject to the authority of the non-Jew who owns the wine; for if he is subject to him in such a way that, were the owner to come and touch the wine, he would not be entitled to stop him — it is as though the wine were in the owner’s domain.
And if Jewish peddlers are accustomed to come to the city, and it has no wall, doors or bolt, such that they can come there at any hour they wish — it counts as though Jews lived there.
And if the house opens onto a rubbish heap, or there is in the courtyard, facing the entrance of the house, a window open onto the public domain, or a Jew has a palm tree facing the entrance of the house — it counts as opening onto the public domain.Gloss of the Rama:and it was already explained at the end of siman 130 that an open window helps only by day and not by night (Raavad; Hagahot Asheri in the name of the Maharich, end of perek Rabbi Yishmael; and Tosafot there).
And if the non-Jew wrote the Jew a “ I have received ” — that is, a receipt for the price: if, when the Jew comes to take it out, he does not stop him — the wine is like the Jew’s own, and it is permitted with key and seal (gloss of the Rama:and after the fact even with a single seal) even in a city entirely of non-Jews. And if, when the Jew comes to take it out, he does not let him until he gives him his money — its law is as though he had never written “ I have received ”.
Gloss of the Rama:and there is one who says that with a seal within a seal it is permitted in every case (Tur in the name of the Baal haTerumot); and one may rely on him to permit it for benefit, but not for drinking (Ran in a responsum).
One single question governs the whole seif: does the wine’s owner have anything to fear? The seals, the key, the door opening onto the street, the palm tree, the rubbish heap, the peddlers — these are not seven rules, they are seven ways of measuring one and the same thing: how likely it is that the non-Jew will be caught if he touches the wine. And that is why the siman reaches the most counter-intuitive result in the whole block: a Jew who merely lives in the courtyard suffices with no seal at all, while two seals do not suffice where no one is likely to see. The wine is his: he loses nothing by being found out but a sale.
Seif 2 — The Jew’s wine carried away by sea, and the partnership
עובדי כוכבים שקונים יין מישראל ומחתימין אותו חותם בתוך חותם ומוליכין אותו כמה ימים בספינה לבדם מותר: הגה ישראל ועובד כוכבים שטהרו יינו של עובד כוכבים א׳ בשותפות והמפתח ביד ישראל אם יש על היין עוד חותם אחד הוי חותם בתוך חותם כמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן ק״ל ולא חיישינן לשותפות העובד כוכבים (תשובת רשב״א ועיין בב״י ס״ס ק״ל):
Non-Jews who buy wine from a Jew, seal it with a seal within a seal, and carry it for several days on a ship by themselves — it is permitted.
Gloss of the Rama:a Jew and a non-Jew who made kosher, in partnership, the wine of another non-Jew, and the key is in the Jew’s hand: if there is on the wine one further seal, that is a seal within a seal, as was explained above in siman 130, and we do not worry about the non-Jew’s partnership (responsum of the Rashba; and see Beit Yosef, end of siman 130).
Seif 2 is the exact counter-test of seif 1. In seif 1 the wine belongs to the non-Jew: he invested nothing — it grew in his own vineyard — and if unmasked he loses only a sale; so he does not fear, and the seals do not hold him. In seif 2 it is non-Jews who bought the wine, paid for a voyage of several days and bore the costs: tampering with it would cost them their own money. The same lock holds in one case and fails in the other, because it is not the lock that guards the wine — it is the fear of losing.
2. Background — the mishnah of Avodah Zarah 61a
All of siman 131 is the commentary on a single mishnah, at the very end of perek Rabbi Yishmael. It sets out the case and already gives the two criteria that will govern both seifim: the door opening onto the street and the presence of Jews in the city.
The Gemara then asks: and in a city entirely of non-Jews, are there not peddlers who make the rounds of the towns? Shmuel answers by delimiting the case — and this is the source of the Mehaber’s clause about peddlers:
Finally comes the baraita that settles the case of the Jew living in the courtyard. Rabbi Yochanan corrects it expressly: in that case, even without key and seal, it is permitted.
There remains the case of a deposit with another non-Jew. The Gemara sets two readings of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar against one another, and the case of the house of Parzak Rufila supplies the rule: what decides is whether one of them is afraid of the other.
The Rambam had already stated in a single sentence the reason this siman is stricter than those before it — and it is the reason the Taz will take up:
« שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהַיַּיִן שֶׁל עַכּוּ״ם וּבִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ מְפַחֵד לְזַיֵּף וּלְהִכָּנֵס לַבַּיִת » רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ג הלכה ג
The Tur, whom the Mehaber follows very closely, opened the siman by explaining first what the word “ purify ” means here:
« המטהר יינו של נכרי פירוש שישראל עושה יינו של נכרי בהכשר » (טור יו״ד קל״א)
The major questions of the siman
Why is this siman stricter than the three before it? Because the wine belongs to the non-Jew. All the protection of simanim 128 to 130 rested on his fear of being caught; here he has nothing to lose but a sale, and the fear disappears.
What does a seal really guard? Nothing, by itself. It only makes tampering visible. Where no one will ever look, two seals are worth no more than none.
Why is a Jew living in the courtyard worth more than two seals? Because he may walk in unannounced. The Shach says it in one line: he counts as a guard, and a guard who comes and goes suffices.
What tips the wine into the category of “ a Jew’s wine ”? The receipt, התקבלתי — that is, the fact that the non-Jew can no longer hold the wine back. Then, and only then, the lighter regime of simanim 128 to 130 returns.
This siman deals neither with contact (simanim 123-125), nor with mixtures (siman 126), nor with the word that asserts it (siman 127). It deals with a place: the cellar of a man to whom the wine still belongs. That is why its rules do not transpose as they stand to the neighbouring simanim — and that is exactly the mistake the Taz and the Shach spend their time warding off.
3. Key concepts of this siman
מְטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים — “ purifying a non-Jew’s wine ”. A Jew produces, under his own responsibility, wine that belongs to a non-Jew, so that it may be sold to Jews. The Tur stresses that “ purifying ” means nothing ritual here: it means producing it according to the rules. The wine remains legally the non-Jew’s so long as the price has not been paid.
מִירְתַת — the fear of being caught. This is the single spring of the whole siman. A non-Jew refrains from touching the wine not out of respect but because he dreads being seen and losing by it. Where that fear exists, the slightest precaution suffices; where it is missing, no precaution suffices.
נִתְפָּס עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב — “ seized upon it as a thief ”. Rava’s formula at the end of the perek: if whoever approaches the wine can be treated as an intruder, the wine is permitted; if not, it is forbidden. This is the operative definition of מירתת.
מַפְתֵּחַ וְחוֹתָם — key and seal. Two distinct guarantees: the key closes the room, the seal marks the vessel so that any opening shows. The Mehaber requires both; the Rama, following what he wrote in siman 130, accepts after the fact either one of them.
חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם — a seal within a seal. A double closure: for instance a sealed stopper, itself covered with plaster or an unusual knot. It is the highest level of protection in the block — and siman 131 is precisely the place where it does not suffice.
פָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — opening onto the public domain. The door of the room gives onto a place of passage. It is not a barrier: it is the risk of being seen. The non-Jew does not know when someone will pass, so he does not go in.
אַשְׁפָּה · חַלּוֹן · דֶּקֶל — the rubbish heap, the window, the palm tree. The three equivalents of the street, listed by Rav Yosef. A rubbish heap draws passers-by; an open window lets people see; a palm tree belonging to a Jew may be climbed at any moment. Each creates the unpredictability that is enough to deter.
יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר · יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס — sitting and guarding · going out and coming in. The guard need not stay on the spot: it is enough that he may return unannounced. This is the relief the mishnah itself supplies, and it runs through the whole block 128-131.
רוֹכְלִין — the peddlers. Itinerant Jewish traders who enter the city at unpredictable hours. Where the city is not closed by doors and a bolt, the mere possibility of their coming is equivalent to a permanent Jewish presence.
כָּפוּף תַּחַת יָדוֹ — subject to his authority. Wine deposited with another non-Jew is protected only if that second man is genuinely independent of the owner. If he depends on him — an employee, a tenant farmer, someone under obligation — he will not dare oppose him, and the deposit is worth nothing: the Gemara calls this גומלין, mutual back-scratching.
הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי — “ I have received ”. The written receipt for the price. Its force is not accounting but legal: from then on the non-Jew can no longer hold the wine back, so the wine is the Jew’s — and the regime becomes that of siman 130 again.
עִיר שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים — a city entirely of non-Jews. No Jew lives there and no peddler passes through. This is the strictest case in the siman: even a door opening onto the street is of no use there, since no one will ever look.
4. The summary table — the grid of seif 1
Every situation in seif 1 fits into a two-way grid: where the wine is, and who might see.
Situation
What is required
Why
The Jew lives in the owner’s courtyard
אפילו בלא חותם
He may walk in unannounced: he counts as a guard
The Jew does not live in the courtyard, but Jews live in the city and the room opens onto the street
מפתח וחותם
The risk of being seen exists; key and seal make tampering visible
The same, after the fact (Rama)
חותם אחד
As established in siman 130
The room does not open onto the street, even though Jews live in the city
יושב ומשמר
No one will ever see: the fear evaporates
A city entirely of non-Jews, even if the room opens onto the street
יושב ומשמר
A street with no Jews is not a watching eye
Jewish peddlers may enter at any hour
כישראל דרים שם
Unpredictability is equivalent to presence
Rubbish heap, window or palm tree facing the entrance
כפתוח לרשות הרבים
Each creates a possible passage
The wine is with another non-Jew, an independent one
מפתח וחותם
The depositary himself would be seized as a thief
The wine is with another non-Jew who is subject to the owner
כאלו הוא ברשות בעל היין
He will not dare object: it is as if it were with the owner
The non-Jew wrote התקבלתי and no longer holds the wine back
מפתח וחותם
The wine is now the Jew’s
He wrote התקבלתי but holds the wine until payment
כאלו לא כתב
The receipt changed nothing in fact
Read the middle column from bottom to top: the further down you go, the more useless material means become, and the more a presence is required. That is the signature of this siman: here only a presence guards, because only a presence frightens.
5. The Taz and the Shach — five key entries
Two key entries from the Taz
Taz s.k. 3 — why this siman is stricter than a Jew’s wine
« שאין עובד כוכבים מרתת מליגע כיון שהוא שלו מה שאין כן ביין של ישראל ברשות עובד כוכבים דמותר בחת״ח או בחותם אחד בדיעבד דמרתת טפי » (ט״ז יו״ד קל״א ס״ק ג)
summary: the non-Jew does not fear touching it, since the wine is his; not so with a Jew’s wine placed in a non-Jew’s domain, which is permitted with a seal within a seal — or, after the fact, with a single seal — because there he fears more.
In one line the Taz supplies the key to the whole block 128-131: it is not the closure that changes, it is the owner. The same seal protects a Jew’s wine and fails to protect a non-Jew’s, because protection never lies in the object — it lies in the mind of the one who might touch.
Taz s.k. 1 — a distinction he rejects, and for whose omission he praises the Rama
« ולא הבנתי זה דאדרבה בחצר מרתת טפי מבבית כיון שיש לו שייכות גם בבית » (ט״ז יו״ד קל״א ס״ק א)
« ויפה עשה רמ״א שלא זכר כאן בש״ע מחילוק זה » (ט״ז יו״ד קל״א ס״ק א)
summary: the Darkhei Moshe reported, in the name of the Raavad as cited by the Ran, a distinction between wine placed in the house and wine placed in the courtyard. The Taz does not understand it: on the contrary, he says, in the courtyard the fear is greater than in the house, since the non-Jew has a claim to the house too. And he concludes that the Rama did well not to reproduce that distinction in his gloss to the Shulchan Aruch.
Three key entries from the Shach
Shach s.k. 2 — why a Jewish neighbour dispenses with any seal
« והישראל דר בחצר. דחשיב כמו שומר דסגי ביוצא ונכנס כן כתבו הפוסקים » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״א ס״ק ב)
summary: “ and the Jew lives in the courtyard ” — because he counts as a guard, and a guard who goes out and comes in suffices; so the decisors wrote.
Shach s.k. 3 — one Jew in the city, or many?
« אם דר ישראל. אפילו ישראל אחר ב״י ופרישה אבל דעת הרשב״א דאפילו בישראל זה לבדו דר בעיר אינו מתיירא מליכנס שם ומזייף ובעינן דוקא ישראלים רבים דרים שם » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״א ס״ק ג)
« ויש להחמיר במקום שאין הפסד אבל בהנאה נראה דשרי אף שלא במקום הפסד » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״א ס״ק ג)
summary: “ if a Jew lives ” — even a Jew other than the one who made the wine, according to the Beit Yosef and the Perishah. But the Rashba holds that even if that Jew lives alone in the city, the non-Jew does not fear to enter and tamper: specifically many Jews must live there. The Shach concludes that one should be strict where there is no loss, but that for benefit alone it is permitted even where there is no loss.
Shach s.k. 15 — the remark that changes the whole block in practice
« ודע דבכל הסימן וכן בכל סימן קכ״ט וק״ל דחיישינן שמא נגע בו עובד כוכבים היינו דוקא במקום דאיכא למיחש שמא נגע בו לשתות או להחליף או לשום הנאה אחרת » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״א ס״ק ט״ו)
summary: know that throughout this siman, as in simanim 129 and 130, the fear that a non-Jew touched the wine applies only where there is reason to fear that he touched it in order to drink it, to exchange it, or for some other benefit.
The fear has changed its nature. In the Gemara, what was dreaded was a libation. The Shach writes here, for all three simanim at once, that the fear now bears on an ordinary act — drinking, decanting, substituting. This does not abolish the rules, but it explains why the Acharonim allow so many reliefs where a substantial loss is at stake.
6. The Rama’s glosses (הגה) — four interventions across two seifim
On seif 1, first gloss — after the fact, a single seal
Where the Mehaber requires key and seal, the Rama recalls what he established in siman 130: after the fact one seal suffices. The Shach (ס״ק ו) makes clear that this is a genuine disagreement with the Mehaber, for whom two guarantees remain necessary even after the fact; the Taz (ס״ק ב) adds that the same holds for a key alone.
On seif 1, second gloss — the window helps only by day
The Mehaber counts the window among the equivalents of the street. The Rama sets a boundary to it, drawn from the end of siman 130: a window deters no one at night. It is the first time in the siman that a criterion is assigned an hour.
On seif 1, third gloss — the seal within a seal, and how far one relies on it
This is the weightiest gloss of the siman. The Rama reports the view of the Baal haTerumot, cited by the Tur, that a seal within a seal would permit in every case — that is, even where the Mehaber requires a guard. Then he himself settles on an intermediate position: one relies on it for benefit, not for drinking.
On seif 2 — the partnership, and the seal that the key completes
The Rama adds to seif 2 a case from a responsum of the Rashba: when the Jew has a share in the wine, the non-Jew’s fear is reborn, for he would then be seized as a thief. The key in the Jew’s hand plus one further seal together make a seal within a seal, and the non-Jew’s partnership is no longer an obstacle.
The four glosses all point the same way: the Rama is lenient where the object itself is enough to make tampering visible, and he is not lenient where a watching eye would be needed. It is the Mehaber’s own logic, applied with a slightly different setting.
7. Contemporary cases
Case 1 — Kosher wine produced in a cellar that does not belong to Jews
This is exactly the scene of seif 1, and today it is the commonest. An estate owned by non-Jews produces, under supervision, a wine destined for the kosher market; the tanks stay in the estate’s own cellars, and the estate still owns the wine so long as the sale is not settled. The siman then says that closing the tanks does not suffice by itself: what is needed is a presence that may turn up unannounced. The question to ask is therefore not “ how many seals? ” but “ who can walk in without warning, and at what hour? ”.
Case 2 — The mashgiach who leaves at night
Seif 1 answers this twice. On the one hand it does not require a continuous presence: ויוצא ונכנס הרי הוא כיושב ומשמר. On the other, the Shach (ס״ק ט) recalls that this leniency ceases as soon as the guard has announced that he is going away — for then the non-Jew knows he will not come back. The practical point lies entirely there: it is not the length of the absence that counts, it is that it should be predictable.
Case 3 — Wine already paid for, and wine not yet paid for
The Mehaber opens the siman with this distinction, and it is the most operative one today. So long as the seller can hold the goods back until payment, the wine is his and we are in the strict regime of siman 131. Once payment is made — התקבלתי — and the buyer can take it away whenever he wishes, we fall back into the lighter regime of siman 130. The Shach (ס״ק י״ג) nonetheless makes clear that a mere contract of sale, even an irrevocable one, does not suffice: the receipt is needed, or the conversion of the price into a debt.
Case 4 — The sealed container and shipping by sea
This is seif 2, almost literally. Kosher wine sold to non-Jews who carry it away sealed, for several days, with no Jew on board: the Mehaber permits it. The reason, given by the Tur in the name of Rabbenu Tam and taken up by the Taz (ס״ק ו), is that the carrier has invested labour and expense, and will not throw them away. The Shach (ס״ק ט״ז) reports, however, the Bach, for whom a seal within a seal is specifically required here, and not a single one.
Case 5 — A third party’s warehouse
The Mehaber permits a deposit with another non-Jew with key and seal — but on a condition that practice easily forgets: that this third party not depend on the wine’s owner. A warehouse run by a subsidiary, an employee or a subcontractor of the seller does not meet that condition; this is the כפוף תחת ידו of seif 1, and the Gemara sees in it mutual back-scratching.
Case 6 — A cellar in a region with no Jewish community
This is the strictest case in the siman: עיר שכולה עובדי כוכבים, where even a door opening onto the street is of no use. The siman itself nevertheless adds a way out that still holds today: the city is not closed, and Jews may pass through at any hour. The Shach (ס״ק י״א) reports, however, in the name of Rabbenu Yeruham, that this reasoning collapses on Shabbat and festivals, when it is known that no one will come — and that guards are then required.
8. Summary of Siman 131
In one sentence: when the wine still belongs to the non-Jew in whose cellar it rests, the question is no longer how to close it, but who might catch him — and that is why a Jewish neighbour is worth more here than two seals.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
Remember
A non-Jew’s wine made kosher by a Jew
מטהר יינו של עובד כוכבים
The wine stays his until the price is paid
A Jew lives in the courtyard
מותר אפילו בלא חותם
A presence is worth more than a lock
Street, rubbish heap, window, palm tree
כפתוח לרשות הרבים
Four ways of creating a possible witness
Neither street nor Jews
אסור אפילו בחותם תוך חותם
The one case in the block where two seals fail
The guard who comes and goes
יוצא ונכנס הרי הוא כיושב ומשמר
Unpredictability, not permanence
The receipt for the price
התקבלתי
Tips the wine into the regime of siman 130
Wine carried away by sea
מוליכין אותו כמה ימים בספינה לבדם מותר
Whoever paid for the voyage will not spoil it
Comprehension questions
Why does a seal within a seal, which suffices in siman 130, not suffice here? Which line of the Taz says it in one stroke?
A Jew lives in the courtyard, but the non-Jew lives there too. Is the Mehaber more lenient or stricter than one would expect? Why?
What practical difference is there between an irrevocable contract of sale and a התקבלתי receipt? Where does the Shach say it?
The wine is deposited with another non-Jew. What question must be asked before relying on key and seal?
Why does seif 2 permit what seif 1 forbids, when in both cases the wine travels unsupervised?
Going further
If you want to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul — the machloket of the Baal haTerumot against the Rosh, the Rashba, the Ran and the Rambam on the seal within a seal, the question of גומלין between the Rambam and the other Rishonim, and the ט״ס the Taz sees in the Rama’s gloss to seif 2
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables, the golden rules, the mnemonic and the classic pitfalls