Siman 136 is the shortest of the whole block: the Shulchan Arukh announces it itself —
ובו סעיף אחד, “and it contains a single seif”. The preceding simanim guarded
wine; this one guards nothing at all — the vessels being shipped are empty. And that is
exactly what makes it hard: the fear is no longer that a non-Jew will touch the wine, but that he will use
the cask for his own wine along the way, and that we shall never know.
Subject: Sealing wine vessels shipped by a non-Jew — חותם אחד, חותם בתוך חותם, לפי שעה, הכשר Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קל״ו
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The Mechaber’s text: the single seif, with the Rama’s gloss
2.Background: Rava and the jars sent to Harpanya (עבודה זרה ע״ד ע״ב), and the Tur
3.Key concepts: כלים המיוחדים ליין, חותם אחד, חותם בתוך חותם, לפי שעה, טרח ומזייף…
4.Summary table: the four cases of the seif
5.The Shach (5 ס״ק), the Taz (2 ס״ק) and the Ba’er Hetev (3 ס״ק) — the full apparatus
6.The Rama’s gloss (הגה): what is done once the rule has been broken
7.Contemporary cases: the tank sent for repair, the transport container, the returning cask
8.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The Mechaber’s text — the single seif
This siman has only one seif, and the Shulchan Arukh says so in its own heading:
ובו סעיף אחד. It falls into three movements. (1) One who ships
vessels set aside for wine by the hand of a non-Jew must seal them — with one seal, or with two according
to another view. (2) The Rama’s gloss: and if the rule was broken, what then?
(3) Back to the Mechaber: the case of large casks left with a craftsman.
The single seif — sealing wine vessels entrusted to a non-Jew
שהשולח כלי יין ביד עובד כוכבים צריך לחתמו. ובו סעיף אחד: השולח ביד עובד כוכבים כלים המיוחדים ליין צריך להחתימם בחותם אחד כדי שיהא ניכר אם הכניס בהם העובד כוכבים יין ויש מי שמצריך חותם בתוך חותם: הגה ואם עבר ושלחם בלא חותם יש להכשירו כפי ענין ההכשר אם היה של עובד כוכבים (טור ועיין ס״ק ג׳) אבל אם כבר עבר והשתמש בו אין לאסור בדיעבד (ועיין לעיל סימן קכ״ב) ואם הם חביות גדולות מותר להשהותן בבית העובד כוכבים אומן יום או יומים לתקנם דבכלי גדול כזה אין רגילים להשתמש בו לפי שעה:
Title of the siman:that one who sends a wine vessel by the hand of a non-Jew must seal it; and it contains a single seif.
One who sends, by the hand of a non-Jew, vessels set aside for wine must seal them with one seal, so that it be recognizable if the non-Jew has put wine into them.
And there is one who requires a seal within a seal.
Rama’s gloss:and if he transgressed and sent them without a seal, one kashers the vessel according to the manner of kashering that would apply had it belonged to a non-Jew (Tur; and see the Shach’s ס״ק ג). But if he already transgressed and used it — one does not forbid after the fact (and see above, siman 122).
And if they are large casks, it is permitted to leave them in the house of a non-Jewish craftsman for a day or two in order to repair them, for a vessel of such size is not commonly used for a short while.
The vessel is empty — and that is the whole novelty. In simanim 128 to 131 there was wine to
protect and a non-Jew who might touch it. Here there is nothing to touch: what is shipped are casks, skins
and jars. The danger is therefore no longer contact but use — that the carrier will
fill the cask with his own wine for the journey, empty it before delivery, and that the wood will keep the
taste. The seal does not prevent: it makes the thing visible.
The siman does not say the cask certainly becomes forbidden. It says that without a seal we can no longer
know, and that this particular doubt — because a wine vessel is מכניסו לקיום, a
storage vessel — was treated by the Sages as a certainty, even for a very short time.
2. Background — Rava and the jars of Harpanya
The whole siman flows from a single line of the Gemara, at the end of tractate Avodah Zarah. There we
see Rava himself shipping empty jars, and taking care to close them:
summary: Rava, when he would send jars to Harpanya, would turn them over on their mouths and seal them at their lower opening; for he held that anything that is a storage vessel — even for a short while — the Sages decreed concerning it.
“Even for a short while.” That is the decisive clause, and it belongs to the Gemara itself:
the ordinary law of vessels tolerates a utensil passing briefly through non-Jewish hands; for a
wine vessel, it does not. The Beit Yosef notes that this is how the Tur read it — and how far:
« ומשמע לרבינו דגזרו ביה היינו לומר שצריך הכשר כאילו ודאי הכניס בו יין » (בית יוסף יו״ד קל״ו)
summary: and it emerges from our master’s words [the Tur] that “the Sages decreed concerning it” means that the vessel requires kashering as though the non-Jew had certainly put wine into it.
The Tur, whom the Mechaber follows closely, first states the rule and its measure:
« השולח כלי ביד נכרי צריך להחתים שכל כלי ששהה ביד נכרי אפילו שעה אחת צריך הכשר כפי ההכשר שצריך אילו היה ישן בבית הנכרי ובא לקנותו ממנו » (טור יו״ד קל״ו)
summary: one who sends a vessel by the hand of a non-Jew must seal it, for any vessel that has remained in a non-Jew’s hands even one hour requires kashering — the kashering that would be required had it aged in the non-Jew’s house and one came to buy it from him.
He then reports the two possible readings of Rava’s act — and it is from here that the Mechaber’s
ויש מי שמצריך is born:
« ורש״י כתב שצריך חותם בתוך חותם והריב״ם כתב שדי בחותם אחד » (טור יו״ד קל״ו)
summary: and Rashi wrote that a seal within a seal is required, and the Rivam wrote that one seal suffices.
The Beit Yosef adds a bibliographer’s remark worth knowing: the name attached to the second view is
probably not the one printed in the editions of the Tur.
« יש נוסחא שכתוב בה הרמב״ן במקום הריב״ם והיא נכונה שלא מצאתי כן בשם הריב״ם » (בית יוסף יו״ד קל״ו)
summary: there is a version that reads “the Ramban” in place of “the Rivam”, and it is correct, for I have not found this in the name of the Rivam.
Finally, the last limb of the seif — the large casks — comes from the Sefer haTerumah, which the Tur
cites:
« ובספר התרומה התיר לשלוח חביות של עץ גדולים לבית נכרי אומן יום או יומים לתקנם דבכלי גדול כזה אין רגילין להשתמש בו לפי שעה » (טור יו״ד קל״ו)
summary: and in the Sefer haTerumah he permitted sending large wooden casks to the house of a non-Jewish craftsman for a day or two to repair them, for a vessel of such size is not commonly used for a short while.
What is feared? Not a libation, but use: that the cask should serve to carry the carrier’s own wine.
Why a seal rather than a flat prohibition? Because the seal makes the opening visible; and what would be seen is not done.
One seal or two? The whole ma’hloket of the siman hangs on the reading of two Aramaic words in the Gemara.
And if one forgot to seal? That is where the Rama comes in — and it is the only place in the siman where the Taz contradicts him head-on.
3. Key concepts of this siman
כֵּלִים הַמְיֻחָדִים לְיַיִן — vessels set aside for wine. Not any
utensil: a container whose customary use is to hold wine — cask, skin, jar, vat. The rule applies to these
alone, because only such a vessel gives the carrier the idea of using it.
מַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם — a storage vessel. A container in which wine
is kept over time, as opposed to the cup one drinks from. This is the category that triggers the Gemara’s
stringency: for it, אפילו לפי שעה גזרו ביה רבנן.
לְפִי שָׁעָה — for a short while. The Gemara’s expression. It
marks that duration does not save: a wine cask left one hour in non-Jewish hands is treated as though it had
stayed there. The Shach will say so in so many words.
חוֹתָם אֶחָד · חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם —
one seal · a seal within a seal. The first makes the opening visible; the second adds a
closure over the closure, so that two different marks would have to be forged to conceal the breach. The
Mechaber rules for one and reports the requirement of two.
טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף — “he takes the trouble and forges”. The Ran’s
phrase, reported by the Shach: a man will not take the trouble to counterfeit a seal for a small gain, but he
will for a large one. The whole question of how many seals reduces to measuring that gain.
הֶכְשֵׁר — kashering the vessel. Here, not a ritual purification
but the restoration of a container that may have absorbed forbidden wine: rinsing, filling and decanting, or
ageing, according to the material and the use — all of which is set out in siman 135.
חָבִיּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת — large casks. The last limb of the seif.
Their very size protects them: one does not fill a vessel of several hundred litres for two days. The reason
is explicit in the text — אין רגילים להשתמש בו לפי שעה.
4. Summary table — the four cases of the seif
Situation
What the seif says
Why
A wine vessel is shipped by a non-Jew
צריך להחתימם בחותם אחד
So that use would be visible
According to a second view
ויש מי שמצריך חותם בתוך חותם
The gain is large: one seal does not hold him back
Sent without a seal (Rama)
יש להכשירו כפי ענין ההכשר
The doubt is treated as a certainty
Already used without kashering (Rama)
אין לאסור בדיעבד
After the fact, what was done is not condemned
Large casks at the craftsman’s, a day or two
מותר להשהותן
אין רגילים להשתמש בו לפי שעה
Read the middle column downward: the siman descends from a requirement (seal it) to a
tolerance (do not condemn afterwards), and then to an outright exception (large casks). Three storeys, and a
single criterion governing all of them: is it plausible that this vessel was used?
5. The Shach, the Taz and the Ba’er Hetev
The apparatus of this siman is short, and it is given here in full: the Shach has
five ס״ק, the Taz two, the Ba’er Hetev three. The
Pitchei Teshuva, for his part, does not comment on this siman — so there is nothing to
report in his name.
The Shach — five entries
ס״ק א — one seal, after the fact
« כתב הב״ח ובדיעבד כדאי הם המתירין בחותם א׳ לסמוך עליהם וע״ל סימן ק״ל ס״ב » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק א)
summary: the Bach wrote that after the fact, those who permit with one seal are worthy of being relied upon; and see above, siman 130, seif 2.
ס״ק ב — why this siman is more demanding than simanim 118 and 130
« דהתם אין העובד כוכבים יכול להחליפו אלא ביין מבושל או בחומץ שהוא גרוע ממנו מעט שאם היה שבחו של זה מרובה ממנו היה חלופו ניכר ומיתפס עליו כגנב ומשום שבחא פורתא לא טרח ומזייף אבל כאן משום תשמיש מרובה טרח ומזייף. הר״ן » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ב)
summary: there, the non-Jew can only exchange the contents for cooked wine or vinegar, which is slightly inferior to his own — for if his own were of greater quality the substitution would be noticed and he would be taken for a thief; and for a small gain he does not take the trouble to forge. But here, because of substantial use, he does take the trouble and forges. So the Ran.
Here is the key to the whole siman, and it is strikingly economical: the number of seals is measured
by the gain. Where only a little is gained, one seal suffices to deter; here, where the whole use of
a cask for an entire journey is gained, more is needed.
ס״ק ג — one hour is enough
« ושהה אפילו שעה אחת ביד העובד כוכבים צריך הכשר כפי ענין כו׳ טור » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ג)
« וכ״כ ר׳ ירוחם דצריך הכשר אפי׳ לא שהה בידו אלא לפי שעה » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ג)
summary: and it remained even one hour in the non-Jew’s hands — it requires kashering according to the manner, etc.; so the Tur. And Rabbenu Yeruḥam wrote likewise, that it requires kashering even if it stayed in his hands only for a short while.
The same ס״ק closes off an escape one might be tempted to take — waiting twenty-four hours so that the
taste should become spoiling:
« אבל בכלי היין לא שייך נ״ט לפגם אפילו ישהנו כמה ימים וכדלקמן סימן קל״ז » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ג)
summary: but in a wine vessel, a spoiling taste is not applicable, even if he leaves it standing several days; and as will be said below in siman 137.
ס״ק ד — which kashering, exactly
« ועל הדרך שנתבאר סי׳ קל״ה » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ד)
In a single phrase the Shach refers to the siman that treats the matter in full. Siman 136 therefore says
nothing about the how: it says only that it is owed.
ס״ק ה — caution about the large casks
« מיהו כתבו יש פוסקים דלכתחלה יש ליזהר בכל מאי דאפשר וכ״כ האחרונים » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ה)
summary: nevertheless, some decisors wrote that a priori one should be careful in whatever is possible; and so the Acharonim wrote.
The Taz — two entries
ס״ק א — which kashering does the Rama’s gloss speak of?
« פי׳ אם היה של עובד כוכבים מתחילה וקנאו ישראל ממנו ואין בכלל זה כלי חרס דאם תחילת תשמישו ביד עובד כוכבים צריך עירוי אע״פ שאין מכניסו לקיום ואילו בזה שהיה תחלה של ישראל א״צ אלא כמבואר סימן קל״ה סעיף ד׳ » (ט״ז יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק א)
summary: that is, if it belonged to a non-Jew from the outset and a Jew bought it from him. And earthenware is not included in this rule: for if its first use was in a non-Jew’s hands it requires decanting, even though it is not a storage vessel; whereas here, where it first belonged to a Jew, it requires only what is set out in siman 135, seif 4.
The Taz comes to narrow the Rama’s gloss. “As though it had belonged to a non-Jew” does not
mean treating it like a utensil bought at a non-Jewish market. It aims at a definite case, and it does not
cover earthenware, which has a regime of its own.
ס״ק ב — the Taz contradicts the Rama
« לעיל סי׳ קכ״ב סעיף ט׳ הארכנו דלא קי״ל כן אלא אף בדיעבד אסור » (ט״ז יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ב)
summary: above, in siman 122 seif 9, we expounded at length that we do not rule so; rather, even after the fact it is forbidden.
This is the one head-on disagreement in the siman, and it bears on the case that arises most often in
practice: the vessel one has already used without kashering it. The Rama does not condemn; the Taz
does. Level 4 returns to it.
The Ba’er Hetev — three entries
The Ba’er Hetev here condenses the two great commentators, and he is useful because he sets the
disagreement down in black and white.
« הטעם דמשום תשמיש מרובה טרח ומזייף וכתב הב״ח דבדיעבד כדאי הם המתירים בחותם א׳ לסמוך עליהם וע״ל סימן ק״ל ס״ב » (באר היטב יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק א)
summary: the reason is that because of substantial use he takes the trouble and forges; and the Bach wrote that after the fact, those who permit with one seal are worthy of being relied upon; and see above, siman 130, seif 2.
« גם פסק דאפילו בדיעבד יש לאסור בכל הכלים דלא כרמ״א וע״ל סי׳ קכ״ב ס״ט » (באר היטב יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ב)
summary: [the Taz] further ruled that even after the fact one should forbid in all vessels, contrary to the Rama; and see above, siman 122, seif 9.
His third entry repeats word for word the Shach’s caution about the large casks, placing it to the
account of the Acharonim (באר היטב יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ג).
6. The Rama’s gloss — after the fact
The Rama intervenes only once, and he deals exclusively with what the Mechaber leaves blank:
what is done when the rule was not followed? His answer has two storeys, and they must not
be conflated.
First storey — the vessel
A cask sent without a seal must be kashered; and the mode of kashering is the one that
would be applied to a vessel coming from a non-Jew. This is no gratuitous stringency: it is the direct
application of the Gemara’s גזרו ביה רבנן, as the Tur read it.
Second storey — what has already been put into it
If one has already used the vessel without kashering it, the Rama writes
אין לאסור בדיעבד: one does not forbid after the fact. The Shach, at ס״ק ג, gives
this leniency a justification that is not mere laxity — he distinguishes the vessel, which remains subject to
kashering, from the food, which has certainly absorbed nothing:
« דכיון דלא היה ביד עובד כוכבים אלא לפי שעה א״כ ודאי לא נבלע איסור בכלי וגם לא נשתמש בו בודאי ודי שגזרו שהכלי צריך הכשר דלפי שעה חשיב כמכניסו לקיום אבל ודאי בדיעבד המאכל מותר » (ש״ך יו״ד קל״ו ס״ק ג)
summary: since it was in the non-Jew’s hands only for a short while, it is certain that no forbidden substance was absorbed into the vessel, nor is it certain that he used it at all; it is enough, then, that they decreed the vessel to require kashering, since for a short while it counts as a storage vessel — but after the fact the food is certainly permitted.
Keep the structure in mind: the decree bears on the vessel, not on its contents. That is what
lets the Rama be demanding upstream and lenient downstream without contradicting himself — and it is exactly
the point on which the Taz refuses to follow him.
7. Contemporary cases
Case 1 — The tank sent out for repair
This is the last limb of the seif, almost literally. A vat or a large cask entrusted to a cooper for a day or
two: the Mechaber permits it, and gives the reason — a container of that size is not put to passing use. The
Shach (ס״ק ה) adds the point that matters in practice: this is a permission, not a recommendation, and
a priori one guards oneself as far as one can.
Case 2 — The small cask, or the skin
The permission for large casks does not extend to them, and for the very reason that grounds it: a small
container can be used for a moment. They therefore fall under the general rule of the seif: seal, or
kasher.
Case 3 — The cask that comes back without its seal
The Rama’s case. Two distinct questions, and they must never be merged: (1) must the vessel
be kashered? — yes, according to siman 135 (Shach ס״ק ד); (2) is what has already been
poured into it lost? — the Rama says no, the Taz (ס״ק ב) says yes. The first question is not in dispute; the
second is the one to put to a Rav.
Case 4 — One hour’s stop: does it count?
Yes, and this is the most counter-intuitive point of the siman. The Shach (ס״ק ג), in the name of the Tur,
the Rosh, the Mordechai, Rabbenu Yeruḥam and the Rashba, writes that a single hour in non-Jewish hands
suffices to require kashering, because a wine vessel is מכניסו לקיום. And he shuts
the escape hatch one would look for elsewhere: waiting for the taste to become spoiling does not work on a
wine vessel.
8. Summary of Siman 136
In one sentence: a wine cask is never empty of its status — it travels with the
possibility that someone will use it, and the seal is there only to make that possibility visible.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
To remember
What is covered
כלים המיוחדים ליין
Containers set aside for wine, even empty
What must be done
צריך להחתימם בחותם אחד
One seal — two according to another view
The reason
כדי שיהא ניכר
The seal does not prevent: it reveals
The duration
אפילו לפי שעה
One hour is enough to create the obligation
Without a seal
יש להכשירו
Kashering according to siman 135
Already used
אין לאסור בדיעבד
The Rama permits; the Taz forbids
Large casks
מותר להשהותן … יום או יומים
Size deters passing use
Comprehension questions
The vessel shipped is empty. What exactly is feared, and why does a seal answer it?
Why do simanim 118 and 130 make do with one seal where two would be wanted here? Which phrase of the Shach says so?
One hour in non-Jewish hands: why does that suffice, when the general law of utensils is gentler?
The Rama’s gloss has two storeys. Which are they, and which of the two does the Taz refuse?
Why do large casks fall outside the rule, and how far does that permission go according to the Shach?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the ḥakira of the seal measured by the gain, the reading of Rava’s act, the ma’hloket over לפי שעה between the Tur and the Ran, and the Rama / Taz disagreement over בדיעבד
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן קל״ו · Level 1 — Introduction · שהשולח כלי יין ביד עובד כוכבים צריך לחתמו daattorah.com