Siman 140 is a single seif — the Shulchan Arukh announces it itself:
ובו סעיף אחד. An idolatrous object has become mixed with permitted objects, and no one
knows any longer which one it is. The ordinary rule of mixtures — a forbidden item is nullified in a majority — does
not apply: idolatry forbids in any quantity whatsoever. The siman then states, precisely, the two
cases in which the mixture is released nonetheless.
Subject: The idol, its appurtenances and its offerings mixed with permitted objects — אוסרים בכל שהוא, ספק ספיקא, נפל לים, שנים שנים Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״מ
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The Mechaber’s text: the single seif
2.Background: the Mishnah of Avodah Zarah, the ring of Zevachim (זבחים ע״ד ע״א), the Tur and the Beit Yosef
3.Key concepts: אוסרים בכל שהוא, תערובת ראשון ושני, ספק ספיקא, נאבד מן העולם, שנים שנים
4.Summary table: the four situations of the seif
5.The Shach (2 ס״ק), the Taz (1 ס״ק) and the Ba’er Hetev (1 ס״ק) — the full apparatus
6.The Rambam and the second view: one ring into the sea, or two
7.Contemporary cases
8.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The Mechaber’s text — the single seif
The siman reads in four movements. (1) The principle: the idol, its appurtenances and its
offerings forbid the mixture in any quantity whatsoever. (2) First way out: an object of the first
mixture fell into a second, then an object of that second into a third — the third is permitted. (3)
Second way: an object of the first mixture has vanished from the world — the rest is permitted, two by two, and no
single person may benefit from all of them. (4) A second view requires that two objects have vanished.
The single seif — the mixed idol, and the two ways out
דין תקרובת עבודת כוכבים שנתערב. ובו סעיף אחד: אלילים ומשמשיה ותקרובתה אוסרים בכל שהוא שאם נתערב אחר מהם אפי׳ באלף כולן אסורו׳ ואם א׳ מהתערובו׳ הראשון נתערב בשנים אחרים ונפל מהג׳ אחד לב׳ אחרים הרי אלו האחרים מותרים וכן אם אחד מהתערובות הראשון נפל לים או נשרף בענין שנאבד מהעולם כל הנשארים מותרים ליהנות בהם שנים שנים ביחד אבל לא האחד לבדו ובלבד שלא יהנה אדם אחד מכולם ויש מי שאוסר אלא אם כן נפלו שתים לים הגדול או נשרפים (וע״ל סימן ק״י):
Heading of the siman:the law of an idolatrous offering that became mixed; and it contains a single seif.
Idols, their appurtenances and their offerings forbid in any quantity whatsoever: if one of them became mixed with others, even with a thousand, all are forbidden.
And if one of the objects of the first mixture became mixed into two others, and from those three one fell into two others, these latter are permitted.
Likewise, if one of the objects of the first mixture fell into the sea or was burnt, so that it vanished from the world, all the remaining ones are permitted for benefit, two by two together, but not one on its own; provided that a single person does not benefit from all of them.
And there is one who forbids unless two fell into the Great Sea or were burnt (and see above, siman 110).
What is new here is what is missing. Everywhere else in Yoreh De’ah, a forbidden item mixed with
permitted ones ends up nullified — in a majority, in sixty. Not the idol: it belongs to the small class of things that
אוסרים בכל שהוא. So the siman does not ask how much permitted matter is needed to
nullify the forbidden item; it asks when one may say that the forbidden object is no longer there.
Both ways of the seif rest on a single idea: a double doubt (ספק ספיקא).
In the third mixture, it is already doubtful that the forbidden item left the first, and doubtful again that it left
the second. When an object has vanished from the world, we say: perhaps that was the one — and every remaining pair
certainly contains at least one permitted object.
2. Background — the Mishnah, the ring, and the Tur
The principle comes from the Mishnah that closes tractate Avodah Zarah. It lists the prohibitions that are never
nullified, and idolatry stands second on the list:
summary: Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha in the name of Rav — an idolatrous ring that became mixed with a hundred rings, and one of them fell into the Great Sea: all are permitted, for we say that the one which fell is the forbidden one.
The logic is not a proof, it is a presumption. Nothing says the ring that fell was the bad one. But
since the forbidden item was already drowned in a majority, one further doubt suffices to set it aside — this is what
is called a ספק ספיקא. And because it is only a presumption, the Gemara attaches a reservation
to it, which the seif takes up word for word:
summary: but did Rabbi Elazar not say that Rabbi Eliezer permitted only two by two, and not one by one? — He answered him: it is indeed of two that I speak.
Against Rav, Shmuel refuses any leniency in matters of idolatry:
summary: a doubt of idolatry is forbidden, a double doubt is permitted. How so? An idolatrous cup that fell into a storeroom full of cups — all are forbidden; one of them separated off into ten thousand others, and from those ten thousand into ten thousand others — these are permitted.
The Tur states the rule, tying it expressly to the common law of prohibitions:
« האליל ומשמשיה ותקרובתה אסורין בכל שהוא כגון כוס או טבעת או צורה של אליל שנתערבו אפילו באלף כולן אסורות » (טור יו״ד ק״מ)
« אבל ספק ספיקא מותר כמו בשאר איסורין » (טור יו״ד ק״מ)
« לפיכך אם אחד מתערובות הראשון נתערב בב׳ אחרים מותרין » (טור יו״ד ק״מ)
summary: the idol, its appurtenances and its offerings are forbidden in any quantity whatsoever — thus a cup, a ring or an idolatrous figure mixed even with a thousand, all are forbidden; but a double doubt is permitted as with other prohibitions; therefore if one of the objects of the first mixture became mixed into two others, those are permitted.
Read the Tur’s last sentence again: he permits from the second mixture. The Mechaber, for his
part, permitted only the third. This is the one real divergence of the siman, and it is the Shach who points it out in ס״ק ב.
The Beit Yosef sets three limits which the seif assumes without writing them:
« ופסקו הפוסקים כרב דהלכתא כוותיה באיסורי » (בית יוסף יו״ד ק״מ)
« דהיינו דוקא כשמיעוט התערובות הראשון נתערב עם אחרים אבל אם רוב התערובות הראשון נתערב עם אחרים אין זה ספק ספיקא ולפיכך כולם אסורים » (בית יוסף יו״ד ק״מ)
« ונתבאר שם עוד דהא דתלינן להקל בספק ספיקא דוקא כשתערובות הראשון מותר מן התורה כגון שנתבטל ברוב » (בית יוסף יו״ד ק״מ)
summary: the poskim ruled like Rav, for the halakha follows him in matters of prohibitions; and this only when a minority of the first mixture became mixed with others — if it was the majority, there is no double doubt and all is forbidden; and one relies on the double doubt only if the first mixture was permitted by Torah law, for instance because the forbidden item was nullified there in a majority.
Why is the idol not nullified? Because the Mishnah lists it among the things that forbid in any quantity whatsoever.
Then how can a mixture ever become permitted again? Through a double doubt — not through nullification.
Why “two by two”? Because the presumption is fragile: it is applied only on condition that each pair contains one certainly permitted object.
One ring fallen, or two? That is the Rambam’s reading against the Tur’s — and the Mechaber reports both.
3. Key concepts of this siman
אוֹסְרִים בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא — they forbid in any quantity whatsoever.
The forbidden object is nullified in no majority, however large. This is the regime of the idol, its appurtenances,
its offerings — and, according to the Shach, its ornaments (נויה).
תַּעֲרוֹבֶת רִאשׁוֹן · שֵׁנִי · שְׁלִישִׁי — first, second, third mixture.
The first certainly contains the forbidden object. The second receives one object from the first — perhaps the
bad one. The third receives an object from the second. The Mechaber permits the third; the Tur, the Rambam and the Shach already permit the second.
סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא — the double doubt. Two independent uncertainties which, put
end to end, make the prohibition improbable enough to be disregarded. The Tur insists: this mechanism holds for idolatry
as for other prohibitions — against Shmuel’s view.
נֶאֱבַד מִן הָעוֹלָם — vanished from the world. Fallen into the sea, burnt: an
object that will never come back. That is what allows one to say הך דנפל היינו דאיסורא — the
one that fell was the forbidden one. An object merely lost or sold does not suffice.
שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם — two by two. Rabbi Eliezer’s condition, taken up by Rav
Nachman and by the seif: one benefits from the remaining objects only in pairs, never from an isolated object, and never
one person from all — siman 110 seif 7 gives the reason: in each pair, one of the two is certainly permitted.
4. Summary table — the four situations of the seif
Situation
What the seif says
Why
An idolatrous object mixed with a thousand
כולן אסורו׳
The idol is not nullified
An object of the 1st mixture into two others, then one of the three into two others
הרי אלו האחרים מותרים
Double doubt
An object of the 1st mixture fell into the sea or was burnt
כל הנשארים מותרים … שנים שנים
We presume it was the forbidden one — in pairs only, and not all to one person
According to the second view
אלא אם כן נפלו שתים
The Rambam reads the Gemara differently
Two ways, one idea. Whether the forbidden object was diluted by a second passage, or
may have vanished, in both cases it is not nullified — we simply cease to know where it is. That is why both
ways carry the same reservations: a minority only, and a first mixture permitted by Torah law.
5. The Shach, the Taz and the Ba’er Hetev
The apparatus of this siman is brief, and it is presented here in full: the Shach has two ס״ק, the
Taz one, the Ba’er Hetev one. The Pitchei Teshuva does not comment on this
siman, and there are no Nekudot HaKesef on it.
The Shach — two entries
ס״ק א — the appurtenances, and the ornaments
« ונויה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״מ ס״ק א)
summary: “its appurtenances” — and its ornaments. The Shach widens the rule by one word: what adorns the idol follows the regime of what serves it.
ס״ק ב — the second mixture is permitted
« מותרים כ״כ הטור וכ״כ הרמב״ם פ״ז מהל׳ עבודת כוכבים והמחבר שלא התיר אלא התערובות הג׳ אזיל לטעמיה שבכסף משנה שם האריך להקשות ממ״ש הרמב״ם פרק ט״ז מהל׳ מ״א גבי רמוני בדן ושאר דברים החשובים דלא שרו אלא התערובת ג׳ והבין שדבריו סותרין זא״ז » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״מ ס״ק ב)
summary: they are permitted — so the Tur, and so the Rambam in chapter 7 of the laws of idolatry. And the Mechaber, who permitted only the third mixture, follows his own path: in the Kesef Mishneh he objected at length from what the Rambam writes in chapter 16 of the laws of forbidden foods, regarding the pomegranates of Badan and the other important objects, which are permitted only at the third mixture — and he understood the Rambam’s words to contradict one another.
« ולעיל סימן ק״י ס״ח בדברים החשובים פסק המחבר דלא שרי אלא התערובות הג׳ ולזה אסר גם כאן התערובות השני » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״מ ס״ק ב)
« אבל כבר כתבתי לעיל סימן ק״י ס״ק נ״א דדברי הרמב״ם הם ברורים ואינם סותרים זה את זה כלל ובכאן שרי התערובות השני לכ״ע » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״מ ס״ק ב)
summary: and above, in siman 110 seif 8, for important objects, the Mechaber ruled that only the third mixture is permitted — which is why he forbade the second here too. But I have already written in siman 110 ס״ק נ״א that the Rambam’s words are clear and do not contradict each other at all; and here, the second mixture is permitted according to all.
The point of the whole siman. The Mechaber aligned the idol with the “important objects” of siman 110,
where he requires a third mixture. The Shach separates the two: for the idol, the Rambam himself permits from the second
mixture, and the contradiction the Kesef Mishneh thought it saw does not exist. Verdict: שרי התערובות השני לכ״ע.
The Taz — one entry
ס״ק א — it is all in siman 110
« זה נתבאר סי׳ ק״י ס״ח גם מה שכתוב כאן שאסור להנות לאחד מכולם נתבאר שם » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״מ ס״ק א)
summary: this was explained in siman 110 seif 8; likewise what is written here — that it is forbidden for one person to benefit from all — was explained there.
The Taz thus refers to the siman of important objects. There one reads, for the third mixture:
« דבר שאינו בטל מחמת חשיבותו שנתערב באחרים ונפל מהתערובות הזאת אחד לשנים אחרים ונפל מן השלשה אחד לשנים אחרים הרי אלו האחרים מותרים שהרי האחד של תערובות הראשונה בטל ברוב » (שו״ע יו״ד ק״י:ח)
summary: an object that is not nullified because of its importance, which became mixed with others; from that mixture one fell into two others, and of the three one fell into two others — these latter are permitted, since the object of the first mixture is nullified in the majority.
And, for the rule of pairs and the Rama’s gloss completing it:
« ודוקא כשאוכל הנשארות שתים שתים ביחד דממה נפשך איכא חדא דהיתרא אבל לאוכלם אחת אחת אסור » (שו״ע יו״ד ק״י:ז)
« ואפילו לאכלם שתים שתים אסור לאדם אחד לאכול את כולם » (שו״ע יו״ד ק״י:ז)
summary: and this only if he eats the remaining ones two by two together — for either way one of the two is permitted — but to eat them one by one is forbidden. Gloss: and even two by two, it is forbidden for one person to eat all of them.
The Ba’er Hetev — one entry
« כ׳ הש״ך דהמחבר לטעמיה אזיל דס״ל בסי׳ ק״י דלא שרי אלא תערובות הג׳ אבל כבר כתבתי שם דבכאן שרי התערובות השני לכ״ע » (באר היטב יו״ד ק״מ ס״ק א)
summary: the Shach wrote that the Mechaber follows his own path, holding in siman 110 that only the third mixture is permitted; but I have already written there that here the second mixture is permitted according to all.
6. The Rambam and the second view — one ring into the sea, or two
The seif closes with a ויש מי שאוסר: some accept the second way only if two
objects have vanished. The Beit Yosef identifies this view: it is the Rambam.
summary: an idolatrous ring mixed with several rings, and two of them fell into the Great Sea — all are permitted, for I say that that ring was among the two.
Where does this “two” come from? From Rav Nachman’s own answer — אנא תרתי קאמינא — which
the Rambam reads as bearing on the number of vanished objects, not on the manner of benefiting from the rest:
« משמע שהוא סובר דע״כ לא שרי רב נחמן אלא בנפלו שתים וכדאיתא בגמרא דאמר ר״נ אנא תרתי קאמינא » (בית יוסף יו״ד ק״מ)
« ולפ״ז הא דקאמר ונפלה אחת מהן לאו דוקא אחת דהא לא שרי אלא בנפלו שתים א״נ מאי אחת זוג אחת » (בית יוסף יו״ד ק״מ)
summary: it appears that he holds that Rav Nachman permitted only if two fell, as it is stated in the Gemara — Rav Nachman said: it is of two that I speak. And according to this, “one of them fell” is not to be taken literally, since he permits only if two fell; or else: what is “one”? — one pair.
The Mechaber first writes the Tur’s reading (a single fallen ring suffices, and one benefits from the rest two by two),
then reports the Rambam’s as a second view. The seif does not decide between them; level 4 says what is done with it.
The same chapter of the Rambam gives the way of the second mixture in one sentence, and it is this that the Shach sets against the Mechaber:
« סְפֵק עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים אָסוּר, סְפֵק סְפֵקָהּ מֻתָּר » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ז׳ הלכה י׳)
« פֵּרַשׁ כּוֹס אֶחָד מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת וְנָפַל לְכוֹסוֹת שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ז׳ הלכה י׳)
summary: a doubt of idolatry is forbidden, a double doubt is permitted; a cup separated from the mixture and fell into two cups — these are permitted.
7. Contemporary cases
Case 1 — The figurine in the lot
A lot of art objects bought in bulk contains a figure that was worshipped, and after unpacking no one knows which one.
The seif is explicit: the whole lot is forbidden for benefit, whatever its size — the idol is not nullified.
Case 2 — The object that left the lot
One object of that lot was put into a second lot, and from there one object into a third. The third is permitted
according to the Mechaber; the second already is according to the Tur, the Rambam and the Shach (ס״ק ב). The Beit
Yosef’s condition: it is a minority of the first lot that moved, not its majority.
Case 3 — The destroyed object
One object of the lot burnt in a fire. The rest is permitted — to be benefited from two by two, never one on its own,
and never all of it by one person. According to the Rambam, two objects would have to have vanished; level 4 returns to this.
Case 4 — The mislaid object
One object of the lot was simply lost, or sold to a stranger. That is not נאבד מן העולם: it
still exists somewhere. The second way does not open.
8. Summary of Siman 140
In one sentence: the idol is never nullified in a mixture; but a double doubt — a second passage, or
the vanishing of an object — allows one to say that the forbidden item is no longer there, provided one benefits in pairs.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
Remember
What is covered
אלילים ומשמשיה ותקרובתה
Idol, appurtenances, offerings — and ornaments (Shach)
The principle
אוסרים בכל שהוא
Never nullified, even in a thousand
First way
ונפל מהג׳ אחד לב׳ אחרים
Third mixture per the Mechaber — second per the Shach
Second way
נפל לים או נשרף
The vanished object was the forbidden one
The reservation
שנים שנים ביחד
In pairs, and not all to one person
The second view
אלא אם כן נפלו שתים
The Rambam requires two vanished objects
Comprehension questions
Why does the siman never speak of “sixty” or of “majority” to release the mixture?
What is the difference between the first way (second passage) and the second (vanishing)? What do they have in common?
The Mechaber requires a third mixture; the Shach permits from the second. Where does the Mechaber’s position come from, and why does the Shach reject it?
What does אנא תרתי קאמינא mean according to the Tur, and according to the Rambam?
Why does a merely lost object not open the second way?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the ḥakira of the double doubt on a prohibition that is never nullified, Rav against Shmuel, the Mechaber / Shach ma’hloket over the second mixture, and the reading of תרתי
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן ק״מ · Level 1 — Introduction · דין תקרובת עבודת כוכבים שנתערב daattorah.com