Two seifim: the money that follows the idol, and the money that does not
יורה דעה · סימן קמ״ד
דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מַה דִּינָם
🌱 Introductory level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
Siman 144 consists of two seifim — the Shulchan Arukh announces it itself: ובו ב׳ סעיפים. The idol is forbidden for benefit; the siman asks what becomes of its price. The answer depends on who sold: the Jew, whose money takes the idol’s place; the non-Jew, whose money is permitted — on one condition. The second seif adds a case of sale on credit.
Subject: The price of the idol — והיית חרם כמוהו, דמים מותרים, מוקצין לאלילים, הקפה Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קמ״ד
Compilation: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The Mechaber’s text: the two seifim
2.Background: the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (ס״ד ע״א, ל״ג ע״א), the Rosh and Rabbeinu Tam, Tosafot (ס״ב ע״ב), the Tur and the Beit Yosef
3.Key concepts: דמי עבודת כוכבים, והיית חרם כמוהו, מוקצין לאלילים, רוצה בקיומו, הקפה, משיכת עובד כוכבים קונה
4.The summary table: the situations of the two seifim
5.The Shach (4 ס״ק), the Taz (3 ס״ק), the Baer Hetev (3 ס״ק) and the Nekudot HaKesef — the complete apparatus
6.The Rambam: the forbidden price and the source in the verse
7.Contemporary cases
8.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The Mechaber’s text — the two seifim
The siman reads in three movements. (1) The Jew who sold an idol: the money is forbidden. (2) The non-Jew who sold his own, even to be worshipped: the money is permitted — provided it is known he sold for his needs; otherwise one fears he means to buy other idols, and the money is set aside for them. (3) According to some, the Jew who sold forbidden things on credit to a non-Jew who resold them before paying: the money is permitted after the fact.
Seif 1 — the price of the idol: the Jew and the non-Jew
דמי עבודת כוכבים מה דינם. ובו ב' סעיפים: דמי האליל ביד ישראל שמכרה אסורים אבל אם מכרה עובד כוכבים אפילו מכרה כדי לעבדה הדמים מותרים ודווקא שהדבר ידוע שמכרה לעשות צרכיו בדמיה אבל אם אינו ידוע יש לחוש שמא מכרה לקנות בדמיה אלילים אחרים והרי המעות מוקצין לאלילים ואסורים (וע״ל סוף סימן קל״ב):
Title of the siman:what is the law of the idol’s price; and it has two seifim.
The price of the idol, in the hands of the Jew who sold it, is forbidden. But if a non-Jew sold it, even if he sold it to be worshipped, the money is permitted.
And this only when it is known that he sold it to provide for his needs with its price; but if it is not known, there is reason to fear that he sold it to buy other idols with its price — and the money is then set aside for idols, and forbidden (and see above, end of siman 132).
Two reasons to forbid, and they are not alike. For the Jew, the money is forbidden by nature: the verse makes it “like the idol”. For the non-Jew, the money is never forbidden by nature — it is forbidden only out of fear, when one does not know what he meant to do with it. The whole siman rests on this difference.
Seif 2 — the sale on credit, and the resale before payment
יש אומרי׳ שאם ביד ישראל יין נסך ואלילי׳ ומכרם לעובד כוכבים בהקפה (פירוש בהמתנה) ומכרם העובד כוכבים לאחר קודם שיפרע לזה הישראל הדמים מותרים בדיעבד:
There are those who say that if a Jew has in his possession libation wine and idols, and he sold them to a non-Jew on credit (that is, with deferred payment), and the non-Jew resold them to another before paying that Jew, the money is permitted after the fact.
Seif 2 is not an exception to seif 1: it is its application. The Jew’s money is forbidden because it replaces the idol. But if, when the money arrives, the idol has already left the non-Jew’s hands — resold to a third party —, the money no longer replaces anything: it pays a debt. That is why it is permitted, and only after the fact.
The key word of seif 1 is ידוע — it is known. The non-Jew sold his idol; one does not ask why the buyer bought it, one asks what the seller means to do with the money. If it is known to be for his needs, the money is permitted; if it is not known, it is set aside for idols.
2. Background — the Gemara, the Rosh, Tosafot
The question is asked as such in the Gemara, and Rav Nachman answers it:
summary: they went back and sat and asked: the price of an idol in a non-Jew’s hands — what of it? Does the idol seize its price in a non-Jew’s hands, or not? Rav Nachman told them: it is reasonable that the price of an idol in a non-Jew’s hands is permitted.
Rav Nachman’s proof is a baraita, which siman 132 will take up:
summary: a Jew to whom a non-Jew owed a hundred zuz, and the non-Jew sold an idol and brought him the money, or libation wine and brought him the money — it is permitted; but if he said to him “wait until I sell an idol and I will bring you”, “libation wine and I will bring you” — it is forbidden. Rav Sheshet explains the second part: because he is then like one who wants the idol to continue to exist.
But two other sugyot seem to say the opposite — the Jew returning from an idolatrous fair, and the city in festival:
summary: the Sages taught: a non-Jew going to the fair, whether going or returning, is permitted; a Jew going to the fair, going he is permitted, returning he is forbidden. — And elsewhere: the Sages did not concern themselves for them about the idol’s price.
The Rosh raises the contradiction, and Rabbeinu Tam resolves it — this is the line of the Tur and the Mechaber:
« וכתב הרא״ש קשה דהכא משמע דדמי אליל ביד נכרי אסורים » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« א״ר נחמן דמי אליל ביד עכו״ם מותרין » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« וטעמא משום דדוקא גבי ישראל דמי אליל אסורין דנפקא לן מקרא לקמן בפ׳ רבי ישמעאל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« והיית חרם כמוהו כל שאתה מהייה ממנו הרי הוא כמוהו אבל עכו״ם שמכר אליל אף ע״פ שמכרה לעבדה חליפיה מותרים » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« ותירץ ר״ת דודאי היכא שמכרה העכו״ם ופרע בחובו הדמים מותרים דחליפי אליל אסורים מוהיית חרם כמוהו והאי לא שייך בעכו״ם » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« אבל הכא ובפ״ק איירי שהמעות עדיין ביד העכו״ם ולא מכרה כדי לפרוע חובו ויש לחוש שמא מכרה לקנות אליל אחרת והרי המעות מוקצין לאליל ואסורים » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
summary: the Rosh asks — here, the price of an idol in a non-Jew’s hands seems forbidden, while later Rav Nachman permits it; and the reason is that only the price of the Jew’s idol is forbidden, from the verse “you would be anathema like it” — whatever you bring to life from it is like it —, whereas the non-Jew who sold his idol, even to be worshipped, its substitutes are permitted. Rabbeinu Tam answers: where the non-Jew sold it and paid his debt, the money is permitted, for the idol’s substitutes are forbidden only by the verse, which does not concern the non-Jew; but in the two other sugyot the money is still in his hands and he did not sell to pay a debt — one fears he sold to buy another idol, and the money is set aside for the idol.
The Beit Yosef reports two other paths — the Rif, who sets aside the sugya of the fair, and the Razah, who reconciles them — and concludes that the Tur follows the Rosh:
« ורב אלפס ז״ל כתב דהא דפירקין הכא גבי חמרא זבין גלימא זבין לא צריכנא ליה דהא אסיקנא בפרק השוכר לקמן דדמי אליל ביד עכו״ם מותר » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« והר״ן כתב בפ״ק שהרז״ה הטיל פשרה בין שמועות הללו דלכתחלה אסור להתעסק עמו כל היכא דאיכא למיחש בדמי אליל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« אבל אם היה ישראל נושה בו ומכר אליל או יין נסך והביא לו כיון שאינו תופס דמיו ביד עכו״ם אלא ביד ישראל מותר ישראל ליפרע ממנו ולהציל מידו את חובו אבל לכתחלה ובידוע גזרו בעכו״ם אטו ישראל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
« והרמב״ן ז״ל הקשה עליו והר״ן ז״ל טען בעד הרז״ה ז״ל ודברי רבינו הם כשיטת הרא״ש ז״ל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
summary: the Rif writes that we do not need the sugya “he sold wine, he sold a cloak”, since the conclusion, in the chapter “One who hires”, is that the price of an idol in a non-Jew’s hands is permitted. And the Ran writes that the Razah proposed a compromise: a priori, it is forbidden to deal with him wherever one may fear an idol’s price; but if the Jew was his creditor and he sold an idol or libation wine and brought him the money, the Jew may collect and rescue his debt — a priori and when it is known, they decreed for the non-Jew on account of the Jew. The Ramban objected, the Ran defended him, and the Tur’s words follow the Rosh.
Seif 2 comes from elsewhere: from Tosafot on lending shemitah produce, from which Rabbi Elchanan derived a practical rule, and the Ri an extension:
« ומכאן דקדק הרב רבי אלחנן הלכה למעשה שאם יש ביד ישראל יין נסך ועבודת כוכבים ודברים האסורים ומכרן לעובד כוכבים בהקפה ומכרם העובד כוכבים לאחר קודם שיתן לזה הישראל הדמים שהדמים מותרין בדיעבד ואע״פ שהאיסור עדיין ישנו בעולם » (תוספות עבודה זרה ס״ב ע״ב ד״ה יאות הן עבדין)
« ועוד הוסיף רבינו יצחק שאפי׳ לא מכרם העובד כוכבים אלא כיון שמשכם אצלו קודם שיתן הדמים דקי״ל » (תוספות עבודה זרה ס״ב ע״ב ד״ה יאות הן עבדין)
« משיכת עובד כוכבים קונה והוי כמו בא עליה ואח״כ נתן דאתננה מותר כיון שלא היה ברשותה בשעת הביאה וה״נ לא היתה עבודת כוכבים ברשותו בשעת פריעת המעות » (תוספות עבודה זרה ס״ב ע״ב ד״ה יאות הן עבדין)
summary: from here Rabbi Elchanan derived, for practice, that if a Jew has libation wine, an idol and forbidden things, and sold them to a non-Jew on credit, and the non-Jew resold them to another before paying that Jew, the money is permitted after the fact, although the forbidden thing still exists in the world. And the Ri added that even if the non-Jew did not resell them, once he drew them to himself before paying — for we hold that a non-Jew’s “drawing” acquires — it is like one who had relations with a woman and afterwards gave her her fee: that fee is permitted, since it was not in her possession at the time of the act; here too, the idol was not in the Jew’s possession at the time of payment.
Reread the two opinions in Tosafot: Rabbi Elchanan requires that the non-Jew resold; the Ri is content that he drew it to himself. The Mechaber writes the first here — and that is what the Shach and the Taz will note, since in siman 132 he reported the second.
Where does the prohibition of the price for the Jew come from? From the verse והיית חרם כמוהו — what he derives from the idol is like it.
Why is the non-Jew not concerned? Because the verse does not address him; his money is forbidden only out of fear, when one does not know what he will do with it.
What does Rabbeinu Tam resolve? The contradiction of the sugyot: money already paid for a debt, permitted; money still in his hands with no known purpose, set aside for idols.
Why does the sale on credit change everything? Because at the time of payment, the idol is no longer in the hands of the one who pays.
3. Key concepts of this siman
דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים — the price of the idol. The money received in exchange for an idol. For the Jew who sold, it is forbidden for benefit like the idol itself; for the non-Jew, it is forbidden only out of fear.
וְהָיִיתָ חֵרֶם כָּמֹהוּ — “you would be anathema like it”. The verse from which the Sages derive: whatever you bring to life from the idol is like it. It is the source of the prohibition of the price — and it is a verse addressed to Israel, hence the permission for the non-Jew (Taz, Shach).
מֻקְצִין לַאֲלִילִים — set aside for idols. The money the non-Jew perhaps intends for buying other idols. It is not “like the idol”; it is forbidden because one does not know — and as soon as it is known that he sold for his needs, the fear falls away.
רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ — he wants it to continue to exist. Rav Sheshet’s reason for the case “wait until I sell the idol”: the Jew then wishes the idol to exist, in order to be paid. This is the subject of the end of siman 132, to which the seif refers.
הַקָּפָה — the sale on credit — the Mechaber glosses it himself: פירוש בהמתנה, with deferred payment. It is this delay that allows the idol to leave the non-Jew’s hands before the money arrives.
מְשִׁיכַת עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים קוֹנָה — a non-Jew’s drawing acquires. The principle invoked by the Ri: once the non-Jew has drawn the object to himself, it is his, and the later payment no longer replaces a Jew’s idol. The Mechaber reports it in siman 132, not here.
קְנָס — the penalty. According to Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Rosh as reported by the Shach, the money of the sale on credit is permitted for others, but forever forbidden to the Jew who sold — to penalize him.
4. The summary table — the situations of the two seifim
Situation
What the seif says
Why
A Jew sold an idol
אסורים
The money is like the idol — והיית חרם כמוהו
A non-Jew sold his own, and it is known he sold for his needs
הדמים מותרים
The verse does not concern him; no fear
A non-Jew sold his own, and it is not known why
מוקצין לאלילים ואסורים
He may buy other idols
A Jew sold forbidden things on credit, the non-Jew resold them before paying
מותרים בדיעבד
At payment, the idol was no longer in his hands
Only one line of prohibition by nature — the first. The other verdicts are judgments about circumstances: what is known of the seller, and when the money arrives.
5. The Shach, the Taz, the Baer Hetev and the Nekudot HaKesef
The apparatus of this siman is brief, and it is presented here in full: the Shach has four ס״ק, the Taz three, the Baer Hetev three, and the Nekudot HaKesef — the Shach’s reply to the Taz — one entry. The Pitchei Teshuva does not comment on this siman.
The Shach — four entries
ס״ק א — the source, and a Jew’s idol sold by a non-Jew
« דילפינן מוהיית חרם כמוהו כל מה שאתה מהייה ממנו הרי הוא כמוהו ומשמע דאליל של ישראל אפילו מכרה עובד כוכבים הדמים אסורים דהא דמי אליל של ישראל הן » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק א)
summary: for we learn it from “you would be anathema like it” — whatever you bring to life from it is like it; and it follows that a Jew’s idol, even sold by a non-Jew, its price is forbidden, for it is the price of a Jew’s idol.
ס״ק ב — the non-Jew’s idol, sold even to be worshipped
« אליל שלו ואפילו מכרה שיעבדוה הקונים דלא בטלה הדמים מותרין » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ב)
summary: his own idol; and even if he sold it so that the buyers worship it — so that it is not nullified —, the money is permitted.
ס״ק ג — if he did not resell: Rabbi Elchanan, not the Ri
« משמע הא כל שלא מכרם אסורים ומשמע אפילו לאחרים והיינו כדעת הר״ר אלחנן דלא כר״י ובר״ס קל״ב הביא דעת ר״י בשם יש מי שאומר דלאחרים מותרים וק״ק » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ג)
summary: it follows that as long as he did not resell them, the money is forbidden — and even for others; that is the opinion of Rabbi Elchanan, not the Ri’s; yet at the beginning of siman 132 he reported the Ri’s opinion as “there is one who says” — that for others it is permitted. This is somewhat difficult.
ס״ק ד — permitted for others, not for the seller
« ברבינו ירוחם משמע להדיא דוקא לאחרים אבל לאותו ישראל לעולם אסורים משום קנס וכן משמע באשר״י ר״פ בתרא דעבודת כוכבי׳ ואפשר גם דעת המחבר כן » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ד)
« אלא שק״ק הא דכתב סתם הדמים מותרים וגם בב״י לא הביא דברי הרא״ש ורבינו ירוחם רק לעיל ר״ס קל״ב הביא דברי רבינו ירוחם בקצרה וע״ל ס״ס קמ״ט » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ד)
summary: in Rabbeinu Yerucham it is explicit that it is only for others, but for that Jew it is forever forbidden, as a penalty; and so it appears from the Rosh at the beginning of the last chapter of Avodah Zarah; and perhaps that is the Mechaber’s view too. Only it is somewhat difficult that he wrote plainly “the money is permitted”; and in the Beit Yosef he did not cite the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yerucham, except briefly at the beginning of siman 132; and see the end of siman 149.
The Shach says two things the seif does not say: a Jew’s idol sold by a non-Jew leaves forbidden money (ס״ק א); and the money of the sale on credit is permitted only to others, not to the seller (ס״ק ד). The first is an inference from the verse, the second a report of Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Rosh.
The Taz — three entries
ס״ק א — the verse, and why it does not address the non-Jew
« דכתיב והיית חרם כמוהו כל מה שאתה מהייה ממנו יהיה כמוהו וזה לא שייך בעבודת כוכבים » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק א)
summary: for it is written “you would be anathema like it” — whatever you bring to life from it shall be like it —, and this does not apply to the non-Jew. (Sefaria reads here בעבודת כוכבים; the meaning, as the Rosh puts it in the Beit Yosef — והאי לא שייך בעכו״ם —, is that the verse does not concern the non-Jewish seller.)
ס״ק ב — the end of siman 132, and the Mordechai
« ס״ס קל״ב משמע דדוקא בידוע ודאי שמכרה לקנות צרכי עבודת כוכבים אסור ואפשר שסמך על מ״ש כאן אמנם במרדכי פרק א״מ כתב מותר לקבל הדמים אם לא אמר המתן עד שאמכור אליל » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ב)
summary: from the end of siman 132 it appears that only the case where it is known for certain that he sold to buy things for idolatry is forbidden; perhaps he relied on what he writes here. However, the Mordechai in the chapter “One does not place” writes that it is permitted to receive the money, unless he said “wait until I sell the idol”.
ס״ק ג — the Ri’s extension, and the astonishment
« כך כתבו התוספות בשם הר״ר אלחנן הביאם ב״י וסיימו התוספות ועוד אומר ר״י שאפילו לא מכרן העובד כוכבים אלא כיון שמשכן העובד כוכבים אצלו קודם שיתן הדמים דקיימא לן משיכת העובד כוכבים קונה כו׳ » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ג)
« וכ״כ הטור והש״ע דין זה ריש סימן קל״ב כאשר הבאתי שם המראה מקום מזה וא״כ תימה על הש״ע שלא פסק כאן להיתר רק במכרן לאחר » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ג)
summary: so wrote Tosafot in the name of Rabbi Elchanan, and the Beit Yosef reports them; and Tosafot conclude: the Ri says further that even if the non-Jew did not resell them, once he drew them to himself before paying — for a non-Jew’s drawing acquires… And the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh wrote this rule at the beginning of siman 132, as I indicated there; it is therefore astonishing that the Shulchan Arukh permitted here only the case where he resold them to another.
The Nekudot HaKesef — one entry, on the Taz’s ס״ק ב
« עמ״ש שם שיש לחלק בין יי״נ לעבודת כוכבים » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קמ״ד)
summary: see what I wrote there — that one must distinguish between libation wine and an idol.
The Baer Hetev — three entries
« ומשמע דאליל של ישראל אפ׳ מכרה העובד כוכבים הדמים אסורים דהא דמי עבודת כוכבים של ישראל הן. ש״ך » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק א)
summary: and it follows that a Jew’s idol, even sold by the non-Jew, its price is forbidden, for it is the price of a Jew’s idol — Shach.
« שם משמע דדוקא בידוע ודאי שמכרה לקנות צרכי עבודת כוכבים אסור ואפשר שסמך על מ״ש כאן מיהו במרדכי פ׳ א״מ כתב מותר לקבל הדמים אם לא אמר המתן עד שאמכור אליל עכ״ל הט״ז » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ב)
« ובנה״כ כתב שיש לחלק בין יי״נ לעבודת כוכבים וכ״כ שם בסי׳ קל״ב ע״ש » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ב)
summary: there it appears that only the case where it is known for certain that he sold to buy things for idolatry is forbidden, and perhaps he relied on what he writes here; however the Mordechai writes that it is permitted to receive the money unless he said “wait until I sell the idol” — end of the Taz’s words. And in the Nekudot HaKesef he writes that one must distinguish between libation wine and an idol, and so he wrote there in siman 132.
« כתב ר׳ ירוחם משמע להדיא דוקא לאחרים אבל לאותו ישראל לעולם אסורים משוס קנס עכ״ל ויש לתמוה על המחבר דכתב סתם הדמים מותרים ש״ך » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ג)
« וכתב הט״ז ובסי׳ קל״ב כ׳ המחבר שאפילו לא מכרן העובד כוכבים אלא כיון שמשכן העובד כוכבים אצלו קודם שיתן הדמים מותר דקי״ל משיכת עובד כוכבים קונה וכו׳ ואם כן תימה על הש״ע שלא פסק כאן להיתר רק במכרן לאחר עד כאן לשונו » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ד ס״ק ג)
summary: Rabbeinu Yerucham writes that it is explicit that it is only for others, but for that Jew it is forever forbidden as a penalty; and one may wonder at the Mechaber who wrote plainly “the money is permitted” — Shach. And the Taz writes: in siman 132 the Mechaber wrote that even if the non-Jew did not resell them, once he drew them to himself before paying, it is permitted, for a non-Jew’s drawing acquires; it is therefore astonishing that the Shulchan Arukh permitted here only the case of resale to another — end of quote.
6. The Rambam — the forbidden price, and the source
The Rambam lays down the prohibition of benefit on the idol and everything that serves it, then the price:
« עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרֹבֶת שֶׁלָּהּ וְכָל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִילָהּ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ז׳ הלכה ב׳)
« כָּל מַה שֵּׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מֵעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וּמִכָּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ וְתִקְרָבְתָּהּ הֲרֵי הִיא כָּמוֹהָ » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ז׳ הלכה ט׳)
summary: the idol, its accessories, its offering and everything made for it are forbidden for benefit. — One who transgressed and sold an idol, one of its accessories or its offering, the money is forbidden for benefit and forbids in any quantity whatsoever, like the idol; for it is said “you would be anathema like it”: whatever you bring from the idol, its accessories and its offering is like it.
The Rambam writes עבר ומכר — “transgressed and sold”. The forbidden price is that of a sale that should not have taken place; that is the Jew’s case. The non-Jew transgressed nothing by selling his idol, and the verse does not concern him: that is what the Taz and the Shach say.
7. Contemporary cases
Case 1 — The inherited cult object, sold
A Jew inherits an object that was worshipped and sells it. If it is an idol in the halakhic sense (siman 141), the money is forbidden for benefit — it is “like the idol”. The sale itself should not have taken place.
Case 2 — The non-Jew who pays a debt
A non-Jew owes money to a Jew; he sells a statue of his cult and pays him with the proceeds. It is known that he sold to pay his debt: the money is permitted (Tur: כגון לפרוע חובותיו).
Case 3 — The non-Jew whose intentions are unknown
A non-Jew sold an idol and offers the Jew money of which one does not know what he meant to do. According to the Mechaber, one fears he will buy other idols; the Taz reports the Mordechai’s permission unless he said “wait until I sell”; the Nekudot HaKesef distinguish the idol from wine. To be put to a Rav.
Case 4 — The sale on credit
A Jew sold forbidden objects on credit to a non-Jewish merchant, who resold them before paying. The money is permitted after the fact — for others; according to the Shach in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham, not for the seller himself.
8. Summary of Siman 144
In one sentence: the idol’s price follows the idol — but only in the Jew’s hands; in the non-Jew’s, it is permitted once it is known he sold for his needs, and the sale on credit makes permitted after the fact the money that arrived after the idol left his hands.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
Remember
The Jew who sold
דמי האליל ביד ישראל שמכרה אסורים
The money is like the idol
The non-Jew who sold
אפילו מכרה כדי לעבדה הדמים מותרים
The verse does not concern him
The condition
ודווקא שהדבר ידוע שמכרה לעשות צרכיו
One must know why he sold
Otherwise
מוקצין לאלילים ואסורים
Fear of new idols
The sale on credit
ומכרם העובד כוכבים לאחר קודם שיפרע
Permitted after the fact — for others (Shach)
Comprehension questions
Why is the idol’s price forbidden for the Jew and permitted for the non-Jew, when the idol is the same?
What is the difference between “forbidden like the idol” and “set aside for idols”? Which of the two falls away when it is known that the non-Jew sold for his needs?
How does Rabbeinu Tam reconcile the sugya of the fair with that of Rav Nachman?
What does the sale on credit change, and why does the Ri go further than Rabbi Elchanan?
According to the Shach, to whom is the money of seif 2 permitted — and why not to the seller?
Going further
If you want to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan : the chakira of the idol’s price — substitution or fear —, the contradiction of the sugyot, the Taz against the Nekudot HaKesef, Rabbi Elchanan against the Ri
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis : the tables, the golden rules, the mnemonic and the classic pitfalls
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema‘asse : the practical psak (Shach, Taz, Baer Hetev, Nekudot HaKesef) and contemporary cases
The sources of this level can be consulted on Sefaria:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן קמ״ד · Level 1 — Introduction · דמי עבודת כוכבים מה דינם daattorah.com