Five seifim: where one may go, from whom one may buy, and what becomes of what one has bought
יורה דעה · סימן קמ״ט
דִּינֵי יָרִיד מֵעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים
🌱 Foundations · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
Siman 149 has five seifim — the Shulchan Arukh announces it itself: ובו ה׳ סעיפים. It is about neither food nor cultic objects, but about a place and a day: the fair, the market held on an idol’s festival. Where may one go? From whom may one buy? What becomes of a purchase made without leave? And once the fair is no longer a festival, what is left of the law?
Subject: The fair of the non-Jews — יריד ביום חגם, אכסנאי ובן עיר, מכס, עיקור, דמי אלילים Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קמ״ט
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of the study
1.The Mehaber’s text: the five seifim
2.Background: the mishnah in Avodah Zarah (י״א ע״ב), the baraita of the toll (י״ג ע״א), the Jew on his way back (ל״ג ע״א), the Tur and the Beit Yosef
3.Key concepts: יריד, הדרך מיוחדת, אכסנאי ובן עיר, חצר של עבודת כוכבים, מכס, תגר ובעל הבית, נהנה ומהנה, עיקור, ים המלח
4.The summary table: the five seifim
5.The Shakh (13 ס״ק), the Taz (6 ס״ק) and the Ba’er Hetev (11 ס״ק) — the full apparatus
6.The Rambam: the town, the road, the fair and the return
7.Contemporary cases
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber’s text — the five seifim
The siman moves through three questions. (1)Where may one go? — seifim 1 and 2: the town holding a fair, the road that leads only there, and who is subject to the rule. (2)From whom may one buy, and what becomes of a forbidden purchase? — seif 3. (3)And when the money no longer reaches the idol? — seif 4; finally seif 5 returns to the buyer himself: the Jew coming back from the fair.
Seif 1 — the town that holds a fair, and the road that leads only there
דיני יריד מעובדי כוכבים. ובו ה׳ סעיפים: עיר שעושים בה יריד ביום חגם והעובדי כוכבים מתקבצים מכמה מקומות והולכים שם לכבוד עבודת כוכבים מותר לילך חוצה לה ואסור ליכנס בתוכה היתה חוצה לה מותר ליכנס בתוכה ההולך ממקום למקום אסור לעבור בה אם הדרך מיוחד לה (דהיינו שאין עוברים מאותה עיר לעיר אחרת):
Title of the siman:the laws of a fair of non-Jews; and it has five seifim.
A town in which a fair is held on their festival day, where the non-Jews gather from several places and go there in honour of idolatry: it is permitted to walk outside the town, and forbidden to enter it.
If the fair was outside the town, it is permitted to enter the town. One travelling from place to place: it is forbidden for him to pass through it if the road belongs to it alone (that is, one does not pass from that town on to another town).
The siman is not about the idol; it is about the road. What forbids entry is not what one will find in the town, but what one will appear to be seeking there. The Tur says so explicitly in Rashi’s name — משום חשדא — and that is why everything turns on whether the road also leads somewhere else.
Seif 2 — the traveller, the townsman, the caravan; and the courtyard of the cult
בד״א באכסנאי אבל בן עיר מותר ואם הולך בשיירא מותר: הגה חצר של עבודת כוכבים י״א דדינו כעיר של עבודת כוכבים (טור בשם הרשב״א) ובזמן שאין העובדי כוכבים מתקבצים שם לתרפותן מותר ליכנס שם (טור בשם ר׳ יונה והרא״ש) וי״א דבכל ענין אסור אם אין דרך עובר בו למקום אחר אבל כשדרך עובר בו למקום אחר לכולי עלמא מותר וכן המנהג פשוט לילך דרך אותו חצר למקום אחר (רשב״א) ומ״מ מדת חסידות הוא להתרחק מלילך בו אם יש לו דרך אחרת קצר כמוהו (ד״ע וכן משמע בספר חסידים) ועיין לעיל סימן קמ״ב:
In what case is this said? Of a traveller lodging there; but a resident of the town is permitted, and if he travels in a caravan it is permitted.
Gloss:The courtyard of a place of idolatrous worship — some say its law is that of a town of idolatry (Tur in the name of the Rashba); and at a time when the non-Jews do not gather there for their cult, it is permitted to enter (Tur in the name of Rabbenu Yonah and the Rosh); and some say that in every case it is forbidden if no road passes through it to another place; but when a road does pass through it to another place, all agree that it is permitted — and such is the widespread custom, to go through that courtyard on the way elsewhere (Rashba). Nevertheless it is a measure of piety to keep away from passing through it if he has another road just as short (his own view, and so it appears from Sefer Hasidim). And see above, siman 142.
Three figures, one criterion. The אכסנאי — the passing stranger — has no known reason to enter: he will be suspected. The בן עיר — the townsman — is going home. The שיירא — the caravan — passes everywhere; that is what caravans do. Suspicion arises only where nothing else accounts for the presence.
Seif 3 — what one buys at the fair, from whom, and the penalty for going ahead
הולכים ליריד של עובדי כוכבי׳ ולוקחים מהם בהמה עבדים ושפחות ובתים ושדות וכרמים וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהם בד״א בלוקח מבעל הבית שאינו נותן מכס אבל הלוקח שם מן התגר אסור מפני שהוא נותן מכס (ואף אם יניחו לו המכס אסור) (טור) והמכס לאלילים עבר ולקח בהמה נושר פרסותיה מהארכובה ולמטה ואם כסות וכלים לקח ירקבו לקח מעות וכלי מתכות יוליכם לים המלח לקח עבד לא מעלין ולא מורידין:
One goes to the fair of non-Jews and buys from them cattle, slaves and maidservants, houses, fields and vineyards; and one draws up the deed and registers it in their courts.
In what case? When buying from a private householder, who pays no toll; but one who buys there from the merchant — it is forbidden, because he does pay a toll (and even if they waive the toll for him, it is forbidden) (Tur) — and the toll goes to the idols.
If he went ahead and bought cattle, he strikes off its hooves from the knee downward; if he bought clothing and vessels, they are left to rot; if he bought coin and metal vessels, he carries them to the Dead Sea; if he bought a slave, we neither raise him up nor bring him down.
The dividing line is not what is bought but who is selling. The householder — בעל הבית — pays nothing to anyone: buying from him is even “as one rescuing from their hand”. The merchant — תגר — pays a toll, and the toll goes to the cult: buying from him is a contribution to it.
Seif 4 — the toll that goes to the priests, and the fair of our own day
אם המכס הוא לכהנים ואוכלים ושותים אותו ואין קונים ממנו לא תקרובת אלילים ולא נוייה מותר. הגה וסתם יריד בזמן הזה מותר דסתמא לאו לעבודת כוכבים הוא. במקום שדרך עובדי כוכבים המוכרים לומר ועוד פשוט לאלוה מותר לקנות ממנו דאפשר שיתננו לעניי עובדי כוכבים (טור בשם ב״ה) אבל אם מפרש בהדיא לעבודת כוכבים שלו או שידוע שהוא לעבודת כוכבים או שאומר לקדש פלוני אסור לקנות ממנו (שם וכן פשוט בתוס׳ ובהגמי״י):
If the toll goes to the priests, and they eat and drink it, and buy from it neither an offering to the idols nor an ornament for them — it is permitted.
Gloss:And an ordinary fair nowadays is permitted, since by default it is not for idolatry. In a place where the non-Jewish sellers customarily say “and one more coin for the god”, it is permitted to buy from him — for it is possible that he will give it to the non-Jewish poor (Tur, in the name of ספר התרומות); but if he states explicitly “for his idolatry”, or it is known that it is for idolatry, or he says “for such-and-such a saint” — it is forbidden to buy from him (ibid., and so it is plain in the Tosafot and the Hagahot Maimoniyot).
Seif 4 turns seif 3 around. Seif 3 forbade because the toll went to the idol. Here the toll goes to the priests, who eat it: nothing returns to the cult, and the prohibition falls. Then the gloss takes the decisive step: in our time a fair is a market, not a festival — סתמא לאו לעבודת כוכבים הוא.
Seif 5 — the Jew coming back from the fair, and the non-Jew coming back
ישראל ההולך ליריד שמוכרים שם אלילים וצרכיה אסור לישא וליתן עמו שאנו אומרים אלילים מכר ודמי אלילים ביד ישראל אסור: (אבל מותר לישא וליתן עם עובד כוכבים שהלך שם (טור):
A Jew who goes to a fair where idols and what serves their cult are sold: it is forbidden to do business with him — for we say that he sold idols, and the price of idols in a Jew’s hand is forbidden.
(But it is permitted to do business with a non-Jew who went there) (Tur).
The siman ends where siman 144 began. Why does one not deal with this Jew? Not because he went to the fair, but because the money he brings back may be the price of an idol — and that price, in a Jew’s hand, is forbidden for benefit (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 144:1). With the non-Jew the question does not arise: his own price is permitted.
The key word of seif 1 is מיוחד — belonging to it alone. The siman does not forbid the town: it forbids a road that leads nowhere else. As soon as another destination is possible, the suspicion falls, and the prohibition with it.
2. Background — the mishnah, the baraita of the toll, and the Jew coming back
The siman is built on three separate texts in the gemara. The mishnah gives the law of the town and the road; a baraita gives the law of the toll and the penalty; a third deals with the man returning from the fair.
First the mishnah, at the end of the first chapter of Avodah Zarah:
summary: a town in which there is an idol — outside it is permitted; if the idol was outside it, inside is permitted. May one go there? When the road belongs to that place alone, it is forbidden; and if he could travel by it to another place, it is permitted.
Yet the Mehaber does not write “a town in which there is an idol”, but “a town in which a fair is held on their festival day”. That is Rabbenu Yonah’s reading, which the Tur reports and the Rosh adopts:
« והר״י כתב ומשום אליל שבעיר אין לאסור לילך שם אלא מיירי שעושין יריד ביום האיד » (טור יו״ד קמ״ט)
summary: Rabbenu Yonah writes that one should not forbid going there because of the idol in the town; the mishnah speaks of a case where a fair is held on the festival day.
And the reason for the prohibition, according to Rashi as the Tur reports him, is not benefit but suspicion:
« ופירש״י דטעמא משום חשדא שיחשדוהו שהולך לשם לאליל » (טור יו״ד קמ״ט)
« ומשום הכי קאמר בירושלמי שלא אסרו אלא באכסנאי אבל בן עיר מותר » (טור יו״ד קמ״ט)
« שיירא מותר שכן דרך שיירא לילך בכ״מ » (טור יו״ד קמ״ט)
summary: Rashi explains that the reason is suspicion — that he be suspected of going there for the idol; and that is why the Jerusalem Talmud says they forbade only a lodging traveller, while a townsman is permitted; and a caravan is permitted, since it is the way of a caravan to travel everywhere.
The Tur also reports the Rashba, who extends the prohibition even to danger to life — a view the Shakh will take up:
« ואפשר אפילו על עסקי רבים ואפילו על פקוח נפש אמור ליכנס שם » (טור יו״ד קמ״ט)
summary: and it is possible that even for communal affairs, and even to save a life, it is forbidden to enter there. (Sefaria’s text reads אמור here for אסור — a digitisation slip, which we copy as it stands.)
Next comes the baraita of the toll — the source of seif 3:
summary: Rabbi Natan says: on the day when the idolatry waives the toll, they proclaim — whoever takes a wreath and sets it on his head and on his donkey’s head in honour of the idol, they will waive his toll; and if not, they will not. A Jew who finds himself there, what shall he do? If he sets it on, he is found deriving benefit; if he does not, he is found conferring benefit.
Then the permission to buy, and the distinction that limits it:
summary: one goes to the fair of non-Jews and buys from them cattle, slaves and maidservants, houses, fields and vineyards, and draws up deeds and registers them in their courts, because it is as one rescuing from their hand. — There is no contradiction: here, one buying from the merchant, from whom a toll is taken; there, one buying from the householder, from whom none is taken.
And finally the penalty for the forbidden purchase, with the objection from animal suffering and its answer:
summary: from here they said — one who trades in a market of idolatry: cattle shall be maimed, produce, clothing and vessels shall rot, coin and metal vessels he shall carry to the Dead Sea. And what is maiming? Striking off its hooves from the knee downward. — But there is animal suffering here! Abaye answered: the Merciful One said “their horses you shall hamstring”.
The third text is that of seif 5 — the return from the fair:
summary: the Sages taught — a non-Jew going to the fair, whether on the way there or on the way back, is permitted; a Jew going to the fair, on the way there permitted, on the way back forbidden. Why is the Jew different, that on the way back he is forbidden? Because we say: he sold an idol, and the price of an idol is with him. Of the non-Jew we say instead: he sold a cloak, he sold wine.
The Mehaber writes seif 5 without saying “on the way back”. The gemara distinguishes going from returning, and so does the Tur — בהליכתו מותר בחזרה אסור — while the Rambam writes expressly בַּחֲזִירָה. The seif does not specify it. This is no disagreement: the Shakh supplies the reason for the prohibition — had he not sold, why would he have gone there? — and that reason holds only on the return. The reader must restore it.
The Beit Yosef, finally, reports two things that weigh heavily in practice. The first is the Maharik on a toll turned, by a lord’s decree, into money for an idol:
« מהרי״ק בשורש קצ״ה דמכס שהיה קבועה ע״פ השר ואח״כ אמר השר שמה שיתנו היהודים יקנו ממנו צורת אליל שרי ליהודים לפרוע המכס » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ט)
summary: the Maharik, section 195: a toll that had been fixed by the lord, after which the lord said that from what the Jews give an idol’s image would be bought — it is permitted for the Jews to pay that toll.
The second is Rabbenu Yeruḥam, in whom the position that the gloss on seif 4 will generalise is already present:
« ורבינו ירוחם כתב נראה כי בזה״ז אין עושים לשם אליל ומותר ללכת ליריד ליקח ולמכור » (בית יוסף יו״ד קמ״ט)
summary: Rabbenu Yeruḥam writes that it seems that in our time they do not do it for the sake of an idol, and it is permitted to go to the fair to buy and to sell.
Why does the road decide? Because the prohibition rests on suspicion, and a road leading elsewhere dispels it.
Why is the merchant forbidden and the householder permitted? Because the merchant pays a toll that goes to the cult.
Why is the penalty so severe? Because the purchase itself benefited the cult; it is the article bought that is struck, not the buyer.
Why is the Jew forbidden on the return and not the non-Jew? Because of a Jew we presume that he sold an idol — otherwise, why go?
3. The key concepts of this siman
יָרִיד — the fair. A great market held at a fixed date, here on an idol’s festival day, drawing crowds from several towns. It is not a place of worship: it is a market attached to worship. The whole difficulty of the siman lies in that attachment, and in what survives once it comes undone.
הַדֶּרֶךְ מְיוּחֶדֶת — the road that belongs to it alone. A road leading nowhere else. To walk it is to announce one’s destination. If the road continues to another town, walking announces nothing, and the prohibition falls.
אַכְסְנַאי · בֶּן עִיר · שַׁיָּירָא — the lodging traveller, the townsman, the caravan. The three statuses of seif 2. The first has no excuse; the second is going home; the third passes everywhere by trade. The test is not the person but what his presence suggests.
חֲצַר שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים — the courtyard of the cult. The precinct around the temple. The gloss on seif 2 records three views there: like a town; permitted outside their gatherings; forbidden where no road passes — and permitted by all when a road runs through.
מֶכֶס — the toll. The duty levied on the merchant at the fair. It is the hinge of seif 3: when it goes to the idol, buying from the merchant contributes to it; when it goes to priests who eat it (seif 4), it no longer reaches the cult.
תַּגָּר · בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — the merchant and the householder. The distinction the gemara draws to reconcile two baraitot: the toll is taken from the merchant, not from the householder. It alone decides whom one may approach.
נֶהֱנֶה · מְהַנֶּה — deriving benefit, conferring benefit. The two terms of the baraita of the toll: the man who puts on the wreath derives benefit from the waiver; the man who refuses pays the toll and confers benefit on the idol. The Taz and the Tur disagree as to which of the two the waiver amounts to.
עִיקּוּר — maiming. The penalty on an animal bought: striking off its hooves from the knee downward. It is not slaughter; the Taz, in the Tosafot’s name, writes that the beast may even remain permitted for benefit.
יָם הַמֶּלַח — the Dead Sea. Where one carries what can neither rot nor be maimed: coin and metal. The phrase means the definitive destruction of the benefit, not a geographical place to be reached.
כְּמַצִּיל מִיָּדָם — as one rescuing from their hand. The reason buying from a householder is permitted, and even welcome: the land, the slave or the beast passes from their possession into ours. It is a ground for permission, not merely the absence of a prohibition.
דְּמֵי אֱלִילִים — the price of idols. The reason of seif 5. It is not the fair that makes the Jew untouchable on his way back, but the money he brings from it, if he sold — and that price, in a Jew’s hand, is forbidden for benefit (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 144:1).
4. The summary table — the five seifim
Seif
The situation
What the Mehaber says
Why
1
The town holds the fair; one walks outside it
מותר לילך חוצה לה
No suspicion: he is not going to the fair
1
The town holds the fair; one wishes to enter
ואסור ליכנס בתוכה
He would appear to be going in honour of the cult
1
The fair is outside; one enters the town
מותר ליכנס בתוכה
The town is not the place of the gathering
1
Passing through on the way elsewhere, the road leading only there
אסור לעבור בה
The road declares the destination
2
A lodging traveller
באכסנאי
Nothing accounts for his presence — he is suspected
2
A townsman, or a caravan
אבל בן עיר מותר ואם הולך בשיירא מותר
One is going home, the other passes by trade
2
A courtyard with a road running through it
לכולי עלמא מותר
All views agree; and such is the custom
3
Buying from a householder
בלוקח מבעל הבית שאינו נותן מכס
He pays nothing to the cult; and it is “rescuing from their hand”
3
Buying from the merchant
אבל הלוקח שם מן התגר אסור
He pays a toll, and the toll goes to the idols
3
He went ahead: cattle / clothing / metal / slave
נושר פרסותיה … ירקבו … יוליכם לים המלח … לא מעלין ולא מורידין
The purchase benefited the cult; the article is struck
4
The toll goes to the priests, who eat it
מותר
Nothing returns to the cult itself
4
An ordinary fair today
וסתם יריד בזמן הזה מותר
By default it is not for idolatry
4
“And one more coin for the god”
מותר לקנות ממנו
He may give it to the non-Jewish poor
4
He states “for his idolatry”, or it is known
אסור לקנות ממנו
There the money is destined for the cult
5
A Jew returning from the fair of idols
אסור לישא וליתן עמו
He may have sold an idol; its price is forbidden
5
A non-Jew returning from it
אבל מותר לישא וליתן
Of him we say: he sold a cloak, he sold wine
Three prohibitions, and they are not alike. Seif 1 forbids a road, because of suspicion. Seif 3 forbids a seller, because of the toll. Seif 5 forbids a trading partner, because of the money he carries. None of these reasons carries over to the other two.
5. The Shakh, the Taz and the Ba’er Hetev — the full apparatus
The apparatus of this siman is rich: the Shakh has thirteen ס״ק, the Taz six, the Ba’er Hetev eleven — and the Ba’er Hetev, as almost always, abridges the other two. The Pit’hei Teshuva and the Nekudot HaKesefdo not comment on this siman, and so are cited nowhere here.
The Shakh — thirteen entries
ס״ק א — on “it is forbidden to enter it”: the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah
« כתב הרמב״ם בפי׳ המשנה ולפיכך יודע לך שכל עיר של אומה עובדת כוכבים שיהיה להם בית תפלה שהוא בית עבודת כוכבים בלי ספק אותה העיר אסור לעבור בה בכוונה וכ״ש לדור בה » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« אבל בעת שאנחנו תחת ידיהם בעונותינו ושוכנים בארצם אנוסים ונתקיים בנו מה שנאמר ועבדתם שם אלהים אחרים מעשה ידי אדם עץ ואבן » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« ואם העיר דינא כן ק״ו בית עבודת כוכבי׳ עצמה שהוא אסור לנו כמעט לראותו וכ״ש ליכנס בו » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
summary: the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah: know that any town of an idolatrous nation which has a house of prayer — which is beyond doubt a house of idolatry — it is forbidden to pass through that town deliberately, and all the more to dwell in it. But at a time when we are under their hand for our sins and dwell in their land under compulsion, there has been fulfilled in us what is said: “and you shall serve there other gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone”. And if such is the law of the town, all the more the house of worship itself, which we may almost not look upon, and still less enter.
The Shakh widens the seif — and at once states its limit. It is no longer only a fair on a festival day: it is any town possessing a place of worship. But he himself adds what makes the rule inapplicable where one lives under their rule — that is the force of his second sentence, which cannot be read apart from the first.
ס״ק ב — on “it is forbidden to pass through”: danger to life
« כ׳ הטור בשם הרשב״א דאפשר אפילו על עסקי רבים ואפילו על פיקוח נפש אסור ליכנס בו כדאמרינן גבי מעיין » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« אבל הר״ן חולק דבסכנת נפשות שרי דלא דמי למעיין דנראה כעובד משא״כ הכא שאינו נראה אלא כהולך לעבוד » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« ואפשר עוד דאף במעיין היכא דאיכא סכנה ודאי שרי כיון שאינו אלא משום מראות העין » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« וכ״כ הרב לקמן סימן ק״נ ס״ג וע״ל ס״ס קנ״ז » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
summary: the Tur writes in the Rashba’s name that possibly even for communal affairs and even to save a life it is forbidden to enter, as is said of the spring. But the Ran disagrees: where life is in danger it is permitted, for it is unlike the spring, where he appears to be worshipping, whereas here he appears only to be going to worship; and possibly even at the spring, where danger is certain, it is permitted, since the matter is only one of appearances. And the Rama writes likewise below, siman 150 seif 3; and see the end of siman 157.
ס״ק ג — on “that one does not pass from that town”: which town does the gloss mean?
« אלא ר״ל שאין עוברים מאותה העיר שבה האליל לעיר אחרת אבל כשעוברים משם והלאה שרי » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ג)
« וכן פרש״י (בסוף דף י״א) והר״ן וכ״כ הפרישה דלא כהב״ח שהפך הדברים ולא עמדתי על סוף דעתו » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ג)
summary: it does not mean that there is only one road out of the town he came from, but that one does not pass from the town in which the idol stands on to another town; whereas if one passes from there onward, it is permitted. So Rashi explains (at the end of folio 11), and the Ran, and so the Perishah wrote — against the Bach, who reversed the terms, and I have not grasped the bottom of his view.
ס״ק ד — on “but a townsman”: and if Jews live there?
« אבל מי שאינו בן עיר אסור ליכנס לשם אפילו יהודים דרים שם כ״פ הרא״ש והטור » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ד)
« מיהו נראה דהיכא דדרים שם מנין אפילו ליכא מנין בעלי בתים אלא עם נערים ומשרתים קהל איקרי ושרי » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ד)
summary: one who is not of the town may not enter even if Jews live there — so the Rosh and the Tur ruled. However it seems that where ten men live there, even if there are not ten householders but only youths and servants among them, it is called a community and it is permitted.
ס״ק ה — on “in every case”: even not on their festival day
« ואפילו שלא ביום האיד. פרישה וב״ח » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ה)
summary: and even on a day that is not their festival — Perishah and Bach.
ס״ק ו — on “but when a road passes through”: where the Rama drew it from
« זה למד הרב בד״מ מעיר » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ו)
summary: this the Rama learned in his Darkhei Moshe from the case of the town.
ס״ק ז — on “one goes to the fair”: on their festival day, and in our own time
« כתב הטור בשם הרא״ש דאפילו ביום חגם שרי משום דדלמא לא משכח ליה אלא ביריד והוה ליה דבר האבוד » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ז)
« וכתב הר״ן דהיינו דוקא בדברים שצריך להם לעצמו אבל להשתכר בהן לא דהנאת ריוח לא מקרי דבר האבוד » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ז)
« מיהו כל זה מדינא אבל האידנא הכל שרי כמ״ש הרא״ש וטור ושאר פוסקים דלאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הן » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ז)
« וכ״כ הב״ח ס״ס זה דהאידנא אין חוששין לשום דבר ונהגו היתר אף ביריד ביום אידם ואפילו נותנים מכס לכומרים » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ז)
summary: the Tur writes in the Rosh’s name that even on their festival day it is permitted, since he may find the article only at the fair, and it is therefore a loss to him. The Ran writes that this holds only for what he needs himself, not for what he would trade at a profit, since forgone gain is not called a loss. However all this is the strict law: nowadays everything is permitted, as the Rosh, the Tur and the other decisors have written, for they are not idolaters. And the Bach wrote at the end of this siman that nowadays we are not concerned about anything, and the custom permits even a fair held on their festival day, and even where a toll is paid to the priests.
ס״ק ז is the decisive passage of the siman for practice. It states three things: the strict law, the Ran’s restriction, and — in a single word, האידנא — the state of affairs that covers them both.
ס״ק ח — on “it is forbidden”: waiving the toll, for one man or for all
« שהרי נהנה שמנחת לו המכס. טור והר״ן. ופסק הב״ח דהיינו דוקא ביחידים אבל כשעושים חירות לכל אדם בשוה אין בזה איסור » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ח)
« אבל אם אין מניחין המכס אלא כשמניח עטרה בראשו לכבוד עבודת כוכבים אפילו מניחין לכל אדם אסור » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ח)
summary: for he derives benefit from having the toll waived — Tur and Ran. And the Bach ruled that this holds only for individuals; but where exemption is granted to everyone alike, there is no prohibition in it. If, however, the toll is waived only for one who sets a wreath on his head in the idol’s honour, it is forbidden even if it is waived for all.
ס״ק ט — on “he shall carry them to the Dead Sea”: what must be carried?
summary: and where the toll was waived for him individually, which is forbidden because he derives benefit, it appears from the Bach’s words that it is enough to carry to the Dead Sea the value of the benefit of the toll.
ס״ק י — on “and one more coin for the god”
« כ׳ הב״ח בקונטרס אחרון דאם אומר לאלוה שלו אסור » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י)
summary: the Bach wrote in his Kuntres Acharon that if he says “for his own god”, it is forbidden.
ס״ק י״א — on “or it is known”: the Maharik and the lord’s toll
« כ׳ מהרי״ק שורש קנ״ה דוקא היכא שיוצא מכיס של ישראל לעבודת כוכבים » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״א)
« אבל היכא שהיה מכס מקדם ולא היו קונים ממנו שום דבר לעבודת כוכבי׳ ואח״כ קם שר ואמר שמעות היהודים יותן לעבודת כוכבי » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״א)
« ואמנם לא הוסיפו על היהודים בשביל כן לפרוע יותר ממה שהיו פורעין מקדם מותר שהרי אינו יוצא מכיסו של ישראל אלא מכיסו של השר אשר המכס שלו » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״א)
summary: the Maharik wrote, section 155, that this holds only where the money goes out of a Jew’s purse to idolatry; but where the toll existed beforehand and nothing was bought from it for the cult, and afterwards a lord arose and said that the Jews’ money would be given to the cult — and yet the Jews were not made to pay more than they had paid before — it is permitted: for it does not come out of the Jew’s purse but out of the lord’s, to whom the toll belongs.
ס״ק י״ב — on “for we say that he sold idols”
« דאם לא כן למה לו לילך לשם » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״ב)
summary: for otherwise, why would he have gone there?
ס״ק י״ג — on “with a non-Jew”: why he is permitted
« שאין אנו תולים שמכר שם אלילי׳. טור » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״ג)
« אבל אם היה מוכר שם אלילים היה אסור כדלעיל סימן קמ״ד דדמי אלילים ביד עובד כוכבים אסור מסתמא אלא א״כ ידוע שמכרה שלא לקנות בדמיה אליל אחרת » (ש״ך יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״ג)
summary: for we do not presume of him that he sold idols there — Tur. But if he was in fact selling idols there it would be forbidden, as above at siman 144: the price of idols in a non-Jew’s hand is forbidden by default, unless it is known that he sold without intending to buy another idol with the price.
The last ס״ק closes the siman upon siman 144. The non-Jew is permitted only because nothing is presumed of him. Once it is known that he sold an idol, the law of the idol’s price resumes — and that is the law of siman 144, not of this one.
The Taz — six entries
ס״ק א — on “if the road belongs to it alone”: against the Bach
« פי׳ שודאי הולך לאותה היער שיש בה האיד של עבודת כוכבים אלא שאם היה משם מהלך מאותה העיר של האיד והלאה מותר דאמרי אינשי שלפי דרכו הולך לעיר ההיא » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« וכן מבואר בפי׳ רש״י במתניתין וז״ל שאין דרך יוצא מאותה העיר לילך לעיר אחרת ודרך הכבוש מכאן לאותה העיר מיוחד לאותה העיר לבדה » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« אבל מו״ח ז״ל פי׳ דהאי מאותה העיר שכתב רמ״א היינו ממקום שיצא » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« והוא שלא בדקדוק דהא אנן קיימינן שבודאי הולך לאותה העיר של האיד » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« אבל המעיין ברמב״ם יראה מבואר שיש לו פי׳ אחר במשנה זו » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« אבל אם יש עוד דרך אחר למחוז חפצו אין איסור לילך דרך עיר האיד דלאו נהנה הוא כיון שהיה יכול לילך דרך אחר » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
summary: it means that he is certainly going to the town in which the festival is held; but if from there he were travelling on beyond that town it would be permitted, for people say that he is going to that town along his way. So it appears from Rashi on the mishnah: that no road goes out of that town to another, and that the beaten road from here to that town belongs to it alone. But my father-in-law — the Bach — explained that “from that town” means the place he set out from, and that is not exact, since we are dealing with a man who is certainly going to the festival town. — And the Taz adds that the Rambam has quite another reading of this mishnah: if there is another road to his destination, there is no prohibition in passing through the festival town, for he derives no benefit, since he could have gone by the other road.
The Taz here marks two readings that do not coincide. For Rashi the prohibition arises because the road identifies the traveller; for the Rambam because he derives benefit from the road. That is the nerve of level 2 on this siman.
ס״ק ב — on “even if they waive the toll for him”: against the Tur
« ופרש״י נמצא נהנה מן הריח של העשבים של העטרה ועל נמצא מהנה פי׳ שנותן מכס » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« וכתבו התוספות על שלא פי׳ גם בנמצא נהנה ג״כ שמניח לו המכס ויהנה אינו נקרא נהנה מעבודת כוכבים כיון שהמעות שלו » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« וע״כ תימה על הטור שכתב נמצא נהנה שמניח המכס שלא כדעת רש״י ותוספות » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« וכתוב בשלטי הגבורים דבמקום שמניחין המכס סתם לכל אדם כמו שעושים היום לירידים שלנו שעושין חירות לכל אדם בשוק אינו נראה כנהנה מעבודת כוכבים » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
summary: Rashi explains “he is found deriving benefit” of the scent of the wreath’s herbs, and “he is found conferring benefit” of his paying the toll; and the Tosafot object that he did not explain “deriving benefit” by the waiver of the toll as well — because a man for whom the toll is waived is not called one deriving benefit from idolatry, the money being his own. There is therefore reason to wonder at the Tur, who writes “he is found deriving benefit, in that the toll is waived for him”, against Rashi and the Tosafot. — And it is written in the Shiltei HaGiborim that where the toll is waived for everyone without distinction, as is done today at our fairs, where exemption is granted to all in the market, he does not appear to derive benefit from idolatry.
ס״ק ג — on “its hooves”: the maiming according to the Tosafot
« פירשו התוס׳ דדי בכך ויכול להיות שמותרת בהנאה ואע״ג דבשאר דברים אסורים בהנאה מ״מ בבהמה סגי בקנס זה ולא צריך לעקר יותר » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ג)
summary: the Tosafot explain that this suffices, and that the beast may well remain permitted for benefit; and although in other matters they are forbidden for benefit, for a beast this penalty is enough and one need not maim further.
ס״ק ד — on “an ordinary fair nowadays”: the limit of the permission
« נ״ל פשוט שאין בכלל זה במקום ששם מתקבצים עובדי כוכבים הרבה ואומרים ששם מוחלים להם עונותיהם שזה ודאי לשם אליל הוא ואסור לשאת ולתת עמהם שם » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ד)
summary: it seems to me plain that this permission does not include a place where many non-Jews gather and say that their sins are forgiven them there: that is certainly for the idol, and it is forbidden to trade with them there.
Here the Taz sets the one boundary of the Rama’s general permission. The fair is permitted because it has become a market; where the gathering keeps a declared religious function, the permission does not apply.
ס״ק ה — on “and one more coin for the god”: the word the Rama dropped
« בטור כתוב לאלוה שלו והוא תימה אמאי מותר הא ע״כ לעבודת כוכבי׳ שלו מדאמר לשון שלו ויפה עשה רמ״א שלא העתיק האי תיבת שלו » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ה)
« וכתוב בדרישה מכאן נראה דמכ״ש דמותר ליתן לענייהם סתם כשהם חוזרין על הפתחים » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ה)
summary: in the Tur it is written “for his own god”, and that is astonishing: why should it be permitted, since the word “his own” must indicate his cult? The Rama did well not to copy that word. — And it is written in the Derishah that from here it follows a fortiori that one may give to their poor simply, when they go begging from door to door.
ס״ק ו — on “for we say that he sold idols”
« מדאזיל שם ואי דבר אחר מכר היה לו למכרו לנו אבל עבודת כוכבים אימר מידי אחרינא מכר שם » (ט״ז יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ו)
summary: since he goes there — and had he sold anything else, he could have sold it to us; but of a non-Jew one may say that he sold something else there.
The Ba’er Hetev — eleven entries
Here the Ba’er Hetev abridges the Shakh and the Taz, and says so each time. Here it is in full.
« ודע שכל עיר של אומה עבודת כוכבי׳ שיהי׳ להם בית תפלה » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק א)
« פירשו הש״ך וט״ז שאין עוברים מאותה העיר שבה העבודת כוכבי׳ לעיר אחרת אבל אם היה שם מהלך מאותה עיר שיש שם עבודת כוכבי׳ והלאה שרי » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ב)
« אבל מי שאינו בן עיר אפי׳ אם דרים שם ג׳ או ד׳ יהודיה אסור ליכנס לשם ולא תלינן דלדבר עם איזה יהודי נכנס » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ג)
« אפילו שלא ביום האיד וכתב הרשב״א גבי עיר דאפילו על עסקי רבים ואפי׳ על פיקוח נפש אפשר דאסור ליכנס בו אבל הר״ן ס״ל דבסכנת נפשות שרי » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ד)
summary (ס״ק א–ד): (א) the Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, on a town that has a house of worship. (ב) the Shakh and the Taz explained: that one does not pass from the town in which the cult stands to another town; but if one travelled on beyond it, it would be permitted. (ג) one who is not of the town, even if three or four Jews live there, may not enter; however, if there are ten men there, even youths and servants, it is called a community and it is permitted. (ד) even not on their festival day; and the Rashba wrote that possibly even for communal affairs and to save a life it is forbidden, while the Ran holds that where life is in danger it is permitted.
« שהרי נהנה שמנחת לו המכס טור והר״ן ופסק הב״ח דהיינו דוקא ביחידים אבל כשעושים חירות לכל אדם בשוה אין בזה איסור » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ה)
« פירשו התוספות דדי בכך ויכול להיות שמותרת בהנאה » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ו)
« ובהניחו המכס ליחיד דאסור משום שנהנה נראה מדברי הב״ח דסגי בהולכת הנאה לים המלח » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ז)
« כ׳ הט״ז נ״ל פשוט שאין בכלל זה במקום ששם מתקבצים עובדי כוכבים הרבה ואומרים ששם מוחלים להם עונותיהם » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ח)
summary (ס״ק ה–ח): (ה) he derives benefit from the waiver of the toll — Tur and Ran; the Bach limits this to individual waivers, not to a general exemption, unless it is tied to wearing the wreath. (ו) the Tosafot: the maiming suffices, and the beast may remain permitted for benefit. (ז) where the waiver was individual, it is enough to carry the value of the benefit to the Dead Sea. (ח) the Taz: the permission does not include a place where they gather saying that sins are forgiven there.
« כ׳ בדרישה מכאן נראה דמכ״ש דמותר ליתן לענייהם סתם כשהם חוזרין על הפתחים ואין צריכין שיאמר להם שנותן בשביל אלהים חיים שלנו וכתב הב״ח וט״ז דאם אומר לאלוה שלו אסור » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק ט)
« כתב מהרי״ק דוקא היכא שיוצא מכיס של ישראל לעבודת כוכבים » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י)
« דאל״כ למה לו לילך שם אבל בעובד כוכבים אין אנו תולים שמכר שם עבודת כוכבים » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״א)
« ודלא כלבוש שנמשך אחר דברי הרי״ף שדמי עבודת כוכבים ביד עובד כוכבים מותרים ואנן לא קי״ל הכי » (באר היטב יו״ד קמ״ט ס״ק י״א)
summary (ס״ק ט–י״א): (ט) the Derishah: all the more may one give to their poor who beg from door to door, without having to say that it is for the sake of the living God who is ours; and the Bach and the Taz write that if he says “for his own god”, it is forbidden. (י) the Maharik: this holds only where the money leaves a Jew’s purse. (י״א) for otherwise, why would he have gone there? But of a non-Jew we do not presume that he sold cultic wares there; and were it known that he had, even the non-Jew would be forbidden, as at siman 144 — against the Levush, who followed the Rif in holding the price permitted in a non-Jew’s hand, whereas we do not rule so.
One detail distinguishes the Ba’er Hetev from the Shakh. The Shakh (ס״ק י״ג) wrote ודלא כהעט״ז — against the Ateret Zahav; the Ba’er Hetev writes ודלא כלבוש — against the Levush. It is one and the same work: the Levush Ateret Zahav.
6. The Rambam — the town, the road, the fair and the return
The four matters of the siman are found in the Rambam in the ninth chapter of the Laws of Foreign Worship, in almost the same order.
« עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים מֻתָּר לְהַלֵּךְ חוּצָה לָהּ וְאָסוּר לְהִכָּנֵס בְּתוֹכָהּ » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה ט׳)
« הַהוֹלֵךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אָסוּר לוֹ לַעֲבֹר בְּעִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה י׳)
« אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת וְנִקְרָה וְהָלַךְ בְּזוֹ מֻתָּר » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה י׳)
summary: a town in which there is idolatry — it is permitted to walk outside it and forbidden to enter it; if the idolatry was outside it, it is permitted to walk within. One travelling from place to place may not pass through a town in which there is idolatry; in what case? when the road belongs to that place alone — but if there is another road there, and it happened that he took this one, it is permitted.
« הוֹלְכִין לְיָרִיד שֶׁל עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בְּהֵמָה עֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת בְּגֵיוּתָן וּבָתִּים וְשָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה י״ד)
« אֲבָל הַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׁם מִן הַתַּגָּר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן מֶכֶס וְהַמֶּכֶס לַעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְנִמְצָא זֶה מְהַנֶּה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה י״ד)
summary: one goes to the fair of idolatry and buys from them cattle, slaves and maidservants in their gentile state, and houses, fields and vineyards… but one who buys there from the merchant, it is forbidden, because he pays a toll, and the toll goes to the cult: he is thus found conferring benefit on idolatry.
« יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָלַךְ לְיָרִיד שֶׁל עַכּוּ״ם, בַּחֲזִירָה אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמּוֹ שֶׁמָּא עַכּוּ״ם מָכַר לָהֶן שָׁם » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה י״ח)
« וּדְמֵי עַכּוּ״ם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה וּבְיַד עַכּוּ״ם מֻתָּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה י״ח)
summary: a Jew who went to a fair of non-Jews — on his return it is forbidden to trade with him, lest he sold cultic wares there; and the price of cultic wares in a Jew’s hand is forbidden for benefit, while in a non-Jew’s hand it is permitted for benefit.
The Rambam writes וְנִמְצָא זֶה מְהַנֶּה עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים — he is thus found conferring benefit on idolatry. That is the word the Mehaber does not write, and yet it is the reason of the whole of seif 3. And he writes expressly בַּחֲזִירָה — on the return — which seif 5 leaves to the reader.
7. Contemporary cases
Case 1 — The pilgrimage that became a market
A town holds a large commercial fair each year on the date of a religious festival. Clothing, food and farm machinery are sold there. The gloss on seif 4 permits it: וסתם יריד בזמן הזה מותר. The Taz (ס״ק ד) sets the one reservation: if the gathering itself is presented as a place where pardon is obtained, the permission does not extend to that gathering.
Case 2 — The municipal tax that funds a house of worship
A municipality assigns part of its revenue to the upkeep of a religious building. The Maharik, cited by the Shakh (ס״ק י״א) and the Ba’er Hetev (ס״ק י), distinguishes: if the tax existed beforehand, if it was not raised on that account, and if the money leaves the authority’s purse in law rather than the taxpayer’s, there is no contribution by the Jew to the cult. The question as it arises today belongs to a Rav.
Case 3 — The discount given to all, and the discount given to a participant
A market grants free entry. The Bach, cited by the Shakh (ס״ק ח), distinguishes: a general exemption — no prohibition; a waiver reserved for one who performs a ritual act — forbidden, even if anyone may obtain it by performing that act. The Shiltei HaGiborim, quoted by the Taz (ס״ק ב), goes the same way for the fairs of his own day.
Case 4 — Alms to beggars
A non-Jew begs from door to door. The Derishah, quoted by the Taz (ס״ק ה) and the Ba’er Hetev (ס״ק ט), draws the a fortiori: if one may buy from a man who says “one more coin for the god”, all the more may one simply give to their poor, without having to state in whose name one gives.
Case 5 — Entering a house of worship
The Shakh (ס״ק א) cites the Rambam from his Commentary on the Mishnah, which reaches as far as the town, and all the more the building itself. It is the broadest passage of the siman, and also the one that most calls for a ruling: the Shakh himself adds to it the case of one living under their rule, and ס״ק ב attaches to it the question of danger to life. A question for a Rav, without exception.
8. Synthesis of Siman 149
In one sentence: an idol’s fair forbids three things — a road that leads only there, a seller whose toll feeds it, and a trading partner whose money comes from it — and each of the three prohibitions falls by its own door: the road by another route, the seller by a toll that goes elsewhere, the partner by our simply not knowing what he sold.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
To remember
The town holding the fair
ואסור ליכנס בתוכה
Forbidden by suspicion, not by benefit
The road
אם הדרך מיוחד לה
Another way out, and the prohibition falls
Who is concerned
בד״א באכסנאי
The man whose presence nothing explains
The seller
אבל הלוקח שם מן התגר אסור
The toll, not the goods
The penalty
יוליכם לים המלח
The article is struck, not the buyer
In our time
וסתם יריד בזמן הזה מותר
The fair is a market — save the Taz’s reservation
The return
ודמי אלילים ביד ישראל אסור
Here it is siman 144 that speaks
Comprehension questions
Why is the same town forbidden to one man and permitted to another? What does that teach about the nature of the prohibition in seif 1?
Rashi and the Rambam do not give the same reason for the prohibition of the road. Which of the two does the Taz report, and what practical difference follows?
Why is the merchant forbidden and the householder permitted, when the goods are the same?
What must be carried to the Dead Sea according to the Shakh (ס״ק ט) — the article bought, or the value of the benefit?
What is the one limit the Taz places on the general permission of the gloss to seif 4?
Seif 5 does not say “on the return”. Where must that qualification be sought, and which reason of the Shakh requires it?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the ḥakirah of חשדא against הנאה, the Shakh and the Taz against the Bach on “from that town”, the three views of the gloss on the courtyard, the Rashba against the Ran on danger to life, and the Taz against the Tur on נהנה
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the tables, the golden rules, the mnemonic and the classic pitfalls