Siman 152 has two seifim — the Shulchan Arukh announces it itself: ובו ב׳ סעיפים. It speaks of neither wine nor meat: it speaks of an invitation. A non-Jew marries off his son or daughter and invites the Jew; the Jew brings his own food, his own servant waits on him — and it remains forbidden. Why? And until when? And what difference does a dish sent to the house make?
Subject: The non-Jew’s wedding feast — וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו, משעת קריאה, ל׳ יום, י״ב חדש, אדם חשוב Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קנ״ב
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of the study
1.The Mehaber’s text: the two seifim
2.Background: the baraita of Rabbi Yishmael (עבודה זרה ח׳ ע״א), the verse, the time limits (ח׳ ע״ב), the Tur and the Beit Yosef
4.The summary table: the time limits and the situations
5.The Shakh (2 ס״ק), the Taz (3 ס״ק), the Ba’er Hetev (4 ס״ק), the Pit’hei Teshuva and the Nekudot HaKesef — the full apparatus
6.The Rambam: in which treatise is this rule codified?
7.Contemporary cases
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber’s text — the two seifim
The siman reads in two movements. (1) The prohibition and its measure: one does not eat at a non-Jew’s wedding feast, even one’s own food, and this from the first preparations until thirty days afterwards — twelve months if he says he is inviting on account of the wedding, and without limit for a man of standing. (2) The sending: what that same non-Jew has carried to the Jew’s house.
Seif 1 — the prohibition, and how long it lasts
שלא יאכל הישראל עם העובד כוכבים אף על פי שאוכל משלו. ובו ב׳ סעיפים: עובד כוכבים העושה משתה לחופת בנו או בתו אסור לישראל לאכול שם אפילו אוכל משלו ושמש שלו עומד עליו ומשמש ומאימתי אסור משיתחיל להכין צרכי הסעודה ולאחר ימי המשתה ל׳ יום ואם אומר שמזמינו בשביל החופה אסור עד י״ב חדש ולאחר י״ב חדש מותר אלא אם כן הוא אדם חשוב:
Title of the siman:that a Jew not eat with a non-Jew, even though he eats his own food; and it has two seifim.
A non-Jew who makes a feast for the wedding of his son or daughter: a Jew is forbidden to eat there — even if he eats his own food and his own servant stands by him and waits on him.
And from when is it forbidden? From when he begins to prepare what the meal requires; and after the days of the feast, thirty days. And if he says that he is inviting him on account of the wedding, it is forbidden for twelve months; and after twelve months it is permitted — unless he is a man of standing.
Three qualifications make the whole seif.Even his own food: so it is not a rule of kashrut. Even his own servant: so it is not a rule about sharing the food itself. From the first preparations: the prohibition does not begin at the meal, it begins at the arranging — that is, at the invitation.
Seif 2 — what he sends to the Jew’s house
אם העובד כוכבים שעושה חופה שולח לבית הישראל עופות חיים או דגים מותר. (וה״ה דמותר אם שלח לו לביתו בשר שחוט כדינו) (ב״י בשם תשו׳ הרא״ש):
If the non-Jew who is making the wedding sends live fowl or fish to the Jew’s house, it is permitted.
Gloss:(and likewise it is permitted if he sent to his house meat slaughtered according to the law) (Beit Yosef in the name of a responsum of the Rosh).
Seif 2 confirms seif 1 from the other side. If the prohibition bore on the food, the sending would be forbidden too. Since it bears on the invitation, what arrives at the house, away from any shared table, does not fall under the rule — and that is exactly the Rosh’s reasoning, as the Beit Yosef reports it.
The key phrase of the siman is וְקָרָא לְךָ — and he will have called you. The verse does not say simply “and you will have eaten of his sacrifice”; it begins with the calling. From there the gemara derives the starting point of the prohibition, and from there the whole siman follows.
2. Background — the baraita, the verse, and the time limits
The whole matter of the siman lies in one baraita and in the sugya that follows it. The baraita states the rule and its verse; the sugya fixes its limits.
summary: it was taught, Rabbi Yishmael says: the Jews outside the Land are servants of idolatry in purity. How so? A non-Jew who made a feast for his son and invited all the Jews of his town — although they eat their own food and drink their own drink, and their own servant stands before them — Scripture reckons it to them as though they had eaten of sacrifices of the dead, as it is said “and he will call you, and you will eat of his sacrifice”.
The verse is in Exodus 34, and it must be read whole — which is precisely what the Taz will fault the Derishah for not doing:
summary: lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land… and he will call you, and you will eat of his sacrifice. — The next verse runs on to the daughters, and it is from that sequence that the Taz (ס״ק א) will draw his argument, quoting it himself:
« ומפורש בראש אותו פסוק פן תכרות ברית ליושב הארץ וזנו אחרי בנותיהן הרי שהתורה צותה שיהיה לנו איבה עמהם משום הרחקת בנותיהם והיאך נתיר משום איבה » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
The gemara then asks: why the calling, and not the eating?
summary: say rather that it is forbidden only once he has eaten! Rava answered: if so, let the verse say “and you will eat of his sacrifice”; what is “and he will call you” doing there? — from the moment of the calling.
Then it fixes the time limits, and they are word for word seif 1:
summary: for all thirty days, whether he said “on account of the wedding” or not, it is forbidden; from then on, if he said “on account of the wedding” it is forbidden, and if not it is permitted. And when he said “on account of the wedding”, until when? Rav Papa said: for twelve months. And at the outset, from when is it forbidden? Rav Papa in Rava’s name: from when they cast the barley into the vats.
Finally the case of Rav Yitzchak, from which the exception of the man of standing comes:
summary: but Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Mesharshia happened upon the house of a certain non-Jew after twelve months, and heard him give thanks [to his idol], and withdrew and did not eat! — Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Mesharshia is different, for he is a man of standing.
The gemara does not say why a man of standing is different — and it is out of that silence that the whole dispute of the siman is born. The Beit Yosef sees in it a practice of piety; the Taz, a full point of law; the Shakh, something so obvious it need not have been written.
The Tur gives the rule almost in the Mehaber’s words, and adds the reason for the man of standing:
« עכו״ם העושה משתה לחופת בנו או בתו אסור לישראל לאכול שם אפילו אוכל משלו ושמש שלו עומד עליו ומשמש » (טור יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ומאימתי אסור מקודם החופה משיתחיל להכין שום דבר לצורכי ההופה » (טור יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ואם הוא אדם חשוב שהעכו״ם שמח בו אם אומר מחמת החופה אסור אפי׳ לאחר י״ב חדש » (טור יו״ד קנ״ב)
« אפילו אינו שומע ממנו שמודה לאליל דמסתמא מודה כיון שהוא שמח בו שהוא אדם חשוב » (טור יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ואם העכו״ם שולח לישראל לביתו עופות היין או דגים כתב א״א הרא״ש ז״ל בתשובה שמותרים » (טור יו״ד קנ״ב)
summary: a non-Jew who makes a feast for the wedding of his son or daughter — a Jew may not eat there, even if he eats his own food and his servant waits on him. And from when? Before the wedding, from when he begins to prepare anything for its needs… And if he is a man of standing, in whom the non-Jew rejoices — if he says “on account of the wedding”, it is forbidden even after twelve months, even if he does not hear him give thanks to the idol, for he presumably gives thanks, since he rejoices in him, he being a man of standing. And if the non-Jew sends fowl or fish to the Jew’s house, the Rosh wrote in a responsum that they are permitted.
The Beit Yosef sets out the debate over the man of standing and assigns it:
« תנא רבי ישמעאל אומר ישראלים שבח״ל עובדי אליל בטהרה הם פירוש בלא כוונה דאין שמים על לב » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« אבל הרי״ף והרא״ש השמיטו עובדא דרב יצחק וגם הרמב״ם בפ״ט לא חילק כלל בין חשוב לשאינו חשוב » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« נראה שהם סוברים שאע״פ שהוא אדם חשוב כל שעברו י״ב חדש תו ליכא למיחש דאזיל ומודה » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ורב יצחק ממידת חסידות הוא דפירש ולא אכל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
summary: … but the Rif and the Rosh omitted the episode of Rav Yitzchak, and the Rambam in chapter 9 drew no distinction at all between a man of standing and another. It seems they hold that even for a man of standing, once twelve months have passed there is no longer cause to fear that he will go and give thanks; and it seems they hold that even if we hear him give thanks we take no notice — and Rav Yitzchak withdrew and did not eat out of piety.
And he raises a possible reading of the Rambam, which he at once sets aside:
« ומשמע קצת מדקדוק לשון הרמב״ם בפ״ט דלא מיתסר אלא כשאכל במסיבת עכו״ם אבל כשישראלים אוכלים במסיבה לעצמם אע״פ שאוכלים בבית משתה העכו״ם לא מיתסר » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ויש לדחות דאף על פי שהישראלים אוכלים במסיבה לעצמם כיון שבבית משתה העכו״ם הם אוכלים מסיבת העכו״ם מקריא הילכך אין להקל » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
summary: it appears somewhat, from the precise wording of the Rambam in chapter 9, that it is forbidden only when he ate in the non-Jews’ company; but when Jews eat in a company of their own, though they eat in the feast-house, it would not be forbidden. And this may be rejected: even if the Jews eat in a company of their own, since they eat in the non-Jew’s feast-house it is called the non-Jew’s company — and so one should not be lenient.
Finally, on seif 2, the Beit Yosef gives the Rosh’s reason:
« מפשטא דקרא וממשמעות ההלכה משמע שאינו אסור אלא וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו שהוא קרוי לאכול בבית העכו״ם » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ולפ״ז אפילו שלח לו בשר ששחטו ישראל מותר וכן מבואר בתשובת הריב״ש » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
summary: from the plain sense of the verse and the drift of the halakhah it appears that only “he will call you and you will eat of his sacrifice” is forbidden — that is, being invited to eat in the non-Jew’s house. And accordingly, even if he sent him meat slaughtered by a Jew, it is permitted; so too it appears from a responsum of the Rivash.
Where does the prohibition come from? From a verse, per the baraita of Rabbi Yishmael — and the decisive word there is “he will call you”.
Why does one’s own food not save the case? Because it is not the food that is at issue, but being a guest at his table.
Where do thirty days and twelve months come from? From the sugya: thirty days in every case, twelve months if he invokes the wedding.
Why is a man of standing different? The gemara does not say; the Tur explains it by the joy the non-Jew takes in his presence.
3. The key concepts of this siman
מִשְׁתֶּה לַחוּפָּה — the wedding feast. The meal a non-Jew makes for the marriage of his son or daughter. The siman is not about any meal: it is about this one, because the verse ties it to what follows — the covenant, and then the daughters.
וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ — “he will call you, and you will eat of his sacrifice”. The verse from which the baraita derives the rule. Rava infers that the prohibition begins at the calling, not at the mouthful: otherwise the words “he will call you” would be idle.
מִשְּׁעַת קְרִיאָה — from the moment of the invitation. The consequence of Rava’s reading. The Taz (ס״ק ב) builds his whole position on it: what the Torah forbade is eating by force of his invitation.
אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ — he eats his own food. The qualification that rules out any dietary reading: the Jew may bring his own bread and wine and be served by his own servant, and the prohibition stands.
מֵחֲמַת הִלּוּלָא — on account of the wedding. The formula that lengthens the term: thirty days if nothing is said, twelve months if the invitation is expressly tied to the marriage.
אָדָם חָשׁוּב — a man of standing. One whose coming gladdens his host. The gemara withholds from him the permission of the twelve months; the siman writes only אלא אם כן הוא אדם חשוב, and the Acharonim differ over what that means.
אָזֵיל וּמוֹדֵי — he goes and gives thanks. The fear that the non-Jew, gladdened, will go and thank his idol. The Nekudot HaKesef identify this as the reason for the prohibition — and from it draw their answer to the Taz.
אֵיבָה — enmity. The ground that permits, in other simanim, what would otherwise be forbidden, so as not to provoke hostility. The Perishah asks whether it applies here; the Taz answers no, the Nekudot HaKesef yes.
עוֹפוֹת חַיִּים אוֹ דָּגִים — live fowl or fish. What the non-Jew may send to the Jew’s house: nothing cooked, nothing served — hence nothing that presupposes a shared table.
4. The summary table — the time limits and the situations
The moment
Did he say “on account of the wedding”?
The verdict
Before the wedding, from the preparations
—
אסור
During the days of the feast
—
אסור
Within the thirty days that follow
Either way
אסור
After thirty days
No
מותר
After thirty days
Yes
אסור — for twelve months
After twelve months
Yes
מותר
After twelve months, but he is a man of standing
Yes
אלא אם כן הוא אדם חשוב
He sends live fowl or fish to the Jew’s house
—
מותר
He sends meat slaughtered according to the law
—
מותר (gloss)
Only one row of the table is not a question of time — that of the man of standing. All the others are settled by the calendar; that one depends on what the non-Jew feels, and that is why it produced three views.
5. The Shakh, the Taz, the Ba’er Hetev, the Pit’hei Teshuva and the Nekudot HaKesef
The apparatus of this siman is short, and it is given here in full: the Shakh has two ס״ק, the Taz three, the Ba’er Hetev four, the Pit’hei Teshuva one, and the Nekudot HaKesef one. Unusually, it is the two shortest — the Pit’hei Teshuva and the Nekudot HaKesef — that weigh most.
The Shakh — two entries
ס״ק א — the Perishah’s question: is there a permission here on grounds of enmity?
« כתב הפרישה צריך עיון אם נאמר גם בהאי מותר משום איבה לשמוח עמו כדלעיל סוף סי׳ קמ״ח » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
summary: the Perishah wrote that it requires study whether one would say here too that it is permitted, on grounds of enmity, to rejoice with him — as above at the end of siman 148.
ס״ק ב — on “unless he is a man of standing”
« והרי״ף והרמב״ם השמיטו איסור דאדם חשוב וכתב הב״ח דס״ל דאפילו אדם חשוב שרי ודחק ליישב הש״ס לדעתם » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« ולי נראה דלא הוצרכו לכותבו משום דמלתא דפשיטא היא דאדם חשוב ירחיק עצמו בכל מאי שיוכל » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« וכן צ״ל לדעת הרמב״ם והט״ו בסימן קי״ג שלא כתבו הא דאיתא בש״ס דאדם חשוב אסור בבש״ע אף בדבר שנאכל כמות שהוא חי » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« וכן צריך לומר דעת הרמב״ם והמחבר לעיל סי׳ קמ״ב ס״ך וכן לקמן ס״ס קצ״ה גבי היתר מזיגת הכוס באשתו נדה ע״י שנוי » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
summary: the Rif and the Rambam omitted the prohibition of the man of standing; the Bach wrote that they hold even a man of standing is permitted, and laboured to reconcile the Talmud with their view. But it seems to me that they did not need to write it, since it is obvious that a man of standing keeps himself away from all he can. And the same must be said for the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh at siman 113, who did not write what the Talmud states — that a man of standing is forbidden in food cooked by a non-Jew even where it may be eaten raw; and the same must be said of the view of the Rambam and the Mehaber above at siman 142 seif 20, and below at the end of siman 195 concerning the permission to mix the cup when one’s wife is nidah by way of a change, where the Beit Yosef wrote that the Rambam holds it applies only to a great man and that this is why they did not write it — and there are many like it.
The Shakh does not say that the man of standing is permitted. He explains the silence of the Rif and the Rambam otherwise than the Bach: not because they would permit, but because the thing goes without saying. And he supports it from three other places where the same authors are silent in the same way.
The Taz — three entries
ס״ק א — against the Perishah: there is no permission of enmity here
« בדרישה נסתפק אי יש בכאן היתר משום איבה כמו בסי׳ קמ״ח שאמרו ישמח עמהם מפני שהוא כמחליף להם » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
« ומפורש בראש אותו פסוק פן תכרות ברית ליושב הארץ וזנו אחרי בנותיהן הרי שהתורה צותה שיהיה לנו איבה עמהם משום הרחקת בנותיהם והיאך נתיר משום איבה » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
« ולא מצינו היתר משום איבה אלא היכא שהמצוה משום דבר אחר » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
« משא״כ כאן שעיקר המצוה של איסור אכילה גופה הוא משום שלא יהיה לנו עמהם אהבה והיאך נבטל זה גופיה משום איבה » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
summary: the Derishah wondered whether there is a permission here on grounds of enmity, as at siman 148 where they said he should rejoice with them because it is as if he were repaying them in kind. And I am astonished that so great a man should doubt it: the matter is explicit in the verse from which they learned it, “and he will call you and you will eat of his sacrifice”; and it is explicit at the head of that same verse, “lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land… and they will go astray after their gods” — so the Torah commanded that there be enmity between us, on account of keeping their daughters at a distance: how then should we permit on grounds of enmity? We have found a permission on grounds of enmity only where the commandment rests on something else… whereas here the very substance of the prohibition on eating is that there be no affection between us — how then should we annul that very thing on grounds of enmity?
ס״ק ב — on “even if he eats his own food”: the reading of the invitation
« שנאמר וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו ואימא עד דאכיל מזבחו אמר רבא א״כ נימא קרא ואכלת מזבחו מאי וקרא לך משעת קריאה » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« פרש״י משעה שאתה קרוי לו מעלה אני על אכילתך כאלו הוא מזבחו » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« ונראה דהך קריאה דאסרה התורה עיקר פירושה שלא תהא אכילת ישראל בזה על ידי הזמנת העובדי כוכבים » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« על כן התירו כששולח לבית ישראל כמ״ש אח״כ » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« וע״פ זה נ״ל דאף בבית ישראל יש איסור דהיינו כששולח לרבים איזה מאכל או משתה שיתאספו וישתו או יאכלו דמ״מ על ידי הזמנתו אוכלים שם והוה כבית עובד כוכבים » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« ולא התירו בשולח לבית ישראל אלא אם אינו אומר שיתאספו ביחד באכילה זו אבל אם הוא מזכיר שיתאספו ביחד הוה קריאה ממש » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
summary: for it is said “and he will call you and you will eat of his sacrifice”; and say rather that it is forbidden only once he has eaten — Rava answered: if so, let the verse say “and you will eat of his sacrifice”; what is “and he will call you” doing there? From the moment of the calling. Rashi explains: from the moment you are invited by him, I reckon what you eat as though it were of his sacrifice. — And it seems that this “calling” which the Torah forbade means chiefly that the Jew’s eating should not take place by force of the non-Jew’s invitation; and ordinarily, when he invites someone, he invites him to his house — which is why they permitted the case where he sends to a Jew’s house, as is written afterwards. And on this basis it seems to me that even in a Jew’s house there is a prohibition: namely when he sends to several people some food or drink so that they may gather and drink or eat — for in any case it is by his invitation that they eat there, and it is like the non-Jew’s house; and they permitted the case of sending to a Jew’s house only where he does not say that they should gather for that meal, but if he mentions that they gather together, that is a calling proper.
This ס״ק is the most practical in the siman. It shifts the question: the prohibition does not rest on the place but on the invitation — and an invitation can reach the Jew in his own house.
ס״ק ג — on “unless he is a man of standing”: law, not piety
« מלשון זה משמע דמה שיזהר אדם חשוב הוא מצד חסידותו וכן כתב ב״י דמשום הכי השמיטו הרמב״ם ורי״ף מ״ש בגמ׳ שאני רב יצחק דאדם חשוב הוא » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ג)
« ותמיהני דהא בהרבה דוכתי הזכירו חילוק זה דיש באדם חשוב דין אחר » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ג)
« והמדקדק בלשון הגמרא יראה שלאו ממדות חסידות נגעו בה כאן » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ג)
« ופרש״י דשמח בו העובד כוכבים משמע דלאו בחסידות תליא מלתא אלא דין גמור הוא כל שיודע ששמח בו העובד כוכבים וזהו מסתמא באדם חשוב » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ג)
« אבל הטור כתב באמת כל שהאדם יודע שהעובד כוכבים שמח בו אסור מן הדין וכל אדם ילך אחר אומדן דעת בזה » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ג)
summary: from this expression it appears that what a man of standing avoids is a matter of his piety, and so the Beit Yosef wrote — that this is why the Rambam and the Rif omitted what the gemara says, “Rav Yitzchak is different, for he is a man of standing”. And I am astonished: in many places they recall this distinction, that a man of standing falls under a different rule. Whoever looks closely at the gemara’s language will see that it is not piety that is touched on here… and Rashi explains that the non-Jew rejoices in him — from which it appears that the matter does not depend on piety but is a full point of law, wherever he knows the non-Jew rejoices in him, which is the default case with a man of standing… But the Tur wrote, truly, that whoever knows the non-Jew rejoices in him is forbidden as a matter of law, and that every man should go by his own estimate in this.
The Nekudot HaKesef — one entry, and it answers the Taz
« לק״מ דהמעיין בש״ס גבי הא דפריך והא רב יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא איקלע לגבי ההוא עובד כוכבים לבתר תריסר ירתי שתא ושמעי׳ דאודי כו׳ יראה טעם האיסור הוא משום דאזיל ומודי » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« ובאזיל מודי שרינן משום איבה וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« תדע ודאי לא מחייבי׳ מלקות אם אוכל במשתה עובד כוכבים » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
« והיינו דקתני בבריית׳ ישראל שבחו״ל עובדי עבודת כוכבים בטהרה הם כו׳ משמע דאיסורא הוא משום עבודת כוכבים והיינו דאזיל ומודי » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
summary: there is no difficulty at all. Whoever examines the Talmud where it objects, “but Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Mesharshia happened upon that non-Jew’s house after twelve months and heard him give thanks…”, will see that the reason for the prohibition is that he goes and gives thanks; and in cases of “he goes and gives thanks” we do permit on grounds of enmity — and the verse is a mere support. The proof: we certainly do not impose lashes on one who eats at a non-Jew’s feast. And that is just what the baraita teaches: “the Jews outside the Land are servants of idolatry in purity” — from which it appears that the prohibition is on account of idolatry, that is, of his going and giving thanks.
The Nekudot HaKesef — the Shakh answering the Taz — overturn the basis of the argument. For the Taz the verse is the source and the prohibition is of the Torah; for the Nekudot HaKesef the verse is a mere אסמכתא and the real reason is the fear that the non-Jew will give thanks to his idol. Hence their opposite conclusion on enmity.
The Pit’hei Teshuva — one entry, and it is lenient
« עי׳ בתשובת הרדב״ז חלק א׳ סימן כ״א שכ׳ דקודם שהתחיל להכין צרכי סעודה אפי׳ ידעינן ודאי שהוא מחמת הילולא שהעובד כוכבים אמר כן בפירוש מותר ללכת שם דבטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
« אלא שאם מראין הדברים שיש באותו המשתה חשש של עבודת כוכבים ודאי דאסור לישראל ללכת שם » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
summary: see the responsum of the Radbaz, part one, siman 21, who wrote that before he has begun to prepare the needs of the meal — even if we know for certain that it is on account of the wedding, the non-Jew having said so expressly — it is permitted to go there, since his view is nullified before that of everyone else; except that if the circumstances show that in that feast there is a suspicion of idolatry, it is certainly forbidden for a Jew to go there.
The Ba’er Hetev — four entries
« בדרישה נסתפק אם יש בכאן היתר משום איבה כמו בסימן קמ״ח וכתב עליו הט״ז שתמוהין דבריו האיך יסתפק במה שמפורש בפסוק פן תכרות ברית וגו » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק א)
« כתב הט״ז נ״ל דאף בבית ישראל יש איסור כששלח לרבים איזה מאכל או משתה שיתאספו וישתו או יאכלו » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ב)
« כ׳ הט״ז מלשון זה משמע דמה שיזהר אדם חשוב הוא מצד חסידות אבל האמת אינו כן אלא מצד הדין אסור » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ג)
« עיין בס״ק ב׳ מ״ש בזה בשם הט״ז דיש חילוק בין ששולח ליחיד או לרבים » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ב ס״ק ד)
summary: (א) the Derishah wondered whether there is a permission here on grounds of enmity as at siman 148; and the Taz wrote of it that her words are astonishing — how doubt what is explicit in the verse? (ב) the Taz: even in a Jew’s house there is a prohibition where he sent food or drink to several people so that they might gather, for in any case it is by his invitation that they eat there, and it is like the non-Jew’s house; they permitted only where he does not say that they should gather. (ג) the Taz: from this expression it appears that the care of a man of standing rests on piety — but the truth is otherwise: it is forbidden as a matter of law. (ד) see ס״ק ב, where it is written in the Taz’s name that there is a difference between sending to one person and sending to several.
The Ba’er Hetev adds nothing of his own here: he transmits the Taz in all four entries, and that is a sign. On this siman the Taz is the author who built most — and he is precisely the one the Nekudot HaKesef dispute.
6. The Rambam — in which treatise is this rule codified?
The question is worth asking, because the siman touches on marriage: the verse it derives from continues “and you will take of his daughters for your sons”, and the Taz relies on exactly that. One might therefore suppose that the Rambam treats this rule with the laws of marriage. He does not — and the Beit Yosef says so expressly, referring to “chapter 9”, that is, the ninth chapter of the Laws of Foreign Worship:
« אבל הרי״ף והרא״ש השמיטו עובדא דרב יצחק וגם הרמב״ם בפ״ט לא חילק כלל בין חשוב לשאינו חשוב » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ב)
Here is the Rambam’s text, in which seif 1 is recognisable almost word for word:
« עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁעָשָׂה לִבְנוֹ אוֹ לְבִתּוֹ מִשְׁתֶּה אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מִסְּעֻדָּתוֹ » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה ט״ו)
« וַאֲפִלּוּ לֶאֱכל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ שָׁם אָסוּר הוֹאִיל וּבִמְסִבַּת עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אֲכָלוֹ » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה ט״ו)
« וּמֵאֵימָתַי אָסוּר לֶאֱכל אֶצְלוֹ מִשֶּׁיַּתְחִיל לַעֲסֹק וּלְהָכִין צָרְכֵי סְעֻדָּה וְכָל יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וּלְאַחַר יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה ט״ו)
« וְאִם עָשָׂה סְעֻדָּה אַחֶרֶת מֵחֲמַת הַנִּשּׂוּאִין אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אָסוּר עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה ט״ו)
« וְכָל הַהַרְחָקָה הַזֹּאת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁל כּוֹכָבִים הוּא » (רמב״ם הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים פרק ט׳ הלכה ט״ו)
summary: a non-Jew who made a feast for his son or his daughter — it is forbidden to derive benefit from his meal; and even for the Jew to eat and drink his own food there is forbidden, since he ate it in the company of non-Jews. And from when is it forbidden to eat at his house? From when he begins to busy himself preparing the needs of the meal, and all the days of the feast, and after the days of the feast thirty days. And if he made another meal on account of the marriage, even after thirty days it is forbidden until twelve months. And all this distancing is because of idolatry.
The last sentence settles the question of the treatise. The Rambam himself writes וְכָל הַהַרְחָקָה הַזֹּאת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁל כּוֹכָבִים הוּא — all this distancing is because of idolatry — and cites both verses, that of the sacrifice and that of the daughters. The rule is therefore codified in the Laws of Foreign Worship, although it also rests on a verse about marriage.
Marriage itself, by contrast, the Rambam treats elsewhere, in the Laws of Forbidden Intercourse:
summary: a Jew who had relations with a non-Jewish woman of the other nations by way of marriage, or a Jewish woman who had relations with a non-Jew by way of marriage — these receive lashes by Torah law.
Two treatises, two objects. The prohibition of marriage itself is in הלכות איסורי ביאה; the prohibition of the feast is in הלכות עבודה זרה, because what it forestalls is not the union but what leads to it — and, in the Rambam’s terms, the idolatry that accompanies it. This is precisely the point the Nekudot HaKesef will press against the Taz.
7. Contemporary cases
Case 1 — An invitation to a wedding, bringing one’s own food
This is the very case of seif 1, and the qualification אפילו אוכל משלו is there to rule it out in advance: bringing one’s own dish lifts nothing, because it is not the food that is at issue. The siman knows only one way out: time.
Case 2 — A dish sent to the house
Seif 2 permits it, and the gloss adds meat slaughtered according to the law. But the Taz (ס״ק ב) attaches a decisive reservation: if the sending is addressed to several people with a mention of gathering to consume it, that is an invitation again, and the prohibition returns — even in a Jewish house.
Case 3 — An invitation received long in advance
The Pit’hei Teshuva, in the Radbaz’s name, is lenient precisely there: before the preparations have begun, even if the non-Jew said expressly that it is for the wedding, it is permitted to go. But the Radbaz himself sets the limit: if the circumstances raise a fear of idolatry in that feast, it is forbidden.
Case 4 — A Jew whose presence is visibly sought
This is the question of the man of standing, the most disputed in the siman. The Beit Yosef sees piety in it; the Taz (ס״ק ג) a full point of law, in the Tur’s formulation — וכל אדם ילך אחר אומדן דעת בזה; the Shakh (ס״ק ב) something obvious that the Rif and the Rambam had no need to write; the Bach, quoted by the Shakh, permits. A question for a Rav.
Case 5 — The question of enmity
The Perishah asks whether one may permit so as not to create hostility. The Taz (ס״ק א) answers with unusual vigour: here enmity is the very object of the commandment, and so cannot be the dispensation from it. The Nekudot HaKesef answer the opposite: the reason for the prohibition is the fear that the non-Jew will give thanks, and in such cases we do permit for enmity. Both texts are above; the choice is not made on a page.
8. Synthesis of Siman 152
In one sentence: what the Torah forbids here is neither a food nor a place but an invitation — “he will call you” — and that is why the Jew’s own food saves nothing, why the prohibition begins with the preparations and ends with the calendar, and why a dish sent to the house is permitted so long as it summons no one.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
To remember
The prohibition
אסור לישראל לאכול שם
At the wedding-feast table
And his own food?
אפילו אוכל משלו
This is no dietary rule
The starting point
משיתחיל להכין צרכי הסעודה
At the preparations, not the meal
The ordinary term
ולאחר ימי המשתה ל׳ יום
Thirty days after
If he invokes the wedding
אסור עד י״ב חדש
Twelve months
The exception
אלא אם כן הוא אדם חשוב
Three views among the Acharonim
The sending to the house
עופות חיים או דגים מותר
Unless he summons several (Taz ס״ק ב)
Comprehension questions
Why does food brought by the Jew make no difference? What does that teach about the nature of the prohibition?
Where does the gemara read that the prohibition begins at the invitation and not at the meal?
What is the practical difference between thirty days and twelve months — and on what does it turn?
The Taz and the Nekudot HaKesef differ on the nature of the prohibition. Summarise the two positions and the consequence they have for enmity.
Three authors explain the silence of the Rif and the Rambam on the man of standing differently. Who are they, and how?
Why does seif 2 permit what it permits — and what reservation does the Taz attach to it?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the ḥakirah of the nature of the prohibition — Torah or asmakhta —, the Taz against the Nekudot HaKesef on enmity, the three readings of the silence of the Rif and the Rambam, and the Taz’s chiddush about the Jewish house
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the tables, the golden rules, the mnemonic and the classic pitfalls
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema‘asseh: the practical ruling (Shakh, Taz, Ba’er Hetev, Pit’hei Teshuva, Nekudot HaKesef) and contemporary cases
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן קנ״ב · Level 1 — Foundations · שלא יאכל הישראל עם העובד כוכבים אף על פי שאוכל משלו daattorah.com