Four seifim: the animal, the man, the road, and the woman
יורה דעה · סימן קנ״ג
דיני יחוד ישראל וישראלית עם העובד כוכבים
🌱 Introductory level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
Siman 153 consists of four seifim — the Shulchan Arukh announces it itself: ובו ד׳ סעיפים. It deals neither with food nor with wine, but with who is left alone with whom. An animal in an inn, a man in a room, a traveller on a road, a woman in a house. Four situations, three fears — and a clause of circumstance that changes the whole first seif.
Subject: Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קנ״ג
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of the study
1.The text of the Mehaber: the four seifim
2.Context: the mishnah in Avodah Zarah (22a), the sugya of seclusion and of the road (25b), the Tur, the Beit Yosef
3.The key concepts: רביעה, פונדקאות, מינות, ייחוד, שפיכות דמים, טופלו לימינו, ירחיב לו את הדרך, מרחץ, אשה חשובה
4.The summary table: the four situations and their fears
5.The Shakh (4 ס״ק), the Taz (4 ס״ק), the Ba’er Hetev (3), the Pit’hei Teshuvah (1) and the Nekudot HaKesef (1) — the whole apparatus
6.The Rambam: two treatises, not one
7.Modern practical cases
8.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the four seifim
The siman reads in four movements, and their order itself teaches. (1) The animal: it is not left in their inns nor handed to their shepherd, for fear of bestiality — but the rule is circumstantial, and the Mehaber himself writes where it ceases. (2) The man: one does not seclude oneself with them, for fear of bloodshed. (3) The road: what to do on meeting an armed non-Jew, going up, going down, and what to answer if asked where one is going — then the Rama’s gloss on the bathhouse. (4) The woman: she does not seclude herself, and nothing here lifts the prohibition.
Seif 1 — the animal, and the clause that limits the rule
דיני יחוד ישראל וישראלית עם העובד כוכבים. ובו ד׳ סעיפים: אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות של עובדי כוכבים ואין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהם מפני שהם חשודים על הרביעה ובמקומות שאינם חשודים בה ואדרבה מכים ועונשים עליה מותר. (ואין מוסרים להם תינוק ללמדו ספר או ללמדו אומנות דמשכי ליה למינות) (טור):
Title of the siman:the laws of the seclusion of a Jew and of a Jewish woman with a non-Jew; and it contains four seifim.
One does not place an animal in the inns of non-Jews, and one does not hand an animal over to their shepherd, because they are suspected of bestiality; and in places where they are not suspected of it, and on the contrary they strike and punish for it, it is permitted.
Gloss:(and one does not hand them a child to teach him the book or to teach him a craft, for they draw him towards heresy) (Tur).
The closing clause is not a detail; it is half the seif. The Mehaber does not merely say it is forbidden: he writes ובמקומות שאינם חשודים בה ואדרבה מכים ועונשים עליה מותר — the rule is indexed on what the place is, not on what the person is. That is the Beit Yosef’s choice between the two leniencies he reports, Rabbenu Tam’s and the Ran’s; the seif follows the Ran.
Seif 2 — the man: seclusion and bloodshed
לא יתייחד ישראל עם עובדי כוכבים מפני שהם חשודים על שפיכות דמים:
A Jew shall not seclude himself with non-Jews, because they are suspected of bloodshed.
The shortest seif of the siman is also the most general. It speaks neither of the road nor of the bathhouse nor of the woman: it lays down the fear — שפיכות דמים — from which the following seifim draw their conduct. Seif 3 is only this seif applied to the road.
Seif 3 — the road, and the Rama’s gloss on the bathhouse
אם נזדמן לו בדרך עובד כוכבים חגור סייף טופלו לימינו (היה לעובד כוכבים מקל בידו טופלו לשמאלו) (טור) היו עולים בעליה או יורדים בירידה לא יהא ישראל למטה והעובד כוכבים למעלה (ומ״מ טופלו קצת לימינו) (ר״ן פרק אין מעמידין) ולא ישחה לפניו לעולם. שאל לו להיכן אתה הולך אם היה צריך לילך פרסה יאמר שתי פרסאות אני הולך: הגה במקום שנהגו לילך במרחץ בלא מכנסיים אסור לילך למרחץ שרוחצים בו עובדי כוכבים ערומים אבל אם הישראל כבר במרחץ ובאו עובדי כוכבים אין צריך לצאת (מרדכי פכ״ה):
If he chances upon a non-Jew girded with a sword on the road, he places him on his rightgloss:(if the non-Jew had a stick in his hand, he places him on his left) (Tur). If they were going up a rise or down a slope, let the Jew not be below and the non-Jew abovegloss:(and in any case he places him somewhat to his right) (Ran, chapter Ein Ma‘amidin). And let him never bow before him. If he asked him: where are you going? — if he needed to travel one parasang, let him say: I am travelling two parasangs.
Gloss:Where the custom is to go to the bathhouse without breeches, it is forbidden to go to a bathhouse in which non-Jews bathe naked; but if the Jew is already in the bathhouse and non-Jews came in, he need not leave (Mordekhi, chapter 25).
Three practices and one answer. The sword is worn on the left: one therefore places the non-Jew on one’s own right, right hand near the weapon. The stick is held in the right hand: one reverses it. Going up or going down, the Jew stays above. And to the question “where are you going?”, one lengthens the road — so that whoever would wait until journey’s end to strike waits too long. The Rama’s gloss changes the subject: from danger to modesty, and it is the gloss that produced the whole dispute of this siman.
Seif 4 — the woman: what nothing lifts
לא תתייחד ישראלית עם עובד כוכבים אפי׳ הם רבי׳ ונשותיה׳ עמהם:
A Jewish woman shall not seclude herself with a non-Jew — even if they are many and their wives are with them.
Seif 4 is the only one in the siman where no circumstance loosens the rule. Seif 1 has its clause of place; seif 3 has its workable practices; here neither number nor the presence of the wives suffices — אפי׳ הם רבי׳ ונשותיה׳ עמהם — and the Gemara explains why: among Jews either of those two factors would have been enough.
Three distinct fears govern this siman, and they must not be conflated: רביעה for the animal, שפיכות דמים for the man, עריות for the woman. The mishnah in Avodah Zarah states them in exactly that order, and the Shulchan Arukh follows it.
2. Context — the mishnah, the sugya, the Tur and the Beit Yosef
The whole siman comes from a single mishnah, at the head of the second chapter of Avodah Zarah. It states the three prohibitions in the very order of the Shulchan Arukh, each with its own reason.
summary : one does not place an animal in the inns of non-Jews, because they are suspected of bestiality; and a woman shall not seclude herself with them, because they are suspected of licentiousness; and a man shall not seclude himself with them, because they are suspected of bloodshed.
The mishnah gives three reasons, not one. That is why the Shulchan Arukh makes them separate seifim, and why the leniency of seif 1 — places where bestiality is punished — extends to none of the others: it bears on one fear, not on a relationship.
The Gemara on 25b then works out seif 4. It asks why the presence of the wives does not suffice, and why the fear of licentiousness is added to that of bloodshed:
summary : no, it is needed in the case where his wife is with him: a non-Jew’s wife does not guard him, whereas a Jew’s wife guards him. — And with three? In a like case among licentious Jews, would it be permitted? — Rabbi Yirmeya said: we are dealing with an important woman, of whom they are afraid. Rav Idi said: a woman carries her weapons upon her.
Then comes the baraita of the road, which is seif 3 almost word for word:
summary : a Jew who chanced upon a non-Jew on the road places him on his right. Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: with a sword, he places him on his right; with a stick, he places him on his left. If they were going up a rise or down a slope, let the Jew not be below and the non-Jew above, but the Jew above and the non-Jew below; and let him not stoop before him, lest he crush his skull. If he asked him where he is going, let him widen the road for him, as Jacob our father did to Esau the wicked.
The Mehaber here settles a tannaitic dispute without saying so. The first Tanna teaches always to the right; Rabbi Yishmael distinguishes sword from stick. Seif 3 writes חגור סייף טופלו לימינו — that is, like Rabbi Yishmael — and the Rama adds the second limb, the stick, in his gloss. The Beit Yosef notes this and points out that the Rambam ruled like the first Tanna.
The Tur gives the material of the siman almost in the Mehaber’s order, and adds two things the Mehaber will not take over: Rabbenu Tam’s leniency, and the disagreement of Rashi and Rabbenu Yitzchak about the important woman.
« אין מעמידין בהמות בפונדקאות של עכו״ם אפילו זכרים אצל זכרים ונקבות אצל נקבות » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ור״ת פסק שמותר להעמיד אצלם בהמות דקי״ל שאין חשודין על הרביעה » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ולא היו מוסרין להם תינוק ללמדו ספר או אומנות » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ואם נזדמן לו בדרך אם העכו״ם חגור סייף טופלו לימינו כדי שתהא ימינו קרובה לסייף העכו״ם שהיא חגורה לו על שמאלו » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ואם העכו״ם יש לו מקל בידו טופלו לשמאלו » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ופר״י דוקא באשה שאינה חשובה אבל אם היא חשובה וקרובה למלכות מותרת להתייחד שאין חוששין לא משום שפיכות דמים ולא משום ערוה » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ורש״י פי׳ דכל אשה אסורה להתייחד עם האנשים משום ערוה » (טור יו״ד קנ״ג)
summary : one does not place animals in the inns of non-Jews, even males with males and females with females… And Rabbenu Tam ruled that it is permitted to place animals with them, for we hold that they are not suspected of bestiality. And one would not hand them a child to teach him the book or a craft. And if he chanced upon one on the road — if the non-Jew is girded with a sword he places him on his right, so that his own right hand should be near the non-Jew’s sword, which is girded on his left; and if he has a stick in his hand he places him on his left. — And Rabbenu Yitzchak explained: only a woman who is not important; but if she is important and close to the government, she is permitted to be secluded, for we fear neither bloodshed nor licentiousness. And Rashi explained that every woman is forbidden to be secluded with men, because of licentiousness.
The Beit Yosef sets the two leniencies about the animal side by side — and it is the second that the Mehaber will write into the seif:
« והר״ן התיר מטעם אחר דהא דתנן אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות העכו״ם וכן אין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהם ה״מ במקומות שהעכו״ם חשודים על הרביעה א״נ בסתם עכו״ם אבל עכו״ם שבמקומות שאינם חשודים בה אדרבה מכין ועונשין עליה מותר » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
« וכ״כ ה״ה בפכ״ב מהלכות איסורי ביאה בשם הרשב״א ז״ל שבמקומות הידועים שלא נחשדו עליה מותר לייחד » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
summary : Rabbenu Tam says that we rely on Rabbi Pedat’s answer, which establishes our mishnah according to Rabbi Eliezer, who fears bestiality, whereas the baraita permitting the purchase of an animal from them for a sacrifice follows the Sages, who do not fear it — and we rule like the Sages. And the Ran permitted for a different reason: what the mishnah teaches applies only in places where the non-Jews are suspected of bestiality, or else to unspecified non-Jews; but in places where they are not suspected of it, and on the contrary strike and punish for it, it is permitted. So too wrote the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 22 of the laws of forbidden intercourse, in the name of the Rashba: in the known places where they are not suspected of it, seclusion is permitted.
Finally, on seif 4, the Beit Yosef explains the difference between Jews and non-Jews, and reports the Rosh’s ruling:
« לאו למימרא דבעי׳ תרתי שיהיו רבי׳ וגם שיהיו נשותיהם עמהם אלא היינו לומר שבישראל בחד מהני גווני שרי שאם אשתו עמו אפי׳ א׳ מותר ואם הם רבים אפי׳ אין נשותיהם עמהם מותר » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
« ופסק הרא״ש הלכה כרב אידי משום דתניא כוותיה » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
« והרי״ף השמיט כל זה נראה שהוא מפרש כפרש״י » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
« וכ״נ שהוא דעת הרמב״ם ז״ל שגם הוא סתם לאסור בפרק כ״ב מהלכות איסורי ביאה » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
summary : this is not to say that both are required, that they be many and that their wives be with them; rather among Jews either of these cases suffices: if his wife is with him, even one is permitted; and if they are many, even without their wives, it is permitted. — And the Rosh ruled that the halakhah is like Rav Idi, because a baraita teaches like him. — And the Rif omitted all of this; it seems he explains like Rashi. — And such also appears to be the Rambam’s view, for he too wrote the prohibition without distinction, in chapter 22 of the laws of forbidden intercourse.
How many fears does the siman contain? Three, and the mishnah names them separately: bestiality, licentiousness, bloodshed.
Why does seif 1 carry a leniency and the others not? Because the fear of bestiality depends on the mores of a place; the Mehaber follows the Ran, not Rabbenu Tam.
Why the non-Jew on the right with a sword and on the left with a stick? Because the sword is girded on the left and the stick held in the right hand: in both cases the Jew’s hand ends up near the weapon.
What distinguishes seif 4 from the rest? Nothing loosens the rule there: neither number nor wives, whereas among Jews either would suffice.
3. The key concepts of this siman
רְבִיעָה — bestiality. The fear of seif 1 — and the only one of the three to which the Shulchan Arukh attaches a clause of place.
פּוּנְדְּקָאוֹת — inns, waystations. The place where an animal is left alone and unwatched: the word denotes less a building than a situation of abandonment.
מִינוּת — heresy. The reason the Rama’s gloss gives for not entrusting a child: not a bodily danger but a drawing away of the mind — דמשכי ליה למינות.
יִחוּד — seclusion. Being alone with someone, with no third party and no passage. It is the subject of the entire siman, and its title says so.
שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים — bloodshed. The fear of seif 2, and the one from which seif 3 draws all its road practices.
טוֹפְלוֹ לִימִינוֹ — he places him on his right. Not a courtesy but a stance: the Jew’s right hand ends up on the side of the sword the non-Jew wears on his left.
יַרְחִיב לוֹ אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ — he widens the road for him. Answering a destination farther than one’s own, as Jacob did to Esau: whoever would wait until journey’s end to strike will wait too long.
מֶרְחָץ — the public bath. The subject of the Rama’s gloss, and the most disputed point of the siman: the Bach, the Shakh, the Taz and the Nekudot HaKesef say four different things about it.
אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה — an important woman. One of whom they are afraid — דמירתתי מינה. For Rabbi Yirmeya this removes the fear of murder; the Shakh writes that it does not thereby remove the prohibition of seclusion.
כְּלֵי זַיְינָהּ עָלֶיהָ — her weapons are upon her. Rav Idi’s phrase: she is not killed, because she has other means of defence — and that is why the remaining fear is that of licentiousness.
4. The summary table — the situations and their fears
The situation
What the Shulchan Arukh says
The fear
What loosens — or not
An animal in their inn
אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות
רביעה
The place: where bestiality is punished, permitted
An animal with their shepherd
ואין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהם
רביעה
The same clause of place
A child entrusted for study or a craft
ואין מוסרים להם תינוק ללמדו ספר
מינות
Rama’s gloss; the Rambam gives a different reason
A man alone with them
לא יתייחד ישראל עם עובדי כוכבים
שפיכות דמים
Nothing in the seif
On the road, he carries a sword
טופלו לימינו
שפיכות דמים
A practice, not a prohibition
On the road, he carries a stick
טופלו לשמאלו
שפיכות דמים
Rama’s gloss, after Rabbi Yishmael
Going up or down
לא יהא ישראל למטה
שפיכות דמים
The Jew stays above
“Where are you going?”
יאמר שתי פרסאות אני הולך
שפיכות דמים
One lengthens the road
The public bath
אסור לילך למרחץ שרוחצים בו עובדי כוכבים ערומים
modesty
If he is already in: he need not leave (gloss)
A woman alone with them
לא תתייחד ישראלית עם עובד כוכבים
עריות
Neither number nor wives
One row of the table changes register — the bathhouse. All the others concern danger or licentiousness; that one concerns modesty, it comes from a gloss and not from the Mehaber, and it is precisely that row which produced four views among the Acharonim.
5. The Shakh, the Taz, the Ba’er Hetev, the Pit’hei Teshuvah and the Nekudot HaKesef
The apparatus of this siman is given here in full: the Shakh has four ס״ק, the Taz four, the Ba’er Hetev three, the Pit’hei Teshuvah one entry and the Nekudot HaKesef one. Two subjects absorb almost everything: the animal that was subjected to bestiality — is it permitted for eating? — and the public bath.
The Taz — four entries
ס״ק א — the animal that was subjected: the ground of the prohibition, and the question of eating
« והעובד כוכבים נזהר עליה דכתיב והיו לבשר אחד יצאו בהמה וחיה שאין בשרן נעשו אחד ויש כאן לפני עור ל״ת מכשול הכי אמרינן ר״פ אין מעמידין » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« אבל אם כבר העמידה ועבד איסורא אין שום חשש איסור לענין היתר אכילה אפילו אם היא בהמה טהורה » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« וע״כ אין בזמן הזה שום איסור לאכילה אפי׳ ברובעו ישראל בפני ב׳ עדים כיון דליכא גמר דין » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« וראיתי מי שהורה לאיסור אכילה בזה וטעות הוא » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
summary : the non-Jew himself is warned about it, for it is written “and they shall be one flesh”, which excludes beast and animal, whose flesh does not become one with his; there is therefore here a “before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block” — thus we say at the beginning of the chapter Ein Ma‘amidin. It emerges from this that there is no prohibition here except on account of “before the blind”; but if one has already placed the animal and he committed the transgression, there is no suspicion of prohibition as regards permission to eat it, even if it is a pure animal. […] And therefore there is nowadays no prohibition of eating at all, even if a Jew mounted it before two witnesses, since there is no conclusion of judgment. And I have seen one who ruled it forbidden to eat in this case, and it is an error.
The Taz turns the seif around. The seif forbids placing; the Taz deduces that the prohibition bears on the act of placing — לפני עור — and not on the animal itself. Hence his conclusion: the accomplished fact does not render the animal forbidden. It is from this conclusion that the Ba’er Hetev and the Pit’hei Teshuvah will set out.
ס״ק ב — why the right, and why the left
« של ישראל שיהיה קרוב לסייף של עובד כוכבים שחגור בשמאלו והמקל רגיל להיות בימין של עובד כוכבים » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ב)
summary : of the Jew, so that he should be near the non-Jew’s sword, which he wears girded on his left; and the stick is usually in the non-Jew’s right hand.
ס״ק ג — the bath: against the Rama’s gloss
« דבריו נמשכים אחר מה שכתב המרדכי ריש פרק כ״ה דר״ג היה רוחץ עם ההגמון וש״מ שאם נכנס למרחץ ושוב נכנס העובד כוכבים מותר לרחוץ עמו אבל אם קדם לו העובד כוכבים אסור לרחוץ עמו » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
« ותירץ בדרכי משה דבזמניהם היו העובדי כוכבים הולכים בלא מכנסיים ונראית ערוה שלהם מה שאין כן עכשיו שמכסים ערוותם » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
« וזה דבר ברור שאסור דודאי יש לחוש שיראנו ישראל ויבוא לידי הרהור » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
« ומותר בכל גווני רק שיהיה מכוסה ערותו » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
« אבל אם הוא מגולה צריך לצאת אפילו קדמו ישראל » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
summary : his words follow what the Mordekhi wrote at the beginning of chapter 25, that Rabban Gamliel used to bathe with the governor — from which it is learned that if the Jew entered the bath and the non-Jew entered afterwards, it is permitted to bathe with him; but if the non-Jew preceded him it is forbidden. […] And he answered in the Darkhei Moshe that in their days they went without breeches and their nakedness was visible, which is not so today, when they cover their nakedness. […] And this is a clear matter, that it is forbidden, for there is certainly cause to fear that the Jew will see him and come to improper thoughts. […] It is therefore permitted in every manner, provided his nakedness is covered; but if it is uncovered one must leave, even if the Jews came in first.
The Taz’s ס״ק ג is twofold, and it is often summarised wrongly. On one side he eases — the Mordekhi’s prohibition rested on ritual purity, which no longer applies to us, so the bath itself is no longer forbidden — and on the other he tightens: where nakedness is visible, the fear of improper thoughts suffices, and the Rama’s distinction between coming in first and coming in after does not hold.
ס״ק ד — why number and wives do not suffice
« בטור כתב על זה וכה״ג בישראל שרי » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ד)
« דבהיתר שתלוי במה שהם רבים לא מהני אלא בכשרים אבל לא בפרוצים אבל ההיתר השני שמחמת נשותיהם עמהם מהני בישראל אפי׳ בפרוץ ואפי׳ אין שם אלא הוא לבדו » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ד)
« וכאן בעובד כוכבים לא מהני אלו תרתי » (ט״ז יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ד)
summary : in the Tur it is written on this “and in a like case, among Jews, it is permitted”. […] For the leniency that depends on their being many holds only among upright men and not among licentious ones; whereas the second leniency, which rests on their wives being with them, holds among Jews even for a licentious man, and even if he is alone. […] And here, with a non-Jew, these two together do not help.
The Shakh — four entries
ס״ק א — the bath: the Bach’s thesis and the Shakh’s
« והב״ח השיג ע״ז וז״ל ולא ידעתי מנין לו זה ותו דא״כ לפי טעם זה אפילו חוץ לד׳ אמות נמי אסור והרי במרדכי והגמי״י מתירין ברחוק ד׳ אמות אלא ודאי » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« הטעם הוא משום טהרה ואין חילוק בין לבוש מכנסיים או לא אלא תוך ד״א אסור אפילו לבוש מכנסיים וחוץ לד״א שרי » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« ואין אנו נוהגים להחמיר בזמן הזה ואפשר דלא אסור אלא בימיהם שהיו רגילין לילך בלא מכנסיי׳ כמ״ש האגודה פ׳ מקום שנהגו אבל האידנא לית לן בה » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« והשתא דאין טומאה וטהרה נוהג בינינו ואין אנו נזהרין ברוקן ומדרסן גם לרחוץ עמהם שרי כן נ״ל » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« אפשר דאינהו לא מיירי אלא למדת חסידות ולמי שנוהג עצמו בקדושה וטהרה אבל לא לשאר סתם ב״א » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
summary : and the Bach objected to this, and these are his words: “I do not know whence he has this; moreover, if so, by this reasoning it would be forbidden even beyond four cubits, yet the Mordekhi and the Haggahot Maimoniyot permit at a distance of four cubits — so certainly the reason is purity, and there is no difference between wearing breeches or not: within four cubits it is forbidden even wearing breeches, and beyond four cubits it is permitted even without them”. […] And he did not look at the Darkhei Moshe, where what compelled him to distinguish in this way is set out: “we do not have the practice of being strict nowadays, and it may be that it was forbidden only in their days, when they used to go without breeches — as the Agudah writes — but today it does not concern us”. […] And now that purity and impurity are not in force among us and we do not take care about their spittle and their contact, bathing with them too is permitted: so it seems to me. […] It may be that they themselves spoke only of a measure of piety and for one who conducts himself in holiness and purity, but not for other, ordinary people.
Three positions are legible in this single ס״ק. The Rama distinguishes by the breeches; the Bach replies that the reason is purity and distinguishes by four cubits; the Shakh answers both: the reason was indeed purity, but it no longer applies — so there is no prohibition at all, except as a measure of piety. The Taz, as we saw, says a fourth thing about it.
ס״ק ב, ג, ד — the woman: what the Shakh rejects and what he retains
« אפילו היא חשובה קרובה למלכות כ״כ ב״י לדעת רש״י והרי״ף והרמב״ם וכ״כ הב״ח » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ב)
« וכב״י והאחרונים דוקא עם אנשים אבל עם נשים אף לפירש״י » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
« דבכה״ג אפילו בישראל פריצי שרי כמו שנתבאר בא״ע סימן כ״ב ס״ה » (ש״ך יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ד)
summary : (ב) even if she is important and close to the government: so wrote the Beit Yosef, according to the view of Rashi, the Rif and the Rambam, and so wrote the Bach. — (ג) and the Beit Yosef and the Acharonim: only with men, but with women, even according to Rashi’s explanation, it is permitted, for we do not fear bloodshed, for the reason the Tosafot wrote; and there is room to hesitate in this according to Rashi’s explanation. — (ד) for in such a case, even among licentious Jews, it is permitted, as is set out in Even ha-Ezer, siman 22, seif 5.
The Nekudot HaKesef — one entry, and it targets the Taz
« רוצה להוכיח דאסור לרחוץ במרחץ שהעובדי כוכבים רוחצי׳ בו ערומים ואין דבריו נכונים בזה » (נקודות הכסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
summary : he wishes to prove that it is forbidden to bathe in a bath where non-Jews bathe naked — and his words are not correct in this.
The Nekudot HaKesef are the Shakh answering the Taz, and the answer holds in one line: it does not deny the fear of improper thoughts, it denies that the Taz has proved it from the Mordekhi and Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, which speak only of purity. On this siman, that is the point where the reader must stop: two of the greatest Acharonim contradict each other on a daily practice.
The Pit’hei Teshuvah — one entry, on the animal
« וכן כתב בתשו׳ בית יעקב סי׳ קי״ח אלא שכ׳ דמ״מ לכתחלה אסור לשוחטה כדי לאכול ממנה רק ימכור לעובדי כוכבים ובמקום שאין עובדי כוכבים אוכלים בהמה שנרבעת אסור למכור להם » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« אכן אם יש לחוש שהישראל יעבור וישחטנו ויאכלנו יש להתיר למכרו לעובד כוכבים » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« ועיין בתשובת יד אליהו סימן ל״ה שחולק עליו במ״ש דאסור לכתחלה לישראל לשחוט בהמה הנרבעת דליתא והעלה דמותרת באכילה ומצוה לשוחטה מיד דוקא ולא למכרה ולא להניחה בחיים כלל » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« וכתב עוד דאין לכתוב על עורה ס״ת ותפילין ומזוזות ואפילו רצועות אין ליקח ממנה » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
summary : so wrote the responsum Beit Yaakov, siman 118, save that he wrote that in any case it is forbidden a priori to slaughter it in order to eat from it: rather let him sell it to non-Jews; and in a place where non-Jews do not eat an animal that has been subjected, it is forbidden to sell it to them. However, if there is cause to fear that the Jew will transgress and slaughter and eat it, there is ground to permit selling it to a non-Jew. — And see the responsum Yad Eliyahu, siman 35, who disputes what he wrote — that it would be forbidden a priori for a Jew to slaughter an animal that has been subjected — which is not so; and he concludes that it is permitted for eating and that it is a mitzvah to slaughter it immediately, specifically, and not to sell it nor to leave it alive at all. And he wrote further that one should not write on its hide a Torah scroll, tefillin or mezuzot, and that even for straps one should not take from it.
The Ba’er Hetev — three entries
« אבל אם כבר העמידה ועבד איסורא אין שום חשש איסור לענין היתר אכילה אפילו אם ודאי רבעה עובד כוכבים או ישראל אפילו בפני ב׳ עדים דבזה״ז ליכא גמר דין וראיתי מי שהורה לאיסור אכילה בזה וטעות הוא עכ״ל הט״ז » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« אבל ת׳ ב״ח סי״א נטה להחמיר » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק א)
« והט״ז חולק על הג״ה זו ופסק דאפילו אם הישראל קדמו לעובד כוכבים אפ״ה אסור כיון דהטעם משום הרהור מה לי אם קדמו או לא » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ב)
« אבל הש״ך כתב דבזה״ז הכל מותר אפי׳ אם העובד כוכבים קדמו רק ממדת חסידות ומי שנוהג עצמו בקדושה וטהרה יש להרחיק מזה אבל לא לשאר סתם בני אדם » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ב)
« אפ״ה בעובד כוכבים אסור ואפי׳ היא חשובה וקרובה למלכות ודוקא עם אנשים אבל עם נשים שרי דלא חיישינן לשפיכת דמים עכ״ל הש״ך » (באר היטב יו״ד קנ״ג ס״ק ג)
summary : (א) but if one has already placed the animal and he committed the transgression, there is no suspicion of prohibition as regards permission to eat it, even if it is certain that a non-Jew or a Jew mounted it, even before two witnesses, for nowadays there is no conclusion of judgment; “and I have seen one who ruled it forbidden to eat in this case, and it is an error” — these are the Taz’s words. — But the responsum of the Bach, siman 11, inclined to be strict. — (ב) and the Taz disputes this gloss and rules that even if the Jew preceded the non-Jew it is nevertheless forbidden, since the reason is improper thought: what does it matter to me whether he came first or not? But the Shakh wrote that nowadays everything is permitted, even if the non-Jew came first; only, as a measure of piety, one who conducts himself in holiness and purity should keep away from this — but not other, ordinary people. — (ג) nevertheless, with a non-Jew it is forbidden, even if she is important and close to the government; and only with men, but with women it is permitted, for we do not fear bloodshed — these are the Shakh’s words.
The Ba’er Hetev here does exactly its office: it does not decide, it lays out both. On the bath it gives the Taz and then the Shakh, in that order, without concluding. That is the surest sign that this is an open question, and not a lone opinion against a consensus.
6. The Rambam — two treatises, not one
The question deserves to be asked, and the answer is not the expected one. This siman belongs to the section of Yoreh De‘ah that follows the laws of foreign worship, and one would readily think the Rambam codifies it entirely in הלכות עבודה זרה. Not so: the material of siman 153 is divided between two treatises, and the division follows exactly the division of the fears.
The animal, the child and the woman’s seclusion are in the laws of forbidden intercourse — because the fear there is רביעה and עריות:
summary : and likewise one does not hand a Jewish child to a non-Jew to teach him the book or to teach him a craft, because they are all suspected of relations between men. And one does not place an animal in their inns, even males with males and females with females. — But a Jewish woman shall not seclude herself with him, and this even if his wife is with him, for a non-Jew’s wife does not guard him, and they have no shame.
The Rambam gives the child a different reason from the Rama. The Rama writes דמשכי ליה למינות — they draw him towards heresy, and that is the Tur’s reason; the Rambam writes מפני שכולן חשודין על משכב זכור, and that is why with him the rule sits among the forbidden unions, beside the animal. Two reasons, two placements — and it is worth seeing, because the practical conclusion is not the same in each case.
The seclusion of a man, however, and all the road practices, are in the laws of the murderer and the preservation of life — because the fear there is שפיכות דמים:
« וְכֵן אָסוּר לִיהוּדִי לְהִתְיַחֵד עִם הָעַכּוּ״ם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חֲשׁוּדִים עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים » (רמב״ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש פרק י״ב הלכה ז׳)
« פָּגַע עַכּוּ״ם בַּדֶּרֶךְ מַחְזִירוֹ לִימִינוֹ » (רמב״ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש פרק י״ב הלכה ז׳)
« אֶלָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה וְעַכּוּ״ם לְמַטָּה שֶׁמָּא יִפּל עָלָיו לַהֲמִיתוֹ » (רמב״ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש פרק י״ב הלכה ז׳)
« אִם שְׁאָלוֹ לְאָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ יַרְחִיב לוֹ אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִרְחִיב יַעֲקֹב לְעֵשָׂו » (רמב״ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש פרק י״ב הלכה ח׳)
summary : and likewise it is forbidden for a Jew to seclude himself with a non-Jew, because they are suspected of bloodshed. […] If he met a non-Jew on the road, he turns him to his right. […] but the Jew above and the other below, lest he fall upon him to kill him. […] If he asked him: where are you going? — let him widen the road for him, as Jacob widened it for Esau.
Two differences worth keeping. The first: the Rambam writes מחזירו לימינו without distinguishing sword from stick — he rules like the first Tanna, and the Beit Yosef notes it expressly; the Mehaber and the Rama, for their part, follow Rabbi Yishmael. The second: the Rambam says nothing about the animal that has already been subjected, nor about the bath — those two questions were born after him, among the Acharonim.
« ודע דזה שכתב רבינו הוא כדברי ר׳ ישמעאל בנו של ר״י בן ברוקה אבל ת״ק פליג עליה וסבר דלעולם טופלו לימינו והרמב״ם בפי״ב מהלכות רוצח פסק כת״ק » (בית יוסף יו״ד קנ״ג)
summary : and know that what our master wrote is according to the words of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka; but the first Tanna disputes him and holds that one always places him on his right, and the Rambam, in chapter 12 of the laws of the murderer, ruled like the first Tanna.
7. Modern practical cases
Case 1 — Entrusting an animal to a boarding stable or a farm
This is the very case of seif 1 — and it is also where the Mehaber himself wrote the limit: ובמקומות שאינם חשודים בה ואדרבה מכים ועונשים עליה מותר. The seif makes the rule depend not on who the person is but on the mores and laws of the place. The Beit Yosef reports that the Rashba already said the same. A question for one’s Rav in appraising a given place.
Case 2 — An animal known to have been subjected: may it be eaten?
The Taz (ס״ק א) rules that it is, and adds that whoever taught the prohibition erred. The Ba’er Hetev reports him, then notes that the Bach’s responsum inclined to strictness. The Pit’hei Teshuvah opens it further: the Beit Yaakov forbids slaughtering it a priori for food and advises selling it; the Yad Eliyahu answers that it is even a mitzvah to slaughter it at once, and adds that one does not write on its hide. Three different practices on a single page. A question for one’s Rav.
Case 3 — The changing room, the sauna, the swimming pool
This is the Rama’s gloss, and it is the most disputed point of the siman. Four voices: the Rama distinguishes by the custom of breeches; the Bach by the four-cubit distance; the Shakh permits broadly today, leaving abstention as a measure of piety; the Taz forbids as soon as nakedness is visible, including for one who came in first; and the Nekudot HaKesef write that the Taz’s proof does not hold. The Ba’er Hetev reports the Taz and then the Shakh without concluding. A question for one’s Rav — and the opposite of a theoretical one.
Case 4 — Remaining alone in an isolated place
Seif 2 is brief and sets no condition. The fear is שפיכות דמים, and the Rambam codifies it among the laws of preserving life: it belongs to the family of rules of prudence, not to that of dietary prohibitions. The practices of seif 3 — one’s place on the road, the ascent, the answer to give — are its applications, and they show that the siman asks not for flight but for positioning. A question for one’s Rav in appraising a situation.
Case 5 — A woman alone, even with several people present
This is seif 4, and it is the firmest in the siman: neither number nor the presence of the wives lifts the prohibition. The Shakh adds two notes in opposite directions: on the one hand, even an important woman close to the government remains forbidden, according to Rashi, the Rif and the Rambam; on the other, the prohibition bears on men, not on women — and on that last point he himself writes ויש לפקפק בזה לפירש״י. A question for one’s Rav.
Case 6 — Entrusting a child to a teacher or an apprenticeship
The Rama’s gloss forbids it, and its reason is דמשכי ליה למינות — the drawing of the mind, not danger to the body. The Rambam gives a different reason. The Tur, the Rama’s source, moreover writes this clause in the past tense — ולא היו מוסרין להם תינוק — which has drawn the commentators’ attention. A question for one’s Rav.
8. Summary of Siman 153
In one sentence: this siman regulates neither a food nor a contract but a presence — who is left alone with whom, and where — and it does so according to three distinct fears which the mishnah in Avodah Zarah states separately; whence it follows that the leniency of the first seif, which depends on the mores of a place, extends to none of the other three.
Memory table
What the siman says
In Hebrew
Remember
The basic prohibition, on the animal
אין מעמידין בהמה בפונדקאות
Inn and shepherd
And its limit
ובמקומות שאינם חשודים בה
The rule depends on the place
The child
דמשכי ליה למינות
Rama’s gloss, the Tur’s reason
The man
מפני שהם חשודים על שפיכות דמים
Seif 2, the shortest
The road, the sword
חגור סייף טופלו לימינו
The hand near the weapon
The road, the stick
טופלו לשמאלו
Gloss; the Rambam does not distinguish
The question about the road
יאמר שתי פרסאות אני הולך
As Jacob to Esau
The bath
אבל אם הישראל כבר במרחץ אין צריך לצאת
The Taz disputes, the Shakh eases
The woman
אפי׳ הם רבי׳ ונשותיה׳ עמהם
Nothing loosens
Comprehension questions
Why does the leniency of seif 1 not extend to seifim 2 and 4?
The Beit Yosef reports two leniencies about the animal. Which one did the Mehaber write into the seif, and how can one tell?
Why to the right with a sword and to the left with a stick? And why does the Rambam not make this distinction?
Summarise the four positions on the bath — Rama, Bach, Shakh, Taz — and say what the Nekudot HaKesef add.
Does the Taz permit eating an animal that was subjected? On what reasoning, and who disputes it?
Why is the material of this siman divided between two treatises of the Rambam?
To go further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the chakira on the nature of the prohibition about the animal, the dispute of Rashi and Rabbenu Yitzchak on the important woman, the four readings of the bath, and the division of treatises in the Rambam
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the tables, the golden rules, the mnemonic and the classic pitfalls
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakhah lema‘aseh: the practical ruling (Shakh, Taz, Ba’er Hetev, Pit’hei Teshuvah, 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״ג · Level 1 — Introduction · דיני יחוד ישראל וישראלית עם העובד כוכבים daattorah.com