Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As explained in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:3, pouring a libation and sacrificing are among the four acts of service for which one is liable to any false deity, even if this is not its mode of service.

See the following halachah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 194) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. According to the Rambam, it is actually the last of the mitzvot which the Torah mentions.
Although the verse does not specifically mention a prohibition, the Rambam derives the prohibition as follows: As stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2, we are forbidden to derive benefit from anything offered to a false deity. Since the prooftext quoted establishes an equation between a libation and an offering, we conclude that just as an offering is forbidden by a negative commandment; so, too, there is a negative commandment involving a libation (see Avodah Zarah 29b).
The Ramban (in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) and the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 111) maintain that both are included in a single prohibition. They should not be counted as separate negative commandments. They all agree, however, that the prohibition against such wine is Scriptural in origin. As the Rambam explains in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., there are statements of our Sages that appear to imply that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Those statements, however, apply to wine handled by gentiles (see Halachah 3) and not to wine that was actually used for a libation.

This verse is most particularly related to the prohibition against benefiting from. the property of a city who were drawn after idol worship (ir hanidachat). Nevertheless, since all false deities can be considered as “condemned,” the verse applies to them as well (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 25). The expression “any trace” implies that even the slightest amount of benefit is prohibited.

We find an allusion to this decree in Scripture itself, for Daniel 1:8 speaks of how Daniel refrained from drinking the king’s wine. Avodah Zarah 36b states that the decree against drinking wine handled by gentiles was instituted lest this lead to familiarity and ultimately, to intermarriage. From the Rambam’s wording in the following halachah, however, it would appear that the prohibition was instituted as a safeguard against benefiting from idolatry (Ma ‘aseh Rokeach; see also Halachah 7 and notes).

One fourth of a log, 86 cc. According to Shiurei Torah.

It is forbidden to drink even the slightest amount, but one is liable only for drinking a revi’it (Lechem Mishneh).

See Chapter 12, Halachot 1-2, which define what is meant by a gentile touching wine. As implied by the contrast to the following halachah, for it to be forbidden to benefit from
the wine, the gentile must touch it intentionally. Similarly, he must know that it is wine (Radbaz).

Therefore even if there is no false deity present, it is possible that the gentile intended to use it as a libation. See Halachah 7 and notes which discuss which gentiles we are referring to.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 5.

Here the term “child” is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 124:1)].

In both instances, we cannot say that the person had the intent to use the wine as a libation. In the first instance, he did not intend to touch the wine and in the second, the child does not know about idolatrous worship. Nevertheless, the wine is still forbidden as a safeguard.

In this way, they reach the intermediate stage of Jewish servants, as Hilchot Issurei Bi ‘ah 12:11 states: they “have departed from the category of gentiles, but have yet to enter the category of Jews.”

Their “conversion” to Judaism will prevent them from offering such a libation. See the Tur who also mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Chananel who maintains that a gentile servant causes wine to be forbidden for twelve months.
The Tur clarifies that the debate concerns only a servant, because his acceptance of Judaism is forced. All agree that no such strictures apply to a convert who willingly accepts Judaism.

If they were not born in a Jewish domain, the circumcision alone is of no consequence and even minors cause wine to become forbidden to drink (Kessef Mishneh).

If they were not immersed yet, even young children cause wine they touch to become forbidden to drink (the Kessef Mishneh‘s interpretation of the Rambam’s opinion). The Rashba, however, differs and maintains even if these children were neither circumcised nor immersed, they do not cause wine to be forbidden. The Turei Zahav 124:3 and the Siftei Cohen 124:9 differ and maintain that even the Rambam would accept the Rashba’s approach.

I.e., it is permitted entirely, even to drink it.

The prohibitions against the worship of false deities, blasphemy, murder, theft, incest and adultery, eating the flesh of a living animal, and the obligation to establish courts. See Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that there are two dimensions to the prohibition against drinking the wine of gentiles:
a) The desire to limit familiarity with gentiles, lest it lead to intermarriage. This applies to resident aliens as well. Therefore there is a prohibition against drinking their wine.
b) A safeguard against benefiting from wine used as libations. This does not apply with regard to resident aliens. Therefore there is no prohibition against deriving benefit from their wine.

Since we do not suspect that he will use the wine for a libation - or allow other gentiles to do so - we do not forbid one to leave it there for a short while. Nevertheless, if it is left there for a long time, we fear that the gentile will exchange it with his own wine and as stated above, it is forbidden for Jews to drink his own wine.

The Rambam’s wording has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for from the beginning of the halachah, it appears that the gentile must accept all seven mitzvot, while this clause appears to imply that it is sufficient for him to accept only the prohibition against idolatry. The Kessef Mishneh explains that when the entire nation does not worship false deities, then we do not fear that wine will be used as a libation. When, however, that is not the case, a gentile must accept all seven mitzvot for his wine to be permitted.

Our translation follows the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. The uncensored text reads: “Christians, by contrast, are idolaters. It is forbidden to benefit.... “The Rama (Orach Chayim 155:1) rules that Christianity violates only the prohibition against shituf, worshipping another entity together with God, and gentiles are not prohibited against such worship. It must be emphasized that today, though many gentiles are nominally Christian, their observance is minimal and they have an awareness of monotheism.
See also the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 123:1, 124:24) who quotes opinions that maintain that in the present age, it is not customary for gentiles to pour wine as libations to false deities. Nevertheless, the prohibition against drinking such wine remains intact.

For in the Rambam’s age, most gentiles were idolaters. The Rabbinic authorities question whether one can make such an assumption in the present age. For many gentiles do not worship according to any religious rites at all and others, like the Arabs, have a conception of monotheism.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9 states that wine that was cooked to the extent that its taste changed is forbidden to be used as a libation on the altar. To put the concept in contemporary terms, wine that was pasteurized is included in this category.

Avodah Zarah 30b relates that the Sage Shmuel actually drank boiled wine together with a gentile.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher who asks: If the decree against wine touched by a gentile was instituted to prevent intermarriage, what difference does it make if it was boiled or not? Will boiling the wine prevent familiarity from arising with gentiles?
In resolution, he explains that perhaps since boiled wine is uncommon, our Sages did not apply their decree in such a situation. Even though today, it has become common to drink boiled - i.e., pasteurized wine - our Sages’ decree has not been expanded. It must be emphasized that this leniency applies to wine belonging to a Jew that was boiled. Wine belonging to a gentile becomes forbidden before it is boiled and thus cannot be drunk.

Although they are unfit to be used for a libation.

This includes any wine to which sugar was added.

Hilchot Jssurei Mizbeach 6:9.

In their days, grape presses were built on an incline, so that after the grapes were pressed, the juice would flow naturally toward a cistern.

The Turei Zahav 123:14 states that some interpret the Rambam as speaking only about a winepress that is open. If it is plugged close, there is room to say that the prohibition does not apply. Nevertheless, the Turei Zahav quotes other views that maintain that the prohibition applies even in such an instance.

Implied is that a libation cannot be offered with one’s feet (Kessef Mishneh based on Avodah Zarah 56b; the Siftei Cohen 123:43, however, maintains that this is not the correct understanding of the Rambam’s words). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 124:11), however, rules that a gentile who touches the wine with his feet causes it to become forbidden. The Rama, however, rules leniently and maintains that the prohibition applies only to drinking such wine.

The Turei Zahav 124:17 interprets this as referring to an instance where he does not touch the wine at all, not even with his feet. The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that this is referring to a situation where the gentile touches the wine with his feet, but not with his hands.

And watching that the gentile does not touch it.

It is, however, permitted to benefit from it.

The fact that it becomes vinegar afterwards does not cause it to become permitted.
The Radbaz states that one can conclude from the Rambam’s wording that if a gentile touches vinegar belonging to a Jew, it is permitted, for it is no longer wine.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text is difficult to understand. As the Radbaz and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 125:6) state, the Rambam is referring to a situation where a certain amount of grape juice collects in the bottom of the baskets. Even though that juice spatters over the grapes, it does not cause the wine to be considered forbidden, for this prohibition does not apply until the wine begins to flow, as stated in Halachah 11 (Radbaz).

Even to benefit from them [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 123:14)]. See also the Rama who states that the prohibition applies only when the peels were in contact with gentile wine. If the gentiles had merely crushed the grapes, but the wine had not begun flowing from the winepress, the peels are not forbidden.

See the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) which quotes more stringent views in certain circumstances.

For a certain quantity of wine is absorbed in the container. Afterwards, when the kosher wine is placed in the container, it will be soaked into the container and the wine in the container will be released into it.

See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 135:16) which explains that even if one used the containers for water during this period, this does not prevent the containers from becoming permitted.

I.e., if they are not covered with tar (Kessef Mishneh). By heating them, one will achieve the results of libbun and purge any absorbed wine through heat.
See also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 135:15) which states that hagalah, filling the containers with boiling water is also acceptable.

It is, however, permitted to benefit from this wine (Kessef Mishneh).

For these substances nullify the taste of wine (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 33b).

I.e., even though they appear new, we suspect that a gentile used them to store wine. Hence they must be washed. Nevertheless, the fact that they appear new indicates that they were not used for a long time. Hence, washing them is sufficient.
This stringency applies only with regard to containers covered with pitch. Since they are dark black, it is not evident whether they were used previously or not. With regard to other containers, it is much more clearly apparent whether or not they were used. Hence there is no need for this stringency (Kessef Mishneh).

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Avodah Zarah 74b appears to require that such utensils be dried. He questions why the Rambam does not mention this point. As a possible resolution, he suggests that perhaps the Talmud is speaking about utensils belonging to a gentile, while the Rambam is speaking about those belonging to a Jew.

The Rambam’s ruling is dependent on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 33b. Other authorities including Rashi and the Ra’avad have a different understanding of the passage. Their view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 135:4).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking of an instance where the glazing of the lead or the pitch was not completed in a thorough manner and the surface of the utensil is not smooth. Therefore such a utensil will absorb wine more easily than an ordinary earthenware utensil. Hence, three washings are required. The following halachah, by contrast, is speaking about a utensil that is glazed in a more thorough manner, producing a smooth surface. Hence it is less likely to absorb the wine than an ordinary earthenware utensil.

As mentioned above, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean that they were glazed in a manner that produced a smooth surface. Hence they do not absorb the wine easily.

After being washed alone.

In order to produce a green color, a substance called netar, alum crystals [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 135:5)], is mixed into the glazing. This substance is very absorbent. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah, loc. cit.) states that utensils made from this substance can never be purified.

I.e., the glazing does not cover the entire utensil.

Until the wine is purged as mentioned in Halachah 15.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Rashba as stating that from the fact that these statements are made about earthenware utensils, one can conclude that metal utensils do not absorb even when gentile wine was placed in them for an extended period of time. They will absorb only when liquids are heated.

For even if the wine was not placed in them for an extended period, it is possible that there will be a certain amount of residue left in the container.

For over a short period of time, they will not absorb.

That is not covered with pitch (Kessef Mishneh).

Rashi (Avodah Zarah 74b) and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 138:l) explain that after pitch is applied to a vat, a small amount of wine is placed in the vat to remove the unfavorable odor of the pitch.

I.e., rubbing the walls with ashes and then washing them (Kessef Mishneh).

Since a larger amount of pitch is necessary, it will absorb more.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 138:1) follows the position of other Rishonim who maintains that even after peeling off the outer layer of the pitch, one must apply ashes and water, as stated in the previous halachah.

As stated with regard to barrels in Halachah 15. The Ra’avad and most other Rishonim differ with regard to this ruling and require the pitch to be peeled off.

Indeed, one would suspect the laws governing barrels to be more stringent, for wine is stored there for long periods. It remains in a winepress, by contrast, for only a short time.

Without having to wait any time at all.

For earthenware absorbs more readily than other substances. In the previous halachah, we assume that the winepress itself did not absorb any wine. In this case, we assume that it did (Kessef Mishneh).

Without peeling off the pitch as stated in the previous halachah. Here also the Ra’avad differs and rules that the pitch must be peeled off. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the Rambam’s ruling.

In Halachah 15.

Hair does not absorb liquid at all. Hence, it need only be washed to remove the wine that may be sticking to its surface.

Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text differs slightly.

Which is more absorbent.

So that the residue will not collect there.

Our translation is based on the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 135:8).

When citing this law in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 138:7, 9), Rav Yosef Caro does not mention the need to untie the knots in this instance. As evident from his Kessef Mishneh, he follows the approach of the Rashba who maintains that when an object is left for twelve months, there is no need to untie the knots. The Siftei Cohen 138:8 differs and states that the Rambam’ s ruling should be followed.

Upon which the grapes are placed.

Used to crush the grapes (see the conclusion of the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh to Halachah 17).

Which are used as brooms to collect the grapes (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 75a).

In his Commentary to the Mishneh, Taharot 10:8, the Rambam states that this refers to the restraints placed around olives (and grapes) when they are being squeezed to gather them together.

This term refers to the process of applying ashes and water mentioned above.

To purge the wine absorbed in this fashion.

Cooking them in such water will cause whatever wine that was absorbed to be sealed in its place and never to be released.

This will also purge the absorbed wine. See Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:17 which mentions these same processes in a different context.

A Jew who worships false divinities, does not observe the Sabbath, or denies the Torah and its mitzvot is considered equivalent to a gentile and his wine is forbidden just as a gentile’s is (see Hilchot Shabbat 30:15). When Eretz Yisrael was populated solely by Jews, our Sages maintained that there was no need to suspect that a person fell into the above categories.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating that a common person will not necessarily cause another to transgress. The Radbaz states that even if the common people will not necessarily transgress themselves, they will not be careful about protecting another person’s observance and may sell him forbidden articles. This view is cited by the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 119:1).

Chapter 3, Halachah 21; Chapter 8, Halachah 7.

We assume that the host is observant and that he is giving his guest the same food that he eats himself (Radbaz).

As the Rambam ~tated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, unless otherwise specified, when he uses the term “gentile,” he is referring to an idolater.

Or with an article held in his hand [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 124:11)).

As evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 11, according to the Rambam, it is not
customary to pour a libation with one’s feet. Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 124:11) which forbids wine that a gentile touched with his feet. The Rama, however, quotes the Rambam’s view.

If, however, he did not cause the wine to move, it is forbidden to drink it, but one is allowed to benefit from it (Radbaz). In his Kessef Mishneh, however, Rav Yosef Caro notes that although there are authorities who agree with the ruling of the Radbaz, from the Rambam’s wording, it appears that the wine is permitted entirely. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 124:13), he follows the majority view and rules that it is permitted only to benefit from such wine.

The Rambam is citing an incident that transpired as recorded by Avodah Zarah 59b. It is not forbidden to benefit from the wine. The question of whether or not it is forbidden to drink it depends on the difference of opinion mentioned in the previous note.

With regard to a closed container, see Halachah 4.

The Ra’avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that as long as the gentile does not touch the wine itself, lift the container, or cause the wine to spatter, moving an open utensil does not cause it to be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 124:17) quotes the Rambam’s ruling as a minority opinion and the Rama states that it need not be followed if financial loss is involved.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.

There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries as to whether only the wine that is poured out is forbidden or also the wine which remains in the container (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 125:1) quotes the more stringent view. The Rama mentions the more lenient opinion, but states that it may be followed only in a case of severe loss.

I.e., even to drink the wine. For merely lifting up the wine is of no consequence.

One may even drink it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 125:8)].

A libation is made only from an open container (see Avodah Zarah 60a).

This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.

For this is equivalent to closing it.

The Rambam’s source (Avodah Zarah 60a) and also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 125:10) emphasize that we are referring to a situation where the Jew is following the gentile. Otherwise, the wine is certainly forbidden.

The Radbaz states that the same laws apply regardless of what the container was made of. Therefore he maintains that the word “earthenware” is a printer’s error.

Although the Rashba maintains that one may benefit from the wine, most authorities rule that it is prohibited to benefit from it as well as to drink it [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].

Since the container is both open and full, it is highly likely that the gentile touched the wine (Avodah Zarah 60a).

For shaking the wine is equivalent to pouring it as a libation, as stated in Halachah 1.

I.e., it is forbidden to drink it, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5.

This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

According to Scriptural Law, as long as the gentile does not touch the wine, it is not forbidden. Although our Sages forbade wine which he shook without touching as a safeguard, that applies only when the gentile intentionally touches the container of the wine (see Avodah Zarah 58a).

Shaking it (Kessef Mishneh). According to the Rambam, this applies even though he did not know for certain that the article he touched was wine. The Ra’ avad differs and maintains that the gentile must know that the container contains wine when shaking it. Otherwise, it is not forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 124:12) quotes the Rambam’ s ruling.

And thus the wine will not spill.

See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 124:22).

In this instance, it is permitted to benefit from the wine, because the gentile is considered to have touched it without intending to. See Halachah 5. According to the Rama’s view that the gentiles of the present age are not considered as idolaters, there is no prohibition against using such wine at all. This leniency should be accepted if a significant loss is involved (Siftei Cohen 124:55). This concept also applies to the remainder of the instances mentioned in this halachah.

In these instances, since the gentile did not touch the wine directly, merely by means of another entity, it is not forbidden to benefit from it.

Rashi, Avodah Zarah 60a, states that it is not forbidden to benefit from this wine, because this is not the ordinary way that one makes a libation.

In this instance also, the gentile did not touch the wine directly. Hence it is permitted to benefit from it.
The Ra’avad protests to this ruling, stating that if he threw the barrel into the cistern in anger, the wine in the cistern is not forbidden at all. Even if he intentionally threw the barrel into the cistern, it is still permitted to benefit. from the wine for the reason mentioned. The Radbaz notes that the wording of Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., appears to support the Ra’avad’s perspective, for it states that our Sages hikshiru, “considered acceptable,” the wine. He, however, cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 4:11) which appears to fit the Rambam’s perspective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 124:19) quotes the Rambam’s view. Nevertheless, the commentaries note that in Yoreh De ‘ah 125:5, the Shulchan Aruch, appears to support the Ra’avad’s view.

For we assume that in his happiness over being saved, he will offer the wine as a libation to his false deity (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). The Turei Zahav 124:19 states that if the gentile was alive when taken from the cistern, the wine is forbidden even if he dies immediately afterwards.

One may not even benefit from it. Since the wine would have flowed out had the gentile not placed his finger there, our Sages considered it as if he touched all of that wine.

ecause this wine was not affected by the gentile’s touch at all. Although this wine touching the wine that is forbidden, it is not forbidden. The Ra’avad objects to such a ruling, miaintaining that the entire barrel should be considered as mixed together. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that had the gentile inserted his finger in the hole and touched the wine, the entire barrel would have been forbidden. Here, however, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile stopped the wine from flowing by placing his finger on the outside. Therefore the wine above the hole is forbidden because it was affected by his power, as stated in the following halachah. This is merely a Rabbinic decree. Hence, the wine below the hole is not forbidden at all. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 124:23) follow the Ra’avad’s view.

This ruling applies when the opening to the outflow pipe is placed at the bottom of the barrel, so that all the wine would actually have flowed out had the gentile allowed it to. If it was not placed at the bottom of the barrel, the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen 124:69).

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears that this ruling applies with regard to all gentile wine, even when it was not known to have been used as a libation for a false deity. The Rambam, moreover, appears to forbid benefit from the wine, not only partaking of it. The Ra’ avad rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, but not to partake of it. The Tur (Yoreh De’ah 126) mentions the opinion of Rabbbenu Tam which is more lenient, ruling that this stringency does not apply to ordinary gentile wine. He rules that it is even permitted to partake of the wine. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 126:1-2) follows the ruling of the Maharam of Rutenburg, who states the Rambam’ s stringency should be followed only when a small loss is involved. If there is a significant loss involved, we may rely on the perspective of Rabbenu Tam.
See also the Tur who mentions a perspective that maintains that the above stringency applies only to wine used as a libation for a false deity, but not to ordinary gentile wine.

Compare to Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 7:1,5 where this principle is not applied. It appears that it is applied in this instance because of the stringency of the prohibition against gentile wine.

Because the wine held back in the funnel is forbidden because of the connection to the column of wine that extends to the gentile's utensil.

Drying refers to the process of applying water and ashes mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 20.

The Kessef Mishneh offers the following interpretation of the Rambam's wording: As long as the funnel was washed thoroughly, even if it was not dried out, it does not cause other wine to become forbidden. He also, however, makes a distinction between a funnel that has been used by a gentile frequently and one that was used just once. In the former instance, he states, it is possible that washing it thoroughly alone is not sufficient.

I.e., it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity of wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ ah 124:11)]. According to the Rama, one is permitted to benefit from the wine if the loss will be significant (Siftei Cohen 124:23).
The rationale for the prohibition is that the wine in the container will mix with the small quantity of gentile wine in the funnel and become forbidden.

I.e., outflow pipes.

Since the wine which the Jew is drinking and that which the gentile is drinking are flowing in opposite directions, they are not considered to be connected.

For it was his sucking that drew it into the outflow pipe. When that wine returns to the container and becomes mixed with the wine in the container, all the wine becomes forbidden as indicated by the following halachah.

Even if the wine never touched his mouth (Kessef Mishneh).

A Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer.

These words will imply to the porters that he will not be coming immediately. Hence there is reason to fear that they will take some of the wine.

I.e., so that it would not be apparent that they touched it.

Implied is that one is permitted to benefit from it. The rationale is that since the barrel is sealed, we follow the principle stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 9. See also the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 129:1) who rules that if the loss is significant, we may rely on the views that one seal is sufficient.

I.e., one may even partake of it.

One may drink it. For the gentile will be afraid to touch the wine, for he will never feel that the Jew has left him alone with the opportunity to do whatever he wants.

As in the previous halachah, since the gentile knows that the Jew is departing for a significant period, we fear that he will use the opportunity to take the wine.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:4) which explains why it is necessary to mention all three instances: the store, the wagon, and the ship.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ ah 129:1) state that this applies only when the Jew went on a side path that would enable him to surprise the gentile. If, however, he follows the ordinary path, the wine is forbidden. For the gentile will watch to see whether he is coming.

And thus: a) the wine is easily accessible, and b) the barrel does not have to be sealed closed to hide the fact that one took from the wine.

It would appear that according to the Rambam, it is even forbidden to benefit from the wine (Kessef Mishneh).

We assume that he will touch the wine on the table, because it is open before him. But we don’t think that he will take the risk of appearing as a thief by touching the wine on the counter. For it is not proper for a guest to take food left on the counter until the host has it brought to the table [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:5)].
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 129:7) rules slightly more stringently, stating that any wine which is in the gentile’ s reach is forbidden.

Since the Jew gave him license, we have no reason to think that he will restrain himself. Here, too, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules more stringently, stating that if the Jew remains outside for a prolonged period (as mentioned in the previous. halachah), even the closed barrels are forbidden.

I.e., the wine on the table, as in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).

As above, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 129:7) mentions the possibility of the Jew coming from a side path and surprising the gentile. If this is not possible, that source does not accept this leniency.

Avodah Zarah 70a (the Rambam’s source) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 129:9) state that this leniency applies when the Jew and the gentile live in a two-storey home, with the Jew living in the upper storey. The Rambam does not appear to think that is necessary (Kessef Mishneh).

The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam chose his words carefully. This leniency is granted because they left in agitation. Hence, it was probable that they would not notice each other outside. If, however, they left with calm reserve, it is possible that the gentile would have looked to see that the Jew was not returning and then entered his home and touched his wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 129:9) quotes this understanding as halachah. The Turei Zahav 129:19, however, differs, explaining that even when a person leaves his home inan agitated state, he will not necessarily return in an agitated state.

If, however, we do not know that the door was locked even though it was closed and it has a lock - the wine is permitted (Turei Zahav 128:5).

If, however, the Jew’s barrels were closed, the wine in the closed barrels is permitted unless the gentile remained in the closed building alone for the time it would take to open a barrel, seal it closed again, and for its lid to dry, as stated in Halachah 16 [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 128:3)].

I.e., in an inn, there were several wine cellars, one in which a Jew stored wine and one in which a gentile stored wine (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., if he was brought before the judges of a city on the complaint that he touched the wine, the judges would consider him a thief [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 61b)]. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that the Rambam interprets the term differently, understanding it as meaning “if he would think he would be considered a thief.” According to this interpretation, it could refer not only to the gentile’s touching the wine, but also entering the wine cellar.
To explain: Since the gentile also stores wine in that inn, he has permission to be in the inn, but he does not necessarily have permission to be in the Jew’s wine cellar. This is precisely the question the Rambam is focusing on. Would the gentile be considered as a thief for being found in the Jew’s wine cellar or not?

Since he feels unthreatened, there is a high likelihood that he touched the Jews’ wine.

For a baby never pours wine as a libation. In Chapter 11, Halachah 5, the Rambam states that it is forbidden to drink wine touched by a gentile baby. Here, he permits the wine entirely, because we are not certain that the baby in fact touched the wine. The Radbaz explains the rationale for the Rambam’s ruling.: Since the baby does not think of using the wine as a libation, there is no reason for it to trouble itself and touch it.

The Rambam’s wording appears to imply that the open barrels in the homes are permitted. The soldiers would take the liberty of entering stores and making themselves free with their contents. They would not, however, feel that confident to enter homes. The Radbaz objects to this interpretation, noting that we see that soldiers often enter homes to loot. Indeed, when mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 129:12) speaks of homes and not stores.
Compare also to Hilchot Issurei Bi‘ah 18:26 which discusses a similar situation with regard to the question whether the women of the town have been raped.

We can be certain that had the soldiers open the wine for use as a libation, they would not have taken the trouble of closing them again [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].

he Kessef Mishneh states that if a barrel was closed and it is discovered open, it is forbidden. For we see that the soldiers did have time to touch the wine.

The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s ruling as follows: If the wine is security for a debt owed the gentile, the gentile will certainly not be considered a thief for touching the wine. Therefore it is forbidden. If the wine is not considered as security for a loan, when the gentile would be considered as a thief, the wine is permitted. When he would not be considered as a thief, it is forbidden.

This applies even if the Jew owes him money, and the loan is due, but he has not designated the wine as security for the debt [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 60a); Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 128:2)].

Although the Jews are willing to give in to their lust for forbidden relations, they are not suspect to drink gentile wine (Avodah Zarah 69b). Even the gentile harlot realizes this.

I.e., wine that she herself brought.

Since they are employing her as a harlot, they look down upon her and show no consideration for her religious obligations.

I.e., a winepress that does not contain any wine, except for some remnants on the floor.

This is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tofeach al minat lehatfiach.

Applying water and ashes, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 20.

We are not certain that the gentile would try to touch the wine. Even if he did try to touch the wine, there is no reason for a prohibition, for we are speaking of a dry winepress. Hence washing it out is certainly sufficient (Radbaz).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 129:17) quotes this law as applying only in situations when there are obstructions in the river that prevent wine from being carried down the river from other places. In such a situation, we follow the principle of rov, i.e., since the majority of the city’s inhabitants are Jewish, we assume that the barrel came from one of them. We are, nevertheless, forbidden to drink the wine. See the notes to the following halachah.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam’s ruling. The Rambam’ s logic appears to be that since it is obvious that the wine came from a wine merchant and most of the wine merchants are Jewish, we follow the majority and rule that the wine is permitted. Nevertheless, since the majority of the inhabitants of the town are gentile, we forbid drinking the wine. The Kessef Mishneh asks: “If we fear that the gentile touched the wine, it should be forbidden to benefit from it as well. And if not, it should be permitted to drink it.” Indeed, he proposes that perhaps the Rambam’s intent is that it is permitted to benefit only from the barrels. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 129:19), he follows the Rambam’s ruling. Based on his Beis Yosef, it is possible to explain that we are speaking about closed barrels. We assume that had a gentile opened them and touched the wine, he would not have closed them again. Alternatively, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it.

And thus it is less likely for him to come at frequent intervals.

Implied is that the entrance is closed with two seals, as required by Halachah 8. The Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 130:2) writes that since in the present age, most gentiles are not idolaters, only one seal is necessary. The Siftei Cohen 130:11) states that this principle should be applied in the present instance.

Nevertheless, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it (Radbaz).

Since the gentile was not given permission to enter the house, he would be considered as a thief if he did so. Hence, we assume that he did not enter the home to pour a libation.
The Ra’avad states that the Rambam’s words apply only when the house belongs to the Jew. When, however, the house belongs to the gentile, the wine is forbidden, even if he did not trust him with the key. The rationale is that since the gentile has a connection to the house, he will have an excuse to enter it. Hence we fear that he entered it and touched the Jew’s wine. The Radbaz defends the Rambam’s ruling explaining that since the house is rented, the owner does not have the right to enter it at will. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 129:5) quotes the Rambam’s ruling.

We have translated the Rambam’s words literally. The intent, however, appears to be not ritual purity per se, but “without contact with gentiles.”

I.e., he is not present at all times. Nevertheless, it is possible that he will return at any given moment. Hence, the gentile will not take liberties. See Halachah 4.

Since he does not live on the premises, he is not considered as a permanent watchman. Hence, the fact that he enters from time to time during the day is not significant (Lechem Mishneh). The Ra’avad differs and maintains that as long as the Jew enters and leaves at will, that is sufficient to inhibit the gentile from touching the wine. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11), the Rambam adopts a position similar to that of the Ra’avad.]
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 131:1 adopt an intermediate position, stating that if there is another Jew living in that city and the entrance to the building where the wine is stored is visible from the public domain, the wine is permitted. For the owner will be afraid to break the lock to the door lest he be seen and the matter become known. [This approach is also mentioned in the Ramba;n’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit).]

There is, however, nothing preventing him from selling it to other gentiles.

I.e., he wrote the bill of sale in advance, before the Jew actually paid to clarify that his intent was to sell it to him.

Since Jews can see whether or not the gentile touches it, he is afraid to do so, lest his investment be ruined. See the explanation in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11).

Because these places are also in public view and/or access.

Our translation follows Rashi’s commentary to Avodah Zarah 70a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 129:16) defines the term as meaning pillars.

Since the gentile would be considered as a thief for overstepping these boundaries, we do not fear that he would do so.

Were a gentile to touch them, they would be disqualified.

The rationale is that we assume that a gentile will not trouble himself to reseal the container with two seals as the Jew had sealed it. Hence the fact that he finds it with the two seals he left on it is a sign that it has not been tampered with.

To apply these concepts in contemporary terms: When a bottle of wine is closed with a cork or a bottle-cap, that is one seal. If there is a paper or plastic wrapper around the cork or the cap, that is the second seal.

Based on Avodah Zarah 3 la, some interpret this as speaking about an instance where the comer the gentile grants the Jew is closed off with a seal. The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 130:2) writes that there are opinions which rule that after the fact, one seal is sufficient in this situation.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that even if the place is not closed off, since it is designated for the Jew, one seal is sufficient. See Turei Zahav 130:4.

For in none of these instances do we fear that the gentile will use the beverage for a libation, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachot 9-10.

In these instances, we fear that the gentile will exchange another substance for the substance deposited. One seal is sufficient to dispel these suspicions (Lechem Mishneh).

Since the prohibition involved in these instances is Scriptural in origin, we are more stringent.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 7. That halachah states that when a gentile who is not an idolater touches wine, it is only forbidden to drink it. In this instance, since the gentile did not intend to touch the wine, we are more lenient and do not forbid it at all (Radbaz).
As mentioned previously, the Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 124:24) rules that in the present era, none of the gentiles are considered as idolaters and the leniency suggested by the Rambam applies universally. On that basis, he and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities have suggested several leniencies.

See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 9.

A gentile who has made a formal commitment to accept the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and His Descendants. These include the prohibition against worshipping false divinities.

I.e., a place where it can be exchanged without a Jew noticing.

For we fear that he exchanged it with his own wine and it is forbidden to drink such wine. Although a resident alien also accepted the prohibition against theft, we fear that he - and certainly, other gentiles - will not abide by his commitment (Radbaz).

For these are merely safeguards. Although Rashi (Avodah Zarah 58b) and other Rishonim rule more stringently, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 125:3,6,7) accepts the Rambam’ s position.

Doing so does not arouse a suspicion that perhaps he used it as a libation for his false deity. Smelling is not considered as tasting or drinking.

It is not included in the prohibition mentioned at the beginning of Ch. 11.

See the conclusion of Ch. 5 of Hilchot Meilah, where the Ranibam delivers a slightly contradictory ruling.

Chapter 8, Halachah 16. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavimn 7:9 and Hilchot Ishut 5:2.

For he is deriving benefit from gentile wine.

Even though the Jew himself does nothing to help transport the gentile wine.

I.e., throw in a place where neither he nor anyone else will benefit from them.

Nor others.

For the rental fee was not primarily paid for the sake of the wine (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 133:3).

He is being paid for the entire work as a collective entity. Were he not to have transported all the barrels, he would not be paid at all (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 65a). Accordingly, the payment for transporting the beer was never distinct from that of the wine. Hence his entire wage is forbidden.
The Ra’avad differs and maintains that it is sufficient to destroy the wage paid for the forbidden barrels. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 133:3) follows the Rambam’s stringency.

Since the wage was paid for each barrel individually, the wage paid for the barrels of beer is a separate and distinct entity. Hence it is not forbidden. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden to accept such a job [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].

For the craftsman have not accepted the wine and the employer owes them money.

For then it is as if they are exchanging the wine for wine. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 132:3) writes that in the present age, (when gentiles are not actually idolaters,) a worker may return the barrel of wine even though it has entered his domain.

One hundred silver zuzim.

Hence he has benefited from the existence of the gentile wine. Hence, it is forbidden. The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 132:7) states that, even if the Jew desires that the false deity continue to exist, leniency can be granted in an instance where the gentile has other resources to pay the debt or alternatively, when the debt is secured by a guarantor. Moreover, if all that is concerned is ordinary gentile wine, in the present age, there is no prohibition for the reason stated above.

Here leniency is not granted, because the convert has a share in the entities belonging to the partnership. Thus he is exchanging money for a false deity.

I.e., our Sages feared that the convert will be so disturbed about being unable to receive his inheritance, that he will forsake Jewish practice and return to his previous mode of conduct. This is undesirable, because once a person converts, he is a full-fledged Jew. If he conducts himself undesirably, his conduct affects the entire Jewish people.

For they have already entered the domain of the convert and are, therefore, forbidden. Hence it is forbidden to exchange them for others, for then one will be deriving benefit.

I.e., he acquires the wine through the kinyan of meshichah [see Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14; Turei Zahav 132:4)] and the money is considered as a loan which he owes the Jew.
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions meshichah, drawing the wine into his own domain. Seemingly, once a price was established and the wine was poured, the gentile acquires it whether or not he performs meshichah immediately. Conversely, if meshichah finalizes the transaction, seemingly as long as a price was set before meshichah, the wine should be permitted
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking according to the common practice. It was customary to establish a price either before measuring the wine or after meshichah.

For he fears that the Jew will ask an exorbitant price (Radbaz). Hence he always keeps the option of negating the sale.

For the payment of the money formalizes the transfer of the wine (effecting a kinyan). Thus the gentile has paid for the wine before it entered his domain and became forbidden.

There are several explanations for this ruling. The gentile left some of his wine in the container and thus as the Jew was pouring the new wine in, it became forbidden. Alternatively, the gentile was holding the container and moved it (see Chapter 12, Halachah 3). This is sufficient to cause the wine to become forbidden (Radbaz).
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating that (as the Rambam himself rules in Chapter 16, Halachah 29) if kosher wine becomes mixed with non-kosher wine, it is forbidden to drink it, but one may benefit from it. Nevertheless, he does not provide a rebuttal to the second explanation given above.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the wine in the container the gentile is holding becomes forbidden, the wine the Jew is pouring also becomes forbidden, as stated above in Chapter 12, Halachah 12.

Since he gave the storekeeper the money in advance, it is as if he paid the storekeeper for what his worker would eat. Thus it is as if the worker is drinking the employer’s wine.

The Rambam’s source (Avodah Zarah 58b) mentions both produce from the Sabbatical year and untithed produce, because it is possible that a common person is lax in his observance of both these mitzvot. Apparently, the Rambam also had this intent because he begins by mentioning produce of the Sabbatical year and concludes by mentioning untithed produce.

I.e., it is forbidden for the employer to do this, because it would be considered as if he personally gave his employee produce from the Sabbatical year or untithed produce.

I.e., he undertakes a financial obligation to the storekeeper, but since he does not pay him the money beforehand, that obligation is not explicitly associated with the food or drink of which the worker partakes.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 450:6) mentions opinions that are more stringent with regard to an employer taking financial responsibility for the food a gentile will eat on Pesach. The Turei Zahav 460:4 explains that with regard to Pesach, there is a greater reason for stringency, for it is almost cehain that the gentile will eat chametz. In the situations mentioned in our halachah, by contrast, it is possible that none of the prohibitions will be violated, for the gentile will not want wine, nor the Jewish workers, the untithed or Sabbatical produce.

A gentile king produced wine from the royal vineyard as a means of financing his nation's expenses. He would obligate each of the person's in his kingdom to buy a standard amount of wine. For a Jew, that represents a problem for the wine is gentile wine. Not only is it forbidden to drink it, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Thus not only may a Jew not partake of such wine, nor may he take it and sell it. He is forbidden even to purchase it from the king.

The Radbaz explains that in this way, the gentile is purchasing the wine from the Jew. Others explain that the gentile is acting as the Jew's agent.

For in this way, the gentile is not acting as the Jew’s agent.

This law applies when the gentile intentionally touches the wine. If the gentile touches it unintentionally, he is not liable. The rationale is that this is damage which is not outwardly noticeable (i.e., although the ritual status of the wine has changed, outwardly it is the same). In such an instance, Hilchat Chovel UMazik 7:3 states, one is not liable for causing damage inadvertently.
The Kessef Mishneh states that even if the gentile intentionally touched the wine, but did not know that by touching it, he caused it to be forbidden, the gentile is not liable and this leniency does not apply. The Siftei Cohen 132:2, however, interprets this wording as implying that even if the gentile caused it to become forbidden inadvertently, the Jew may sell it to him.
See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:4 and commentaries, where a similar concept is discussed.

For if the Jew could have stopped the gentile from touching the wine and didn’t, he is responsible for the loss (Radbaz).

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 124:2) rules that in the present age, when it is not customary for gentiles to use wine as libations, the wine may be sold to any gentile.

Avodah Zarah 59b states that in such a situation, he may charge the gentile the full price of the wine.