|
Article 4 July
28, 2009
Is Pasteurized Kosher Wine
Cooked Enough
Or
I’m not Jewish, Should I
Feel Insulted?
By
The Vino Maven and Friends.
Hi everyone, this is your
Vino Maven. In a previous
article I put down
everything that I knew about
kosher wine, and I discussed
how the touch of a non-Jew
can disqualify a wine from
being consumed by Torah
observant Jews. In ancient
times when there were Pagan
non-Jews about, their touch
could make a wine into Yayin
Nesech. According to Torah
law a wine would not be
forbidden unless it had
actually been used in pagan
worship. The sages enacted a
stringency that the touch of
a non-Jew was enough to make
the wine forbidden because
of idolatrous thoughts. A
secondary enactment of the
sages extends this
prohibition to any wine
touched by a non-Jew even if
that non-Jew is beyond
suspicion of idolatrous
thoughts. Such wine is
called Stam Yenam (The
ordinary wine of a non-Jew.)
By prohibiting us from
drinking it, our sages
sought to safeguard our
Jewish identity and protect
against intermarriage. The
prohibition of Stam Yenam is
not because of possibility
the wine has been used for
idol worship. That is why
the prohibition continues
even today, when most all
non-Jews in the West are no
longer idolaters. (1)
Not long ago I got an e-mail
from a wonderful friend of
mine called Marty, who is
also a knowledgeable wine
lover.
He wrote:
Dear Irving,
This past Shabbos we had a real mess up. Someone asked us to have person
over by the name of Susan
who is converting to
Judaism. We said “great!”
and she came over for Friday
evening dinner. She also
brought a bottle of really
good Israeli wine. Well, we
were in the middle of the
main course when suddenly I
noticed in Hebrew the words
“Lo Mevushal” which means
the wine was not cooked.
Susan had already handled
the open bottle. There was a
moment of really
uncomfortable silence when
she realized that no-body at
our table was going to be
drinking her wine any more.
I tried to explain as best I
could, and she tried to be
really nice about it, but
her feelings were hurt. I
told her I would try to find
someone who could explain
this better than me. I tried
talking to our Rabbi, but he
is a pretty old fashioned
type and his approach is
“This is the Halacha and
that is that” which I don’t
think is what Susan needs to
hear. Do you know anyone who
could maybe write her and
explain things?
Thanks buddy!
Marty
***
Here is how I replied to
Marty:
Dear Marty!
I’m really sad to hear about
that Friday night fiasco.
You have definitely got me
thinking about some things.
I have pretty much always
assumed that any kosher wine
is automatically considered
Mevushal because of
pasteurization. Now you tell
me that good kosher wines
are not necessarily
pasteurized! I had better
look into this quick! As it
turns out I do know some
Rabbis who are both
knowledgeable and have a lot
of Derech Eretz, so I will
recommend that Susan write
an e-mail to Rabbi Nathan
Glick, in Eretz Yisrael. He
has a good heart and knows
how to relate to people.
All the best!
V. Maven
Now I wrote to Susan:
Dear Susan,
Marty wrote me about the
unfortunate Friday night
meal. I can imagine how
difficult it was for you. I
can certainly relate to your
hurt feelings. I don’t have
that much to say at the
present about non-Jews and
wine. I am learning whatever
I can right now. I never
thought much about the
non-Jews touching wine
because I always assumed
that kosher wine is
Pasteurized, which makes it
cooked wine, and cooked wine
does not become prohibited.
So I thought the whole issue
was academic. But it seems
like I was mistaken, and
many good kosher wines are
not pasteurized these days.
So I am somewhat confused
myself.
I can at least say this
without hesitation: there
are a lot of people teaching
Torah out there. Some know a
great deal and have a good
way with people. Some are
less informed and impatient.
But, whatever impression a
Torah teacher conveys; you
need to have faith in one
thing your heart certainly
knows is true. Hashem
doesn’t reject or insult
anyone undeservedly. Hashem
loves and accepts all those
who search for him
sincerely. That is clear in
scripture and it is clear to
anyone who with a heart.
This truth has to be the
basis for learning anything
else you encounter in your
studies of Torah. Elijah the
Prophet
once said in a
Midrash “I call upon heaven
and earth to testify that
any person, male or female,
free or slave, Jew or
gentile, according to his
efforts so the holy spirit
rests on him!” Hashem plays
fair and his compassion
extends to all creatures.
I an including the e-mail of
a Rabbi I am in touch with,
and I suggest you write him.
I will do so as well. Let’s
see what we come up with!
Take care! May Hashem light
you way!
V. Maven
***
Susan Wrote to Rabbi Glick:
Dear Rabbi Glick,
My name is Susan and I am in a conversion course. I recently had a
somewhat unpleasant
experience where I poured
the wine at a Jewish
household and made it
un-kosher. I believe in the
Torah and the Jewish people
without a doubt, but I can’t
help feeling humiliated that
the very touch of my hand on
a bottle of wine could
contaminate it! I am no
idolater. I believe in the
same G-d you all do. It
makes me feel as if I am
some kind of evil person if
I can make wine unclean just
by touching it. Is there
something here I’m not
getting?
Hope you can find the time to write me. Thanks in advance.
Susan
After I did some research of
my own, I also sent him a
letter:
Dear Rav Nathan,
I have heard some new
Halachos coming out of Eretz
Yisrael about cooked wine.
Over hear in America we have
always assumed that once a
wine is cooked it can’t
become forbidden by a
non-Jew and that
pasteurization equals
cooking. A non-Jew does not
make a wine forbidden if the
wine has been pasteurized.
But now I hear that some big
Rabbis claim that the whole
reason cooked wine is
permissible is that back in
the old days it cooked wine
was an unusual thing, and
that the Sages did not
include unusual things in
their enactments. By that
logic, if pasteurization is
a common practice it should
no longer be relied upon to
keep wine Kosher? What do
you say about this?
I appreciate your input. All
the best!
The Vino Maven
***
Rabbi Nathan Replied to me:
Dear Maven!
Like you I am aware of some of the attempts coming out of Eretz Yisrael
lately which claim that
pasteurization is
insufficient to make wine
Mevushal. This is based upon
an opinion of the Rosh, (2)
who asks a simple question.
According to the plain sense
of things, a wine that is
not suitable for libation
can’t become Yayin Nesech.
Remember that Yayin Nesech
is wine that has been
touched by a pagan non-Jew
who may have entertained
idolatrous intentions when
he handled the wine. There
is also a secondary
enactment of Stam Yenam
which is designed to keep
Jews and non-Jews from
intermarrying. Since cooked
wine can’t become Yayin
Nesech it can’t become Stam
Yenam either. The Rosh asks:
firstly, if Stam Yenam is
forbidden to avoid
intermarriage, what
difference does it make if
it can be offered up or not?
Furthermore, if cooked wine
does not become forbidden by
a non-Jew’s touch, why then
does diluted wine become
forbidden? Diluted wine
can’t be offered up the
altar! Now remember that in
late antiquity wines were
served diluted. Obviously
diluted wine can become
forbidden, even though it
can’t go up on the altar.
Why then should cooked wine
be immune to the touch of a
non-Jew? The Rosh answers
that perhaps the act of
cooking the wine changes it
substantially, so that it is
actually a different,
unusual sort of wine
(incidentally, according to
the Rosh this is actually an
improvement on nature (3))
Now, when making enactments,
the sages often did not
include the unusual or the
exceptional cases, rather
they dealt with commonly
occurring things. Cooked
wine remains a loophole in
the enactment. The fact that
cooked wine is unfit to be
offered on the altar has
nothing specifically to do
with its inability to become
Stam Yayin.
Some authorities here in Eretz Yisrael have made the argument that
Pasteurization makes no
change in wine for better or
worse. What is more, now
that pasteurization is
common practice in wine
making, pasteurized wine is
not in any way unusual. So
one would have to conclude
according to the Rosh
pasteurized wine is just
regular wine and it should
become Stam Yenam if touched
by a non-Jew.
There are two responses one can make to this stringent opinion. First the
traditional practice as well
as the plain meaning of the
Halacha is not like the
Rosh.(4) Cooking makes a
wine invalid for use in
sacrificial worship. The
wine need not become better
or worse. It is disqualified
by cooking for use on the
altar. It is cooked, and
that is that. Such wine
cannot become Stam Yenam
either. That is the whole of
the matter.
However, even if we accept the Rosh’s position, the stringent authorities
here in Eretz Yisrael have
been misinformed. Most wines
are not pasteurized. Good
wineries don’t do it. In
fact the only reason anybody
pasteurizes wine is to make
it Mevushal. Pasteurization
is un-usual! Clearly,
knowledgeable wine tasters
can tell if a wine has been
cooked or not. Ordinary wine
drinkers might not notice a
difference. So there remains
a possibility that the Rosh
would not recognize today’s
pasteurized wine as
Mevushal. The issue is still
being debated.
Things are going to become complicated in the future. As kosher wines
become better, cooking
becomes more damaging. No
decent wine in Israel is
Mevushal today! This is
going to impact on how you
arrange your wine tasting
affairs. When we do wine
tastings for mixed groups he
have too appoint special
wine handlers who are known
to be Shabbat observing!
Embarrassing and painful situations like those experienced by Susan and
her hosts are going to
become more possible. We
should certainly be thinking
about the meaning of Yayin
Nesech and Stam Yenam and
formulating ways to present
these halachot in a
non-insulting manner. I know
that some people out there
will disagree with me and
say that the Halacha is what
it is no matter whose
feelings it hurts. However,
I was taught that “the
Torah’s ways are
pleasantness and her paths
are peace.” I will be making
a little study of these laws
and we shall see what I come
up with.
Blessings to you and your family!
Nathan
***
After replying to me, Rabbi
Nathan wrote a letter to
Susan
Dear Susan
Once when I was studying anthropology, we had a guest teacher who showed
a film about the tribe of
Peyote eating Native
Americans in Mexico. Once
there was a anthropology
student who became famous
and wrote many books
claiming that he trained
under a real Shaman and was
introduced to non-ordinary
reality by consuming Peyote.
This is a part of a cactus
held sacred by the certain
tribes, and it can bring
about intense hallucinatory
experiences, as well as deep
forms of insight, it used
properly. Our lecturer told
us that he didn’t believe a
real shaman would have given
Peyote to this student. As
far as he knew from his
experience, outsiders may
not partake of the sacred
plant. If they do they
misunderstand everything.
The sacred nature of the
plant is not accessible to
those not of the tribe. Of
course one could join the
tribe, but that would
involve a total change of
lifestyle few are equipped
to undertake. According to
our lecturer, the student
did great harm to the tribe.
He ended up encouraging
every hippy tripper in the
south west to run around the
desert gobbling up Peyote.
The trippers got sick, and
the tribe got an unjust
reputation for being a bunch
of stoners, which was
obviously untrue, but try to
explain that to local law
enforcement.
The point here is that any decent person would understand that as an
outsider, the tribe cannot
give out their peyote. There
is a sacred experience here,
and it cannot be shared
indiscriminately. At the
heart of this tribe is their
sacred view of the universe
and their vision of the
tribes identify. This kind
of vision tends to evaporate
when seen through the
supposedly objective eyes of
an outsider. Do not imagine
that the tribe’s vision is
false (as some objectivist
types might assert.) You
can’t access it from the
outsider point of view. To
attempts this breaks the
faith of the tribe and robs
it of its spiritual power.
Some kinds of knowing you
can only get by joining.
Similarly, when two lovers get married, the experience of being united is
far too personal and
intimate even to be put into
words. Each person is
different, and the union
between, lets say, Pam and
Rob is not the union between
Jill and Jack. You can talk
somewhat about what each one
is like, but you can’t
really explain it. Unlike
the case of the tribe, where
you can gain access by
joining, in the case of a
married couple there is no
way even to join the union
and understand it, since
that means committing
adultery.
Similarly, at the heart of Judaism is also a kind of experience which
tends to evaporate when you
try to grasp it from the
outside. In this way, being
Jewish is much more like
being married that getting
membership in congregation.
Quite possibly there are
other religious communities
for which the same can be
said. There is a famous
statement by Rabbi
Soloveitchik(5)about
interfaith dialogue. He
didn’t approve of the idea
of faiths trying to discover
their common ground or their
shared points of view. He
wrote: “The
language of faith of a
particular community is
totally incomprehensible to
the man of a different faith
community. The great
encounter between man and
God is a holy, personal and
private affair,
incomprehensible to the
outsider.” Perhaps he was a
little extreme in thinking
that there could be no
commonality between the
experiences of faith
traditions, Nevertheless, if
you have one person looking
into another’s faith
experience from the outside,
using an outsider’s point of
view, the insider’s faith
experience is likely to
evaporate or worse, turn
into a caricature of itself.
I am proposing that wine is one of Judaism Sacred substances, and it
uniquely contains or
symbolizes that which is
inexpressible in Judaism
unless you join it. This
might sound odd, because
there is nothing wrong with
a non-Jew touching a Torah
scroll or some other object
of Mitzvah. But wine is
sensitive and problematic.
This indicates to me that
the really sensitive vision,
the one that can evaporate
before the outsiders gaze,
in the wine.
I am forwarding you the letter I wrote Vino Maven. It is somewhat technical,
but I think you could get
some benefit reading it. You
might even consider mulling
over it, and asking me some
questions about it. The
technical stuff can be hard
going at times, but the
heart of Judaism is always
in the details. If you can
explain the details of the
Halacha coherently, then you
know you are understanding
the ideas of Judaism
properly.
Why don’t you try giving it a go!
Blessings and best wishes!
Nathan
Susan Replied to Rabbi Glick and me:
Dear Rabbi Glick and Mr. Maven
I read your letters with great interest, and I appreciate your taking the
time to deal with this issue
along with me. Really you
have already taken care of
my problem when you told me
that I was not accused of
being an idol worshipper. I
am already aware that the
Jewish people are fenced
around by various rules that
keep them apart and keep
them from intermarrying. I
relate to this with a good
feeling. The Jewish people
cherish their identity and
protect it. That identity I
will hopefully share with
you some day. I like the
comparison you made, Rabbi
Nathan, between Jewish
spiritual experience and the
experience of some Native
American cultures who find a
need to guard their sacred
objects or substances. I
know that today in our
computer age, everything
gets broken down to the bare
facts, and people think that
if you take a living
organism apart into its
pieces, you can know what it
is and how it works. No-one
seems to understand that by
sticking your big nose into
somebody’s living tissue, is
not a good way to get to
know them. You have to stand
back. And then interact.
Yes, I think that is true
between religions too. An
outsider can’t really
experience the soul of being
Jewish until they become
Jewish. But if I stand back
out of respect to what I
don’t understand yet, and
keep my hands off I can
learn a great deal which is
true. But if I try to be too
invasive, I won’t get
anything.
I think you are right when you say that Judaism has something inside
which doesn’t hold up well
when someone shines an
invasive beam from an
outsider point of view. For
all history, everyone knew
that the Jews have
something, and everyone
disrespects Judaism and
things all sorts of crazy
things about it. Jews are
accused of being too fleshy
and materialistic, or they
are accused of being too
unconnected from life. It is
crazy! Jews were told to go
back to
Israel
their homeland, and once
they go back, everybody
tells them they have no
homeland that it is really
Palestine!
Now, about what you wrote to
Irving.
I might not get all the
subtleties, but I do
understand. Believe it or
not, I even know who the
Rosh is, (we learned about
him in Jewish History)
though I still think it is
very strange to refer to a
person as “The Something or
Another” instead of just
calling him by name. I guess
when I get converted I can
call myself “The Mosad”
which will stand for “the
Miss Susan Delaney” LOL of
course! In any event, there
are two ways of
understanding Stam Yenam. 1)
You can say that it is based
upon the laws of idol
worship, even though it has
nothing to do with Idol
worship. So if cooked wine
is unfit for being offered
up it can’t become Yayin
Nesech, and therefore it
can’t be Stam Yenam. Or 2)
you can say like the Rosh
that Stam Yenam is not based
upon Yayin Nesech. Yayin
Nesech protects Jews from
benefiting from idol
worship. Stam Yenam protects
against excessive contact
leading to intermarriage.
Logically, cooked wine
should be forbidden as Stam
Yenam just like regular
wine. However, because
cooked wine is different and
un-usual it was never
included in the law.
You asked me to come up with whatever questions I could. Here they are.
If Stam Yenam is there to
keep Non-Jews and Jews from
falling in love, it should
logically include any
intoxicating drink, not just
wine! If Stam Yenam is there
to keep Jews and non-Jews
from falling in love, why
should it matter that a
certain kind of wine like
cooked wine is not suitable
to offering? Lastly, if wine
not suited for offering
cannot be Stam Yenam, how
can diluted wine become
forbidden? It is not good
for offering either! I
realize just now that my
second and thirst questions
are addressed and answered
by the Rosh. The first
question, is a problem no
matter what!
I look forward to seeing what you have to share!
Susan Delaney
I wrote this letter to Susan and Rabbi Glick:
Dear Rabbi Glick and Susan
(From now on: The Mosad!)
I don’t know, Rabbi, if I
agree with your comparison
between wine and the
substances held to be sacred
and special by Indian
tribes. You seem to be
saying that wine holds the
secret of Jewish faith and
we can’t let outsiders touch
it. I can even accept your
idea if you were saying it
about Passover Matzoth for
the Seder Table. But I have
never heard of anyone
claiming that non-Jews
couldn’t touch the Matzoth
or the Seder table. I think
wine is problematic because
it is intoxicating. I see
nothing mystical here.
Still, I don’t have an
explanation for why only
wine is singled out for
discouraging intermarriage.
As for you Susan, I’m happy
to see you haven’t suffered
to heavy a trauma. In the
end, once you understand
that Stam Yenam is another
part of the dividing line
that helps the Jewish people
survive, it doesn’t need to
be taken the wrong way. My
local Rabbi showed me an
interesting story in the
Talmud. He said that this
story is where you get the
whole Idea that cooked wine
is OK
It is told (Avodah Zarah
30a) “Shmuel and Ablat were
sitting together. They [the
waiters] brought before them
cooked wine. [Ablat] drew
his hand back. Shmuel said
to him ‘they [the Sages]
said that cooked wine is not
susceptible to becoming
libation [forbidden] wine!’”
Ablat was a non-Jewish
astrologer. Shmuel and Ablat
were well acquainted, as
there is one other place in
the Talmud (Shabbat 156b)
where the two interact.
There, we learn that Shmuel
shared Ablat’s interest in
astrology and astronomy. In
our story, Ablat understands
that he shouldn’t be
touching the Shmuel’s wine,
so he draws his hand back.
Shmuel assures Ablat that it
is OK for him to handle the
wine since it is cooked, and
the laws of non-Jewish wine
do not apply to cooked wine.
Both Shmuel and Ablat act
with grace and tack. Ablat
doesn’t want to ruin his
friend’s wine, while Shmuel
seems to have taken the
Halacha into consideration
ahead of time, perhaps so
that Ablat should not be
uncomfortable. You see that
once the wine is cooked it
can be drunk even after
being touched by a non-Jew.
Not only is it not Yayin
Nesech, it is not even Stam
Yenam.
But, I have one question
about this story that
bothers me. It looks like
Shmuel is circumventing the
laws of Stam Yenam so he can
have this nice get together
with his non-Jewish friend!
Maybe technically the wine
is Kosher after Ablat
touches it, but the whole
point of Stam Yenam is to
keep Shmuel from having that
party. Shmuel should know
not do the party. I think
this is all the more a
problem according to the
Rosh because he things that
cooked wine is a loophole.
Certainly Shmuel should see
past the letter of the law
and understand the real
issue!
What do you say, my dear
friends?
V. Maven
Rabbi Glick wrote:
Dear Susan and Maven,
Actually I disagree with you, Maven, when you say that wine is just wine. I
think that is obviously
untrue. Wine is central to
Judaism. Just remember the
words of the Talmud “There
is no song if not on wine.”
Wine is one of the
substances offered up on the
altar, and when it was
poured on the Altar the
Levites would break into
song. Until the present day
every religious proclamation
is said over a cup of wine;
Kiddush and Havdalah are
just two examples. Weddings
and Brit Milah are
celebrated over wine. The “Kos shel Beracha” (The cup of blessing) is a central motif
in Jewish practice!
Wine is ecstasy. Wine is the breaking through of all barriers! The deepest
ecstasy is the union between
the tiny physical frail
human being and the infinite
invisible being of Hashem.
This union goes against all
reason and logic. Wine holds
the ecstasy that is beyond
thought and logic. Now,
indeed Judaism has many
sacred objects and symbols,
but wine is unique because
of its sensitivity. Ecstasy
is essential for Torah, but
ecstasy is also dangerous
like no other feeling.
Ecstasy can be the setting
free of all the passions,
the casting aside of reason
and the descent into
madness. In many pagan
societies this is exactly
where the religious use of
wine lead. Because of the
ecstatic nature of wine, it
is uniquely sensitive to
being misconstrued. It also
seems that in Chazal’s
conception wine was
particularly sensitive to
picking up the thoughts and
intentions of the human
user. Now, the prohibition
on wine touched by a pagan
is in fact a rabbinic
enactment, but I think this
enactment codifies and
objectifies something which
was experienced on a feeling
level, namely the
sensitivity of wine to the
feelings and thoughts of
others. As a result, even
the touch of an idol
worshiper makes us anxious
about what he may be
thinking. Even if is just an
inkling of an idolatrous
intention, it will change
for us the ecstasy of the
wine from a yearning for
infinity, into a yearning to
be free from all self
control.
With time a change came over human culture in the West. Non-Jews
discovered that humanity
shares a common religious
aspect which is universal in
scope. From that point on
the enlightened of all
nations recognize the
reality of one transcendent
Deity. From this point on,
religion becomes a universal
human concern. The concept
of universal religion came
into being. That is a
wonderful thing. As a
result, any person who
touches an open bottle of
wine is seen as imprinting
it with universal religious
significance.
So what is wrong universal religion? Well, nothing at all. Quite the
opposite, it is wonderful
and a great human
achievement.
However, Jews experience a particularistic faith and a covenant based
upon the individuality of
self as such. To each member
of the covenant, Hashem is
present in his/her
individual identity and life
story. When you relate to
Hashem in your uniqueness,
the whole you, including
your body, with its
collection of seemingly
random facts, trivialities
and circumstances, all
becomes part of the mix. To
relate to Hashem as an
individual is narrow, but it
is also very deep, as it
extends down “to your toes”
(which are uniquely yours,
and no-one else’s.) The
Torah makes us
particularistic among
nations, yet we share this
attitude as a collective
experience. The
individuality of The Nation
of Israel supports and
sustains the belief in each
person’s individuality. Our
shared story, teaches us
that G-d is present in every
person’s particular life
story. There is something in
each individual’s
relationship with G-d that
like the love between a
husband and wife cannot be
put into words, cannot be
shared and which remains
mysterious. Needless to say,
G-d is fully present both in
universalistic faith and in
the particularistic
covenant. Each religious
form manifests an aspect of
G-d. The universal relates
to G-d as the creator of
all, while the
particularistic covenant
relates to G-d as a unique
and wholly singular self.
Many enlightened people have found Judaism perplexing. It seems to fly
against the religious value
of the unity of all.
Universalistic spiritual
traditions agree that the
closer you get to G-d, the
wider and more open your
horizons becomes. A
spiritually advanced
individual should be
concerned with the whole of
existence, and be filled
with endless compassion for
everything and everyone in
the universe! It is also
sometimes understood that a
spiritually advanced
individual should be largely
disinterested in the well
being of his personal self,
family, clan or nation.
Let’s face it that is not Judaism. Ultimately, the Torah does teach us a
universal concern for all,
but the way to get there is
not by converting the world.
Rather we live out our
uniqueness and our covenant,
certain that by doing our
part we indirectly effect
the world in a positive
direction. Judaism has never
forced anyone to accept a
religious doctrine or
practice. Ironically, this
turns out to be a point in
our favor, since we have
never run roughshod over the
beliefs and attitudes of
others with our convictions.
Still to many, it is
difficult even to view
Judaism as a genuine
religion. Seen from the
universalistic viewpoint
Jews may be the remnant of
some particularistic tribal
cult, with a primitive
national deity at its head!
It is hard to maintain our particularistic experience of Hashem when we
subject ourselves to the
seemingly more objective
light of universal religious
experience. I believe that
this lies at the heart of
the prohibition against Stam
Yenam. When a non Jew
touches wine, universal
religious experience is
conveyed. There is nothing
idolatrous here.
Unfortunately, as good as
the light of universal
spirituality is, we cannot
digest and metabolize it
without becoming weakened in
our particularity. For this
reason, I believe, the touch
of a non-Jew to wine makes
it Stam Yenam. For a Jew to
drink Stam Yenam is to take
in the energy of
universalistic spirituality.
Drinking Stam Yenam
encourages intermarriage;
namely the loss of the
Jewish people as a unique
and particularistic people.
I know there is more to say, but that is all I can write for now.
Best wishes to you both!
Nathan
Susan wrote to Rabbi Glick:
Dear Rabbi Glick
I think I understand you. First you are saying that wine is a sacred
substance in Judaism. In
contains this feeling of
ecstasy that can both take
you very high or down into
hell, depending on how you
use it. You are also saying
that wine is viewed in
Jewish law as something that
is sensitive to the mind set
and world view of the user.
When non-Jews were all
pagans and idolaters this
meant that wine was uniquely
sensitive to picking up the
idolatrous feelings and
thoughts of the non-Jews.
Hence you need to stay away
from Yayin Nesech.
However, when you are considering non-Jews that have no idolatrous
intentions, they are now
still able to impart a
universal feeling of
religion to their wine.
Universalism is great, but
it is not right for Jews who
are supposed to model
particularity and
uniqueness. Jews who pick up
this vibe will be tempted to
intermarry.
So there you have answered my first question. You can drink whiskey and
been touched by non-Jews,
simply because despite the
alcohol, they do not have
the spiritual dimension that
wine has. You might not
agree with me, but I am
going to assume that this
spiritual dimension about
wine is more symbolic that
chemical. The Rabbinic
enactments seem to imply
that wine began to be
perceived as sensitive to
others’ mindset at some
point in time, and that this
new perception made the
enactments necessary. As for
myself, I have gotten tipsy
on wine and tipsy on beer
and I can’t say that there
is any difference in how the
alcohol affects me. But I
realize that there are other
cognitive factors at work.
If I am trained by Jewish
law to see wine as “The
material form of spiritual
ecstasy” (which I would if I
knew that it was sacred to
worship) then there could
definitely be a difference
in the kind of experience I
get. What you are saying is
that Stam Yenam may not have
any of that idolatrous
ecstasy in it, but it has
something else…the ecstasy
of universal one-ness. That
is where individuals
loose themselves and
fuse with everybody, where
nations loose their
boundaries, religions
renounce their dogmas and
the everybody becomes one
big happy whole (probably to
the tune of John Lennon’s
“Imagine”) As a person who
spent a lot of time
searching for spirituality,
I know how tempting this is.
It was hard for me at first
to accept that the Jews
would never feel able,
because of their covenant
with G-d, to become part of
this universal one-ness. One
of the things that brought
me around to Judaism was the
realization that after that
wonderful moment of one-ness
is over, we all have to wake
up to being ourselves again.
Then what? So I relate to
what you say about finding
G-d in your particularity,
and that you can’t make
someone else have your
spirituality. You have to
celebrate your own identity,
and when you create a world
which cherishes
individuality it will bring
people closer in a much more
meaningful way!
I am going to guess why cooking wine makes incapable of becoming Yayin
Nesech or Stam Yenam. The
wine is now dead! It’s been
cooked. So it doesn’t have
any ecstatic quality about
it, even if it still has
alcohol. So it works out
that a wine which is cooked
can’t go up on the altar.
You can’t sing over it. A
non-Jew cannot mess it up,
and it can’t even become
Stam Yenam, because it can’t
carry the ecstasy of
universal spirituality
either. Of course, wine that
has been diluted is
different. There is always
water in the wine, when you
add water you aren’t
changing anything.
So how did I do with those answers Rabbi?
Yours sincerely,
Susan
I wrote to Susan and Rabbi
Glick:
Dear Friends.
I have to say Susan that I
am pretty impressed with how
you put the puzzle together.
There is one thing that
doesn’t make sense to me.
You explained the difference
between cooking wine, which
kills the ecstasy feeling
and diluting the wine which
does not. So I understand
why you can’t use cooked
wine on the altar. I also
see how it can’t become
forbidden by contact with a
non-Jew. But if diluting
wine doesn’t change its
inner quality, then why
can’t diluted wine go on the
altar. It still has its
ecstasy and you can still
sing over it?
Also I am kind of wondering,
if a wine looses its ecstasy
quality by being cooked,
then why would I want to use
it for Kiddush! I have been
using Mevushal wine for
Kiddush ever since I was a
kid! Have I been wrong all
this time?
I just noticed another
advantage to this way of
explaining the prohibition
of Stam Yenam. If wine
looses its ecstatic feeling
after it is cooked, then it
can’t give us the feeling of
universalism either. Cooked
wine won’t lead to
intermarriage. You can
invite your non-Jewish
associates over for an
evening of cooked wine
drinking and everything will
be OK! So Shmuel was not
getting around the intention
of the Halacha by using a
loophole. He was fulfilling
the Halacha in letter and in
spirit!
I look forward to what you
have to tell me Rabbi Glick!
Sincerely,
V. Maven
Rabbi Glick wrote:
Dear Susan and Maven
Maven, when you asked, “How can we used Mevushal wine for Kiddush?” you
inadvertently discovered the
opinion of Mimonides, the
Rambam, who holds that you
can’t make Kiddush on a
cooked wine. (6) According
to the Rambam the laws of
Yayin Nesech are not based
upon Chazal’s knowledge of
pagan rites, rather, the
assumptions about which
wines become Yayin Nesech
are based upon the Torah
laws of the temple service
and of our altar.
Cooked wine is unsuitable
for our altar, which
is why it can’t become Yayin
Nesech or Stam Yenam.
Similarly the laws of
Kiddush connect back to the
temple and the altar. The
Gemara in Bava Batra
(97a-b)says that a wine
which cannot be offered on
the altar cannot be used for
Kiddush (it uses this
criterion to disqualify wine
that received a bad smell
and wine that was left
exposed and unguarded.) It
stands to reason that since
cooked wine cannot go on the
altar, it cannot be used in
Kiddush either. Of course,
diluted wine is good for
Kiddush. Everyone drank
their wine diluted back.
Nevertheless, diluted wine
is not right for altar which
takes its “food” full
strength. You have to think
of the altar fire as a huge
consuming presence, and its
tastes are more extreme than
human tastes. When you water
down wine to make it
acceptable to human tastes
that improves the wine,
adapting it for the human
palette. As the Talmud puts
it “diluting improves it.”
However, the Rambam sees
cooking as a much more
substantial change. The wine
looses its ecstatic quality
and now is unfit even for
Kiddush. It cannot become
Yayin Nesech or Stam Yenam.
The idea that the prohibition of Yayin Nesech and Stam Yenam is based
upon the perception that
wine “absorbs” the mindset
of one who touches it helps
resolve a major question one
may ask on the Rambam.
(7)Granted that a cooked
wine cannot go up on our
altar, how do we know that a
non-Jew wouldn’t offer it on
his? What makes us so
confident that cooked wine
cannot become Yayin Nesech?
Is the pagan carrying around
a Jewish Shulhan Aruch so he
will know what wines to
offer? In response I say
that we need to remember
that if there is any
evidence that a wine of any
kind was offered in a pagan
rite, that wine would be
prohibited according to
Torah Law. The rabbinic
enactment of Yayin Nesech
adds the stringency of
touching. This enactment
presumes the “sensitivity”
of wine. However, once the
wine is cooked it is no
longer sensitive. As a
result, if a pagan touches
the wine in an innocent
manner, we need not be
concerned over what he might
have had in mind. (Of course
if we had evidence that the
cooked wine was actually
used in worship, then
obviously it would be
forbidden.)
Similarly, cooked wine cannot become Stam Yenam because it wont pick up
universalistic spiritual
feelings either. (I
completely agree with you,
Maven, Shmuel was completely
virtuous when he cooked the
wine and had Ablat over!) It
is also clear that dilution
does not effect the wines
essential nature, so diluted
wine can become Yayin
Nesech, if it is imbued with
an idolatrous intention, or
it can become Stam Yenam if
it absorbs some of the
general universalistic
spirituality.
Now that cooked wine has been defined as lacking the ecstatic quality, we
may conclude that it is
invalid for Kiddush as well.
This is the Rambam’s
approach.
However, amongst Ashkenazim the tendency is to rely on yet another
opinion of the Rosh who
holds that cooking wine is
another way of improving it.
Like Dilution, it adapts the
wine for human tastes, but
doesn’t change its essence.
(I can’t account for how
cooking might be considered
an improvement, since every
serious wine taster I know
assures me that cooking
damages a wines taste.) In
any event, according to the
Rosh, cooking wine is no
different than diluting it,
and both Diluted wine and
cooked wine are fine for
Kiddush. Even though they
are both unfit for the
altar, they retain their
ecstatic quality in full.
Nevertheless, The Rosh has a
distinction in the area of
Stam Yenam. The enactment of
Stam Yenam only covered the
usual styles of serving
wine. Cooked wine remains as
something unusual and is not
covered by the enactment.
The critical point according
to the Rosh is that Dilution
was a common practice, while
cooking was an unusual one.
Of course according to the
Rosh there is no
relationship of causality
between the law that cooked
wine cannot be offered on
the Altar and the
corresponding law that
cooked wine cannot become
Stam Yenam.
Now I see a problem. We rely on the Rosh’s opinion to permit cooked wine
for Kiddush! That means
there is no difference
between diluted wine and
cooked wine in terms of the
ecstatic feeling it
contains. So the only way we
can explain why diluted wine
becomes Stam Yenam and
cooked wine doesn’t is by
using the Rosh’s
distinction! Cooking is
unusual, and makes the wine
into a kind of unusual
stuff, while diluting was
the common practice. If we
rely of the Rosh’s opinion
for using cooked wine on
Kiddush, we will have to
accept the Rosh’s position
on cooked wine for Stam
Yenam. If you recall, that
would mean that
pasteurization might not be
considered a form of
cooking.
I think I had better stop now and take some more time to think about all
this.
As always, I wish you both all the best!
I hope you will continue to stay in touch…
Nathan
I wrote to Susan and Rabbi
Glick:
Dear Rabbi Nathan,
This discussion has taken
back all the way to my
youthful memories of
Yeshiva, where we broke our
heads on all these difficult
topics. I have to admit it
is challenging. I suspect
that this discussion is
actually more difficult that
ones we used to have in
Yeshiva. Forgive me for
feeling rusty.
My best input is to try and
stay focused on the point.
If I hold like the Rosh,
then cooking should make the
wine into an “unusual
tasting” wine. The whole
reason why cooked wine is
not in the enactment of Stam
Yenam is because it’s
something out of the
ordinary. Diluted wine is
covered by the enactment
because it is ordinary. A
pasteurized wine that
doesn’t taste significantly
different would not qualify
as cooked, according to the
Rosh. The advantage of the
Rosh’s opinion is that he
holds that a cooked wine is
not different in its essence
than a regular wine in terms
of its inner spiritual
qualities. So you could use
it for Kiddush.
Now if I go with the Rambam,
a cooked wine has lost its
inner essence. That makes it
different from diluted wine
which is just scaled down in
strength for people to
drink. Both Diluted wine and
cooked wine are no good for
the altar but for different
reasons. A cooked wine
“ain’t got no soul.” It
can’t pick up feelings. It
can’t become Stam Yenam. It
can’t be used for Kiddush.
So If I follow the
Rambam, pasteurization might
count to keep it from
becoming forbidden if
touched by a non-Jew, but I
wouldn’t be able to use it
for Kiddush!
But what we do, in practice,
is that we consider
pasteurized wine cooked like
the Rambam, but we also make
Kiddush on it, so our custom
contradicts itself. There! I
think that is it!
But I remember always
being told that “Minhag
Yisrael Din” which means
that the custom of Israel is law.
So I think we should try and
understand our practice.
Perhaps it can be justified.
Write back soon! (preferably
before Shabbat!)
Warmest Regards,
Maven
Susan wrote:
Dear Rabbi and Maven
I get the two positions. And I
am really impressed by the
depth and elegance of the
analysis. Fortunately, I do
have some background in the
study of human cultures that
is helping me, Cultures
interpret the world and the
objects in it, and condition
what we see and how we see
it. I can definitely relate
to the perception that wine
has an ecstatic soul and
that this soul can pick up
all kinds of influences, be
it from idolatrous thoughts,
universalistic spiritual
values or the sacred space
of the Shabbat table. There
is no point in arguing
whether that is really in
the wine or not. It is seen
in the wine because of your
culture, and if your culture
was founded by G-d, then
that is how G-d wants you to
see! I am really in harmony
with this, in ways which you
guys and your yeshiva
background might not be.
Interesting, right?
Now I am going to tell you guys
something you will not ever
get in Yeshiva. The Rosh
seems to be to be
“De-mythologizing” wine. I
suppose he must accept the
idea that there is ecstasy
in wine; otherwise he would
not be able to explain why
“there is no song except on
wine.” But I also see that
he doesn’t think that the
ecstasy can be gotten rid of
or influenced. It can’t be
eliminated by cooking. Now
when it comes to Stam Yenam,
his distinction between
cooked wine and diluted wine
is not based upon ideas of
what diluted wine can absorb
from the mind of one who
touched it, or that cooked
wine cannot absorb
impressions. He once again
goes for the factual
distinctions. Diluting is
common practice. Cooking is
unusual. It really reminds
me of the difference between
a modern, scientific and
factual orientation and an
older mythic/animistic
orientation. Now that I
think of it, the Rosh died
in
1327 (I just looked it up on line) and that makes him part
of the early renaissance
when generally speaking,
people were trying to get a
factual take on reality.
Maybe the Rosh was feeling
this. But that aside, if I
had to understand a
religious tradition
flourishing in the ancient
world, I think the
mythic/animistic perspective
is the way to go.
It also looks to me that the Rosh is doing away altogether
with the causality of the
Altar, Yayin Nesech and Stam
Yenam. According to your
original presentation, which
you now call “the Rambam’s
opinion” (and which I call
the mythic/animistic
position) the fact that a
cooked wine doesn’t go on
the Alter actually means
something. The cooked wine
has lost its soul. even if a
Pagan was to think idolatry
over cooked wine, from our
perspective, it can’t pick
up his thoughts of feelings.
Unless you find the
open bottle in a temple, you
need not worry about it
becoming imbued with
idolatrous feelings. So it
wouldn’t become Yayin Nesech
just through being touched.
Likewise, it can’t become
Stam Yenam, because it can’t
pick up universalistic
spiritual feelings. See? The
causality is powerful. But
in the Rosh’s scheme the
chain of causality is
practically not there. The
fact that cooked wine can’t
become Yayin Nesech does not
impact on Stam Yenam. It is
the unusualness of cooked
wine that keeps it from
becoming Stam Yenam, not its
unsuitability for offering.
Thanks for this really amazing interchange. It has also
brought me back to some
earlier more exciting times
in my life!
All the best!
Susan
Rabbi Glick wrote:
My Dear Friends,
You have both helped me a great deal by your letters, and shown me things
that I had not thought
about. Maven, your summary
of the two opinions was
concise and sharp. I was
also taught that the customs
one finds in a Jewish
community must be respected.
My teachers emphasized that
it is a Mitzvah to justify
Jewish custom and practice.
Of course one shouldn’t make
up far fetched
justifications for misguided
customs. But one must
certainly give a custom the
chance to convince you, if
it can.
Susan, your letter gave me lots of thought.
In the end, I have to
agree with you that the two
opinions (the Rambam and the
Rosh) seem to play out along
the lines you say. One
Rambam’s opinion sees
spiritual and emotional
qualities in wine that can
be influenced. You point out
that this does not have to
be factual on the level
chemistry, but part of the
lived experience of the
Halacha.
Then Rosh’s opinion is definitely more factual and objective about why wine
is forbidden. But this
creates problems for me. I
was always taught to view
the Rambam as more
rationalistic, whereas the
Rosh was an avowed
traditionalist, who thanked
G-d that he knew nothing of
philosophy or the sciences.
So while I cannot help but
accept your identification
of the opinions as Mythic
vs. Factual, I don’t see how
you can make that stick to
the personalities of the
Rambam and the Rosh. In
general when we do Halacha
or Talmud in the Yeshiva, we
try to stay focused on the
ideas, and not understand
them based upon cultural or
historical factors.
I would like to restate the Rosh’s opinion, because I have learned a few new
things. I hope you will bear
with me. Unlike the Rambam
who sees a connection
between the laws of the
temple and the altar and the
laws of Yayin Nesech and
Stam Yenam, the Rosh sees no
connection. There is no
point in looking to our
altar for criteria for which
wines are fit for offering.
There is no reason to think
that Pagans knew or cared
about Jewish norms in Temple worship. The Talmud
makes no explicit reference
to our altar either. Rather
the Rosh understands that
Chazal simply knew through
their own investigations
that non-Jews didn’t offer
up cooked wine. That being
the case, there is no reason
to include cooked wine in
the enactment of Yayin
Nesech. As you pointed out,
the Rosh is not attributing
any “dead-ness” to cooked
wine. Yayin Nesech is
intended to keep Jews away
from Pagan sacrifices and
libations. It is an added
precaution. If cooked wine
is not be offered by pagans
there is no reason to forbid
it.
However, Stam Yenam is meant to keep Jews from intermarrying, so the Rosh
presents his question. Why
should cooked wine not
become disqualified as Stam
Yenam? At this point the
Rosh briefly floats the
possibility that the
exclusion of cooked wine is
based upon the laws of our
altar. One might argue, that
any wine that could not be
offered on our altar is not
good enough to count, and
therefore was not included
in Stam Yenam.(8) To this
the Rosh responds that
diluted wine is also
unsuitable for the altar,
but is included in Stam
Yenam. So we see that just
because a wine is unsuitable
for the altar doesn’t mean
it is not good quality wine.
A wine may actually be in a
sense “too good” for the
altar. This means it is
unfit for the altar but
adapted for human taste.
Based upon the precedent of
diluted wine; the Rosh now
claims that cooked wine
(which he also sees as
improved) should also be
included in the enactment of
Stam Yenam. His answer, as
we noted many times, is that
diluted wine is common place
and cooked wine is unusual.
You are very right in observing that the Rosh makes no use of any concept of
wine absorbing thoughts and
feelings. His analysis is
completely factual.
Presumably he considers all
wine to be ecstatic, but
understands that this
ecstasy cannot be
eliminated, nor can any
other feelings or intentions
be added to it.
But let me return to Maven’s question. Can we justify our custom, which
seems to grasp the pole at
both ends? On the one hand
we consider pasteurized wine
Mevushal and then we make
Kiddush on it too!
I do believe that our custom can be justified. First of all, we do not
follow the Rosh. Thus we
will argue for what you,
Susan, called strong
causality between the laws
of our altar and the laws of
Yayin Nesech, Stam Yenam and
Kiddush. The fact that a
cooked wine cannot be
offered on the Altar means
it will not become Yayin
Nesech if a non-Jew touches
it. That means that it will
not become Stam Yenam
either. Cooked wine cannot
pick up idolatrous feelings,
and will not pick up
feelings of universal
spirituality. Drinking
cooked wine will not
encourage intermarriage.
However, all along we have assumed that a cooked wine has lost its soul, so
to speak, and that is why it
can’t pick up things. But
let’s say otherwise. Let us
say, perhaps, that a cooked
wine keeps its inner
ecstasy, but looses the
ability to pick up other
feelings along the way. Why
then would cooked wine not
be suitable for the altar?
Of course there are many
things one could say, but
let me state this
possibility. Perhaps wine
used for the altar needs to
have its ecstasy explicitly
channeled for the temple
service. The Wine’s
inability to assimilate new
intentions now means it
can’t go up on the altar. Of
course, this same inability
keeps it from becoming Yayin
Nesech or Stam Yenam as
well. Now as regards use for
Kiddush, it might be argued
that Kiddush also requires a
channeling of the wine’s
ecstasy for the holiness of
Shabbat. How then could
cooked wine be used for
Kiddush? I propose that the
kosher wine is fundamentally
Jewish wine. Regardless of
who owns the winery, the
wine has been supervised by
Jews who testify that no
non-Jewish (or even
non-Sabbath observant) hand
has ever touched it. Shabbat
is so fundamental to the
Jewish faith, that simply
being “Jewish wine” imprints
upon it the holiness of
Shabbat without any other
specific intentions. The
wine became Jewish wine
before it became cooked.
Thus it is perfectly
appropriate for Kiddush!
So here, with Hashem’s help, you have my humble solution to the puzzle.
Indeed there is a strong
causality between the fact
that cooked wine is unfit
for the Altar, and its
inability to become Yayin
Nesech and Stam Yenam. And
yet, it may still be used
for Kiddush. This is because
cooking limits the wines
absorption of feelings and
attitudes. However, any
kosher wine has already
absorbed the basic holiness
of the Jewish people, in by
so doing, has become
oriented towards Shabbat,
which celebrates the
fundamentals of Jewish
faith. Undoubtedly, some may
find my explanation
fanciful, but it is the best
I can do, at least for now.
My thanks go out to both of you, Maven and Susan, for accompanying me in
this intellectual journey.
May Hashem be with you and
illuminate your ways.
Blessings and Best wishes,
Nathan!
I Here I am again, your Vino
Maven. This was a
challenging correspondence,
and from time to time I come
back to it and think about
it. In the end, I have to
confess that I found Rabbi
Nathan’s solution not
completely convincing, so I
decided that since I am
going to continue relying on
pasteurized wines when I
throw a party and want to
use non-Jewish waiters, that
I would be stringent and use
only non-Mevushal wines for
Kiddush. Our non-Jewish
guests seemed to have a
better time understanding
that they couldn’t touch the
bottle of Kiddush wine,
although they could touch
the non-Kiddush Mevushal
wine. They found it easy to
respect our sacred
substance! So there is some
truth to the idea that our
wine holds a spiritual
potential which is sacred to
us, and which we can’t let
others contact. Come to
think of it, in my younger
years I had good friends who
were members of a kosher
wine making family. Their
attitudes towards their work
remind me of Rabbi Nathan’s
idea. They approached wine
making as a holy task to
insure that Jews had the
ability to make Kiddush.
They had in mind a deep
spiritual commitment to the
Jewish people. When they
made their wine Mevushal,
they understood that they
were locking in this
holiness so no-body would be
able to corrupt it!
I must confess that I am
suddenly full of
thankfulness and warmth
towards those old fashioned
wine makers. They had a hard
job and they worked with
tough grapes, and often the
result was rather rough. But
always they were full of
faith and their hearts were
in the right place; insuring
that the bond between Israel
and the Creator of the
Universe will endure for
eternity and that Jews will
always have kosher wine to
celebrate that connection!
I too, bless you my dear
readers and pray that you
will always enjoy life to
the fullest!
(1) Rambam, Hilchot
Maachalot Assurot 11:1-3.
Also see Shulhan Aruch Y.D.
123:1 and the Rema there.
(2) Rosh Avodah Zarah 2:13,
Bet Yosef Y.D. 123 page 196
b. Also see Y.D.123 Taz para
3
(3) Tur and Bet Yosef O.H.
272 page 31b
(4) See Rambam above Halacha
9 and Tur Y.D. 123 page 196b
(5)
Confrontation,
Tradition 6:2 p5-9
(6) Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat
29:14
(7) Rosh Avodah Zarah 2:13
(8) This interpretation of
the Rosh’s words differs
with that of the Taz. (see
above)
|
