Here is a piece I participated in. It comes from the Kosher Wine Club, a little internet initiative by some friends of mine.
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***
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
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,
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.
A source can be found for the significance of wine in this midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabbah Ch 2): "Rabbi Yitzhak said, so said the congregation of Israel, 'the Holy Blessed One brought me to a great wine cellar, which is Mt Sinai and from there gave me the Torah which is interpreted in 49 facets of purity and 49 facets of impurity, and out of great love, I accepted it.'" Some of the symbolism here is obscure, but at least this much can be said. Wine is at the heart of our experience of Torah, and it is highly sensitive to misinterpretation.
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 worshiper. 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, among 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
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.
A source can be found for the significance of wine in this midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabbah Ch 2): "Rabbi Yitzhak said, so said the congregation of Israel, 'the Holy Blessed One brought me to a great wine cellar, which is Mt Sinai and from there gave me the Torah which is interpreted in 49 facets of purity and 49 facets of impurity, and out of great love, I accepted it.'" Some of the symbolism here is obscure, but at least this much can be said. Wine is at the heart of our experience of Torah, and it is highly sensitive to misinterpretation.
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 worshiper. 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, among 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” 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
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” 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 think the Rosh is limiting the ecstasy to the Temple service. Ecstasy is the meaning of wine when it used in the temple. Outside the temple, wine is just wine. It has certain other qualities that make it unique. It is an important drink and worthy of having holy things recited over it. It is served at parties where people get close to each other. It was once used by idolaters as part of the "household worship" and as a result most idolaters who handles an open bottle of wine would have had some thoughts of pouring out a little to a household deity. These are three distinct aspects that aren't connected to each other. So the fact that Wine is put on the altar in the Temple is an indication that wine is important. Whatever ecstasy it contains only happens in the Temple.
But the importance of wine is what makes it fit for kiddush. Its social bonding aspect is what makes it problematic for Jews to share with non-Jews. Its pervasive use in pagan worship makes it problematic regarding possible idolatrous intentions. You are assuming that there is some kind of ecstatic quality in the wine which is responsible for the the laws of Yayin Nesech, Stam Yenam and which makes wine mandatory for Kiddush. I am raising the possibility that The Rosh simply doesn't have that concept.
Cooking the wine operates in each of these aspects. Firstly, it just so happens to be that Non-Jewish Pagans didn't pour out cooked wine. Once again, the Sages would have had to ascertain this by investigating non-Jewish cultic practice. This has nothing to do with Jewish Temple Law.
Secondly, cooking makes wine unusual, which mitigates the issues of social bonding. Social bonding happens through what is familiar, not through what is a once in a blue moon occurrence.
Lastly, since wine is just wine, cooking it doesn't kill it. There is nothing to kill. This wine is still important socially. It is no good for the altar, but so what? The Altar only teaches us the importance of wine in general. You can have important wines that are not acceptable on the altar for whatever reason...lets say as you claimed concerning diluted wine...it is adapted for human tastes.
If I am right, then the proper way of understanding the Rosh is that he diesn't believe that ecstasy even exists in wine. That means, dear Rabbi, that your whole concept of wine embodying some sacred experience has just flown out the window!
Your approach goes much better with Mimonides. This really reminds me of the difference between a modern, scientific and factual orientation and an older mythic/animistic orientation. Your approach sees something "living" in the wine. The Rosh doesn't see that. 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.
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.
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 by being touched or by being cooked.
Despite the fact that this trashes my big idea, I have to admit that your "scientific" and "non-mythic" understanding of the Rosh really straightens things out, in many ways.
There is a question concerning what the Talmud is really getting at when it connects the Kiddush and the Altar. It has always seemed most reasonable to me that there was some essential meaning to that connection, which I tend to see in wines Ecstatic quality which cooking kills. By the time the Talmud is finished commenting to this comparison, it turns out that it serves only to discredit two kinds of wine: Wine that was left open unattended and wine that picked up a bad smell from the barrel. There are commentators that claim the only thing we use the altar comparison for is for matters having to do with quality. Is a wine sub-standard or not? Or I suppose you could put it your way: is a given wine important enough for Kiddush. If it won't go on the Altar because its not respectable enough, then it won't do for Kiddush either, but there are plenty of quality wines that won't go on the altar for a variety of reasons. Those are still perfectly good for Kiddush. This opinion seeks to largely break the common denominator between Kiddush and the Altar, and make suitability for the altar into a mere litmus test for respectability.
Needless to say, according to the Rambam, the connection between the Altar, suitability for Kiddush and susceptibility to the prohibitions of Yayin Nesech and Stam Yenam are highly substantial and one might say essential.
Well then, The Rosh’s opinion is definitely more factual and objective, you would say "more modern". 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.
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. This means we are thinking mythically and once a wine is cooked
--even in such a way that leaves no tangible difference-- it is "dead" and no longer has the ecstatic quality. But according to this train of thought, this sense of ecstasy is precisely what kiddush requires. How then we make Kiddush on it?!
Or alternatively, If we accept that wine has no inner qualities to kill, then it certainly makes sense for us to make Kiddush on cooked wine, but then pasteurization might no longer count. Cooking serves to make a wine into something unusual, and that implies at least some discernible change of texture or taste.
So Maven's question stands. That means that I have to take a break and consult my books and my friends as well. Wish me well!
Blessings!
Nathan
I wrote to Susan and Rabbi Glick:
My Dear Friends,
I think I have grasped the distinction between the Rosh's approach, which you, Susan have called "Modern" and you Rabbi have called "objective" in contrast to the Rambam's approach which you call "mythic." I guess by mythic you mean that you are looking at wine as being more than just its physical properties. So I have to tell you something. I believe in the spiritual essence of wine and that it is close to the heart of Judaism.
This is not because I have some sort of "Spirit-meter" that I carry around with me. I got my belief from the old time wine makers I used to know in Brooklyn when I was growing up. These guys weren't the biggest Talmidei Chachamim in the world, but they had tremendous self sacrifice for the wine that they made. True they were using concord grapes, which don't produce tasty wine...but they felt that the existence of Judaism depended on what they were making. I can still remember one telling me. "Making Kosher wine is everything to me. Without Kosher wine how could Judaism survive? So you can make Kiddush over bread in a pinch. But what about four cups for the Seder. What about weddings! What about everything?" He really felt that his wine had not just alcohol, but Spirit too. Believe it or not, that old Yid followed a rule that said that he couldn't even let a non-Jew see his wine! The Rabbis who gave him Kosher certification didn't care about that. But the old winemaker wouldn't budge. No non Jew was going to even see his wine before he cooked it! And you know, he used to actually say: "Its cooked! The wine is SEALED!" I don't know where this stringency of "seeing" comes from, but I know there are Chassidim who follow this even today. This stringency makes no sense unless you believe that wine has a soul and that it can be influenced by those who look at it. It feels right to me that when I am making Kiddush, I am carrying on something that started in the holiest place in the world, the Temple in Jerusalem, and which I enact every Shabbat at my table.
I know, Rabbi, tat you might not like my tone of voice here, but not being a Rabbi, I can allow myself to say this. Jewish wine has a Jewish soul. And it is sensitive. Pasteurization is enough to kill whatever bacteria are alive in the wine. Hey! It could kill a person too! I believe it would make wine Mevushal. And if that means saying the Rambam is right, so be it.
Except of course this leaves me with my original question, which is now all the more painful. How can I make Kiddush on a pasturized wine?!
Looking forward to your response,
Vino Maven
Rabbi Glick wrote:
Dear Maven,
There is an important principle that your letter brings to mind. "Go out and see what the people are doing!" There are times when the people of Israel know what the right answer is. So I take very seriously the perceptions and feelings of your old winemaker friend. So let us say that to the best of my knowledge, our practice in Halacha is to follow the Rambam at least as regards the essential question of the meaning of wine.
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.
And yet, we will also follow the Rosh's opinion at least as far as the acceptability of cooked wine for kiddush. How indeed might this be? I believe an answer is possible.
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 new impressions. 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? Perhaps wine used for the altar needs to have its essence uplifted as part of the Temple service. It old "life" is still there, but having been sealed by the cooking process, it cant pick up anything new.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 an imprinting of the wine with 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 Hashem will fulfill all your desires in the best possible ways.
(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
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 think the Rosh is limiting the ecstasy to the Temple service. Ecstasy is the meaning of wine when it used in the temple. Outside the temple, wine is just wine. It has certain other qualities that make it unique. It is an important drink and worthy of having holy things recited over it. It is served at parties where people get close to each other. It was once used by idolaters as part of the "household worship" and as a result most idolaters who handles an open bottle of wine would have had some thoughts of pouring out a little to a household deity. These are three distinct aspects that aren't connected to each other. So the fact that Wine is put on the altar in the Temple is an indication that wine is important. Whatever ecstasy it contains only happens in the Temple.
But the importance of wine is what makes it fit for kiddush. Its social bonding aspect is what makes it problematic for Jews to share with non-Jews. Its pervasive use in pagan worship makes it problematic regarding possible idolatrous intentions. You are assuming that there is some kind of ecstatic quality in the wine which is responsible for the the laws of Yayin Nesech, Stam Yenam and which makes wine mandatory for Kiddush. I am raising the possibility that The Rosh simply doesn't have that concept.
Cooking the wine operates in each of these aspects. Firstly, it just so happens to be that Non-Jewish Pagans didn't pour out cooked wine. Once again, the Sages would have had to ascertain this by investigating non-Jewish cultic practice. This has nothing to do with Jewish Temple Law.
Secondly, cooking makes wine unusual, which mitigates the issues of social bonding. Social bonding happens through what is familiar, not through what is a once in a blue moon occurrence.
Lastly, since wine is just wine, cooking it doesn't kill it. There is nothing to kill. This wine is still important socially. It is no good for the altar, but so what? The Altar only teaches us the importance of wine in general. You can have important wines that are not acceptable on the altar for whatever reason...lets say as you claimed concerning diluted wine...it is adapted for human tastes.
If I am right, then the proper way of understanding the Rosh is that he diesn't believe that ecstasy even exists in wine. That means, dear Rabbi, that your whole concept of wine embodying some sacred experience has just flown out the window!
Your approach goes much better with Mimonides. This really reminds me of the difference between a modern, scientific and factual orientation and an older mythic/animistic orientation. Your approach sees something "living" in the wine. The Rosh doesn't see that. 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.
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.
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 by being touched or by being cooked.
Despite the fact that this trashes my big idea, I have to admit that your "scientific" and "non-mythic" understanding of the Rosh really straightens things out, in many ways.
There is a question concerning what the Talmud is really getting at when it connects the Kiddush and the Altar. It has always seemed most reasonable to me that there was some essential meaning to that connection, which I tend to see in wines Ecstatic quality which cooking kills. By the time the Talmud is finished commenting to this comparison, it turns out that it serves only to discredit two kinds of wine: Wine that was left open unattended and wine that picked up a bad smell from the barrel. There are commentators that claim the only thing we use the altar comparison for is for matters having to do with quality. Is a wine sub-standard or not? Or I suppose you could put it your way: is a given wine important enough for Kiddush. If it won't go on the Altar because its not respectable enough, then it won't do for Kiddush either, but there are plenty of quality wines that won't go on the altar for a variety of reasons. Those are still perfectly good for Kiddush. This opinion seeks to largely break the common denominator between Kiddush and the Altar, and make suitability for the altar into a mere litmus test for respectability.
Needless to say, according to the Rambam, the connection between the Altar, suitability for Kiddush and susceptibility to the prohibitions of Yayin Nesech and Stam Yenam are highly substantial and one might say essential.
Well then, The Rosh’s opinion is definitely more factual and objective, you would say "more modern". 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.
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. This means we are thinking mythically and once a wine is cooked
--even in such a way that leaves no tangible difference-- it is "dead" and no longer has the ecstatic quality. But according to this train of thought, this sense of ecstasy is precisely what kiddush requires. How then we make Kiddush on it?!
Or alternatively, If we accept that wine has no inner qualities to kill, then it certainly makes sense for us to make Kiddush on cooked wine, but then pasteurization might no longer count. Cooking serves to make a wine into something unusual, and that implies at least some discernible change of texture or taste.
So Maven's question stands. That means that I have to take a break and consult my books and my friends as well. Wish me well!
Blessings!
Nathan
I wrote to Susan and Rabbi Glick:
My Dear Friends,
I think I have grasped the distinction between the Rosh's approach, which you, Susan have called "Modern" and you Rabbi have called "objective" in contrast to the Rambam's approach which you call "mythic." I guess by mythic you mean that you are looking at wine as being more than just its physical properties. So I have to tell you something. I believe in the spiritual essence of wine and that it is close to the heart of Judaism.
This is not because I have some sort of "Spirit-meter" that I carry around with me. I got my belief from the old time wine makers I used to know in Brooklyn when I was growing up. These guys weren't the biggest Talmidei Chachamim in the world, but they had tremendous self sacrifice for the wine that they made. True they were using concord grapes, which don't produce tasty wine...but they felt that the existence of Judaism depended on what they were making. I can still remember one telling me. "Making Kosher wine is everything to me. Without Kosher wine how could Judaism survive? So you can make Kiddush over bread in a pinch. But what about four cups for the Seder. What about weddings! What about everything?" He really felt that his wine had not just alcohol, but Spirit too. Believe it or not, that old Yid followed a rule that said that he couldn't even let a non-Jew see his wine! The Rabbis who gave him Kosher certification didn't care about that. But the old winemaker wouldn't budge. No non Jew was going to even see his wine before he cooked it! And you know, he used to actually say: "Its cooked! The wine is SEALED!" I don't know where this stringency of "seeing" comes from, but I know there are Chassidim who follow this even today. This stringency makes no sense unless you believe that wine has a soul and that it can be influenced by those who look at it. It feels right to me that when I am making Kiddush, I am carrying on something that started in the holiest place in the world, the Temple in Jerusalem, and which I enact every Shabbat at my table.
I know, Rabbi, tat you might not like my tone of voice here, but not being a Rabbi, I can allow myself to say this. Jewish wine has a Jewish soul. And it is sensitive. Pasteurization is enough to kill whatever bacteria are alive in the wine. Hey! It could kill a person too! I believe it would make wine Mevushal. And if that means saying the Rambam is right, so be it.
Except of course this leaves me with my original question, which is now all the more painful. How can I make Kiddush on a pasturized wine?!
Looking forward to your response,
Vino Maven
Rabbi Glick wrote:
Dear Maven,
There is an important principle that your letter brings to mind. "Go out and see what the people are doing!" There are times when the people of Israel know what the right answer is. So I take very seriously the perceptions and feelings of your old winemaker friend. So let us say that to the best of my knowledge, our practice in Halacha is to follow the Rambam at least as regards the essential question of the meaning of wine.
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.
And yet, we will also follow the Rosh's opinion at least as far as the acceptability of cooked wine for kiddush. How indeed might this be? I believe an answer is possible.
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 new impressions. 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? Perhaps wine used for the altar needs to have its essence uplifted as part of the Temple service. It old "life" is still there, but having been sealed by the cooking process, it cant pick up anything new.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 an imprinting of the wine with 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 Hashem will fulfill all your desires in the best possible ways.
(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
