BY: RABBI YECHIEL TEICHMAN
Shulchan Aruch1 rules that kosher wine which has been cooked and then touched by a non-Jew is not subject to the prohibition of stam yayin and remains permitted to drink. In halachic sources, “cooked wine” refers to wine that has been boiled or heated until its taste noticeably changes, lowering its quality compared to uncooked wine. In earlier times, this was unusual and produced a distinct flavor.
Pasteurization, however, is a modern process in which wine or grape juice is briefly heated to a relatively low temperature — just enough to kill bacteria and stabilize the product — and then cooled immediately. Unlike traditional cooking, pasteurization does not generally alter the taste in a way noticeable to the average consumer.
This raises the question: can pasteurized wine, which is heated but without a perceptible change in taste, be considered “cooked” wine in halachic terms? Many poskim in Eretz Yisrael adopt a stringent approach, while the prevailing custom in Chutz La’aretz — following the ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein2 — is to be lenient, as long as the pasteurization temperature is above yad soledes 175 F. In this article, we will explore the sources and reasoning that may underline these divergent practices.
The Gemara in Avodah Zarah offers two explanations for why Chaza”l forbade stam yayin. In one place3 the prohibition is described as serving as a safeguard against intermarriage, and elsewhere4 it is framed as a gezeira of yayin nesech. The Rishonim discuss how to reconcile these two rationales.
Tosafos5 explain there was a single gezeira. The motivation was to prevent intermarriage, but rather than creating a new prohibition, Chazal extended the issur of yayin nesech to include any wine touched by a non-Jew. Consequently, the prohibition was not limited to drinking the wine (as by pas akum), but also included a ban on deriving benefit (hana’ah).
The Rashba, however, understands there were two separate gezeiros. Initially Chaza”l prohibited drinking stam yayin as a safeguard against intermarriage. Later, a subsequent beis din saw that non-Jews were using wine for idolatrous libations and extended the prohibition to include hana’ah, out of concern for idolatry.
The Tur cites the Rashbam, who argued that since non-Jews in his day are no longer accustomed to pouring libations, wine they touch should not be subject to the prohibition of hana’ah. The Darkei Moshe explains that this kula can only be understood within the Rashba’s framework of two gezeiros: since the issur of hana’ah was predicated on the prevalence of libations, once that practice ceased, the gezeira was relaxed. However, according to Tosafos, who maintain that there was a single gezeira to prevent intermarriage, there is no basis to relax the issur now a-days. The Rema rules that in cases of financial loss one may rely on the Rashbam.
The Tur writes that cooked wine is exempt from the gezeira of stam yayin, since it is not the type of wine offered for idolatry, and therefore one may drink such wine. The Prisha explains that according to Tosafos, this reason alone suffices: because the prohibition was an extension of the prohibition of yayin nesech, cooked wine was excluded.
According to the Rashba, however, there were two stages to the gezeira – one motivated by intermarriage – why should cooking the wine obviate that concern? The Rashba answers that cooked wine tastes different (nishtaneh ta’amo) and was, therefore, not included in the gezeira. The Rosh offers another reason: because cooking wine was unusual, Chaza”l did not Drinking in Non-Jewish Gatherings include it in their gezeira (milsa d’lo shicha lo gazru bo rabanan).
Although Tosafos, the Rashba, and the Rosh all explain why cooked wine was precluded from the issur of stam yayin, their reasoning may yield practical differences. Rav Elyashiv Zt”l6 argued that it is possible the Rosh’s explanation would not apply to pasteurized wine. Now-a-days, pasteurizing beverages, including wine and grape juice, is routine, and therefore it is not likely considered milsa d’lo schicha lo gazru bo rabanan. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach Zt”l7 similarly noted that the Rashba’s reason would not apply to pasteurized wine, for pasteurization does not noticeably change the taste of the wine, and since it is not nishtaneh taamo, the g’zeiras of chasnus is still relevant, and pasteurized wine would be assur b’shtiya.
With this background, we can better understand the different approaches to pasteurized wine. The poskim who adopt a stringent stance do so in deference to the explanations of the Rosh and the Rashba. The lenient custom in Chutz La’aretz, however, follows the approach of Tosafos: as long as the wine is unfit for idolatrous libations, it falls outside the prohibition. It is therefore unnecessary to invoke the additional reasons of the Rashba or the Rosh to permit it. Even if their rationales do not apply to pasteurization, Tosafos’ framework suffices to allow such wine. Since stam yayin is a rabbinic prohibition, communities abroad were willing to rely on this leniency.
A less well-known halacha is that one may not drink alcoholic beverages — even yayin mevushal — in a gathering of non-Jews. This applies both to drinking in non-Jewish establishments and at private gatherings, unless the majority of participants are Jewish.
The Mechaber rules that this prohibition extends to all types of beer. The Rema, however, is lenient with grain beer and honey mead, reasoning that the common beer in the Gemara’s time was made from dates, and only that beer was included in the prohibition. Since other beers were not prevalent then, they were never included by Chaza”l in the prohibition. The Gr”a and Pri Chadash, following the Mechaber, are strict with all types of beer. The later authorities note that it is praiseworthy for one who is meticulous to adopt this stricter view.
Certain practical leniencies are discussed by the poskim. One may purchase beer from a non-Jew to take home, and some allow drinking it immediately outside the establishment. The Pri Chadash permits casual drinking to quench thirst, provided it is not habitual. The Shach rules that if refraining would cause animosity — for example, at a non-Jewish inn where declining a drink would arouse hostility — one may drink. This heter has been extended to other situations where refusing would generate resentment.
However, this leniency may not apply in all cases. The Taz notes that the Gemara derives from a pasuk a specific prohibition against attending non-Jewish wedding celebrations. Since the Torah itself forbids participation in such gatherings —to create distance and prevent intermarriage — it cannot be permitted on the grounds of animosity. On the contrary, drinking at such celebrations fosters closeness and may lead to intermarriage, which is precisely what the Torah sought to prevent.
COR, the Kashruth Council of Canada, is one of the world’s largest kosher certification agencies, certifying thousands of products, restaurants, and facilities. Learn more at cor.ca, or read about our certification services at corkosher.com.