Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 343

Monday, February 7 2000

• Smoking and Takkonos - Humor
• smoking (from Forward 11/26/99)
• smoking
• modern medicine
• chavalah
• Louis Ginzberg Anecdote (was Re: Smoking - Humor alert)
• 3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)
• Administrivia (was Re: MZ Redux)
• DNA Evidence
• Re: Administrivia (was Re: MZ Redux)
• Re: kos shel ikkarin
• screening letters
• Choveil/choveil b'atzmo
• Re: Not Appropriate for this Forum! Homosexuality & Judaism
• Fwd: Not Appropriate for this Forum!
• Re: 3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)
• Re: Yayin Mevushal (fwd)

So far we have seen posts stating that::
1) While some Rabbonim have hesistated banning smoking
nevertheless
2) Rabbonim have made Takkonos limiting the size of weddings
therefore
3) Rabbonim should have no reluctance in banning smoking -
provided its at a Wedding!

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Torah Prohibits Tobacco, Faction of Rabbis Insists In Controversial
Opinion
Orthodox Group Publishes a Proposal Proscribing Use of the 'Divine Herb'
Tendler: Smoking Worse Than Eating Ham Sandwich
By E.J. KESSLER

FORWARD STAFF

NEW YORK -- The "evil weed" -- or "divine herb," as tobacco was known to
early Americans -- is being declared illegal under Jewish law.

Such is the ruling of a group of Orthodox rabbis that is arguing
cigarette smoking is an "immediate and inevitable danger" to those who
do it and an "assault" on the health and physical integrity of those who
are forced to breathe secondhand smoke. In a "Proposal on Smoking"
posted at the World Wide Web site of the centrist Orthodox Rabbinical
Council of America, the group is urging that smoking be banned "at all
synagogues, synagogue functions, day schools, mikvaot [ritual baths] and
all other institutions and events under the supervision" of rabbis,
including homes and businesses.

The proposal, the brainchild of several rabbis who used to meet under
the name the RCA Roundtable, is drawing a lot of interest, particularly
from Israel, where anti-tobacco rabbis are trying to form an
association, according to the RCA's executive vice president, Rabbi
Steven Dworken. It is also timely, as the movie "The Insider," still on
many screens, is dramatizing the conduct of the tobacco industry, and as
class action lawyers seek to enforce judgments against the tobacco
companies. A cross between an answer to a question of Jewish law and a
public-policy statement, the proposal has the backing of many Modern
Orthodox rabbis, said a signer of the document, Rabbi Saul Berman, and
it even has the support of others who describe themselves as
right-wingers. That is because Torah law is strong in condemning
anything that can injure health, one right-of-center Orthodox legal
authority, Rabbi Moshe Tendler, said. Rabbi Tendler said he considers
there to be a biblical prohibition against smoking.

"Most likely, it is a greater sin to smoke a cigarette than to eat a ham
sandwich," Rabbi Tendler said, "because with ham you violate one rule,
and with cigarettes you violate two prohibitions."

"Truthfully I don't know of anybody who accepts Halacha as binding who
nowadays smokes," Rabbi Tendler said, using the Hebrew word for Jewish
law. "The evil lies in Israel. Young kids in yeshiva there smoke. The
information isn't common knowledge there. I wouldn't let my son or
congregant go to a teacher of Torah who smokes."

The proposal, signed by Rabbis Reuven Bulka of Toronto and Jeffrey Woolf
and Daniel Landes of Israel as well as Rabbi Berman, elaborates on a
1960s ruling of the great Orthodox sage Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who was
Rabbi Tendler's father-in-law. In that ruling, the rabbis write,
Feinstein declined to ban smoking as a matter of Jewish law, even though
smoking entailed a possible risk, on the theory that, as one talmudic
dictum has it, "The Lord protects the simple." (Others translate "the
simple" as "fools" or "idiots.") They argue that, owing to the studies
on the dangers of smoking that have appeared since Feinstein's ruling,
the doctrine of "The Lord protects the simple" no longer obtains. "The
danger involved in smoking is no longer merely possible, it is
inevitable," they write, because while lung cancer strikes only some
smokers, "danger to the cardio-vascular and pulmonary systems is
immediate and inevitable. Thus, we have entered a situation where
smoking is a definite danger."

The Reform and Conservative movements are long on record banning
cigarette smoking in their synagogues and at their events as a matter of
Jewish law, according to movement officials. The Reform responsum
banning tobacco use, available at the web site of the Central Conference
of American Rabbis, cites many of the same authorities and uses much of
the same logic as the Orthodox RCA Roundtable group. The RCA passed a
weaker anti-smoking resolution in 1991 but isn't immediately planning
any formal action on the rabbis' proposal.

One anti-tobacco activist, a wealthy businessman who supports many
Jewish causes, Henry Everett, applauded the Orthodox effort. "As far as
any benchmarks or criteria for treyf, tobacco has to stand at the top,"
he said. "Any major religion cannot approve of tobacco smoking, because
it's a gradual form of suicide....I admire this Orthodox group."

Mr. Everett said he had been in contact with fervently Orthodox groups
in Israel that are agitating against cigarette advertising in the
Orthodox press there and are trying to warn youngsters against smoking.
He also led an unsuccessful battle to prevent the accession of James
Tisch to the presidency of New York's UJA-Federation, writing that "it
would be repugnant for a cigarette executive (pusher) to be cast as the
chairman and role model of a Jewish federation." Mr. Tisch is president
of Loews Corp., which owns Lorillard, a tobacco company. He declined to
comment for publication on the rabbis' proposal.

However, one libertarian advocate of the freedom to smoke, the author of
"For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public
Health" (Free Press), Jacob Sullum, said that the proposal starts Jewish
law down a "slippery slope."

"There are lots of Jews who are overweight, and there are clear health
risks attached to that," he said. "Are we going to say it's halachically
impermissable to be fat -- to overeat and not exercise? If not, why
not?...Is there a Jewish attitude toward drug use? What's the Jewish
position toward bungee jumping? Sky diving?"

A spokesman for one of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturers, the
Phillip Morris Companies, Thomas Ryan, declined to comment on the
rabbis' proposal. "We support adult choice," Mr. Ryan said. "Adults,
based on their beliefs and preferences, should be free to make their own
choice. We would not make any comment on religious policy."

Many rabbis say any proposal to ban cigarette smoking is as quixotic as
banning latkes on Chanukah, to speak of one high-fat food that could
endanger cardio-vascular health. Orthodox smokers have been known to
blow smoke into bottles so as to be able to take a whiff on the Sabbath,
when they are not allowed to light cigarettes.

"In our circles, Modern Orthodox rabbis will state...unequivocally" that
tobacco is banned, the rabbi of Congregation Rinat Yisrael in Teaneck,
N.J., Yosef Adler, said. "I don't know that that's the case among
right-wing yeshivas. Unfortunately, many Jews there smoke. If at the
Agudath Israel convention the Novominsker rebbe would say, 'You are not
allowed to smoke,' that would have an enormous impact." Rabbi Adler was
a member of the RCA Roundtable and participated in discussions about the
proposal.

A spokesman for Agudath Israel, Rabbi Avi Shafran, said that the
Novominsker rebbe had no such plans for the convention, which takes
place over the Thanksgiving weekend. Rabbi Shafran said the fervently
Orthodox camp holds by Feinstein's old ruling, in which tobacco use is
described as "dangerous and foolhardy" but is not strictly prohibited.
Then, too, there is a question as to whether people would heed any
rabbinical edict against tobacco, Rabbi Shafran said. "People are so
addicted," Rabbi Shafran said, "I think that if Moses came down from the
mountain and said it, they wouldn't believe it either."

> 
> I know that in Bnei Akiva Yeshivot smoking is less prevalent than it
> was 20 years ago, though  I couldn't say if it is b/c of western
> influence or b/c of these shu"t.  The reason is that teachers and
> rabbis who smoke won't present these shu"t to their students....
> 
I don't think there is any single reason. It just isn't "cool" as it
is discouraged by both  rebbeim and parents. I don't think they go through
responsa in detail.

Eli Turkel

Rabbi Josef Blau  writes
> 
> Underlying the discussion about a possible rabbinic prohibition of smoking
> is a broader question.  Modern medicine's conclusions about what is
> dangerous (sakana) differ from those mentioned by chazal.  Eating meat
> together with fish is not seen as hazardous while smoking is. The nature of
> modern medicine is to constantly reexamine and to modify earlier views
> while our halachic behavior remains static. 
>  This touches on the deeper question of how and when to integrate current
> scientific knowledge into halacha.  Should DNA evidence be accepted in a
> Rabbinical court?  What if it contradicts eyewitness testimony from two
> witnesses?  The Rambam rejects the science of his time when it contradicted
> the halachic definition of treifah, which is based on a halacha l'moshe
> misinai (hilchos shechita 10;11,12).  Yet in hilchos rotzeach u'shmiras
> nefesh 2;8 he defines a human tereifah as one whom the doctors conclude
> will certainly die from a particular wound.  
> The topic is complex but must be confronted if we are fully committed to
> halacha and do not reject modern medicine and science.

This returns us to the topic of nishata hateva.
There is an entire book on the topic.
In addition there are several articles from Sternberg and rebuttals in BDD.
Also Steinberg has a lengthy article in his encylopedia on halacha & medicine.
There was also an aticle in Journal of Contemporary halacha.

In short it comes done to the question whether chazal were infallible in
medicine or were they just using the knowledge that existed in their day.
If one assumes that they knew more than there contemporaries there are several
approaches to explaining how it disagrees with modern science/medicine.
Either modern science is wrong, or else nature has changed or else that
chazal were giving principles using the language of ancient science but
the halacha is independent of that language.
Each approach leads to difficulties.

Eli Turkel

> 
> In Avodah 4#341, CMarkowitz wrote:
> > In regards to smoking, there is another possible issur which
> noone seems to have touched on-that is the issur of chovel es atzmo. ... It
> should depend on what happens each time you smoke. It's possible that there
> is tissue/lung  damage after each cigarette. <

From memory, the Chazon in Baba batra defines hezek as something visible.
He claims that any hezek to the health of a person is not nezek according
to halacha (again unless it is visible).

I have always assumed, based on this, that he would disagree with Rav Moshe's
teshuva that one could collect damages when smoking injured someone else.

Eli Turkel

In v4n341, R. Bechhofer repeats a story of when "an old yiddele once
walked Prof. Louis Ginzberg of JTS into a high rise apartment
building on Shabbos."  I'd like to bring the original source for the
story, which gives a slightly different perspective.

The following is found in Eli Ginzberg's biography of his father,
_Keeper of the Law_:

        His legal opinions covered a wide range of subjects,
   including those on which he could bring his sense of humor to
   bear.  He was fond of telling the story of being asked by his
   colleague Dr. Marx, shortly after the latter's arrival in this
   country, whether one was permitted to use an elevator on the
   Sabbath.  My father replied that it was not permitted, and Marx
   started his climb of six stories.  My father, always restive when
   confronted with the rigidities of German orthodoxy, awaited the
   return of the elevator to the ground floor, stepped in, and rode
   up.  Marx, astonished, reminded him that he had just stated that
   using an elevator was not permitted.  He replied: "I didn't ask
   for an opinion!" [_Keeper of the Law_, p.214-215]

I found this to be curious, but upon further research, one learns
that at that time (1903, according to my calculations), most
elevators had operators (presumably not Jewish), not buttons, so
this doesn't indicate Ginzberg's views on using electricity (In his
recently published responsa, which I have not seen, he apparently
forbids turning on a radio, and indeed, asking a non-Jew to turn on
a radio).

In this version of the story, it doesn't seem to me that Ginzberg is
flouting the halakha, but rather answering the question in a manner
appropriate to the questioner, regardless of his personal approach to
the issue, in a rather playful manner.

I am curious about how widespread stories about famous JTS professors
(I've heard stories about Ginzberg and Lieberman, to be sure) are in
the frum community, and the purpose they serve.  It would be
inappropriate to bury Avodah in postings of anecdotes about non-O
scholars (though I'd be interested in hearing them via private email,
which I could pass on to anyone who's interested), but I think the
question of why we tell these stories could be interesting.  When I've
heard the stories, they seem to fall into a few categories:

1) Positive story => JTS used to have "real" scholars, and now
   that they're gone, JTS is "bankrupt."

2) Negative story => even JTS's best scholars were inherently
   flawed, and JTS was "bankrupt" from the beginning.

3) No polemical content, just a story about an interesting Jewish
   scholar.

Any thoughts?

Kol Tuv,
David
droth@pobox.com

R' Henkin is adamant that the Shatz must say "goal yisrael" out loud.  IIRC,
he compares it to the first bracha ("yotzer ohr oovorai choshech..."), which
must also be said out loud by the Shatz.

On a related note:

R' Henkin also states that the Shatz (and, for that matter, everyone else;
it's just that the problem usually crops up on Shabbos with the Shatz)
should be careful about his pronounciation of words with respect to
phrasing.  For example (in nusach ashkanez), when concluding the paragraph
of "Es shem hakail....", the shatz often groups the last three words
together ("onim v'omrim b'yira"), when, in fact, "onim" belongs to the
previous word "k'echad".  R' Henkin gives many other examples.

On one more related note:

R' Moshe (don't remember exactly where offhand, but if anyone's interested,
I can look it up) states that the shatz, during kedusha, should say all the
words out loud.  (This is for the benefit of those still in the middle of
shemona esrai.)  Again, this is usually a problem on shabbos (e.g., when a
shatz wants to sing mimkomcha, saying "Baruch K'vod Hashem Mimkomo" might
seem odd.)

I know of one shul in Philadelphia that specifically tells all "shatzim"
that they must say all of kedusha out loud.  (The Rav of this shul happens
to daven a long shemona esrai, and the shatz never waits for him [as per the
Rav's instructions].  If the shatz wouldn't say kedusha out loud, this Rav
would never be able to "participate" (through shmiah) in kedusha.

Gutten Chodesh and Freilechen Adar
Aryeh

=============================================

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:39:38 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Smoking and Halocho; 3 questions

> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 05:30:15 EST
> From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Smoking and Halocho

<snip>

<<2. Does anyone know of any written sources for the Shatz not saying
goal yisrael out loud before the amida?>>

	The written sources on this,  IIRC,  say that it is wrong.

On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:51:38PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: From what I hear soc.culture.jewish or whatever it's called may be the
: appropriate place.

Mail-Jewish is a place to discuss something that you want to hear conflicting
viewpoints on; such as O vs C vs R on Jewish Education. I might forewarn -
heavy on the "versus". Or, to reach a non-O audience in a more educational
capacity, to present our viewpoint.

But yes, people looking to support non-O viewpoints don't belong here on
Avodah. 

I am not sure I have the time to run a moderated list, but if we find that
moderation is necessary, I am willing to hand Avodah over to someone who does.

I think what we really want to do, though, is put tighter membership
limitations on the list. Avodah controls content by controlling membership.
This is one key feature that diffrentiates us from other groups. I'm trying
to build a chevrah, not a soap-box. That won't happen with moderation. Tighter
membership control would mean more consistent content.

Perhaps that means that we can't just sign on anyone who replies to the
membership agreement.

I'm open to suggestions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:56:13 -0500
> From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Perspective on smoking and halacha

<<Should DNA evidence be accepted in a Rabbinical court?>>
<<Of greater interest to me is the issue of the presence of DNA evidence
and the absence of any  testimony.  How would Beth Din treat that?>>

	Rav Y.Reisman covered this a few years ago in a Motzai Shabbos Novi
Shiur.  R' Ezriel Krumbein could give you the exact mar'eh makom.

Gershon

On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:20:26PM -0600, Micha Berger wrote:
: Mail-Jewish is a place to discuss something that you want to hear conflicting
: viewpoints on...

Make that "soc.culture.jewish". Sorry for the typo. (In particular, apologies
to Avi.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

>>>I just got back from our hospital library and the first post I read was that from R. Chaim Brown that the danger from smoking isn't immediate.<<< 

I'm beginning to think smoking is less of a danger than posting to this list : - ).  My point was no to debate medical criteria, but to explain how given that assumption a certain halachic conclusion follows.

>>>I then remember that there has been extensive work
on the almost immediate (i.e. within 5-10 minutes) effect of nicotine or cotinine lowering sperm motility, morphology, viability and count...I then checked in Shulchan Aruch EVEN HA'EZER 5:12 and saw what the Beit
Shmuel wrote about Kos shel Ikkarin <<<

Kos shel Ikkarin as far as I remember refers to a means of making one sterile.  It is obvious that smokers can and do have children.  So what you suggest amounts to 2 chiddushim - (1) you are equating reduced viability of sperm with total sterility (2) even if we were to say that causing this reduced viability is assur, you equate this a temporary condition with a permanent one.

I think you need some more mekoros to make that case.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:

<<<<I have changed my views on the nature of our discussion group. This is 
an open letter to Micha asking that he moderate the list (i.e., screen 
postings before they go out to the group).>>>>

I think that censorship would irrepairably damage the list and I would like 
to put in my vote against it.

Moshe
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Only with respect to Hil. Shabbos is blood a part of  choveil because of the nature of the melacha (tzoveiya, mefarek, or netilat neshama - there is a Tos. on this somewhere).  If I break your legs I have to pay nezek, tza'ar, etc. even if I draw no blood.  

Choveil b'atzmo - why malkos?  If I am choveil someone else I have to pay nezek, tza'ar, etc.  If I am choveil myself it is the same type of issur, but I am obviously moichel the money to myself.  

-Chaim B.

In a message dated 2/6/00 2:22:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< If you do not agree, then just do it as a favor to me. Thanks.
  >>
I would agree, but then only certain voices get to be heard in this 
discussion. Unfortunately, even though I would probably agree with much of 
what those voices have to say,  I cannot allow only those opinions to be 
heard. I think it behooves all of us to discuss these issues with discretion 
and sensitivity, but discuss them we must.

Jordan   

--part1_ac.100c7bf.25d0a5f8_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I Received this in a private Email:

<<  "seemingly legitimate methods"  lead to conclusions otherwise,  clearly, 
  for purposes of admissibility to the list,  the end "unjustifies" the
  means.  I agree 100 % with RYGB's assessment,  even if the topic were
  other than M"S.  Since that topic itself was declared off limits for >>

Here is my response:

 You obviously missed my point. The insidious nature of the "seemingly 
legitimate methods" is a very crucial and disturbing point. It is precisely 
because our Mesorah is so clear on the subject that the "seemingly 
legitimate" methods need to be addressed. They are a dangerous threat to our 
Mesorah and must be fully understood in order to deal with them 
appropriately. The soft spot that some segments of the Jewish community have 
for Homosexuals is obviously a sensitive point, and we as a society of 
Orthodox practitioners need to come to grips with how we should respond. If 
saying "hate the sin, love the sinner" were an adequate response, this 
subject would not come up so often. 
 I am not concerned in the least with the aveirah itself, as Halacha is quite 
clear on the subject. What concerns me is how a society should deal with it 
and its practitioners.
 
 Jordan
  

--part1_ac.100c7bf.25d0a5f8_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
Full-name: TROMBAEDU
Message-ID: <6e.a44b2b.25d0a2c5@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 17:35:49 EST
Subject: Re: Not Appropriate for this Forum!
To: gershon.dubin@juno.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 45

In a message dated 2/6/00 9:42:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<<  If the
 "seemingly legitimate methods"  lead to conclusions otherwise,  clearly, 
 for purposes of admissibility to the list,  the end "unjustifies" the
 means.  I agree 100 % with RYGB's assessment,  even if the topic were
 other than M"S.  Since that topic itself was declared off limits for >>

You obviously missed my point. The insidious nature of the "seemingly 
legitimate methods" is a very crucial and disturbing point. It is precisely 
because our Mesorah is so clear on the subject that the "seemingly 
legitimate" methods need to be addressed. They are a dangerous threat to our 
Mesorah and must be fully understood in order to deal with them 
appropriately. The soft spot that some segments of the Jewish community have 
for Homosexuals is obviously a sensitive point, and we as a society of 
Orthodox practitioners need to come to grips with how we should respond. If 
saying "hate the sin, love the sinner" were an adequate response, this 
subject would not come up so often. 
I am not concerned in the least with the aveirah itself, as Halacha is quite 
clear on the subject. What concerns me is how a society should deal with it 
and its practitioners.

Jordan

Jordan 

--part1_ac.100c7bf.25d0a5f8_boundary--

On 7 Feb 00, at 16:19, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:

> R' Henkin is adamant that the Shatz must say "goal yisrael" out loud. 
> IIRC, he compares it to the first bracha ("yotzer ohr oovorai
> choshech..."), which must also be said out loud by the Shatz.

See Mishna Brura 66:35 who apparently also assumes that Goal 
Yisroel is said out loud.

> On one more related note:
> 
> R' Moshe (don't remember exactly where offhand, but if anyone's
> interested, I can look it up) states that the shatz, during kedusha,
> should say all the words out loud.  (This is for the benefit of those
> still in the middle of shemona esrai.)  

See Biur Halacha 125 s"v Elo Shoskin. I have seen this done both 
ways. The prevalent minhag among Bnei Ashkenaz here seems to 
be for the Shaliach Tzibur to say it with the kahal.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

I forward Gil Student's post to Craig Winchell owner of Gan Eden.  (This 
is the same person Micha forward a previous post from.)  Below is his 
response.


Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@netcom.com


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:51:30 -0800
From: Craig Winchell <ganeden@dnai.com>
To: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Yayin Mevushal



----------
> From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com>
> To: ganeden@ganeden.com
> Subject: Yayin Mevushal
> Date: Monday, February 07, 2000 2:59 PM
> 
> Hello Craig
> 
> I am forwarding you a post that was in Avodah.
> 
> Do you pasteurize your wines?  also is it okay if I post your response.

B"H

I now have 2 mevushal wines.  While thermal vinification is used quite a
bit on the East Coast (it liberates the pigments from red grapes, such as
Concord, without liberating so many of the bitter and astringent tannins),
it is not typical in most of the regions.  Therefore, it is unlikely in
most wines that the crushed grapes were raised to as high a temperature as
yad soledet bo.

As far as pasteurizing, this is not typically done anywhere (it used to be
widely done in Germany for cheap wine, and used to be done here for
bag-in-box wine, but even then it was rare for high quality wines).  Louis
Latour does pasteurize his Burgundy wines in France, but he is the almost
singular exception.  Here it is quite rarely done.  Typically, it is only
done for red wines which as grapes sustained a high degree of botrytis
cinerea infection.  Only pasteurizing will denature the laccase enzyme,
which causes enzymatic browning of those red wines (an people want red, not
brown wine).  Very rare indeed, but it is sometimes done.

No, I'd say that to find a wine which had reached a minimum of yad soledet
bo, you'd need to go to a wine especially made to be halachically mevushal.
 Only then would you have any degree of certainty.  Typically, for mevushal
wines we are talking 185 degrees fahrenheit (that's what my 2 mevushal
wines are, and what Herzog and Weinstock and the other Royal wines are). 
This, of course, is higher than yad soledet bo, and is probably lower than
the Tzelemer (while the eastern Kedem wines are under Tzelemer supervision,
the western ones are not).  And my nonmevushal wines have generally reached
temperatures no higher than 70 degrees fahrenheit (up to 90 for dry reds
such as Pinot Noir, but typically no higher than 85 for Cab).  In other
words, the KIC is inaccurate if not downright incorrect (if indeed, what
was written in that post is accurate).

Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines


> 
> Thanks
> 
> Harry J. Weiss
> hjweiss@netcom.com
> 
> 
> 
> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:15:53 -0500
> From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> Subject: Re: Wine
> 
> There is a machlokes among the poskim regarding how hot wine has to be to
be 
> considered mevushal.  I believe that R. Moshe Feinstein paskens that it
must be 
> only yad soledes bo (appr. 113-120 fahrenheit) while the Tzelemer Rav has
a much
> higher temperature.
> 
> A member of the Kashrus Information Center (KIC) told me that all wines
today in
> America reach yad soledes bo during the pasteurization process and
therefore all
> wines are mevushal according to R. Moshe regardles of the labelling. 
This was 
> told to me as a chumra regarding the Rambam's shitah of not using
mevushal wine 
> for kiddush or 4 kosos.
> 
> ------------------------------

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]