6

I could be wrong, but my reading of the Nosei Keilim (Y"D 125:1) indicates to me that if a non-Jew pours a bottle of wine, the remaining wine is totally fine, or at least ok if there is some loss (even RaM"A says it's ok in case of a significant loss, but my question is sparked by the fact that the N"K all seem to argue that either he didn't even mean "significant" the way that he usually does, or that it's an unnecessary stringency that they reject).

My understanding has always been that if a non-Jew poured a bottle of wine, that the wine poured and the wine remaining became Asur, and I've heard (and practiced care as a result) that the Isur may even apply to non-religious Jews.

Is there something I'm missing? Am I misreading the Nosei Keilim? Do later authorities reject them?

*This is addressing only wine remaining in the bottle after wine has been poured by a non-Jew, and only according to the Ashkenazi supercommentaries on the Shulḥan 'Aruch.

Community
  • 1
Seth J
  • 41,606
  • 7
  • 85
  • 245
  • The Chochmas Odom (Klal 77:1) also says like the Rama that it's only allowed if there is a loss. – Meir Zirkind Jul 20 '12 at 02:24
  • @SethJ R. Yitzchak Abadi rules like the Shach in Ohr Yitzchak II YD 19. He also says that anything which already belongs to a Jew is automatically included in a small loss which is permitted; the only thing that would not be allowed would be to purchase such wine from a non-Jew lechatchila. – Dov F Aug 02 '12 at 12:49

1 Answers1

2

The Nosei Keilim are asking why in 125:1 the Mechaber says the wine left in the vessel is forbidden, while in 124:14 and 124:8 he says that it is permissible.

The Be'er HeTev (125 S"K 1) offers an answer. He says that the Mechaber holds that when you actually pick up the vessel and pour everything becomes Assur, even what is left in the vessel. This is because this is the definition of Nissuch, and therefore, even if the non-Jew did not shake (shichshuch) the wine in the vessel, it still becomes Yayin Nesech.

The other cases are not the definition of Nissuch, and therefore the wine left over is not forbidden (provided the non-Jew didn't shake it, etc.)

The Mechaber's source is the Rambam Hilchot Maachalot Assurot, Chapter 12. In Halacha 2 (English Translation from here) he says:

If he took an [open] container of wine, lifted it up, and poured it out, the wine becomes forbidden, even though he did not shake it. For the wine moved as a result of his power.

In footnote 9, the translator says:

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

The Be'er Hetev concludes that the Shach says that things are much more lenient these days, when the non-Jews these days are not considered idol worshipers. Whether we hold that non-Jews are considered idol worshipers is discussed in this question, and others.

Community
  • 1
Menachem
  • 44,362
  • 6
  • 127
  • 247
  • 1
    I started reading, but I have to stop you at the end of your second paragraph. You write, "even if the non-Jew did not shake ... it still becomes Yayin Nesech." A lot of people make this assumption. Are you sure it's Yayin Nesech, not just Yayin 'AKU"M? Isn't the point of what we are discussing here Stam Yeynam (ie., Yayin 'AKU"M), not actual Yayin Nesech? Or are you saying that, because there's actual "Nisuch" it is by definition "Yayin Nesech"? In which case, LeMai Nafka Minah Y"N vs. S"Y? – Seth J Aug 02 '12 at 13:36
  • @SethJ: No. I'm saying that the Shulchan Aruch is quoting the Rambam, who is referring to Yayin Nesech. The Nosei Keilim point out that the halacha would be different if non-Jews are non considered idol worshipers these days (pratcical halacha would depend on whether we consider non-Jews idol worshipers or not). The Beer Hetev quotes the Shach for a difference between Y"N and S"Y. – Menachem Aug 02 '12 at 18:58