9

Clarification : Mr. X is a orthodox religious Jew. Mr. X has a rebellious phase and violates shaboss. Mr. X later starts keeping the rules again. I'm asking in both cases:

Case 1: Ten people knew about it.

Case 2: Fewer than 10 people knew.

I'm asking specifically in regards to yayin nesech. If a person was known to not be shomer shaboss (i.e. not frum) and he (or she) then becomes shomer shaboss, when would one be allowed to drink non-mevushal wine with them?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
shachna
  • 1,105
  • 6
  • 17
  • 1
    shachna, welcome to Mi Yodeya, and thanks for the interesting question. I hope you stick around and enjoy the site. Editing in to your question a source for your implied claim that sh'miras Shabas is what is determinative of whether someone makes wine yayin nesech would boost your question's quality. – msh210 Jun 22 '12 at 00:14
  • 1
    Also please note that there is a difference between Yayin Nesech and Stam Yeynam. – Seth J Jun 22 '12 at 00:40
  • Just to point out that this question is only according to those who prohibit uncooked wine touched by non-Sabbath observers. – Double AA Jun 22 '12 at 00:45
  • 1
    After s/he becomes shomer shaboss...whenever they want! – Double AA Jun 22 '12 at 00:48
  • @double aa, "just to point out that this question is only according to those who prohibit uncooked wine touched by non-Sabbath observers." which is a discussion we've had on this site before. – Seth J Jun 22 '12 at 00:53
  • @SethJ Indeed we have a quite unsatisfactory discussion here http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/10280/759. I was just pointing it out that the current question only holds under certain opinions. – Double AA Jun 22 '12 at 00:58
  • Everyone agrees that wine touched by a mechalel Shabbos befarhesya is forbidden (YD 2:5). The only thing not clear is whether the status "tinok shenishbah" makes it as if it isn't befarhesya, but if it was befarhesya, it's forbidden according to everyone. – b a Jun 22 '12 at 01:35
  • 1
    @ba That's in Hilchot Shechita and since we know it doesn't apply in its entirety (ie he doesn't need to convert, his kiddushin is probably kiddushin, he is likely zokek for yibbum etc.) there is great reason to think that the Shulchan Aruch is only referring to his status as a non-Jew vis-a-vis that his Shechita is Neveila. It is not at all clear that he would extend this rule to wine, especially since he doesn't repeat the rule by wine. So no, not everyone agrees. – Double AA Jun 22 '12 at 03:48
  • @DoubleAA It does apply fully, just that we only use it lechumra. His kidushin therefore IS kidushin, etc., because we can't use this lekula. (Source: Shearim Metzuyanim Bahalachah to Kitzur 72:2) However, we do fully use it lechumra. – b a Jun 22 '12 at 20:21
  • @ba So you found a source that holds like you. I never denied such opinions exist, only that everyone holds that. Igrot Moshe OC V 37 for instance holds it's only a minhag. – Double AA Jun 24 '12 at 03:33
  • @shachna I still have no idea what you are asking. – Double AA Jun 24 '12 at 14:37
  • @DoubleAA I did an edit, hope it clears things up. – shachna Jun 24 '12 at 16:08
  • @shachna Sorry, still not sure. When did he touch the wine? During his rebellious phase, or after he started keeping the rules again? – Double AA Jun 24 '12 at 16:11
  • Once he started keeping the rules again. – shachna Jun 24 '12 at 16:48
  • @shachna So you're asking if someone who keeps shabbat would forbid wine just because he has sinned at some point in the past? (PS Using @ followed by my user name alerts me to new messages.) – Double AA Jun 24 '12 at 17:02

1 Answers1

6

The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah 124:8 says that a yisrael mumar traifs up the wine when he touches it, but he's considered trustworthy when he says he's done teshuvah.

Chanoch
  • 10,886
  • 1
  • 28
  • 56
  • See the Shach and Gra who limit that ruling to where no one knew he had sinned. If it was known that he sinned, he needs to bring proof that he did teshuva. – Double AA Jul 01 '12 at 23:29