Monthly Archives: December 2015

Christians and Jews: Praying Together with Integrity

By Rabbi Charles Arian,  of Kehilat Shalom, Gaithersburg, MD

POPE, RABBI AND SWISS CARDINAL PICTURED IN 2011 AT VATICAN

Pope Benedict XVI, Lord Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, and Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, are pictured in 2011 at the Vatican. (CNS photo/L’Osservatore Romano via Reuters)

Photo from Jewish-Catholic Dialogue 65 Years after the Founding of the State of Israel

 

Rabbi Charles Arian writes:

Despite the fact that interfaith prayer has been going on in this country and elsewhere for some time, it remains an area of some controversy. There are traditionalists in both Christianity and Judaism who will not participate in interfaith prayer. Others participate, but wonder how appropriate and meaningful such activity really is. Can Christians and Jews pray together in a meaningful way? Can they do so with theological integrity?

…One of the core principles of our work is respect for the integrity and legitimacy of both Christianity and Judaism. Because we are aware of the many issues surrounding interfaith prayer, participants at ICJS events often talk and study about prayer but our events do not, as a rule, include having the participants pray together.

….I want to limit my exploration tonight to the specific question of Christian – Jewish interfaith prayer. There are a number of reasons why this is a unique issue. First, the majority of Christians and Jews believe that both religious communities worship the same God. Second, they have certain sacred texts in common – what Jews refer to as the Tanach and what Christians refer to as the Old Testament….

Services that bring together Christians and Jews have been taking place in America for well over one hundred years. Throughout most of that time, the ground rules have called for a “neutral” service. The content of the prayers was meant to be something that everyone present could affirm.

This meant that Christians were expected to omit any Christological or Trinitarian references. Jews were often, though not always, expected to omit Hebrew …On a theological level, Jews were also expected to omit the many references in Jewish liturgy to Israel’s chosenness and the Jewish sense of a unique mission and destiny.

These neutral services may not offend, but what do they accomplish? Rabbi Donald Berlin, rabbi emeritus of Reform Temple Oheb Shalom in Baltimore, notes, “I am invited (to participate in these types of services) because I am a rabbi but then I am told to say something which has nothing to do with the fact that I am a rabbi.”

Participants may leave the room feeling that they have done something positive in demonstrating good will towards people of other faiths. But is that what prayer is for? Is that even authentic prayer?

In other words, a neutral service requires Jews and Christians to check their distinctive identities, and their distinctive ways of praying, at the door to the sanctuary. Christians and Jews, under this set of ground rules, can pray together only by temporarily suppressing the fact that they are Christians or that they are Jews.

We have said we want to have Jews and Christians pray together, but in order to do so, Jews cannot pray as Jews and Christians cannot pray as Christians.

…What, in fact, makes a Christian prayer authentically Christian, or a Jewish prayer authentically Jewish? A couple of years ago, while spending a year studying the issue of interfaith prayer in depth, our Institute brought together a group of rabbis and Christian clergy of various denominations to help us examine some of these issues… the Christian participants identified the following characteristics of Christian prayer:

  • The prayer is offered in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Trinity. (This qualification is not mandatory, since the Lord’s Prayer has neither a Christological nor a Trinitarian focus.)

  • The prayer is informed by Christian theology and/or by the Christian story.

  • If the person praying the prayer is a Christian, then the prayer is a Christian prayer.

The rabbis who participated identified the following characteristics of Jewish prayer:

  • Prayer is communal (a minyan is required).

  • Prayer is commanded, and it is a response to the covenant relationship.

  • Prayer is time-bound rather than space-bound: It is commanded at certain times of the day and on particular occasions.

  • Prayer involves the establishment of a dialogue: Prayer speaks to God and bounces back to the community.

  • The formulation of the prayer makes it Jewish; it begins and ends with certain words. There is a set liturgy that involves actions as well as words.

  • There is a “uniform” for prayer: tallit and tefillin.

  • Prayer is not mediated.

  • Hebrew and Aramaic are used in prayer.

… it becomes clear that if certain of the characteristics are considered absolutely necessary for Christians or Jews to participate, then Christian-Jewish interfaith prayer becomes impossible. Jews, of course, will not participate in prayers that invoke Jesus or are Trinitarian. Most Christians are not conversant or comfortable with prayers in Hebrew. Moreover, I suspect a lot of Christians might be surprised and not a little bit hurt to discover that they are not included in the “we” or the “us” that most Jewish prayers contain: “Blessed are You O Lord our God, who has chosen us from among the nations and commanded us . . .”

So we are faced with something of a conundrum. We want to pray together, but we want to pray as Jews and Christians, not as generic human beings. There is something deeply unsatisfactory about the expectation that in order to pray together, we suspend our religious particularity and identity. …

…A relatively new innovation for interfaith services is the model which Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman, professor of liturgy at Hebrew Union College, calls the “Service of Mutual Affirmation.” While this type of service contains some “neutral” prayers, it also makes space for specifically Jewish and specifically Christian prayers, which are meant to be said only by members of that particular community. During those faith-specific prayers, the participants are not praying together, but they are coming together to pray, or praying their own particular prayers in the presence of the other community.

I see this as having a distinct advantage over the older model of the neutral service. It does not require Christians to suppress their Christianity or Jews to suppress their Judaism. It allows members of each community to pray for at least part of the service in their own idiom and their own style. …

…For now, Christians and Jews who want to be involved in interfaith prayer have two choices: they can opt for “neutral” prayer which fully expresses neither community’s identity, or they can adopt Hoffman’s “Mutual Affirmation” model, conscience of its limitations. Liturgy that allows Jews and Christians to worship together as Jews and Christians does not yet, at least to my knowledge, exist.

See his full essay here:

Christians and Jews: Praying Together with Integrity – Rabbi Arian

Are All Wines Kosher?

Part I: The history of how non-kosher wines came to seen as plausibly kosher, within the Orthodox Jewish community – a censored history, revealed by Professor Marc Shapiro

Part II: The Use of All Wines, Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff.

Part III: Are All Wines Kosher? Rabbi Israel Nissan Silverman

_________________________________________________________

I: The history of how non-kosher wines came to seen as plausibly kosher, within the Orthodox Jewish community – a censored history, revealed by Professor Marc Shapiro

Excerpted from “Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History”

Marc Shapiro raised some interesting points on this from the Rema – “Let me begin with one of the most famous examples of halakhic censorship.The first edition of R. Moses Isserles’ responsa was printed in Krakow in 1640. In this volume, Isserles included a fascinating responsum defending the Jews in Moravia who were accustomed to drink non-Jewish wine. Isserles was not dealing with run-of-the mill sinners, concerning whom there would be no reason to try to come up with a justification. Rather, the question concerned otherwise halakhically observant people who nevertheless ignored the prohibition against no-Jewish wine. Isserles had previously found it necessary to permit (or at least not protest) when Jews did business with non-Jewish wine, since this was vital for them to make a living.

Since, in pre-modern Europe, water was not generally safe to consume, beer and wine became the basic drinks. We can easily imagine how difficult it was at that time to abstain from non-Jewish wine, a point mentioned by Isserles. The halakhists first confronted this problem in medieval times, and Haym Soloveitchik has described how, despite halakhic openings to void the prohibition, the medieval Jews’ ritual instinct refused to go that far. Yet a few centuries later things had changed and otherwise pious Jews were indeed violating the prohibition.

In order that the communities whose members, consumed non-Jewish wine not be regard as wilful sinners, with all the halakhic consequences this would entail a justification for their behaviour, which he tells us was a continuation of the practice of previous generations. His argument has a few points, the most fundamental of which is that there is no longer a concern that the wine would have been used in an idolatrous ritual. He acknowledges that despite his justification, which is known in rabbinic literature as limud zekhut, what he has proposed is not in accord with the settled halakhah and should not be relied upon.

He is more certain, however, when it comes to one who is ill (but not to any danger (holeh she’ein bo sakanah)). In such a case, Isserles has no problem affirming that it is permitted to drink non-Jewish wine. This permission as well as his justification of those who were healthy and drank such wine, was quite shocking to later halakhists. Many of them feared that Isserles’ responsum would weaken the taboo against non-Jewish wine and lead to its consumption. Understandably, there were those who thought that this responsum was too dangerous for publication by the renowned scholar R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam (c.1690-1755)….

Although consumption of non-Jewish wine was opposed by most of the Italian rabbis, a few of them, including R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogan of Venice (1521-97), the leading halakhist of his time, were able to provide some justification. Katzenellenbogan even drank this wine himself. Another Italian halakhist, R. Shabetai Be’er (seventeenth century), ruled that it is permissible to use non-Jewish wine for kiddush and havdalah (but not for general consumption). The official communal rules of Pisa and Livorono from 1637, while forbidding Jews to eat in non-Jewish inns or taverns, specifically permit Jews to drink non-Jewish wine in small shops. This Italian practice continued, and in a book published in 1872 R. Nahman Nathan Coronel (1810-90) advised those who travel in Italy and see the local Jews drinking non-Jewish wine not to protest.

Apart from Italy, I have found other permissive opinions as well. R. Netanel Weil (1687-1769) of Karlsruhe writes: ‘In our time it is not forbidden to drink non-Jewish wine, since those who do not offer wine to idolatry were not included in the decree.’ In the nineteenth century there were North African rabbis who also declared that in contemporary times there is no prohibition against drinking non-Jewish wine. ”

———————————————————–

II. The Use of All Wines, Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff

Adopted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly, on December 4, 1985 by a vote of thirteen in favor, and two opposed.

https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/dorff_wines.pdf

Question: Can we trust the kosher and pareve status of all American wines? The problem arises in the process of clarifying, or “fining,” the wine. Because of the enormous influence of the wine lobby in Washington, there are no “truth in labeling” laws requiring a winery to label its products or to divulge anything in writing or by telephone about the ingredients or process it uses.

Teshuvah (Response): This responsum will be divided into four parts: the ingredients and process used for making wine and their halakhic implications; the issue of stam yaneem; the production of wine on the Sabbath; and, finally, my recommendations for a Law Committee ruling.

https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/dorff_wines.pdf

This is a long and detailed teshuvah, and one needs to carefully read the entire paper. However I want to excerpt this section:

This means that we must squarely face the issue of whether we intend to be concerned any longer with what remains of the rabbinical prohibitions against drinking wine made by Gentiles. I believe that the answer should be “no.” The reason for the Tannaitic prohibition against Yayin Nesech was to prevent Jews’ involvement in idolatry. When the Rabbis instituted the prohibition, they had in mind the Roman idol worshippers familiar to them at that time. Such people constantly thought about performing acts of idolatry- to the extent that one could assume that “the thoughts of a heathen are usually directed towards idolatry. ” 40

As we have noted, however, Maimonides and those who followed him excluded Muslims from the category of “idolaters” for purposes of this prohibition even if they did not openly embrace the seven Noahide laws.41 Centuries later, Isserles explicitly assumes that the Christians of his time are not idolaters so that if they touch wine made by Jews, Jews may still drink it. It is interesting that Isserles never explicitly restricts his exclusion to those Christians living around him but rather says that Gentiles “in this time” are not idolaters. Although one could read that as including all of the world’s non-Jews, I doubt that he was making that kind of sweeping statement- if only because he must surely have realized that he did not know much about the people of the Orient.

In any case, in the modern, largely secular world, one doubts whether the Talmud’s characterization can fairly be applied to non-Jews, at least those living in the areas of Western Europe and North America from which most of our wines come. Moreover, that wine used by the Catholic Church for purposes which come closest to “idolatry” in our sense is specifically kept from the general market. There are some contemporary cults which could legitimately be classified as idolaters, but few of them produce wine. If a Jew bought only from the major wineries or from those known not to be owned or operated by such a cult, the issue of idolatry would become moot- at least as far as the prohibition of wine is concerned…

____________________________________________________________

III: Are All Wines Kosher?  Rabbi Nissan Silverman

Translated from the Hebrew by Rabbis Seymour Siegel and Elliot Gertel
Published in “Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law”, Ed. Seymour Siegel, The Rabbinical Assembly, 1977

wine-bottles-wide-view

Enter a caption

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=17699&picture=wine-bottles-wide-view

Part I: By Rabbi Nissan Silverman

The Question:
Many of my colleagues in the Rabbinical Assembly have asked whether it is permitted to drink the wine known as champagne. Although champagne bubbles when it is poured into a glass, and therefore is different from ordinary wine, it is produced from grapes and therefore is included in the category of stam yeenam. [wine made by gentiles falls into two categories: ye’en nesekh-wine used for offering libations to idols, and stam yeenam-wine of which it is not known whether it has been dedicated to an idol. (ed.)](1)

The Responsum.

Rabbi Moses Isseries (1525 or 1530-1572) was asked:(2) “In regard to the custom which has spread in the province of Moravia as well as in other provinces, namely, being lenient in drinking the wine of non- Jews [s’tam yeenam]: The authorities apparently do not object. Is there something which those who follow this custom can rely on?”

Rabbi Isserles answered:

We have learned [in the Tractate Bava Batra 89b]… Regarding the deceptive methods employed by some unscrupulous merchants, that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: “Woe to me if I should speak of them, for knaves might thus learn them (the methods]. Woe to me if I do not speak, for knaves might say that the scholars are unacquainted with our prac-tices.” They asked the question: “Did he or did he not say it?” Rabbi Shmuel ben Rabbi Yitzkhok said: “He said it, relying on the verse: ‘for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but the transgressors do stumble therein!'[Hosea 14: 10].”

I share the sentiments of Rabbi Moses Isseries as I approach the task of finding a heter (leniency) for drinking non-Jewish wines currently produced in America – “Woe to me if I say it [leniency], woe to me if I do not say it.”

Rabbi Moses Isseries, however, went on to state in his teshuvah: “I have seen that there is some good to find justification for their leniency in this matter.”  It is also incumbent upon us to find some justification.

First of all, in regard to ye’en nesekh (the wine of libation, i.e., wine specifically designated for ritua.I use in idolatrous worship), the gaonim and the majority of the later authorities have written in their response that non-Jews in our time are not experts on libations and their use.(3)  Thus it is clear that the general category of ye’en nesekh does not exist in our time, especially in America. Therefore, all wines produced by non-Jews in America are classified not as yeen nesekh but as stam yeenam, “non-Jewish wine.”  No one today denies that it is permitted to benefit from such wine (mutar b’hana’ah)(4) but is it permitted to drink such wine as well?

In the Mishnah of Avodah Zarah (2:6) we read: “These things of the gentiles are forbidden [i.e., they may not be eaten], though it is not for- bidclen to [otherwise] benefit from them: their bread and their oil… stewed or pickled vegetables…”  These prohibitions were made, according to Rashi and the gemarah, “because of marriage” (i.e., due to the prohibition against eating these foods, Jews and non-Jews would have no social contacts and thus would avoid intermarriage).

In the Mishnah preceding the one cited above, it is written: “These things of gentiles are prohibited, and it is also prohibited to have any benfit from them: wine…”  According to Rashi, this prohibition is due to the possibility that “perhaps he used it [the wine] as a libation (in an idolatrous rite].”  In our day, however, when non-Jews are not experts on libations, the reason for not drinking gentile wine is “because of marriage” (i.e., the fear of possible intermarriage resulting from social contact).(5)

It is interesting to note that since the time when the prohibitions against eating the four categories of food mentioned above were made, all of them except wine have become permissible.

Oil.  Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi and his school permitted the consumption of non-Jewish oil because the prohibition had not been adopted by the majority of Jews, and we do not impose a decree upon the community unless the majority of the community can abide by it.(6)

Bread.  In the time of Rabbi Yehudah, eating the bread of non-Jews was permitted. It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 41d): “In a place where there is no Jewish bread, the bread of the non-Jews should have been prohibited. But they disregarded [the law] concering this, and they made it [the bread of non-Jews] permitted because it was a necessity of life.”  There are those who believe that this leniency also resulted from the fact that the prohibition had not been accepted throughout the Jewish community.(7)

Foods cooked by non-Jews.

The prohibition against eating foods cooked by non-Jews (shelakot) is very ancient, even preceding the prohibition against eating non-Jewish bread. Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi and his school did not permit shelakot.(8)  The later Rabbis limited the prohibition by instituting two important rules. First, any food which can also be eated raw (e.g., fruit) does not fall under the prohibition of “foods cooked by non-Jews,” even when it is cooked.  Second, any food which is not served on the table of kings is also permitted, since it is not served to guests, and the rule “because of marriage” is thus not applicable. In our own day, as we know, the custom of being lenient has spread to almost all Jewish homes in regard to the prohibition against “foods cooked by non-Jews,” to a greater extent than the Rabbis permitted. This is especially true regarding cooked foods sold in cans or jars.

In regard to wine, there is also an obvious lenient tendency.  At first it was prohibited to benefit in any way from non-Jewish wine.  When it became obvious that non-Jews were no longer experts on libations, the authorities became lenient and permitted Jews to benefit from non- Jewish wines (though not to drink then).  This was especially true in France, where Jews were very prominent in the production of wine for sale, and where it was customary for Jews to accept non-Jewish wine as payment for debts.(9)

In our time, because of the reasons which follow, it seems to me that we may also permit the consumption of non-Jewish wine which is produced in large factories.

1. In the production of wine in modern factories, the wine is made entirely by means of machines. (Because of the exigencies of competition, contemporary wine-producers are forced to utilize the most modern production techniques.)  No human hand comes into contact with the product from the moment the grapes are placed in the crusher machine until the entire production process is completed and the wine resulting from it is placed in sealed containers under the supervision of federal tax inspectors.(10)  The only exception is certain permissible handling of the wine with utensils which will be explained below.

During the production of wine today, experts occasionally remove some wine from the large containers in order to taste and examine it. This is always done with a utensil (i.e., the experts do not actually touch the wine; they take the wine with a ladle or some other utensil and they do not come into physical contact with the wine)

Rabbi Yaakov Castro (Egypt, 1525-1612), in his book Erekh Lechem (no. 124:7), writes:

A Karaite does not make wine prohibited by his touching it. However, there is reason to prohibit such wine unless he [the Karaite] swears that a non-Jew had not touched it. An oath would he sufficent, for the Karaites are cautious about taking oaths, even though they are not concerned about non-Jews touching their wine. These are the words of the author of the Kaftor veFerach [Rabbi Estori Hafarchi].  In our lands I have seen that it is customary to drink [the wine of Karaites] even though the oath was not taken. Perhaps the reason for this is that the Ishmaelites amongst whom we live are not idolaters and we do not base a prohibition on a mere possibility. [i.e., the possibility that the wine of the Karaites had been touched by a non-Jew, and even if this were so, the non-Jew would not be an idolater (ed.)].

At the end of paragraph 127 Castro writes:

There are those who say that in our time, when the non-Jews are not knowledgeable regarding libations, whenever they do touch wine it is not considered for purposes of making a libation, and therefore if the wine were touched with a utensil it would be permitted to drink [the wine].

Rabbi Raphael ben Eleazar Meldola (1754-1828), in his book Mayim Rabbim (pt.II, no. 28), writes:

It is clearly apparent that the great scholars of the past have left us a wide open door making it possible to permit having benefit from wine touched by non-Jews in our day. Therefore, if the touching took place without the intention [of libation] and through the medium of some utensil, as in the matter before us, we descend one rung, and permit even the drinking of the wine, since the non-Jews in our days are not accustomed to make libations.

Rabbi Levi ibn Habib (ca. 1483-1545), in his responsum #41, permitted the drinking of wine which was touched by a non-Jew who had no intention of making a libation, relying on the view of Rabbi Shmuel b. Meir, the Rashbam (ca. 1080-1174; Rahsbam quotes his grandfather, Rashi, to the effect that the gaonim ruled that non-Jews in our own day are not knowledgeable about libations).

In the responsa of Rabbi Jacob Weil (d. before 1456) it is written (no. 26): “For this reason I permitted the drinking of wine where the non-Jewish worker put his stick into the barrel of wine. It involved the touching of wine by a non-Jew by means of something else without the intention of making a libation.  This was permitted by Rabbenu Tam [Rabbi Yaakov Tam, 1100-1171] as well.”

Rabbi Moses Isserles adds: “Every place where there is no suspicion of idolatry, wine is not more stringent than intoxicating spirits of non-Jews about which we say in the second chapter of the Tractate Avodah Zarah 31b [see also Tosaphot ad locum., s.v. v’tarveyhu mishum chatnut] that it [i.e., the spirits) is prohibited because of ‘marriage.’  Nevertheless, we say that Rav Papa would take it outside the door of the store and drink it, and that Rav Ahai brought it to his house and drank it. Therefore the same law would apply to wine in our own time [i.e., drinking it should be permitted just as the drinking of spirits was apparently permitted]. Even though the prohibition against wine is of greater force than the prohibition against other intoxicating beverages, since alcoholic beverages were not prohibited either in the Mishnah or in a Beraita, but the prohibition was instituted during the time of the Amoraim, as was noted in the Tosaphot cited above. Nevertheless, we can say that this additional stringency against wine was true in their day when Jews were prohibited from deriving any benefit from stam yeenam even when the non-Jew only touched it, but in our day, since we are not prohib- ited from deriving benefit from wine [because the non-Jews are presumed not to be knowledgeable about libations], we are not more stringent concerning wine than concerning other substances which were prohibited because of ‘their daughters.’ ”

There are workers employed in the production of wine who open and close various taps in order to insure the flow of the wine from one barrel to another. Regarding this kind of problem, the Rama wrote in his glosses (Yoreh Deah, no. 124:24):

It would be permitted [even for drinking] if he inserted a tap into the barrel or removed it without any intention [of making a libation]. In these times, non-Jews are not considered idolaters, and all of their touchings are considered to be “without intention.”  Therefore, if he touched the wine by means of a utensil, even though he knows it is wine, and even though he intentionally touches it, it is permitted to drink the wine since it is considered as “touching by means of a utensil without intention.” However, it is not advisable to publicize this among the ignorant.

Therefore, it is possible to allow the drinking of wine produced in modern factories since no human being touches it, except in the per- missible manner just explained.

2. In our own time there is still another consideration which permits us to be lenient. We read in the Tractate Avodah Zarah (30a): “Wine which is boiled does not come under the category of wine for libation.” The fact is that in the production of wine in our time, all wine can be considered “boiled wine” since all wines go through the process of pasteurization.

It is true that the Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, in his responsum concerning the permissibility of using grape juice for ritual purposes (where wine is required), wrote:  “In order that those who cavil should not say that he [the responder] has permitted boiled wine, about which there is controversy among the early authorities, I wish to say that grape juice is not considered “boiled wine” since it is not heated to the boiling point, and at a lower temperature [i.e., below the boiling point] it is not considered “boiled wine.”

However, in the commentary Be’er Hetev to Yoreh Deah 123:3 it is written:  “It can be considered ‘boiled wine’ if the heating process diminishes the volume of the wine.”

I have it on excellent authority that the pasterurization process does diminish the volume of the wine. Therefore, according to this halakhic definition, pasteurized wine can be considered “boiled wine” even when it does not reach the boiling point. Therefore, from this point of view, it is possible to permit the drinking of wine produced by non-Jews in America today.

3. In addition to these considerations, it is important to point out that the non-Jews in our day – i.e., the Christians, and especially the Catholics – who use wine in their worship, use wines produced especially for these purposes which are not sold on the open market. I have it on the authority of a Catholic priest, who holds an important post in his Church in the city of Boston, that it is prohibited for a Catholic to use champagne for purposes of worship. Also prohibited are stronger spirits, such as cognac and brandy. Incidentally, it is interesting to point out that Catholics use bread and oil in their worship, and in regard to these substances our Sages long ago were lenient.

I wish to add three important points to this discussion:

1. In the Land of Israel today, the wine industry is very highly developed. The wines produced there win awards in all kinds of international competitions. Since the economic situation in the Holy Land is not of the best, it is a special mitzvah for every Jew, wherever he resides, to purchase the wines produced in our ancestral homeland, which are kosher without any question (Professor Ginzberg, of blessed memory, has pointed out that our Sages enacted many decrees for the purpose of improving the economic situation of the Land of Israel).

2. Especially when wine is required for the fulfillment of a mitzvah, such as the ceremonies of circumcision, weddings, kiddush, and hav- dalah, it is proper to use Jewish wine, and especially wine produced in Israel.  Just as a Jew is commanded to enhance the fulfillment of the commandments of sukkah, lulav, etrog, and of festive Sabbath and Festival meals, it is proper that he enhance the fulfillment of the mitz-vah through the use of Jewish wine when he fulfills the mitzvah of kiddush.

3. Anything that has been said in this responsum regarding non-Jewish wine is not applicable during Passover. I am convinced that the production of wine in America raises many questions involving leaven.(11) Therefore, during Passover, wine which has not been supervised by a competent rabbinic authority should not be used.

Notes

1.

a. In the course of preparing this responsum, I visited several plants where wine and distilled spirits are produced. I also consulted several experts in the field and studied various published materials, including the relevant articles in the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology and the Encyclopaodia Britannica (1947 ed.) as well as The Wine Industry and Wine Growing and Wine Types, two pamphlets published by the Wine Advisory Board. As a result, I believe I am well informed about the technical aspects of wine production in this country.

b. I have learned from specialists in the field that automatic machinery is not used in the production of wine in some places in Spain, France, Italy, and other countries, and that in some cases the workers still press the grapes with their feet, exactly as it was done hundreds of years ago.  These practices raise questions which I cannot deal with here. Nevertheless, even in Europe and elsewhere some wine is produced through the same methods used in the United States, i.e., by means of automatic machinery – and wine so produced would have the same status as American wines.

c. One of my colleagues, who served in France with the U.S. Army during World War 11, has informed me that in many areas there are small churches or shrines in the vineyards. This also raises several questions. Therefore, this responsum is concerned only with wines that are produced through the use of automatic machinery in plants operated by large, well-known wine companies.

2. The she’lot u-teshuvot of Rabbi Moses Isserles, no. 124. This responsum was omitted in many editions. It appears in the Cracow edition, 1710.

3. In the Tractate Avodah Zarah 14b, it is written: “Rav Hisda said to Abirni: ‘We have learned that the Tractate of Avodah Zarah of Abraham our Father contained four hundred chapters, and we have only five chapters, and we are not even positive what they are saying.”‘  This means that already in the days of Rab Hisda they recognized that idolatry was waning in the world.  See also the Tosaphot (Avodah Zarah 57b, s.v. La-afokey Midrav): “The Rashbam and the Rivan explained in the name of Rashi that it is written in the responsa of the Gaonim that in these times there is no prohibition against deriving benefit from wine which was touched by a non-Jew since in these days they are not accustomed to making libations before idols, and they [i.e. the non-Jews] are considered as those who are not knowledgeable about idolatry and the cult connected with it, and they have the same status as newborn babes [i.e., they have no knowledge of the cultic practices of idol-worshippers], and we rely on this to take the wines of non-Jews as payment for their debts.”  Also in regard to libations, Rabbi Moses Isserles wrote (Yoreh Deah, no. 132): “However in our day, when the idolaters do not pour libations … ”  The same was written by the author of the book Erekh Lechem: “In our times the non-Jews do not know the nature of libations…” Also, the author of the book Mayim Rabbim: “The non-Jews of our time are not accustomed to make libations.” And similarly, many more authorities.

4. The Tosaphot to Avodah Zarah 57b (s.v. La-afokey Midrav, at the end): “It is a question how do we permit having benefit from the wine of non-Jews, since there is a prohibition against their wine because of their daughters, and nowadays that reason still applies [i.e., though the suspicion of libation is gone, there is still the possibility of intermarriage].  It is possible to say that when they prohibited even deriving benefit from the wine of non-Jews more than they prohibited their bread and their wine, it was because there were non-Jews who still used wine for libations before idols. But since that is no longer applicable, because the non-Jews are not knowledgeable in the nature of libations, it is enough that their wine should be considered in the same category as their oil and their bread or their cooked vegetables, and therefore it would he prohibited from drinking, but not from having any benefit from it. ‘But he who is stringent may he be blessed.’ ”

See also what the Rama wrote in his glosses, Yoreh Deah 123:1: “In these days when the non-Jews are accustomed to pour libations before idols, their wine is only prohibited from drinking, but not from deriving benefit.”  See also the book Evekh Lechom (Constantinople, 1718) by Joseph Castro, who wrote (no. 123a): “The Muslims are not idolaters, and therefore their wine is permitted to have benefit from it. There are those who permit wine [to have benefit) even when touched by Christians. There are those who are lenient in regard to all non-Jewish wine, and on the occasion of great loss we rely on those who are lenient. However, those stringent should be blessed.”

5. In the Tractate Avodah Zarah 36b, we read: “They prohibited their bread and their oil because of their wine, and their wine [was prohibited] because of their daughters, and their daughters because of another thing [i.e., idolatry].”  It is interesting that the prohibitions against bread and oil were lifted in the days of Rabbi Judah Hanasi. The Rama, of blessed memory, wrote that the prohibition against the wine of non-Jews is not more serious than the other “because of their daughters” prohibitions. In our time these prohibitions have dissolved. It is a fact that intermarriage is not only a direct result of the drinking of non-Jewish wine.

6. The Rebbe who is mentioned here is certainly the grandson of Rabbi Yehuda the Prince. See Avodah Zarah 35b.

7. Sefer Ha-eshkol, Pt.II, no. 49.

8. See note 5 above.

9. See the Machzor Vitri, Hilchot Ye’en Nesekh, No. 115.  See also Baron, “A Social and Religious History of the Jews”, Vol. 6, pp. 128 ff. (apparently there is a contradiction between the responsa of Rashi and the Machzor Vitri in regard to the acceptance of non-Jewish wine for the payment of debts to a Jew). Cf. Tosaphot (Avodah Zarah 57b s.v. La-afokey Midrav).  See also Baron, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 317, n.14, regarding the role of French Jews in the wine industry.

10. There are merchants who purchase wine from factories in very large barrels, and they themselves bottle the wine under government supervision. Even in these instances, the hands of human beings do not touch the wine, except for experts and workers who contact the wine only by means of another object – as we have explained – and therefore they are all permitted.

11. In the production of wine, substances that speed up the process of fermentation are used, and also machines that fill the bottles with wine. These machines and substances are used during the year for all kinds of fermented spirits.

____________________________________________________________

What makes one’s home Jewish?

An essay in progress….

What do we have in our homes that define them as a Jewish space, for a Jewish person?

A mezuzah

Jewish art and music – We live in Western civilization, and our artwork, paintings, murals and music reflect this great heritage. But we also have our own Jewish heritage, and if we are both educated in and proud of our heritage, this should be reflected in some of our artwork on our walls, and in our music choices.

Jewish books – Certainly a Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) – but what about other books on Jewish history, and on the rich heritage of rabbinic Judaism?

Ritual Judaica for the weekly observance of Shabbat, including Havdalah

Ritual Judaica for tefila (prayer) – kippot, tallitot, tefillin

A kosher kitchen – Judaism offers ways to make every area of life kadosh/קדוש, holy. We do this by creating sanctifications/distinctions for eating (kosher vs treif), days of the week (Shabbat vs other days), and other areas. Why keep kosher? What is it all about?

Alternative to Rashi Fundamentalism

Who Needs a New Torah Commentary?

Some are content to study Torah with only medieval commentary, but I felt it was time for a modern update.

By Richard Elliott Friedman

Who Needs a New Torah Commentary? – Richard E. Friedman

The first book to be printed on the printing press in Hebrew was not the Bible. It was the Torah with commentary of Rashi, the pre-eminent exegete. Why? Because the Torah is not to be read. It is to be studied. And at various times during one’s studies, one needs a teacher. Studying the Torah with Rashi’s commentaries is a joy because he shows what questions one can ask of a text. Look here! Is this a contradiction? Look here! This can have two opposite meanings. Which is right? Why does the Torah not tell us this piece of information that we need to understand the text? Why does it give us this fact that seems to be of no significance at first glance?

Rashi wrote his commentary 900 years ago. Commentaries for laypersons in recent times have changed. They have been written as introductory notes to help explain the text. They often collect comments from scholars of the past and from current biblical scholars. This is different from what commentary means classically. The purpose of Rashi’s commentary and of Ibn Ezra’s and Ramban’s was to show the readers new things in the text, problems they had not seen, or to address old problems that had not yet been solved–and then to offer the commentator’s solutions to these problems.

…. Through the archaeological revolution of the last two centuries, we have new knowledge of the biblical world, both of Israel and its neighbors. We know the languages that they spoke and wrote in addition to Hebrew and Aramaic: Akkadian, Caananite (Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabite), Egyptian, and Summerian. We have hundreds of sites and tens of thousands of ancient texts.

We have manuscripts of the Torah and of the entire Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) that are a thousand years older than those Rashi had. We have use of the Greek version (the Septuagint), which, together with the Qumran texts, gives us more precise knowledge of the original text.

And we have the great commentators themselves. Their thinking and their conclusions are our starting point, already at our fingertips, enabling us to learn from them and then to go farther. And we have the work of great scholars of more recent times as well.

There has developed a kind of Rashi fundamentalism in recent years. Especially in Orthodox communities, it is practically heresy to question whether Rashi was ever wrong.

I think that Rashi himself might have been disappointed that it would come to that. The commentators who immediately followed him–Ibn Ezra and Ramban and Rashi’s grandson Rashbam–knew better. They expressed respect for Rashi, but they disagreed with him and offered alternatives to his comments. Rashi’s commentary served for nearly a millennium. There is still much that is useful in it, and it can be valuable for millennia to come. But we also need new commentary for the coming generations, in the light of a world of knowledge and new questions and new needs.

What Rashi and the other commentators taught us to do was to look at a text critically. They were teaching us to do philology: the art of reading well. Reading with care. Thinking about what the words mean. It is thus ironic that some people have become Rashi fundamentalists. They have learned not to read the Torah critically but to parrot the critical reading of Rashi. And they do not read Rashi critically.

Although Ibn Ezra and Ramban questioned Rashi and pointed our where they thought he was wrong, more recent generations of teachers have lost faith in their own knowledge and judgement, and so they risk failing to relate the Torah to the lives of their people.

But something has happened in the present generation. There have been great scholars, and they have acquired new sources of information: archaeology, knowledge of the ancient Near East, literary sensitivity, and knowledge of the social sciences. And so it is time for new commentaries–not to replace the classical commentators, but to join them.

My commentary is meant to do just that: to be in the tradition of the classical commentaries but to use this new learning. There are many volumes of such new commentary, but they are mainly on single books of the Bible, sometimes gathered in collections of volumes on the Torah or on the whole Bible. There have been few that follow the tradition of being a single scholar’s commentary on the Torah as a whole. Some take the form of introductory footnotes on a translation. I mean to do the opposite: precisely to show how united and connected the whole Torah is, and to try, like the commentators who are our starting point, to relate it to life….

_____________________________

Meforshim is a Hebrew word meaning “(Bible) commentators” (or roughly meaning “exegetes”), Perushim means “(Bible) commentaries”. These terms refer to commentaries on the Torah (five books of Moses), Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, the responsa literature, or even the siddur (Jewish prayerbook), and more.

Classic Torah and/or Talmud commentaries have been written by the following individuals:

 

The art of Arthur Szyk

Arthur Szyk (1894 – 1951) was an artist who worked as a book illustrator and political commentator. Arthur Szyk was born into a Jewish family in Łódź, a part of Poland then under Russian rule. From 1921, he lived in France and Poland, and in 1937 he moved to the United Kingdom. In 1940, he settled permanently in the United States.

Arthur Szyk became a renowned artist and book illustrator …Szyk’s work is characterized by social and political commitment, and its rejection of modernism; instead he draws on the traditions of medieval and renaissance painting, especially illuminated manuscripts. Many of his works about Judaism are famous in the Jewish community.

(text adapted from Wikipedia)

The artwork of Arthur Zzyk

Hillel The Elder