[Avodah] Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal

[Zev Sero]

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> No.  "Lehaktir" means to *burn*, not to offer.
> See Rambam, H. Shabbos 29:14, Tshuvos HaRivash #10, Hiddushei HaGriz on 
> Menahoth 57b s.v. "HaRambam b'Hilchos Issurei HaMizbeah" (there are two 
> sections starting like that, you want the first, where he addresses your 
> objection).

I haven't got that sefer so I'll take your word for it.


> See also H. Maachalos Assuros 11:9-10, where he disagrees with the 
> Sulhan Arukh I had previously cited, and notice that he says explicitly 
> that we and the gentiles have the same criteria for yayin rauy l'nisuh.

No, he doesn't say anything about what rules the AKUM have -- how could
he?  How could he, or anyone, possibly know?  All he says is "eino
mitnasech" -- it doesn't become nesech.   Nesech is a halachic category;
the AKUM set their own rules, and can do whatever they like, and call what
they are doing whatever they like, and change their rules or invent new
ones whenever they like; but we set our rules, and we decide whether the
halachic category of nesech applies to this wine.  And we say that wine
unfit for the mizbeach cannot become nesech, no matter what they do to it,
or what they call it, or what they believe has happened to it.   (Perhaps,
and I'm speculating here, it might still be assur under the more general
category of tikrovet AZ, of which nesech is a subset; but it's not nesech
because we say it isn't, and therefore the gezera of stam yeinam, which is
not for general tikrovet but only for nesech, doesn't apply.)


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher