[Avodah] Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:41:31PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: >It seems that RZS is saying that "we don't care" what the AZ-niks
: >actually do. My suspicion is that we *do* care, as logically we must,
: >because if they'd be willing to do nisuch with yayin mevushal, then
: >I can't imagine why we wouldn't worry about it.

: Because we don't call what they do "nisuch"...

Stam yeinam is for two reasons:
1- intermarriage, and
2- gezeira atu yayin nesekh

Tosafos and the SA only discuss the latter, but the Rashbam and the
Rama hold what we would today call "tzvei dinim". The fraternization
reason is an issur in shetiyah and still applies today, the connection
to yayin nesech is an issur hana'ah, and doesn't apply today when nisuch
is uncommon. (Spharadim following the SA would have an issur hana'ah.)

The same machloqes is seen when the Rambam permits yayin mevushal
because it's not used for nisuch, whlie the Rosh says it's because yayin
mevushal is "milta delo shekhicha" and thus outside the gezeira. The
Rashba seems to hold like the Rosh, but says it's outside the gezeira
because it's not really yayin.

But why is the issue in #2 in defining "nisuch"? Anything they were
maqdish to their AZ would be assur behana'ah, whether a lulav from an
asheirah or stam growing in an ir hanidachas, whether nisuch, taqroves,
or a broom conserated to her. So, if it's not nisuch as we define nisuch,
is their libation-wine not wine that's assur anyway?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha at aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964