Mevushal Wine - Packages and Controversies in memory of Stewart Bolton, z'l

Yayin Mevushal – Tamudic Background
The Gemara (Avoda Zara 30a) cites Rava, who believes that the restrictions concerning Nochrim touching wine do not apply if the wine is cooked. The Gemara (ibid.) quotes a striking anecdote that demonstrates the application of this Halacha. The Gemara relates that Shmuel and a Nochri named Avlet were sitting together and cooked wine was served to them. Avlet took his hand away from the wine so as not to render it forbidden to Shmuel. Shmuel thereupon told Avlet that he need not worry, as the wine was Mevushal. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. Harei Amru) writes that this Gemara teaches that we may drink Yayin Mevushal that was touched by a Nochri. Tosafot (ad. loc. s.v. Yayin Mevushal) add that this constitutes normative Halacha. Rambam (Hilchot Maachalot Asurot 11:9) and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 123:3) codify this rule as well.
The Rosh (Avoda Zara 2:13) wonders why the fact that the wine is cooked eliminates the prohibition of wine touched by a Nochri. After all, he explains, the reason Chazal instituted this prohibition was to prevent intermarriage (see Avoda Zara 36b and Tosafot, Avoda Zara 29b s.v. Yayin). Why should cooking the wine eliminate concern for intermarriage? The Rosh suggests that since cooked wine is relatively uncommon, Chazal did not apply their edict to an unusual circumstance. Indeed, we find in many places in the Gemara that Chazal do not issue edicts regarding highly unusual circumstances (see, for example, Bava Metzia 46b). Not surprisingly, the seemingly ubiquitous nature of Yayin Mevushal today has led many to question whether this leniency continues to apply in the contemporary setting.

The Parameters of the Yayin Mevushal Leniency
Rav Zvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Zvi Y.D. 111) notes that the Rambam (ad. loc.), Tur (Y.D. 123), and Shulchan Aruch (ad. loc.) clearly indicate that the leniency of Yayin Mevushal applies only to wine owned by a Jew that is touched by a Nochri. However, this leniency does not apply to wine owned by a Nochri. Thus, Rav Frank forbids drinking cooked wine that was produced by a Nochri owned company, despite the fact that the wine making process is entirely automated and no Nochri ever touches the grapes after they are placed in the machinery. Rav Hershel Schachter stated at the OU grape juice and wine seminar that Rav Frank’s ruling is accepted as normative. We should note that Rav Akiva Eiger’s comments to Y.D. 123:3 (s.v. DeAf Al Gav) seem to strongly support Rav Frank’s ruling.
There is considerable debate regarding how much the wine must be cooked in order for it to be categorized as Yayin Mevushal. The Rosh (ad. loc.) writes that once the wine is heated it is classified as Yayin Mevushal. The Rosh cites the Raavad, who writes that this was the opinion of the Geonim. The Rashba (Torat HaBayit 5:3, citing Ramban) and the Ran (Avoda Zara 10a in the pages of the Rif s.v. Yayin Mevushal, also citing the Ramban) write that wine is not considered Mevushal until some of the wine is lost in the heating process. The Encyclopedia Talmudit (24:367) cites a number of other dissenting opinions among the Rishonim regarding this matter.
The Shulchan Aruch (ad. loc.) rules in accordance with the Rosh and the Geonim, while the Shach (Y.D. 123:7) rules in accordance with the Rashba and the Ran. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 2:52 and see 3:31) and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 8:Y.D. 15) rule that the wine need not be boiled in order to be defined as Mevushal. They believe that if the wine is heated to 175 degrees Fahrenheit (or 80 degrees Celsius) it is certainly regarded as Mevushal. On the other hand, the Tzelemer Rav is often quoted as requiring wine to be boiled in order to be classified as Mevushal. This ruling seems to be based on the opinions cited in the Darkei Teshuva (123:15) and the Gilyon Maharsha (Y.D. 116:1).

Is Pasteurized Wine Classified as Yayin Mevushal?
Three major Israeli Poskim argue that pasteurized wine is not considered Mevushal. Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvot 1:75) rules that, based on the information provided to him, pasteurizing wine is a standard procedure in contemporary winemaking. Accordingly, he rules that the Yayin Mevushal leniency does not apply to pasteurized wine. This is based on the aforementioned comment of the Rosh that the basis of the Yayin Mevushal leniency is the fact that cooked wine is an unusual commodity. Chazal, Rav Eliashiv argues, did not establish the Yayin Mevushal exception when such cooking is common practice.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:25) argues that the cooking involved in the pasteurization process qualitatively differs from the cooking of wine discussed in the Gemara, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch. In the traditional process, the wine was cooked in open vats, thereby causing alcohol to evaporate and the wine’s taste to be noticeably changed. However, pasteurization involves a momentary heating of wine (or grape juice) in sealed pipes that causes little noticeable change in the taste of the product. Seemingly, the sole purpose of the pasteurization is to eliminate bacteria.
Rav Shlomo Zalman argues that although wine that is pasteurized is technically considered cooked, since it is heated and some wine does evaporate (although it returns to the wine since the process occurs in sealed pipes), it cannot be considered Mevushal, because the taste is not noticeably changed. Rav Shlomo Zalman cites the Rashba (Teshuvot 4:149 and Torat HaBayit and Mishmeret HaBayit 5:3), Meiri (Avoda Zara 29b and 30a), Knesset HaGedolah (123, Haghot Beit Yosef number 16) and Sedei Chemed (Maarechet Yayin Nesech) who all state that the leniency regarding Yayin Mevushal stems from the fact that the taste of the wine is altered by the cooking process.
Rav Shlomo Zalman notes that there were those who responded to him that wine experts can in fact tell the difference between pasteurized wines and non-pasteurized wines, which is why wineries in France do not permit their products to be pasteurized (except for wine marketed to Kosher consumers who specifically want Yayin Mevushal). Rav Shlomo Zalman responds that the Halacha regarding this matter is determined by what most people discern, not by experts. Indeed, we find that in general the Halacha is determined by the perception and abilities of most people and not of experts. For example, the Gemara (Shabbat 74b and see Tosafot ad. loc. s.v. Chochmah Yeteirah) teaches that spinning wool while it is yet on a goat’s back constitutes an unusual activity (a Shinui) and therefore does not constitute a Biblical violation, despite the fact that this is a routine activity for a number of extraordinarily talented people.
In a more modern application, Rav Hershel Schachter reports that he once told a dentist that his Tefillin were sufficiently square since they appeared square and a simple measurement indicated that they were square. Despite the dentist’s protest that based on his experience with fillings that must be perfectly square he knows that his Tefillin are not perfectly square, Rav Schachter told him that the latter’s eyesight is the equivalent of a precision instrument, and the status of Tefillin as square is determined by what most people perceive and measure. Similarly, Rav Shlomo Zalman believes that the inability of non-experts to distinguish between pasteurized and non-pasteurized wine is the only relevant consideration (also see TABC’s Bikkurei Shabbat pp.15-16).
One might respond, though, that Rav Shlomo Zalman’s assertion regarding the perception of non-experts might be valid only regarding Israelis in the 1980’s (when Rav Shlomo Zalman published his Teshuva). Today, however, many people have developed sophisticated appreciation for wine and it seems that many “amateur” wine drinkers readily perceive the difference between pasteurized and non-pasteurized wine, and will specifically choose a “non-Mevushal” wine when they wish to drink a fine wine.
A major Sephardic Poseik, Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Teshuvot Ohr LeTzion 2:20:19), also rules that pasteurized wine is not considered “Mevushal”. He reasons that because the evaporated wine returns to it (since the pasteurization occurs in a sealed vat), it fails to meet the Shach’s definition of “Mevushal”. Rav Ovadia Yosef responds that the evaporated portion of the wine that returns has lost its status of wine and it is no longer considered wine when it returns. Thus, technically speaking, the quantity of wine has been reduced in the pasteurization process (we noted earlier that even Rav Shlomo Zalman essentially concedes this point).

Defending Common Practice to Regard Pasteurized Wines as Yayin Mevushal
Rav Hershel Schachter noted at the OU seminar that the prevailing custom in America is to be lenient about his matter, following the ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein (ad. loc.) and other major Poskim in America. Indeed, Rav Ovadia Yosef notes that common practice in Israel is also to be lenient about this matter. In fact, even Rav Shlomo Zalman acknowledges that many are lenient regarding this issue. Although he expresses some hesitancy about it, Dayan Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 7:61) endorses the common practice to be lenient “since this has become the prevailing practice with the consent of eminent Halachic authorities.”
Dayan Weisz and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Rav Shlomo Zalman also concedes this point) do not share Rav Eliashiv’s aforementioned concern that pasteurized wine has become common practice. They believe that even though “cooking” wine today is commonplace, it is irrelevant. When Chazal established these Halachot, they reason, cooking wine was uncommon, and we are not authorized to enact new rules (see Rosh, Shabbat 2:15 and Teshuvot Yechave Daat 2:49) or alter Chazal’s edicts. Moreover, Rav Ovadia notes that the Rosh cited by Rav Eliashiv does not appear to constitute normative Halacha, as indicated by the Taz (Y.D. 123:3) and Rav Akiva Eiger (ad. loc.). Most importantly, Rav Eliashiv specifically writes that his ruling applies only if the information provided to him was accurate. Rav Shmuel David (Techumin 14:421) notes that Rav Eliashiv’s ruling needs to be revisited, since many wineries outside of Israel do not pasteurize their wines. Indeed, kosher wine expert Mr. Feivish Herzog of Kedem wines stated at the OU seminar that Rav Eliashiv was indeed provided with inaccurate information. He explained that wine does not have to be pasteurized for health reasons (the alcohol eliminates concern for bacteria), and usually only Kosher wines are pasteurized to create Yayin Mevushal. For example, Mr. Herzog explained, Gallo and Taylor wines (these are popular non-kosher wines) do not pasteurize their wines except in the case of a bad grape harvest. Accordingly, cooking wine appears to be uncommon even today, and even according to the Rosh’s explanation of the Yayin Mevushal, the leniency remains applicable.

Conclusion
The common practice to regard pasteurized wines as Mevushal is based on the rulings of many of the twentieth century’s leading Poskim. Moreover, Rav Shlomo Zalman’s strict ruling appears to emerge from a reality that has changed since the time that he wrote his Teshuva, and Rav Eliashiv’s strict ruling seems to stem from incorrect information provided to him. Furthermore, Rav Weisz notes, one may be lenient regarding non-observant Jews, since there is considerable debate as to whether a non-observant Jew touching wine renders it non-kosher. Accordingly, it seems that one may invite non-observant relatives and friends to the Seder without concern regarding the wine, as long as the wine is marked as Mevushal.

from: http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/15-28_Yayin_Mevushal_and_Non-Observant_Seder_Guests.htm

Does this verse prohibit ALL wine or just the wine used as libation wine? Using this verse to prove the rule of the Mishnah AZ in chapter 2 confounds the issue - is the prohibition on Gentile wine rabbinic or scriptural? And why is it so strict? And would it apply to the packaging? And how does either status impact our commerce, dealings and interactions with the non-Jewish world?

....[from Wasserman] As Haym Soloveitchik points out in his magisterial study of how the Jews of medieval Ashkenaz produced, consumed and traded wine, the laws surrounding wine remained ambiguous for an uncharacteristically extended period in Jewish history...Rashi's 12th C. commentary will clarify...

The Humanity of the Talmud: Reading for Ethics in Bavli Avodah Zarah - Mira Beth Wasserman

Much of the recent scholarship on the mishnaic tractate 'Avodah Zara' begins by remarking upon the dramatic difference between biblical and rabbinic attitudes toward idolatry and the people who practice it. Biblical law not only prohibits Israel from engaging in a whole range of practices it identifies with idolatry, it requires Israelites to utterly destroy idols when they come upon them. The Mishna, however, presumes that Jews inhabit a world filled with idols. Mishna AZ calls on Jews simply to distance themselves from idolatry, and to avoid benefiting from idol worship at all costs...the Mishna's openness to interaction with Gentiles in public, neutral spaces entails its correlative: a watchful, protective stance in the private realm where ritual takes place...Noam Zohar argues that the Mishna's apparent alarm regarding the threat of Gentile libation does not reflect any behavior tha tthe Rabbis observed in pagan life, but is rather a projection of the Rabbis' own behaviors and values onto the Gentiles. The special strictures relating to wine...are a measure of wine's centrality to Jewish ritual. ..wine is the currency of sacredness in the rabbinic imagination, and for this reason it must be cordoned off from the profane realm where Jews and Gentiles pursue social and economic relationships.

From Isaiah Cox, Princeton U.

A Brief History of Wine Technology and Dilution

Marcus Porcius Cato (234-150 B.C.), refers to some of the problems related to the preservation of fermented wine. In Cato alludes to such problems when he speaks of the terms “for the sale of wine in jars.” One of the conditions was that “only wine which is neither sour nor musty will be sold. Within three days it shall be tasted subject to the decision of an honest man, and if the purchaser fails to have this done, it will be considered tasted; but any delay in the tasting caused by the owner will add as many days to the time allowed the purchaser.”[41] Pliny, for example, frankly acknowledges that “it is a peculiarity of wine among liquids to go moldy or else to turn into vinegar; and whole volumes of instructions how to remedy this have been published.”[42]

[41] On Agriculture, Chapter 148. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agricultura/J*.html . Cato shares the opinion of Rav: “For three days after purchase the seller is responsible if the wine turns sour; but after that his responsibility ceases.” B. B. 96a.

e. Wine bottles are used. For the first time since the time of the Beis Hamikdash, wine can be safely stored for a long time.

[36] Jeremiah 48:11, Moab is compared to a container of fine wine that is not disturbed: “therefore its taste has stayed in it, and its scent was not diminished.” Unsealed wine in the ancient world was known to lose its essence.

[39] John Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature says: “When the Mishna forbids smoked wines from being used in offerings (Manachoth, viii. 6, et comment.), it has chiefly reference to the Roman practice of fumigating them with sulphur, the vapor of which absorbed the oxygen, and thus arrested the fermentation. The

BRANDEIS NOW: APRIL 2017

Behold: The drip-free wine bottle!

Anyone who has ever poured wine knows about the drips that fall off the side of the bottle. At long last, a Brandeis physicist has figured out a fix.

Drips are the bane of every wine drinker's existence. He or she uncorks a bottle of wine, tips it toward the glass, and a drop, or even a stream, runs down the side of the bottle. Sure, you could do what sommeliers in restaurants do, wrapping a napkin around the neck of the bottle to catch the liquid, but who has time for that? Much more likely, you’ll ruin the tablecloth.

Daniel Perlman — wine-lover, inventor and Brandeis University biophysicist — has figured out a solution to this age-old oenophile's problem. Over the course of three years, he has been studying the flow of liquid across the wine bottle's lip. By cutting a groove just below the lip, he's created a drip-free wine bottle.

Perlman is a renowned inventor with over 100 patents to his name for everything from specialized lab equipment to the first miniaturized home radon detector. Along with Professor Emeritus of Biology K.C. Hayes, he developed the "healthy fats" in Smart Balance margarine. Most recently, he devised coffee flour, a food ingredient and nutritional supplement derived from par-baked coffee beans.

There are already products on the market designed to prevent wine spillage, but they require inserting a device into the bottle neck. Perlman didn’t want consumers to have to take an additional step after they made their purchase. "I wanted to change the wine bottle itself," he says. "I didn't want there to be the additional cost or inconvenience of buying an accessory." Figure out the physics, he thought, and you might be able to build a drip-free wine bottle.

Perlman studied slow-motion videos of wine being poured. He observed first that drippage was most extreme when a bottle was full or close to it. He also saw that a stream of wine tends to curl backward over the lip and run down the side of the glass bottle because glass is hydrophilic, meaning it attracts water.

Using a diamond-studded tool, Perlman, assisted by engineer Greg Widberg, created a circular groove around the neck of the bottle just beneath the top. A droplet of wine that would otherwise run down the side of the bottle encounters the groove, but can’t traverse it. Instead, it immediately falls off the bottle into the glass along with the rest of the wine.

Remember that when you pour a full or nearly-full bottle of wine, you hold it at a slightly upward angle in relation to the glass. For a drop of wine to make it across Perlman's groove, it would have to travel up inside the groove against the force of gravity or have enough momentum to jump from one side of the groove to the other. After many tests, Perlman found the perfect width, roughly 2 millimeters, and depth, roughly 1 millimeter, for the groove so that the wine stream can't pass it.

Current wine bottle designs date to the early 1800s and haven't changed much since. About 200 years of drips, drabs, stains and spots may be coming to an end. Perlman is currently speaking with bottle manufacturers about adopting his design.

The Wine Spectator - THE PUNT

Q: What is that indentation at the bottom of a wine bottle? The bigger the better?

A: That indentation is called a punt, and it’s a good thing that football season is over, or I would be trying to make a joke about the name. Historically, punts were a function of wine bottles being made by glassblowers. The seam was pushed up to make sure the bottle could stand upright and there wasn’t a sharp point of glass on the bottom. It’s also thought that the punt added to the bottle’s structural integrity.

Bottles nowadays are much stronger and machine-made, so the punt is simply part of wine-bottle tradition, though some say it helps collect the sediment as wines age. Punts no longer serve a structural function except in bottles of sparkling wine, which have constant pressure inside. In these cases, the punt allows for more even distribution of pressure.

The size of the punt doesn’t mean anything about the quality of the wine inside, but it can be a bit gimmicky, because some bottles just look like they’re on steroids, with deep punts and extra-heavy glass.

History of Cork

Cork comes from the cork tree, or Quercus Suber. This is a species of oak that grows in Spain and Portugal. Cork trees are very carefully cared for - the older the tree, the more cork it produces. Some trees grow to be 170 years old.

Cork naturally grows to form 14-sided cells in the bark. Strips are carefully removed (it's in their best interest to keep the tree healthy!) and dried in strips for 6 months. Next the strips are boiled for 90 minutes, then again dry for 3 weeks. Finally, the cork is cut into the shapes you know. Only 40% of this final cut ends up being usable. Cork must be stored carefully until it is used by the winery.

The first corks were tapered to fit into the bottles more easily. With more modern packing systems, they now have straight sides. Some now have plastic tops as well. Champagne corks actually start out with straight sides, and only develop that "mushroom" shape after being jammed into the bottles. They are not solid cork - to save money, there are disks of cork separated by a "cork mash".

You can tell several things from a cork. Many are marked with the place the cork was made, as well as the winery the wine came from. The narrower and more misshapen the cork, the longer the cork has been in the bottle. Sometimes you will see small crystals around the cork - this is not broken glass, but merely tartrates, a harmless substance sometimes found in wine.

"Real" cork can sometimes develop a mold, and lead to 'corking' of the wine. This sad state makes the wine completely undrinkable. To combat this, a number of wineries are turning to synthetic corks that have the wonderful sealing properties of real cork, but do not harbor molds.

from http://www.wineintro.com/history/glassware/cork.html