Print this Article
By Rabbi Yehuda Faguet, Rav of JLIC, Santa Monica, CA
Unless you are a wine connoisseur, you are most likely to seek out “Yayin Mevushal” – “cooked wine” – to use for Kiddush and Havdala. This is because unlike uncooked wine, which can easily be subject to the prohibition of S’tam Yeinam by coming in contact with a non-Jew, cooked wine is not subject to this issue. It is therefore ideal to use in a home where there is non-Jewish help, at catered events and other such venues. The question now becomes whether it is the ideal wine to use for Kiddush.
Altar-Worthy
In Bava Batra[1], Rav states that one may only recite Kiddush on wine that is fit to be offered on the Mizbeah. The Gemara then explains that this means one is not permitted to recite Kiddush on wine which has a foul odor, or wine which has been left uncovered [as poisonous creatures may have drunk from it and released their venom[2]]. In Menahot[3], the Mishna names another kind of wine which is unfit to be offered on the Mizbeah, namely Yayin Mevushal – cooked wine. Even though the Gemara does not mention Yayin Mevushal specifically with regards to Kiddush, it follows that since it is unfit for the Mizbeah, it should also not be used for Kiddush.
Likewise, the Rambam[4] rules that one may not recite Kiddush over Yayin Mevushal, which is also the unanimous ruling of the Ge’onim, as well as several Rishonim, including Rashi, the Ra’avad, and Rav Yizhak Alfasi – the Rif[5]. In fact, the opinion of most of these Poskim, including the Rif, and according to some, the Rambam, is that the correct Beracha for Yayin Mevushal is “Shehakol”. This would explain why Yayin Mevushal is not enumerated as one of the kinds of wine unfit for Kiddush in the Gemara in Bava Batra, as according to these Poskim, it is not even technically wine!
Despite this ruling, the near-universal custom is both to say “Bore P’ri HaGefen” and to recite Kiddush over Yayin Mevushal, as per the ruling of the Bet Yosef[6]. This is also the ruling of the overwhelming majority of Rishonim, among them the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Ramban, the Ritva, the Me’iri, the Ran and the Rashba.
The Opinion of Maran
Even though this position has ample support among the Rishonim, the ruling of the Bet Yosef is in and of itself interesting, as it represents a departure from his usual method of deciding halachic controversies. Generally, the Bet Yosef follows the majority ruling between the three “Amudei Hora’a” – pillars of law – namely the Rambam, the Rif and the Rosh, even where any two of the three are opposed by the majority of other Poskim.
In our case, since both the Rambam and the Rif agree that one may not use Yayin Mevushal for Kiddush, Maran would normally have ruled according to their position. Furthermore, it seems that the Bet Yosef may not have even been able to take the opinion of the Rif into account, since this particular responsa was only printed after the Shulhan Aruch was written. The Rif’s ruling is not mentioned in the discussion of this Halacha in the Bet Yosef – the sourcebook of all of the Halachot in the Shulhan Aruch. As such, it would seem that in this case we would be required to follow the rule of “Safek Berachot L’Hakel” (not reciting a Beracha when in doubt), and refrain from reciting Kiddush over Yayin Mevushal, since surely if Maran were to have seen the Rif’s responsa, he would have ruled differently.
What is Cooked Wine?
However, it may be that what we call Yayin Mevushal is not really so. Even though the Shulhan Aruch rules[7] that even wine which has just been brought to a boil is considered Mevushal, many argue for a more stringent definition. The Me’iri writes in Avoda Zara[8] that wine is only considered Mevushal if it is reduced so much that its flavor changes. This is also the opinion of Rav Haim Benveniste (the K’nesset HaGedola[9]) and Rav Haim Palagi[10], among others.
Today, most widely available wines which are marked as “Mevushal” are only brought to a boil but are not reduced at all, and their flavor remains unaffected (although some connoisseurs may beg to differ…). Thus according to many Poskim, these wines would not be Mevushal for the purposes of precluding them from use in Kiddush.
Thus, a Safek Sefeka (double-doubt) exists in this case to permit reciting Kiddush over our Yayin Mevushal – which may be the basis of the Shulhan Aruch’s ruling. First, it may be that the Halacha is like the majority of Rishonim that Yayin Mevushal is indeed fit for Kiddush. If that is not the case, it may still be that our wine is not actually Yayin Mevushal, since it has not been reduced significantly. On this basis, it is customary in our time to recite Kiddush and Bore P’ri HaGefen over Yayin Mevushal, and one need not be stringent to avoid this. This is also the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef [11]זצ”ל.
Sources:
[1] 97a
[2] See Yore De’a 115
[3] 86b
[4] Hilchot Shabbat 29:14
[5] See Magid Mishne; Teshuvot HaRif 295
[6] Orah Haim 202:1
[7] Yore De’a 123:3
[8] 29a
[9] Y.D. Siman 123 Hagahot Bet Yosef 14
[10] Ruah Haim 123:2
[11] See Yehave Da’at 2:35, Hazon Ovadia, Shabbat 2:115