Comments on: Kosher Wine in the “Mainstream”

By: jabbett

jabbett — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:48:13 +0000

As the child of intermarried parents myself, I understand that there are exceptions to the rule, and I recognize that intermarriage is simply a symptom of the greater problem of decreased observance. The statistics show that if you’re the child of typical, religiously-disinterested intermarried parents, you have very little chance of emerging a frum Jew. I’m lucky that a very specific chain of events occurred in my life that led me to Yiddishkeit.Now, for me to believe that intermarriage has been a "fundamental component of the existence of the Jewish people", I’ll need a bit more scientific evidence. I’d say that observance of our halakhic stringencies and a commitment to comprehensive Jewish life (the environment you’re building for your family) is what has preserved the Jewish people for generations — not intermarriage.With that aside — I’m heartened by your attachment to Judaism, wish you luck in your conversion plans, and I agree that we should get back to food!

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:03:55 +0000

I’ll offer one quick though in response to the non-food nature of these comments, and then I hope we’ll go back to what’s great about this blog - the food! ;-) The thought is this: don’t buy into the idea that intermarriage is as big as issue as some would have you believe - the issue is increasing non-observance at any "level" of Jews. I’m the male non-Jewish (Ben Noach, hopeful later convert) spouse that married into a family of three children; the other two siblings married Jews. Guess which of the three families is the only one to have a kosher kitchen, attend shul regularly, send the kids to religious school, etc…?The issue is not intermarriage, which has arguably been a fundamental component of the continued existence of the Jewish people as they spread out in various directions across the globe. Ever wonder why your local Chabad rabbi looks like a white Russian, or why the Jews of Yemen have the dark skin of Arab Yemenites, or why the Beta Israel are black skinned like their non-Jewish countrymen? It isn’t because they all looked that different at first…

By: jabbett

jabbett — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:05:32 +0000

Yes, the mevushal issue on its own seems pretty ineffectual in our modern situation. Let’s remember, though, that it’s part of a comprehensive halakhic system — restrictions against bishul akum, pas akum, and stam yeinam — the intention of which is to discourage close social interaction between Jews and non-Jews. The Rabbis are not advocating complete dislocation between Jews and gentiles, only limited social contact. Certainly, within these guidelines, we can build bridges with the gentile community, just not quite at the dinner table.To say that insulation is inappropriate seems puzzling both in light of Jewish history and the present. The insularity of the Jewish community, whether elected or enforced (e.g. the Venetian Ghetto), had a profound effect in preserving our way of life. Today, laws like stam yeinam will have little or no effect on those you deem as "tending toward intermarriage" — but they (as part of the entire corpus of Jewish law) may certainly help today’s frum Jews, who are committed to halakah, from developing intimate relationships outside the tribe, and ensure the success (existence?) of future generations.

By: nonmevushalmarc

nonmevushalmarc — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:14:55 +0000

I understand the dual "purposes" of the issue, but I think that the notion of discouraging fraternization in this manner is, at minimum, disgusting. The practical component is simply false — whether you split a bottle of wine or a can of Coke or a beer (neither of which have halachnic/kashrut implications) has no correllation to the incidence of intermarriage — people, besides Britney Spears, aren’t simply getting drunk and getting married. I understand that Jews historically have a problem trusting Jews, but whether you have a non-Jew over for dinner is unlikely to make a difference — and the people who are tending towards intermarriage are less likely to care whether their wine is mevushal, or Kosher. To support such insulation (anti-nonSemitism) is inappropriate today to say the least. We should be encouraging understanding and communication between Jews and non-Jews, not telling non-Jews that we’re not allowed to drink from a bottle of wine because they touched it and that could lead to intermarriage. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…

By: nonmevushalmarc

nonmevushalmarc — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:19:43 +0000

I agree that any supposed flavor benefits of flash pasteurization, none of which I can be sure that I have experienced as yet, are unlikely to bear themselves out long-term. Pretty much by definition, any mevushal process will stunt or completely end any flavor development of the wine because that is really the purpose of the mevushal process. By not allowing the wine to develop naturally, the mevushal process will/does shorten the shelf-life of these bottles, as compared to their non-mevushal cousins.

By: jabbett

jabbett — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:19:16 +0000

The ‘mevushal’ issues is tangentally related to wines used for idol-worship. It’s main purpose, as I tried to make clear in my earlier post on mevushal wines, was to discourage fraternization, and eventual marriage, between Jews and non-Jews. As far as I’m aware, intermarriage is still a sizeable problem for the Jewish community — don’t get your hopes up!

By: beerhound

beerhound — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:19:54 +0000

Although Herzog and others have claimed that flash-pasteurization improves their products, I wonder about the long-term consequences. Even among the better mevushal wines, I have yet to find any that age well. Admittedly this is a continuously-evolving long-term project for me, but I have found as a rule that when cellared side-by-side, my mevushal bottles must always be drank young (i.e. within a year or two) while many of my non-mevushal bottles improved reliably over longer periods (some for over ten years).