Stam Yayin

Avodah Zara (2:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 9 hours ago

The Mishnah (2:3) teaches that stam yayin, wine handled by a goy, is forbidden. It is not only forbidden to drink but also forbidden to derive any benefit from (assur be'hanaah). What is the source of the prohibition?

Rashi (29b) explains that the concern is that the wine was used for libations as part of idol worship -- yayin nesech. The Gemara continues by providing the source, that were that the case, it would indeed be asur be'hanaah.

The Tosfot however notes that we learn in a later Gemara (36b) that the reason for the prohibition is mishum be'noteihim. In other words, it is out of concern that sharing wine will lead to intermarriage. The Tosfot assert that that alone was the basis for the prohibition. Indeed, this was the bases for similar gezeirot regarding their bread and oil. A major difference with wine however is that it is also assur be'hanaah. The reason why it was made assur be'hanaah at the outset, was once it was going to become assur, it resembles yayin nesech and it is treated as such. The Tosfot explains that that is why the Gemara immediately asks for the source of why yayin nesech is assur be'hanaah.

How do we understand the Tosfot that it was made assur be'hanaah due to its similarity to yayin nesech? The Bach (YD 123:2) explains that the similarity alone was the basis from the outset. In other words, when the Chachamim implement a decree, they would do so to resemble or follow an existing biblical prohibition. Yayin nesech is the most similar to stam yayin, therefore it was also made assur be'hanaah. The Bach continues that it is not because, were it only made prohibited to consume then people would confuse stam yayin with yayin nesech, and also mistakenly permit deriving benefit from yayin nesech. If that were true, then in a place or time when there is no yayin nesech, there would not be no reason to make stam yayin also assur be'hanaah. That however is not the case.¹

The Rashba (Torat HaBayt 5:1) however explains that the gezeira came in two phases. The first was prohibiting the consumption of stam yayin. Again, out of concern that joining with their wine consumption, generally consumed in a festive environment, would lead to intermarriage or relationships, which would then lead to idol worship. The concern was not so remote considering that there was a precedent with the daughters of midyan. Later however, when they noticed the widespread practice of yayin nesach, they added the second gezeira treating stam yayin like yayin nesech.

The Shoshanim Le'David uses these two understandings to explain that language of our Mishnah. The Mishnah begins, "these are the things belonging to idol worshipers that are prohibited, and it is prohibited from deriving any benefit". The Mishnah could have been written more succinctly, "these are the things belonging to idol worshiper from which one is not allowed to derive benefit".

According to the Tosfot's understanding, the Mishnah begins by explains that these things, stam yayin, are assur due to the concern of intermarriage. Once they are assur, since it now is similar to yayin nesech, it is also assur be'hanaah.

Similarly, according to the Rashba's understanding, the double language regarding its prohibition, is a reference to the two stages in which stam yayin was firstg prohibited, and then prohibited from benefitting from.

¹ The Bach continues citing the Rashbam however, who references Rashi, who cites the Geonim who maintain that nowadays stam yayin is not assur be'hanaah. He explains that they must maintain like the Ran that the issur ha'hanaah is due to the protentional confusion with yayin nesech.

Download