The History of Non-Kosher Wine

The topic of the last several dafin has been Yayin shel Oved Kochavim. We've spoken so much about the three categories of yayin shel Oved Kochavim. The real bonafide yayin that was nasach lavoda zara, stam yaynam, yayin that belongs to a Yid that Oved Kochavim merely touched. Additionally, although we saw from the Gemaras literally starting from the Mishnah to countless Gemaras, to Rishonim and Achronim, that stam yaynam, the whole concept of yayin shel Oved Kochavim was treated in a very very severe fashion by Chazal stating that historically there seemed to have been some koach detera. We spoke about the sensor teshuvah from the Rama. We talked a little bit about the Italian Jews and their wine. Additionally, we spoke and the raid a little bit about a Yisroel Mumche who touches yayin shel Yisroel, who we know the Shulchan Aruch in the beginning of Hilchos Shechita, right in the beginning of Yoreh De'ah siman 120 says that he's treated like an Oved Kochavim. What about as it relates to wine? At first glance, it would seem to be a teshuvah of the Rashba, but the Beis Yosef quotes it, the Darkei Moshe quotes it, the Nekudas Hakesef quotes stating that in the poskim there's a little bit of a koach detera. Not an unequivocal koach detera, but without a question a little bit of a koach detera based on the fact, in the words of Rav Moshe, that although the Beis Yosef quoted the Rashba, but in the Mechaber it's not mentioned. And although the Darkei Moshe quoted the Rashba, but in the Rama it's not mentioned. And although the Nekudas Hakesef mentioned the Rashba, but it's nowhere to be found in the Shach. The bottom line is, Be'ezras Hashem we've been going through some of the divrei emes berumei shel oilam, some of the things that are on everybody's mind as it relates to the Gemaras that we're learning about now. As it relates to today's rate, I think it's Kedai to continue along this theme and focus now on the history of the Takanos of Stam Yayin. In other words, the historical timeline as far as how exactly the Takana with its severity evolved. Now, if you ask the man on the street, what is the origin of the fact that you're not allowed to drink Stam Yayin or the fact that Yayin should not be used is problematic. Assuming he's holding in the daf, he's going to tell you, what do you mean? Could be he knows it from the first it's from the we know that amongst the 18 things that were instituted by the of Shammai and Hillel was that the pass of the Shaman of and the wine of are going to be off limits. In fact, they said is not only going to be off limits like pass the Shaman, but they double down and they said that it's even going to be but the history of Stam Yayin would seem to be a very open and shut discussion. It would seem to be Gemara that's repeated in and that is it's from the so whenever exactly the happened, by the way, in case you're curious, it's at the end of So that's when the Takana of Stam Yayin went into effect. Stating that, as we're about to see, it's garnished as a portion and just to bring out this discussion in a little bit of a dramatic way, I think it's Kedai to begin with another Italian that was written on the topic of Stam Yayin. Now, this is in the it's the way, is a Kuf Tas. This Tshu by the way is a famous Tshu. The hate they quote in the Shari Tshu quotes it in the broches. The brings it in the brings it in so this was an often quoted Tshu by the what we call a very important Tshu that was written in the albeit very controversial as we're about to say. Now in terms of who was the Bal Shilo Bear Isaac his name was Reb Shapsi Isaac hence the name. We actually mentioned him in the original Italian wine rate by because it's the Bear Isaac that brings in Simin Nun Zion that he heard a that the great Makubal the Ramami Pano drink Stam Yayin. He's also the one who brings in his Shilo Bear Isaac Simin Ion that the Ramami Pano was clean shaven this is that they I'm sorry for brings in his famous Tshu on this topic. But the bottom line is that in Shilo Bear Isaac and this is in Shilo Kuf Tas he was asked three questions the first of which is and that is There are people in Italy we know this already that were drinking Stam Yayin and before they would drink Stam Yayin they would put on their I mean you know cover their head the way my dad used to and they would make a by right? And then afterwards when they finished drinking their Stam Yayin they would make an and the Shilo asked Reb Shapsi Isaac whether they're doing something wrong meaning not only are you drinking Stam Yayin but you're doing a Gabi even making a brocha on my Sirus a brocha rishona and brocha achrona. And this was really the question that he posed. He wanted to know these people that drink stam yaynam, for sure they're not supposed to, and they're making a brocha, so the drinking stam yaynam is a problem all the sugiyot that we're learning, but what about the brocha? Is that also a problem or no? If they're for that drinking, what do you mean then they have to make a brocha, otherwise it's just going to be lav var all of the sh'tay lavin. Additionally, the Sho'el Torah of Shabsai Ziskind, even though this question that I'm asking was really not nogea me, because I would never drink stam yaynam, but at the same time sometimes I'm sitting amongst people that are drinking stam yaynam, and when they make a brocha my impulse is to say amen. The question is, you could only say amen on a real brocha, if somebody says amen on a brocha she'eina tzricha, it's considered a bad thing in the eyes of Chazal. So do I say amen on this brocha or do I not say amen on this brocha? And then he asked him a third question. And that is, what about as it relates to Kiddush and Havdalah? Those chevra that drink stam yaynam, and they are someechan, whatever it is they're someechan, could they also use it for Kiddush and Havdalah or maybe when it comes to Kiddush and Havdalah it's a separate shulchan aruch. So three questions that he asked. Number one, if someone's drinking stam yaynam, do you make the brocha or do you not make the brocha? And again, he's presupposing that it's the wrong thing to do, the sh'eilah. Not suggesting that it's mutar, I mean if it's mutar then what would even be the sh'eilah? The point is for sure it's a bad thing, but at the same time is that a double bad thing? If you're going to go ahead and make a brocha or you're supposed to make a brocha. If I hear someone make a brocha on stam yaynam, do I say amen or not? And is Kiddush and Havdalah a separate sugiyah or is it not a separate sugiyah? So Shabsai Ziskind sat down, he wrote a teshuvah, and he answered all three of these questions. Now one thing is clear from the teshuvah, and that is that he himself held you're not supposed to drink stam yaynam. Now we'd have to revisit the teshuvah in Siman Nun Ziya. See the exact context in which he brought his I got to say this about Ramah and Bano. But in Simmon Kuf test it's not even negotiable. He really really really is not happy with the fact that there are a lot of people that are being Mazals on the stomach in his view. This was something that was very very wrong. Stating that as it relates to the brocha is said Shapsi Isaac that the Indian is as follows. Now really what would even be the problem? Meaning why shouldn't you make a brocha anytime you eat and drink? You make a brocha. The Gamorah says in this brocha that I mean you made that why is it that a person is supposed to make a brocha before now? First the Gamorah thought it's a and the Gamorah comes out across also they mean all of us have a brocha. You know that have any benefit from without a brocha. So the is of course you would think you should make a brocha. Stating that the Gamorah is on the engine. Daf Vov Bais and this is also a Gamorah in Bava Kama as it relates to him with the Gamorah brocha. David said in U Bay Niyes and the Gamorah brings different on what this means. Rabbi I'm there. Rabbi said what he means is as follows. He goes out social and if somebody would steal a saw of wheat who he would grind it and he would bake it. The man of and he would be hollow. Kids on the now at the time of that hollow he wants to make a brocha. What kind of brocha should he make? Ain't says Rabbi Elam right. This is a terrible thing. It's what we know as a brocha and now regarding this that David said Bay Niyes that this person the the person who's Bay now wants to make a brocha Niyes and the Rambam in brocha and paskins based on this Gamorah that if somebody eats what they are not supposed to but you don't make a brocha ever on what they are not supposed to. In fact there when he brings this halacha, the Rambam says as follows, If somebody eats a dvar assur, you don't make a bracha on it. says the Rambam, if somebody would eat treif, even if you would eat treif derabanan, the Aintsor says the Rambam, the Rambam says, based on this gemara, Aintsor that if somebody eats machal asuras, it doesn't matter if he's eating it b'meizid or b'shogeg, it doesn't matter if we're holding the bracha of it doesn't matter if the machal asuras that he's eating is machal asuras deraisa or machal asuras derabanan, either way says the Rambam, you do not make a bracha. Now the Ra'avad is masig on one pratt that the Rambam says. The Rambam says that this idea of Aintsor al amenites is true if machal asuras is deraisa and if it's derabanan. The Ra'avad says I have a rayo from a gemara in meseches Brachos daf mem hey, that it would only be true for deraisas, not for derabanans. You have a duo between the Rambam and the Ra'avad. But the Rambam, who the Shulchan Aruch paskens like, holds that you never make a bracha on machal asuras. And it doesn't matter if the machal asuras is an issur deraisa or if the machal asuras is an issur derabanan. And based on that said the Be'er Heitev, the Musaf Rishon approach to this shaila, which is really by the way where the shaila was coming from, he knew this gemara, and he knew this Rambam, is this halacha p'suka, and that is you don't make a bracha lifneiha, you don't make a bracha achareiha on machal asuras. If we're going to take the position that stam yeinam is machal asuras, even if it's only midrabanan, which commonly it is, but at the same time, the Rambam's shita is that you don't make a brocha for now achareiha even on my series that are merely awesome in the rabona. And based on that said the bear a sick look the original would be in the element nights. And if it's in the element nights means you don't make a brocha for now if you hear the brocha can't say amen you say amen on a brocha not on a and as it relates to there's also broches in the element nights this would be the passion statement. The bear a sick said a condition very sick said as follows said there's a in tightness that you base the discussing somebody who took upon himself to fast every Monday and Thursday during the course of the year and then it turned out that one of the Mondays and Thursdays coincided head-on with one of the days that are mentioned in tightness. So we've spoken about tightness many times over the years some refer to it as the Hanukkah. But we've spoken about tightness and tightness was a list of days where very good things that happened to the Jews and as a result of these good things that happened has all made a you're not allowed to fast on those days to speed different levels of severity but the point is that on all these days you're not allowed to fast. What would be says the if someone was tightness every Monday and Thursday throughout the course of the year and now all of a sudden this Monday stick. All of a sudden it bumped into one of these days that it says tightness and I want to fast. So the says as follows you know what it depends on it depends on what came first did his net there come before the zero that's mentioned in tightness or did the zero in tightness come before his net if his net there came first so then we say once he made a net there that he's going to fast the entire year like tightness if however the tightness came first so then he doesn't have the ability with his tightness with his net there go ahead and override the loyalist Hannah behind that's mentioned in the girls tightness. That's the massage this tightness. Said the basic with that one this maybe we can cut and paste and we can say a double coders. It's true that there's a halacha that you can't make a brocha as a service and the extended that even to things that one is not allowed to eat only mid rabbonim. Stating that the said the basic you would have to take the historical context into account. When were broches instituted? The whole concept of broches. When were broches instituted? So we know say that brocha is etc. etc. Were instituted by the Knesset so the concept of making a brocha which is a kibbutz although there's a and broches that says it's a based on the fact that the says can't be that the any less than the because if the less than the then I'll tell you why cross it's to tell me that it's a so says it's and really it's the case of very big that has a few times in broches but it's not Muslim in the the passion is of course is that and then it's always treated with the leniency of it being a dinner rabbonim but the bottom line is who were the rabbonim that said that you're supposed to make a brocha it was the Knesset when was the of put into effect? It was from the of it was in the end of by the Knesset lived in the beginning of by circle of right? The was from the Knesset he's the for the first 40 years years of by the that's already by it's about 400 years later but the point is that which came first? The takana of brochos came before the takana of stam yaynam. So he said that when the anشی knesset gedola said you're supposed to make a brocha, so at that point the chiyuv brocha was chul on all machlos that were considered kosher. Anything that's not mentioned in the Torah as being machlos assurahs or anything that the rabonim for whatever reason had not instituted prior to that was going to be machlos assurahs. It's regarding that the brochos was going to be in effect. Now, stam yaynam at that point for hundreds of years would not have become assur. And being that stam yaynam for hundreds of years would not have become assur, the halacha was that if somebody is going to pick up a glass of wine of stam yaynam, it's kosher wine. And if that's the case, how are you going to make a brocha? Later, the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel came and they said that stam yaynam is off limits. They didn't have the ability then with their takana to go ahead and to be oiker and to essentially undo what was included in the umbrella takana of the anشی knesset gedola which said that you make a brocha to the new achrayim anytime you're having hana'ah min olam hazeh. Included in that was stam yaynam because at that point stam yaynam wasn't yet machlos assurahs. So as much as it's true the ramam she the base on in zamam minayin is that you don't make a brocha on machlos assurahs, but stam yaynam is going to be an exception to the rule. This is what the beraysis said. It's going to be an exception to the rule because stam yaynam came about after the takana of brochos and once the takana of brochos was put into effect, it included in it stam yaynam and the later rabonim have no right to go ahead and to undo that. And he said if you look carefully at the ramam, he says the ramam when he gives an example of something that's machlos assurahs mid rabonim, his example is tevel de d'oraita. And when he gives an example of machlos assurahs d'oraita, the ain tzorech lomar machal d'oraita treifus or shas yayin nesach. The ramam's example of a d'oraita was yayin nesach. But when he gave an example of the he went away from the why do you have to do that he could have stayed on point he could have used an example of and when he wants to make the point that it's true for the frame as well he could have used I mean what's more of a as soon as the then nothing right so if that's the case it could have very easily used but he didn't use that he used on the and then he jumped on the says the bishop driver Ramos but the bottom line is he said as far as restricted and if that's the case if that's the case although it's true that what these are doing when they're drinking is wrong is washing is so I decided yeah when they drink it they're doing something wrong but at the same time that you have to do and you make a broccoli you make what we used to call a broccoli kid dollar something that you can make if you hear the broccoli you're going to enter again you're not supposed to be drinking this but at the same time as it relates to broccoli we treat it as if it was kosher wine and whatever you would get with kosher wine you would get now the one thing he does suggest is that it could be you wouldn't be the mix for of the broccoli based on beyond the scope of this discussion I enjoy now this true for from the which essentially is a very lenient true for you make the broccoli you make the broccoli after you have to only and you make a dollar as we mentioned is coded by the just one and that is in the this is in service it's in ratio in base also known as iron ratio base right we make from olive but it's iron ratio base it's iron base says the the true is in good matter of the cottage or have to stop shut up broccoli is not broccoli stop iron shot which is exactly what we just mentioned right now. But anyway, this is something that's quoted by the post game. Now truth is like this. We said that a lot of the later post game had a big issues with this as far as the small Makuta says fact about the hate of himself says who could turn this the cost of the enzyme of element and he sends you those to be hated to the end as well. But there's one piece that I think is good for us to focus on for a moment and that is the history that the bear Isaac used in order to make his point. And that is that the of came before the of and as a result based on the more time they should base the star me and I doesn't have the ability to say element now on something that when you must have broke this the law was you had to make a broker on this. In other words, the fact that when was it that star me and I went into effect it went into effect by the time we did of Shama and Hilo circle so if bias Shani based on the now you're going to say what do you mean? We asked the man on the street and he really gave us the right answer. Like how could he even be with this? Where exactly is this rate by going to pivot to suddenly having this conversation about maybe star me and I really does not have its origin from Shama and Hilo. The answer is It's a sugar mom. It's a sugar mom. It's a mom that we learned together only a few weeks ago. It's a second disorder that now some intense and when we learned it at the time we went through it as I but now just a over a few high level bullet points that are negated to this conversation. Again, it's not the easiest in shots because it's there but at the same time it's a that's made the room that deserves three asterisks in terms of the amount of rain and numbers and hashtag rest of the story that comes about from this Gamara right here. And really the Gamara began with the takana of Shaman. The missioner said that Hazal said that Shaman of a is something that you're not allowed to eat and then not you didn't see it. Anacle came years later and he said that no it's really going to be more. So the Gamara said that what was the origin of the idea that oil Shaman of an over Adam is something that's awful. And the Gamara said Shaman is Robin Small. Robin said Daniel goes around. Daniel as in Daniel of the Ksuvim flame. He went and he made the day you're not allowed to drink or eat Shaman of an over Adam. The small said this is first on Shul Kaelum to Mayim oyster song that it's not something that was ever instituted by a Daniel even anyone of that ilk but rather the reason Hazal said don't drink the Shaman of an over Adam is because they used to store it in their Kaelum. Their Kaelum were ingested with Maholisa Suras and based on laws of bliss and plateaus your day 101 to Rubis for that reason that you're not allowed to go ahead and you're not allowed to eat. The Gamara said that what was Rab's Micar that Daniel was the one that was goyzer on Shaman Adam. So the Gamara said it's a possible to say that Daniel is possible. The possible says by Yosam Daniel Aliboy. Daniel when he was appointed very important position in the government of Nevuchadnezzar. So he took upon himself that he will not defile himself the fast bag of the Melech with the bread of the king Ubiayin Mishtov and with the wine of his banquet of his parties. By Yevakish Misara solution as Shuloy is called and then he asked that you know he should somehow be exempt. He shouldn't have to eat. He shouldn't have to drink. But Daniel had taken upon himself that he wouldn't eat the pass. Additionally he wouldn't drink the wine of Mish Tav, said Rav. Mish Tav is a lotion of and we learn from here that not only had he taken upon himself that he wouldn't drink the wine, he had also taken upon himself that he wouldn't drink the Shemen. But the bottom line is Daniel in this possuk takes upon himself actually he stopped the fast by and he says Rav that when the possuk says Daniel took it upon himself it wasn't only for himself. It was for himself he had also pass king for all the Jews that were living in the land of Paras and Madai at the time and he told them that I'm going to take it upon myself and so are you. In other words, Daniel went and Daniel made a takana. You're not going to eat pass you're not going to drink Yayin of a and you're not going to even eat or drink the Shemen of a either. This is how Rav knew that Shemen Daniel gozer all of what is Shmuel hold? Shmuel hold that it's true Daniel had taken upon all these things for themselves. All of he had never pass king this all of this all of this and being that he never pass king this all of this all of this this was only his own little personal thing. But did Daniel ever make a takana that was going to affect everybody? The answer is no. He never made this takana to affect everybody. In other words, Machlokes Rav and Shmuel had to understand what Daniel does in this possuk in perek aleph possuk when we learned this Gemara we were focusing on all the dinim that come out of this. Here we're going to focus on the history a little bit more. Rav learned that the historical point that you're supposed to take out of this possuk is is that Daniel was gozer on Shemen now. She Daniel in the Gemara here is talking to the Shemen because that's the Sugya Shemen right the Yayin Sugya don't come until later. This is the Shemen Sugya but really it's pain the Yayin right? If everything that Daniel does in this possuk is neged not only himself but it's all of this all of this that means Daniel in this possuk was gozer on pass on Yayin of a what we know as stam yaynam. Additionally on Shemen nakum, the state of the possuk shmuel holds not, that's not what's going on in this possuk. What's going on in this possuk is that this possuk is merely describing a personal kabbalah that Daniel had made for himself over ulahol Yisrael. Loy hoyer. The gemara continues. And the gemara says that according to Rav that holds that shemen, Daniel, gozer all of, we know that piton sham of yayin is kulam yotzei dvarim. It's one of the yotzei dvarim, meaning it's from the end of bias rishon, it's from talmidim of shamai and Hillel. It's bias sheini, it's from the talmidim of shamai and Hillel. And if that's the case, Daniel gozer all of, what do you mean? I thought it's talmidim of shamai and Hillel. And what are talmidim of shamai and Hillel doing if Daniel was already gozer? Now, tosfos speaks out, which wasn't so important to speak out when we were learning the gemara together on daf lamed vov, but it's critical for this rebbi, and that is that when the gemara asks shemen, Daniel, gozer all of, I thought it's from the yotzei dvarim. Says tosfos, hoch einami havei motzei l'mifrach. Ah, yayin. Oh, mishum da shemen koy nakh. This is the sugiyah of shemen. And that's why the gemara is lashing out at shemen, Daniel, gozer all of. But the gemara could have easily have said yayin, Daniel, gozer all of. Right, it's a kasha really on piton also. Piton, yayin, and shemen, all three of these things that the possuk seems to say Daniel was gozer, they're all the three things that are mentioned in the yotzei dvarim that come from talmidim of shamai and Hillel. So, what's going on over here? So, the gemara gives a teretz. The gemara says Daniel gozer all of over here. Daniel made the gzeirah, but his gzeirah was that if you're in the city, you're in an urban area, right, you're in an area where there's a lot of people coming and going over there, passakum, yayin of an akum, shemen of an akum, there it's going to be a takanah for us. In other words, they came for gozer and they were gozer a few of the psukim. That it should be a problem even psukim. What's the difference? Says Rashi, two words, but here mishum chasnus. In other words, we know that the reason that talmidim of shamai and Hillel were gozer of piton sham of yayin was all related to chasnus, it's mishum the way right? Daniel's was also Mishnah B'nei Yisrael. And being that his was Mishnah B'nei Yisrael, he felt that the Shas of Hashem is more prevalent if you're going to be in the city. So, he made the takana in the city and it was later the Tommy the Shaman and Tommy the went and they expounded on it and they said that we want this to be relevant not only in the city, this should be relevant in the side as well. Here's the bottom line. You walk away from this Gamorah right here after you learn it even Yomi Day. If someone asks you again, what is the origin of Stam Yanam? If you say that it's from the Yutris Varem you got it a little bit right. It's Tommy the Yisrael and Shmuel. According to Shmuel, it's true. The origin of Stam Yanam as far as we know comes from the Yutris Varem. It comes from the Tommy the Shaman Hill. They lived in the end of but Rav holds Daniel Gazol. And remember, even though the Gamorah says Shaman, Rav Daniel Gazol but speaks out clearly and there's no other way to learn that it's not only Shaman it's Yanam as well. Right, what's the home of Shaman? Because it says and Mishnah it's the extra it's the Russian Robin in Yanam that teaches me Shaman. I would Shmuel Messiah about the Yanam is included in there. So, according to Rav really the takana of Stam Yanam traces itself back to Daniel. I if that's the case, what did Tommy the Shaman Hill do? All they did was is they brought in the scope and they said that instead of it only relating but here which is where the Shas of Hashem is, we're going to say that it's only going to be a problem in the city it's something that's going to be a problem in the field as well. But here's the bottom line. What's the origin of the takana Rav and Shmuel? According to Shmuel, it's Yutris Varem it's circa Shas by Shani. According to Rav, it's something that took place during the seven year 70 years of of God's bubble. But the truth is like this. The truth is is another Hazal that's very very important that we need to mention. And that is a Pirkei De Rabbeinu Eliezer, which by the way, being that Pirkei De Rabbeinu Eliezer is Rabbeinu Eliezer Gadol, so this is really a mar'eh makom that's going to end all the mar'eh makoms on this topic. It's going to make us really sit down now and shvitz a little bit. Pirkei De Rabbeinu Eliezer is in the middle of perek mem zayin and he's talking about what took place in the end of parshas Balak and the beginning of parshas Pinchas. And we know the story of Zimri and Bil'am and Kozbi and Pinchas Kanoi Bo'eg etc. etc. And really it all began because the Yidden were nichshal with the Bnei Yisrael Midyan with the Bnei Yisrael Moav. What caused that to happen? So Hazal say in different places in Meforshei Gemara in perek Chelek, Sanhedrin daf kuf zayin amud alef, where the Gemara says that it came about through wine. The Yidden had drank the wine of the Moabites and of the Midianites. And as a result, Kanoi Bo'eg etc. etc. And this was the reverse of that and they ended up being nichshal. Says Pirkei De Rabbeinu Eliezer, Rabbeinu Eliezer Rabbeinu Eliezer the Moidoi'ser, "After this whole story happened, so we know what Pinchas did in terms of Kanoi Bo'eg. But this maybe we don't know. Pinchas got off the cherem al Yisrael. He made a cherem on Klal Yisrael bisoi with the secret of the Shem Hameforash. U'biksav the handwriting she nichtav al Halachos. U'bicherem Beis Din Ha'elyon u'bicherem Beis Din Hatachton. Right, it feels a little like Kol Nidrei. Shelo yishteh adam Yisrael meyeinam shel That a Yid is not allowed to drink from the wine of a Ki heim, because they are murpas raglayim. She nemar based on a pasuk in Yechezkel, "U'tzo'inei murmas raglayim terena u'murpas raglayim tishtena." Shekol yeinam shel lav odeh zarah veshavuyah. >> It's a little bit of a blunt at the latter part of that. But one thing is clear and that is that Pinhas already made a zero shall I use the other music going and this wasn't just a zero here is the what's going on over here. It's not allowed to drink some wine. Which means that the origin of some wine is not only not which is circle so you buy your shiny. It's not only the of rub. Daniel which is during the 70 years of God's Bible. This goes back literally to when the year were in the middle it's during the 40 years of the middle not the 70 years of Bible the 40 years of the middle with Pinhas went ahead and he made this zero and he did it with Roman etc. etc. And at first glance after you learn this and you look back at the Bible and you say the immortal words what's going on over here. We forgot a the Bible the two are not talking to each other Raven small. What? It's an official you know this the answer this question the often in the right here in this and to answer this question the says to my heart. We have to say the question the other question got the other question the question got the other question the question the question traces itself back to the question. The actual question the question. That goes to the question that is Pinhas made a question but what was the question of the question. The question the question the question the question the question the question the question the question the question. So, the original was on and then they Who's they? Daniel or tell me the or and they were and they double down and they said it should be They get their God with nature and really their was only the Now, this is a little bit of a in light of a lot of the way that we spoke about recently. Again, we can't go into every word here, but it's a little bit of a cuz we learned that the of the was even as she says the of Daniel was the only reason this is related to the piece. The way the seems to be learning is that really the problem of drinking was always an affair related to obviously because of what happened in the story of the but at the same time mission they wanted to be more and they added an so really this first is not going to so well with what say throughout the over here. But this is the first suggestion of the and that is you right the was and really all that happened in is the it's not going to negate this in says the and there's another way you can maybe reconcile and that is kind of it's really again this goes back to the times of the but when that was put into place it didn't spread it didn't take root the Daniel Daniel came for and he tried instituting it for now he did he try instituting it but he was cuz these are the three things the past bug the these are the three things that I mentioned that positive of the mean men like it bull. They were in the couple says Rabban from Daniel even at Shabbat of the God the Christian little until okay and they were going to and then already at that point everything went into effect. The second Mahalak of Rabban is that it's true pink said with all these used to but pushed it somehow did not take root. Didn't make a resolution people and as a result everyone went out as if it had never happened. What's happening here? There was a in the same for but the bottom line is what the Rabban says and everybody continued and then Daniel came and when Daniel made his it was also until finally came and they were able to put into effect. Now even the second part that Daniel's was we don't know where that it's not in the we learned right is that in our it's not in our our Daniel's went into effect. The says very much it went into effect. No he was only going to be here and contribution was that they were most involved in they incorporated that it should be beside as well. In fact when the says that according to Rabban Daniel was why did he need to meet the to go ahead and and make the and it had happened already. So the over there throws out a suggestion. The says Daniel maybe Daniel made and nobody accepted it but also God the suggests what the Rabban said but the king is to say the maybe then why did say that Daniel Daniel tried to be he didn't do it because it never took root and it took root and the is forced to say another terrace. It's not only that the Maras doesn't say what the Ramban says. The Maras sounds like he's saying mamesh the opposite of what the Ramban is saying. But, this is beyond the scope of what we need to do right now. But, the bottom line is the Ramban has two Mahalakim that answer this kasha. We'll hire what happened to Pinchas? It's not even mentioned anywhere in the Zera Lamid Vov. The answer is stay tuned. The first Mahalak is that it could be Pinchas is takana was and in fact it was only the still. Everything going on in the Zera Lamid Vov is only in the which would suggest that this is also which doesn't stem with all the way that we've been talking about but the bottom line is this is the first approach in the Ramban. The second approach of the Ramban is Pinchas tried and by the way he says Daniel also tried. He adds that and he says really no one was successful. No one had that of actually making this into a real and that was the power of the and they were able to and they were able to then go ahead and say that this is something that's going to be in effect. If you take a look at the in the beginning of he has a whole in terms of the history of Stam Yainam that's not his objective but that's what's going on over there and he also asks this kasha. Doesn't bring the Ramban and he asks this kasha what happened to Pinchas? I don't understand what happened to but you have to and that what happened to Pinchas? And he says I think Pinchas tried making the takana of didn't stick and because the didn't stick so no if it didn't stick it didn't stick. I saw the so he brings this kasha he says the Ramban and the they all what happened to Pinchas' takana? It's says I think the is the and the Maras He says that the Maras asked the kasha that according to Daniel made so what did hold up? And the Maras said that you have to say that Daniel's desire was beer and they were Magadish that it's going to be Saudis well. What's the difference if you're mad in the city? Right, somebody in the city or if he eats it in the suburbs, makes absolutely no difference, right? Now, the terrorists is because Yain, Shemen, Piton is only and the Hass is more prevalent here than it is beside. Says the sorry for you remember we learned in the Gamara and that from the base where the Gamara talked about Shecha, beer of and according to Andra Myron, beer is also Hass. Stating that when it comes to the Hass of beer, there was a tremendous cooler that was mentioned in the Gamara by Papa and Rabaki. They both held of this cooler. They just had a of how broadly you could apply and that is that if you take the beer to go, then it's going to be Moter. So, he says what's to go? Go means I just take it outside of the tavern or to go means I literally have to bring it into my house. But Shecha which was instituted Hass, there was an idea that it's only if you're going to drink it Momish to Zaman with the Oif the Chavin, it's going to be proud. If you take it out, it's not going to be a problem. You remember the Rama in the Senser Chuva in Siman Kuf Daled, this was the second Svara that he used to be Melamed to be Metair Sherits to try to help these Yidden that are Nevech being in Stam Yainam. He said that it could be that Stam Yainam is only Hass and the Hass is maybe like by Shecha only a problem if you're going to drink it together with these not only the Rama but Talyan of Ravigo in his safer that he wrote which Rav wrote his safer as a the counter. He also used this. This was his Taina base. This was the second argument that he made that Rav Shmuel Tishmet but the bottom line is this was a big Svara that was thrown out regarding wine. But said the Sefar Haflo of the Sefar, he says I believe that really the Takana of Stam Yainam happened in three stages. The stage one which was instituted by Pinchas, that was the faster Moter faster. So, they said that we're going to try to take the most extreme case of Hass and we're going to say that this is going to be a problem. And what is don't drink the zombie with the guy you married in their taverns. Don't be sitting at their dining room table and drinking together with them. But if you take it to go, I feel a little bit here, it's going to be okay. Also, Daniel, when he said we have to broaden the scope a little bit. If you're in an urban area, it's going to be a problem. Until the came and they said, "Okay, where you are, how you are, why you're drinking, and when you're drinking, it's always going to be an issue." It's interesting, this some Sofer is giving us really a a car from Pinkus to the swara of the Rama. And the swara of Rabbeinu Tam of Rashi and all that. But the bottom line is is this is the Sofer. But regardless, we have here two in terms of how to explain the apparent omission of the very important this here in our which from a historical perspective we're focusing on the history, right? So much but we're just focusing on the history. There's really two timelines in terms of understanding how exactly the whole of Yayin of evolved. One narrative, right? One timeline, the first of the Ramban in that the is was instituted by Pinkus. From the times of the midbar, Jews were not allowed to drink and not only was this instituted, that's way too weak a word to use to describe what happened. Cuz really what happened was on my Pinkus the room I used to right the Ramban wrote a safer called we always spoke out the from the name of when we came to and all those rooms in terms of what could be more common than a day right the world it's at least a day right. But the bottom line is on my Pinkus the I used to be so ashamed of my virus and that says the Ramban was melave us option be a mamesh. This is something that's still going on. So, the ikur is a sh'tiya. The ikur is a sh'tiya of stam yayin. I'm really is Pinchas. I thought it's machlokes Rav and Shmuel whether it's Daniel or whether it's from the Yotz'ei Mitzrayim. That's with regards to the issur hana'ah. But, as it relates to this sh'tiya, that's all the way from the beginning. The second timeline is that it's true Pinchas tried instituting it, but he was unsuccessful. Then Daniel came. In our Gemara, Daniel was successful, albeit be'er, not b'seder. He didn't even try b'seder. And it was then the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel that they expanded it, and they said that it should be a filu b'seder. In the Ramban, it's m'furash Ramban, Daniel was unsuccessful, and really it was talmidim of Shammai and Hillel that was successful. This is all Rav's world. In Shmuel's world, Daniel didn't even try. He did it for himself. It was a personal kabbalah of Chazal and Chazal. And then later with talmidim of Shammai and Hillel that definitely put this to rest, right? So, again, in terms of the issur sh'tiya of stam yayin, according to the first machlokes of the Ramban, it traces itself back to the times of Pinchas. According to the second machlokes of the Ramban, Pinchas tried but was unsuccessful. So, really this is not takanas Pinchas. What then is it? It's machlokes Rav and Shmuel. According to Rav, it was Daniel, albeit be'er, not b'seder. According to Shmuel, it's something that was really instituted from the times of the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel. Let's go back now to the teshuvah of Rav Shabsai Yessik. This gavaldige gavaldige teshuvah that the Be'er Yitzchak wrote, very controversial, but that the gedolei ha'poskim all quote. And that is that if somebody's going to drink stam yayin, which in the world of the Be'er Yitzchak is not okay, you make a brachah rishonah, you make a brachah acharonah. If you hear such a brachah, you answer amen. And and you could even be yoitzer kiddush challah on this type of wine. I into my nights, and the Rambam is brought perek says that it's true not only from the right so even from as soon as the Rambam. So he said this kiddush, he said you have to know the history of stam yeinam. He says the history of stam yeinam is that stam yeinam became ossur after the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah already misaken brochos because brochos were instituted in the beginning of and stam yeinam was from talmidim of Shammai and Hillel. And being that it's from the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel, this is already soif Bais Sheini. If it's soif Bais Sheini, so at the time that the machlokes assur was chall on stam yeinam, at that point, at that point, it was already a din that if you drink stam yeinam, you're supposed to make a brocha. So once it was a din that if you drink stam yeinam, you're supposed to make a brocha, so the later Bais Din the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel had no ability to go ahead and to change that. But he's presupposing a huge hanacha in historical Torah. And that is is that the history of stam yeinam is what? The history of stam yeinam is talmidim of Shammai and Hillel. It's It's after the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah. Is that pashut? Well, we asked the man on the street half an hour ago, he said of course. Yeah, but I think after further review, we may have to overturn this. And the reason is because it's not pashut at all. It's not pashut at all. Why the teretz in the Rambam? Where the Rambam says that the ikur issur of stam yeinam is Pinchas. What are you talking about? This is already takanas Pinchas. How is that not even a deoraisa? It's not. It's a gezeira, right? There's a whole shaila in the poskim where the gezeira that Moshe Rabbeinu made is that a din deoraisa or not. But gezeiras Pinchas is different. That's on Pinchas, right? It's not on Moshe. It's on Pinchas. But the bottom line is is that being that this is takanas Pinchas, so there's no question in the world that takanas Pinchas predated the halacha of brochos. So there's no question that this whole kiddush of the basic is mamash din deoraisa. Okay, we have to work now with the second in the second what's the origin of so according to it's if it's ready from the time Daniel is right around the times of maybe even a little bit before and if that's the case if Daniel's before the ancient so then is not going to work but that's only true according to is that true according to according to we have a a little bit of an oh by the way the said the said that according to even Daniel tried but was unsuccessful that would then mean that according to maybe you could make it work so again it's very according to the first the when I even have this conversation this is not the only have according to the second but according to the second it's totally between which is what the it's totally between now it's interesting because this is is really this part of it is it's a history right because at the end of the day when you learn through the it's not clear if there's an between so who do we pass when it comes to history right you know when it comes to moment is we pass like when it comes to history pass like what about history I don't know maybe history that's probably like but the bottom line is I don't we pass like but in astrology you know we pass like right we can make up things just based on a little bit what we know about in terms of history but regardless regardless so this would be totally a little bit and according to Daniel was says that even according to Daniel only tried to be goyzer, but it was unsuccessful. But our first class is Ramban's a playah. It would seem to be connected to the gemara. The way the Chasam Sofer set it up, by the way, for sure this is something that was mitakonus Daniel, it's even mitakonus Pinchas. Regardless, here's the bottom line. The bottom line is that for the Be'er Eisik to say, "What do you mean it's poshit? It's poshit that there's no cloud over here of ain zimrah l'manai. You know why? You know why it's so poshit? Because what do you mean one takanah came in? This is Yitzchok Dvorim. And this is from the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah. I always say, "Goyzer doesn't say poshit." What happened to Daniel? For freaking And what happened to Pinchas? So go Pinchas, you'll tell me he knew the bisuyos in Kuf Kuf Gimmel and they came out with the Ramban. Pinchas tried and he was unsuccessful. That's a very reasonable response. But what happened to Daniel? Right? What happened to Daniel? Daniel for sure made a gezairah. So if you want to tell me it's Shmuel, I hear you. You'll tell me it's Shmuel. So if it's Shmuel, then I'm going according to Rav. By the way, the bisuyos in the beginning of Kuf Kuf Gimmel says a very big chiddush. He says that even though it's a machlokes Rav and Shmuel whether Daniel was goyzer, he holds the machlokes was only regarding shemen. But regarding yayin, it could be Shmuel is even moydeh to Rav. It's a very big chiddush. He puts it out there as a possibility. Okay, so according to that, even Shmuel holds that Daniel was goyzer. And even though Rav, who holds Daniel was goyzer and maybe even Shmuel is moydeh when it comes to yayin, it's only be'eir. But al kaponim be'eir, there was already a din that stam yeinom should not be given to stam yeinom. Be'eir bisodeh. The Be'er Eisik is telling you make brochos and make kiddush havedalah even if it's be'eir, right? He's not making this distinction anyways. First of all, he has no havana. Besides, he's not even making that distinction. So the bottom line is according to Rav, who you would think hilchos k'rav be'suri, it's already a takanah of Daniel. And if it's a takanah of Daniel, l'chayarah, what in the world is going on? No, so you'll tell me, "What do you mean the Ramban in the second terutz said that Daniel tried? I It's connected to the gemara, so you have to miyashiv the Ramban." But okay, I have a Ramban. That's the itza of a poshit. It does zayir zayir zayir in it. Okay. This is just a little bit of a roundabout way to bring out the history. There's no clear historical timeline. Right? There's no clear historical timeline. But how a historical timeline can impact halakha? That's really what the punchline of this is. But I'll just end with this. And that is that one of the greatest khalkin on the bare A6 truva is Reb Yaakov Emden. And this is in She'elos Yaavetz. It's in Khelek Aleph. It's in Siman Mem Hey. And he was asked mamash this shaila and he starts off quoting the truva that he saw in the bare A6. Reb Yaakov Emden fire and brimstone sometimes did not like this truva. And he was very clear in his truva how much he didn't like it. First of all, the whole shvartz doesn't start. Tannis Yudais is an interesting tzushtel. He's not such a a khosid of the tzushtel. He says, besides which essentially this would be if you say the khazal said now stam yenam is going to be ossur and maybe you shouldn't make a brakha on shabbat tisha b'av. So you're saying don't make a brakha. And that's true for damin tayerah khalah khamirah for brakha rishonah and which is only an issur d'rabannan and then he throws in one line. He says, gam besides stam yenam stam yenam k'mo she nevu'ar b'perek d'Rebbi Eliezer ben Pinhos gozar alav. Pinhos was gozar on it. So what are you talking about? That this came before that. This is Pinhos. And then he says khazav v'huter. And even though it's clear that even though Pinhos made a g'zeirah later became mutar, but that was only b'Eretz Yisrael b'fi sha. It was a temporary heter. K'ein d'varim assurim she huteru b'kivush ha'aretz. Like all the d'varim assurim that became mutar when they didn't enter Eretz Yisrael. We know they didn't enter Eretz Yisrael they were allowed to eat afilu kavli d'khazirei. So it says the Reb Yaakov Emden, that's what happened. But this heter stayed mutar for I guess a very long time. I don't know. Till till it sounds like for hundreds of years was when they came to the first time it's that you're allowed to eat it. Interesting but the bottom line is this is also interesting that didn't say it. He said again this is a little bit but here's the bottom line. The bottom line is an epic from the which is totally in a historical point and that is that the is the kind of is there another side of course that's what it is. Yeah, that's always the way it's but really when you go through the again what you remind yourself of is that really was and according to not only to really Daniel. I what was the of they were just a few but I really came from Daniel and on top of that we even have a that says that was and according to that never went by the wayside. If that's the case this historical point that the makes is is definitely not possible at all. You know, I was just thinking about this whole thing and it's very very interesting because on the one hand you know, you see how you know but then again you also see how somehow didn't have any it never took root. Imagine goes and makes a and again we'll just read it for the last time. I'm not the but like how's it possible? I don't know. So I can go. How's it possible? Who's this guy? Don't dare you. How's it possible that somehow this dog didn't accept it? But again, you see this tension where on the one hand you would have been so calm. How many do we have from the mid bar? This is on a very most of the the going said came from the beginning of this is from a handful of that we had that go all the way back to the mid bar and yet pin house was God's but somehow didn't take root and in the words of the was God's and it didn't take root and I saw I'm reminding now that the proof of my goal is in so on that that says you know so he which works very well with this the says it's referring to as in modern day Iran says the end of the world in the world they weren't so to say cuz was there she never the says the end of the end of the world that's the end of the world he wasn't says the end of the world this is one that we know from the end of the world of the end of the world he says this is the end of the world this is the end of the world this is the end of the world the end of the world didn't have the ability somehow even is the end of the world and this is the end of the world to be able to take root ruin at war with me and we're going to stop here.