1

Believing Is Seeing

Question #1: Kiddush Levanah on an Airplane

“It was cloudy on motzaei Shabbos, so I was unable to be mekadeish levanah after davening in shul. Later that night, I left for the airport, and I am now sitting in my window seat, which includes a beautiful view of the new moon. May I be mekadeish levanah now, although I am indoors, and I am also obviously looking at the moon through a window?”

Question #2: Havdalah on a Lightbulb

“I have been told that Rav Chayim Ozer, the posek hador before the Second World War, deliberately recited the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish on an electric light. How could he have done this when a lightbulb must be encased in glass for it to burn?”

Question #3: This Week’s Parsha

“What do the above questions have to do with this week’s parsha?”

Foreword

Of the many mesechtos of Mishnayos, the tractate named Nega’im, so germane to a proper understanding of both of this week’s parshios, may have the distinction of being the least familiar mesechta. Since few of us regard the laws concerning tzaraas on people, clothes and houses to be applicable, there is a tendency to assume that these are difficult topics and, therefore, they are often not studied. Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of Torah knowledge lies in this mesechta, in addition to it being essential to understand this week’s Torah readings correctly.

Mesechta Nega’im is arguably the most organized of the mesechtos of Shas.

Notwithstanding its length (it is the fourth longest mesechta), someone familiar with it can locate any Mishnah or subtopic effortlessly, since each of its 14 chapters is focused on a very specific aspect of the laws of nega’im and tzaraas.

The first chapter describes the various colors that a nega may have; the second, the details concerning how a nega is examined; the third is an overview and comparison of the various types of negaim. The fourth chapter discusses the symptoms of white hair and expansion that are mentioned prominently in the Torah; the fifth chapter discusses cases of questionable tzaraas; the sixth explains the laws of healthy-looking skin inside a nega, known as michyah. The seventh chapter discusses cases of nega’im that are not tamei; the eighth analyses the laws of a nega that covers the entire body; the ninth chapter explains the laws of nega’im on injured skin; and the tenth chapter teaches the laws of negaim on the scalp and beard.

The last four chapters are also very clearly organized, dealing, in order, with nega’im on clothing (Chapter 11), on houses (Chapters 12 and 13) and the process of making someone tahor after he became a metzora (Chapter 14).

Viewing

As I mentioned above, the second chapter of Mishnayos Nega’im is devoted to the details concerning how a nega is examined. Among the many issues discussed here are the times of the day that the lighting is adequate for a kohen to view and rule on nega’im, the quality of vision required of a kohen to do this, and how a kohen examines a nega inside a house that does not have quality lighting.

This week’s parsha

Notwithstanding the fact that I have just sung the praises of the importance of proper organization and how much was invested in mesechta Nega’im, I am going to discuss the last of our opening questions first. “What do the above questions have to do with this week’s parsha?” To answer this question we need to explore a relatively minor detail germane to the laws of nega’im.

Seeing is believing

Among the issues discussed by the later halachic authorities is: What is the halacha if the kohen’s vision is impaired and he cannot see the nega properly without eyeglasses? Is this considered that the kohen saw the nega, a necessary requirement to rule the person, cloth or house tamei? Or is this considered that he did not see the nega correctly, and the person, cloth or house remains tahor?

One of the later commentaries on the Mishnah, the Tiferes Yisroel, discusses this issue, and draws analogy to several areas of halacha where we find discussion whether use of an implement to view something is considered as seeing it (Boaz, Nega’im 2:4).

Waxen wane

The first comparison the Tiferes Yisroel draws is to the laws of the reading of the Torah. An early authority discusses the following question: Wax, presumably from a candle in the shul, fell on a Sefer Torah. In the course of reading the Torah on Shabbos, this wax was discovered, and the laws of Shabbos prohibit scraping off the wax. Assuming that the wax is opaque enough that one can read the words underneath, is this considered that the baal keriyah read the Sefer Torah and the mitzvah has been fulfilled, or do we consider those words to be covered and that it is impossible to observe the mitzvah with this Sefer Torah until the wax is removed? According to the first approach, they can continue with the Torah reading, whereas according to the second approach, they must put the Sefer Torah back and take out a different one to continue reading the Torah portion for this Shabbos.

The Tiferes Yisroel quotes an earlier source, the Leket Hakemach, as ruling that it is permitted to continue using this Torah by reading through the wax. The Leket Hakemach is one of several halachic works by Rav Moshe ibn Chagiz, one of the gedolei hador in Eretz Yisroel in the early eighteenth century. The sefer Leket Hakemach is unusual in that it is an anthology in which Rav ibn Chagiz often quotes the conclusion of many halachic sources without discussing the details of the issues involved. This style became popular over two hundred years later, as evidenced by such works as the Pischei Teshuvah, the Sdei Chemed and the Darchei Teshuvah. In this instance, the Leket Hakemach concludes that it is permitted to read from this Sefer Torah, provided that the baal keriyah can see the word clearly through the wax. This means that the intervening wax is not considered a chatzitzah (block or intervention) from reading the Torah. The Tiferes Yisroel concludes that there is certainly no problem for the baal keriyah or the person receiving an aliyah reading the Sefer Torah to use eyeglasses. Similarly, the Tiferes Yisroel suggests at the outset of his discussion that a kohen could rule on a nega on the basis of what he sees with his eyeglasses.

Chalitzah

A similar question is asked by an early acharon. Can one perform a chalitzah when one of the dayanim can see the procedure only with the aid of his eyeglasses? Is this considered that he witnessed the chalitzah, which is necessary for the validity of the procedure?

The Shevus Yaakov rules that it is perfectly acceptable to perform the chalitzah this way (Shu”t Shevus Yaakov 1:126).

Kiddush levanah and borei me’orei ha’eish

The Tiferes Yisroel then compares his question to an area that has more halachic discussion – whether one can recite the brochos of kiddush levanah and borei me’orei ha’eish, should one see the moon or the flame through glass.

Let’s trace this halachic discussion from its sources. The tanna’im (Mishnah Megillah 24a) dispute whether a blind man is obligated to recite the brocha that we recite every morning immediately after Borchu, which closes with the words yotzeir hame’oros, praising Hashem for providing the world with light. Rabbi Yehudah contends that since the blind cannot see sunlight, it is inappropriate for them to praise Hashem for something from which they cannot benefit. The Tanna Kamma disagrees, noting that they do benefit from light, since it enables other people to look out for them. The Gemara proceeds to tell us an anecdote about a blind man who was seen walking in the pitch-black night holding a torch. Rabbi Yosi asked him why he was holding a light, to which the man answered, “As long as the torch is in my hand, people see me and save me from pits and thorns.” Thus, although he may not be able to see the light, he certainly benefits from it. The halachic authorities conclude in accordance with the Tanna Kamma that a blind person does recite yotzeir hame’oros (Shulchan Aruch 69:2).

Borei me’orei ha’eish

The Mishnah (Brochos 51b) states that the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish cannot be recited unless the person can benefit from the light. How much benefit is enough to recite the brocha? The Gemara (53b) states: Enough that he can distinguish by the light between two coins of different size and value.

Upon this basis, the authorities conclude that there is a difference between the brocha of yotzeir hame’oros, which a blind person recites, and the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish (Ra’avyah, Megillah, and all subsequent authorities). As we just saw, the Gemara provided a quantitative visual criterion for the recital of this brocha, that is, the ability to use the light to discern between two coins. Reciting borei me’orei ha’eish requires not only that one can benefit from the light, but that one must actually be able to see something specific with it. This precludes the blind man from reciting this brocha: although he gains benefit from the light, he cannot fulfill the second requirement, which defines something physical that he can see.

Kiddush levanah

To review, the halachic conclusion was that the brocha of yotzeir hame’oros requires benefiting from the light, but not necessarily seeing the light whereas the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish requires actually seeing the light and discerning something with its aid.

At this point, we need to discuss the brocha of kiddush levanah, about which the Gemara states that he does not recite a brocha unless he can differentiate by its light between two coins. Should it be compared to yotzeir hame’oros, which would imply that a blind man can recite the brocha, or should it be compared to borei me’orei ha’eish, in which case he cannot?

We find that sixteenth-century authorities dispute this question, the Maharshal ruling that a blind person may and should recite kiddush levanah, whereas his younger contemporary, Rav Yaakov Castro (known as the Maharikash), ruled that he should not. (The Maharikash was born in Egypt around 1525. As a youth he traveled to Yerushalayim, where he studied under the Maharlnach, Rabbi Levi ibn Habib, the posek hador and the rav of Jerusalem. In 1570, the Maharikash, who at that time was a dayan in Egypt, visited Tzefat, where he was a house guest of Rav Yosef Karo, and later recorded in his own writings many of the halachic practices he noticed there. Among the Maharikash’s many scholarly works, he authored footnotes to the Shulchan Aruch, sometimes referred to as the “second set” — the first set being those written by the Rema. The Maharikash named his notes on the Shulchan Aruch, Eirech Lechem, based on the posuk, Shemos 40:23, which means the bread laid out on the table of the Shulchan Aruch. The Rema’s notes were called the mapah, the tablecloth on the table. Thus, the three works describe a table perfectly set with bread on it, ready for a meal to be served.)

The Maharshal contends that there is a difference between the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish and the brocha of kiddush levanah, writing that “the mitzvah of borei me’orei ha’eish is not dependent only on benefiting from the light, but also on being able to see… however this distinction is relative only to borei me’orei ha’eish, but regarding kiddush levanah, it seems to me that someone (who cannot see) can certainly recite the brocha, since the Gemara implies that it is sufficient if mankind in general can benefit from the moonlight” (Shu”t Maharshal #77).

The consensus of the later authorities is to follow the conclusion of the Maharshal that a blind man recites kiddush levanah, unlike the position of the Maharikash (Magen Avraham; Elya Rabbah; Pri Chadash, Biur Halacha , etc., all in Orach Chayim 426).

Kohen and nega

Notwithstanding the many proofs that seeing somethingthrough glass is valid, Tiferes Yisroel notes that some halachic sources indicate that a difference exists between the quality of viewing required for a brocha, versus that necessary for testimony. For example, he contends that someone cannot give testimony in court on the basis of something that he saw through a window. (His proof to this position is arguable, but we will not belabor the details.) Tiferes Yisroel contends that germane to testimony, we must be absolutely certain, and we must therefore be concerned that the tinting of color through glass might affect what we see. Similarly, he concludes that a kohen would not be allowed to rule on a nega on the basis of what he sees with his eyeglasses, or through any other glass.

Returning to glass

Let us return to our previous discussion about the mitzvos of kiddush levanah and borei me’orei ha’eish. May one recite borei me’orei ha’eish when the light is covered with glass? We find a dispute among earlier authorities whether one may recite borei me’orei ha’eish when one can see and use the light, but there is a pane of glass separating you from it. The Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 428) quotes a dispute between the Orchos Chayim and the Rashba (Brochos 53b s.v. Hayesa), the Orchos Chayim forbids reciting a brocha on such a light until it is removed from inside the glass, whereas the Rashba permits it. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 298:15) rules that one may not recite a brocha on such a light, whereas the Magen Avraham concludes that one may.

Kiddush levanah on an airplane

At this point, we can discuss the opening question of our article. “It was cloudy on motzaei Shabbos, so I was unable to be mekadeish levanah after davening in shul. Later that night, I left for the airport, and I am now sitting in my window seat, which includes a beautiful view of the new moon. May I be mekadeish levanah now, although I am indoors, and I am also obviously looking at the moon through a window?”

There are two questions here:

(1) Is it permitted to recite kiddush levanah indoors?

(2) Is it permitted to recite kiddush levanah when seeing the moon through a pane of glass?

Technically, these are two unrelated questions: one can physically see the moon when indoors by looking at it through an open skylight or window, and one can be outdoors and yet see the moon through glass.

Kiddush levanah indoors

Early authorities rule that kiddush levanah should be recited outdoors, since this demonstrates more respect (Shiltei Hagiborim). However, the consensus is that this requirement is only when it is practical to recite kiddush levanah outdoors. A person who is ill is permitted to recite kiddush levanah indoors, and the same law holds true for someone in other extenuating circumstances (Bach; Pri Chodosh).

What a pane!

Shu”t Radbaz (#341) asks an interesting question. What is the halacha if the moon is covered by a very thin cloud in a way that you can see the moon clearly, and it sheds enough light that you can use its light to tell the difference between two coins? The Radbaz rules that kiddush levanah may be recited under this circumstance. Similarly, kiddush levanah may be recited when the moon is clearly visible through glass and there is no practical way to see the moon directly, such as when you are on an airplane.

Havdalah on a lightbulb

At this point, let us examine the second of our opening questions: “I have been told that Rav Chayim Ozer, the posek hador before the War, deliberately recited the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish on an electric light. How could he have done this when a lightbulb must be encased in glass for it to burn?”

On many occasions, I was told by my Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Yaakov Ruderman, zt”l, that Rav Chayim Ozer recited the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish on an electric light. Rav Chayim Ozer’s reason for doing so was for people to realize that turning on an electric light on Shabbos involves a Torah prohibition of desecrating Shabbos.

Because of Rav Chayim Ozer’s efforts, today this is realized. However, in his day there were those who contended that turning on an electric switch was considered an indirect way (grama) of doing melacha and, therefore, did not involve a violation of Torah law. In order to demonstrate convincingly how strongly he felt about the issue, Rav Chayim Ozer deliberately recited the brocha of borei me’orei ha’eish on an electric light so that people would realize that turning on this light is prohibited min haTorah.

We see that the fact that the “flame” of an electric light must be encased in glass did not disturb Rav Chayim Ozer, since it can be seen clearly through the glass.

In summation

The Magen Avraham and most later authorities rule that one can fulfill the mitzvos of kiddush levanah 426:1) and borei me’orei ha’eish (298:20) when seeing the moon or the light through glass. It might be that this is insufficient for a kohen checking a nega, where there is a good possibility that he must see the nega without anything intervening.

Conclusion

Through this discussion, we see how understanding Torah properly involves deep familiarity with halachic sources that are ostensibly dealing with other topics. The rishonim referred to this as divrei Torah aniyim bimkomam va’ashirim bimkom acheir, the words of Torah are few in the discussion at hand, but vast and more explanatory in other places (see, for example, Tosafos, Kerisus 14a). Thus a posek must have a broad base of halachic knowledge.




Raisin Juice and Wine

While traveling to Egypt, what could Yaakov and his family have used for kiddush and havdalah…

Raisin Juice and Wine

Question: Traveling Kiddush

“Is there a simple way to make wine for kiddush when I travel in the Orient, where there is no kosher wine to be had?”

Answer

Every special event – kiddush, havdalah, weddings, sheva brochos, brisin, pidyon haben, the seder – includes wine. And halachah mentions the special role of wine in celebrating Yom Tov. Our question is whether there is a simple way to produce wine for kiddush and havdalah when you are traveling in a place that has no readily-available kosher wine. I believe I have found a simple solution, other than carrying along small bottles of wine in your luggage.

One option that a friend of mine uses when traveling is to go to a local fruit market or grocery, purchase a couple of pounds of grapes, squeeze them into juice, filter the finished product through a freshly laundered handkerchief, and use some of the juice for kiddush Friday night, some for Shabbos morning and the remainder for havdalah. For reasons beyond the scope of this article, this juice is preferable even to commercially-produced grape juice.

For those of us who do not see ourselves squeezing our own grape juice, halachah presents other options when grape wine is not available. One of the preferred choices is to use a product called yein tzemukim, which literally translates as “raisin wine.” Extensive literature on the subject indicates that raisin wine was often substituted as a practical alternative to grape wine.

Commercial use of raisin juice and wine

While researching this topic, I discovered that the non-Jewish world uses both raisin juice and raisin wine as specialty products. I also discovered that non-alcoholic raisin juice and alcoholic raisin wine are used in very different ways.

Raisin juice is rarely sold retail, although one might find it in a health food or other specialty store. It is used predominantly in the bakery and condiment industries as a sweetener, but since raisins contain significant levels of propionic acid, their juice functions also as a natural, mild preservative. Raisin juice can serve also as both a colorant and a humectant, which means that it helps keep the product moist. Thus, there are many different reasons why raisin juice might be added to a product, particularly since the manufacturer is not required to list on the label that humectants, preservatives, colors or flavors were added.

Raisin wine has an ancient history as an alcoholic beverage. Indeed, raisins contain all the ingredients to make wine that grapes have, except for water, which one can usually supply easily. Since the skins contain the yeasts that naturally convert sugar into alcohol, and approximately 2/3 of the weight of raisins is natural sugar, raisin juice can be fermented easily into alcohol. Production of raisin wine involves soaking the raisins in water with a few other winemaking ingredients and then allowing the product to age. Specialty and boutique raisin wine producers, like grape winemakers, prefer to kill off the natural yeasts and then inoculate with their own yeast to produce a more predictable product, but the other basic ingredients for producing wine are all in the raisins. Quality raisin wines are usually aged for years before they are drunk.

Both raisin wine and raisin juice can be made either by steeping the raisins in water until it absorbs the raisins’ flavor or by cooking the raisins. By the way, both raisin juice and raisin wine produced by non-Jews will involve the prohibition of stam yeinam, a topic I have discussed in other articles.

Is it grapy enough?

Both raisin juice and raisin wine are specialty – almost boutique – products, and therefore quality is usually the main consideration, not price. In contrast, the halachic authorities discussed a situation where, for the most part, people were more concerned with finding an inexpensive way to fulfill the mitzvah of kiddush than they were with product quality. From the extensive literature on the subject, it appears that yein tzemukim was often used as an economical alternative to costly wine. One of the main issues was whether there is enough grape in the final product for it to be considered wine. This means that much of the halachic literature about yein tzemukim discusses a product that is qualitatively different from what is sold today as raisin juice or raisin wine. Nevertheless, there is much germane halachah to be learned here, and its application arises in surprising circumstances, as we will soon see.

Halachic ramifications of yein tzemukim

The halachic authorities discuss yein tzemukim in the following specific contexts:

  1. Which brocha does one recite before and after drinking it?
  2. Can one use it for the mitzvah of kiddush?
  3. May one use it to manufacture non-seder matzoh (matzoh ashirah) for Pesach? (Ashkenazim follow the practice of using matzoh ashirah only for the elderly, ill and children, so it would be germane for them in these matters. Space considerations do not allow us to discuss this particular topic in this article.)
  4. Is it non-kosher if a gentile handles it? I examined this topic in a different article, entitled The Kashrus of Raisin Juice and Wine.
  5. Does pouring it on the mizbeiach fulfill the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin, pouring wine on the altar?

The last question is mentioned briefly in the Gemara, where it states that, lechatchilah, one should not use yein tzemukim for nisuch hayayin, but one who did so has fulfilled the mitzvah. We will soon discuss the first two issues in more detail. But first, let us trace the background of these questions from their initial sources.

Juice from marc

The earliest halachic reference to a raisin juice product is in the Mishnah (Maasros 5:6), which discusses whether one who creates a form of raisin juice, called temed, by soaking the residue of the grape crush (called marc in English) is required to separate maasros from the resultant product. Halachah requires separating maasros (of produce grown in or near Eretz Yisroel) only when the fruit is ready for consumption, which, in the case of wine grapes, means that they have been crushed, aged and filtered. Thus, maasros on wine grapes are usually separated from the completed juice or wine and not taken from the marc, which is a byproduct. The Mishnah’s question is whether the product created by soaking the marc in water and stirring the mixture until it becomes drinkable is considered wine, requiring the separating of maasros.

Wine from sediment

A passage of Gemara (Bava Basra 96b) quotes a dispute concerning when and whether one recites hagafen prior to drinking a different type of temed, in this case made by steeping wine sediment in water. When the yield is no greater than the amount of water initially used to soak the sediment, the brocha is shehakol, because there is insufficient grape product in the beverage. When the yield is four units for every three units of water used initially, then the temed is considered a grape product, and its brocha is hagafen. The Gemara states that when the resultant beverage contained less than four but more than three units per every three units of water used originally, there is a dispute among the tana’im as to which brocha one should recite. The first opinion rules that the percentage of grape product soaked out of the sediment is insignificant and considered nullified in the water. Therefore, the brocha is shehakol. The second opinion considers the grape presence significant in this instance; therefore, the brocha is hagafen. The halachic conclusion follows the first opinion – the brocha on this product is shehakol (Tosafos ad loc. s.v. Ein; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 204:5, 6).

Remember that this passage of Gemara was discussing temed made from soaking wine sediment. Tosafos (ad locum) discusses what is the proper brocha on wine produced by fermenting marc (the residue of the grape crush) and concludes that no distinction should be made between marc temed and sediment temed – unless the finished product contains four units for every three units of water supplied at the beginning, the brocha is shehakol.

Marc brandy

As a curious aside, it appears that Jews were not the only people interested in producing spirits from marc. According to my desktop dictionary, one of the definitions of “marc” is the brandy produced by distilling the residue of grape skins and seeds after the juice has been expressed. If the dictionary has a word for this beverage, we know that a number of people were producing it, and it does not appear that their interest was to produce a beverage serviceable for kiddush. Interestingly, since this product is distilled and not simply fermented, most authorities rule that its brocha is shehakol, even if the resultant product is four units for every original three units of water.

Types of marc

When the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 204:6) discusses the correct brocha to recite prior to drinking temed, it notes that there is a difference between marc produced in a press and marc produced the old fashioned way – by stepping on the grapes to crush them. It notes that the marc obtained from this latter method retains a high percentage of original grape product. Therefore, the correct brocha for the temed produced by soaking this marc in water is hagafen, even when the yield is no greater than the amount of water originally used.

What about kiddush?

Is temed produced from either marc or wine sediment acceptable for kiddush? The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 272:7) rules that when the correct brocha on the temed is hagafen, it may be used for kiddush, and when the correct brocha is shehakol, it cannot.

What constitutes yein tzemukim?

Yein tzemukim is not the same product as marc wine, since raisins contain more grape flavor than marc does (Shu’t Tashbeitz 1:57). For this reason, most authorities rule that one may recite kiddush on yein tzemukim even when there is no increase in volume (Shu’t Tashbeitz 1:57; Beis Yosef, Orach Chayim 462; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 272:6). One major authority, the Mishkenos Yaakov (Shu’t Orach Chayim #106), disagrees, contending that one recites hagafen only on juice squeezed out of raisins, but not on the wine or juice created by steeping or cooking them. According to this opinion, raisin wine may be used for kiddush only when the liquid that leaves the raisins is at least one quarter of the final product.

How many raisins?

What is the minimum ratio of raisins to water for the finished product to be considered yein tzemukim? I found four opinions on this question. I am listing them from the most lenient to the most stringent.

  1. The most lenient position I found contends that as long as the product has a grapy taste, the brocha is hagafen and it can be used for kiddush (Tashbeitz, mentioned by Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his comments to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 272:6).
  2. Most opinions hold that the mix must be at least 1/7 raisins by volume – but we then find two widely divergent ways of understanding how we calculate 1/7. The Bechor Shor (comments to Bava Basra 96b) contends that we calculate based on how much the raisins would swell after sitting in the water, which means that the actual ratio is much smaller.
  3. The Yad Efrayim and the Derech Chayim (quoted by Mishnah Berurah 272:16) both contend that the ratio is 1/7 raisins by volume but calculated using the original, dried raisins.
  4. The above-mentioned opinion of the Mishkenos Yaakov that there must be significant juice squeezed out of the raisins. According to this opinion, raisin wine may be used for kiddush only when the liquid that leaves the raisins is at least one quarter of the final product.

How long?

Let us now consider another question: How long must raisins soak for the product to be considered wine?

The Mishnah Berurah (272:15) rules that if you crush the raisins, add water and stir, then after three days you may use the product for kiddush.

If one cooks the mixture of raisin and water, the blending takes place much more quickly, and can produce a halachically acceptable raisin wine immediately (see Chayei Odom 6:7).

Microwave kiddush

Based on the last ruling, I’ll share with you an interesting anecdote. Someone traveling for business who did not want to use challah for kiddush asked me for a suggestion as to what to do. Since he had access to a microwave, we came up with the following solution: He purchased raisins, placed them in a pitcher with water, and microwaved the mixture until it produced a very drinkable juice.

In the locale that he was visiting, insect infestation is a big problem in raisins. To resolve this problem for his raisin juice, he packed along cheesecloth and placed the raisins inside this prior to boiling them. Thus, the flavor of the raisins cooked into the water, but the infestation did not. The use of the cheesecloth had the added advantage of making it very easy to remove the raisins after he had produced the juice. The entire procedure took this very busy businessman only a few seconds to prepare.

Flavored raisin juice

Is there any problem with reciting kiddush on flavored raisin juice or wine? Although this product sounds like a modern creation – the brainchild of some research and development lab – the question was apparently common two hundred years ago. I found the issue discussed by the Tzemach Tzedek, the third rebbe of Lubavitch, in his responsa (Shu’t Orach Chayim #27). After explaining that raisin wine may be used for kiddush, he notes that the standard product available where he lived was seasoned with honey and other spices. He is concerned that this particular flavored product does not qualify as wine, since the flavor may come from the seasonings and not from the grapes. Thus, although raisin wine and yein tzemukim may be used for Kiddush, this is true only as long as its flavor is made by grapes and not some other additive. Even a product labeled “natural grape flavor” may not meet this requirement halachically since “natural grape flavor” does not mean that the flavor comes from grapes, but that the flavor comes from a natural source. If the contribution of the grapes is insufficient, an added boost from a non-grape source does not make this into a beverage on which one can recite hagafen.

Obviously, situations vary and it is not an absolute rule that one cannot use flavored raisin wine for kiddush. However, should kosher, flavored raisin-wine become available, one would be required to ascertain whether the flavor comes from the grapes in the product (in which case the brocha is hagafen and it may be used for kiddush) or from other sources, in which case the brocha is shehakol.

Conclusion

Although many people would prefer to either pack along their wine, locate the nearest Chabad house or make kiddush over bread, I believe the solution, for those who have access to a microwave oven, of packing cheesecloth and purchasing raisins is indeed a solution that some people might find more palatable and convenient.