Responsum: On Forbidden Wine

As for your further question, regarding a non-Jew who inserted his hand into the wine of a Jew (and the opinions of R. Judah ben Bava and R. Judah ben Betera), the cases are intertwined and extremely murky. If so desired, and you were present before us, it would be possible to explain them thoroughly and distinguish them systematically from one another, such that each statement would be placed in its proper context.

For when a student is sitting in front of his rabbi, debating a matter of law, his rabbi knows which side the student’s heart is inclined toward, what he is not taking into account, what is clear to him, and those points which he is stubbornly holding onto. He can therefore simplify matters for him until he enlightens his eyes and shows him the justification for the law. But how much of this can he do in writing? Rather, we have given a little instruction, so that you can record for yourselves the general rules of libation wine [yayin nesekh].

It is prohibited to benefit from libation wine, which a non-Jew poured out as a libation to idolatry, and it is never nullified [by dilution], not in a proportion of one in a hundred, nor even by one in a thousand. This is as we learned: Libation wine is forbidden, and renders other wine forbidden in any amount [m. Avodah Zarah 5:8], and we again learned: These [things] are forbidden and render other things forbidden in any amount: libation wine, and [objects used for] idol worship, and leavened bread on Passover [see m. Avodah Zarah 5:9]. It is prohibited to benefit from them, and, needless to say, they may not be drunk.

With regard to the touch of a non-Jew who has attained [an age when he has] the capacity to pour a libation, and he understands the nature of idolatry and its practices, since his heart is directed toward idolatry, as soon as he has touched and dipped into the wine, it is forbidden even to benefit from it, on account of the severity of the prohibition against idol worship.

The unintentional touch of a non-Jew [makes the wine] prohibited to be drunk but it is permitted to benefit from it. This is the meaning of the statement of Rav: A one-day-old baby can make libation wine [b. Avodah Zarah 57a]. This does not mean [it becomes] full-fledged libation wine, as one cannot suggest such an idea. How could a day-old make something into libation wine? Rather, it means as follows. The touch of a one-day-old baby can render it forbidden to be drunk. To counter the claim that a one-day-old is like a piece of flesh, and that he has no [effective] touch at all, and [the wine] is [actually] permitted to be drunk, it was necessary to state that “a one-day-old baby can make libation wine,” in that his touch renders it forbidden to be drunk. [ . . . ]

Some claim that [wine] touched by a Muslim may be drunk, because a Muslim does not [normally] make libation wine, as they do not pour wine as libations in their idolatry. But if they were to pour libations, then it would be forbidden to benefit [from their wine] as well. So, now, while they do not pour [libations], shall their touch be more permitted than that of a one-day-old baby, as we explained above? Therefore, even the touch of a Muslim [renders wine] forbidden to benefit from.