Q&A: Is “Coerced” Wine Considered Libation Wine?
Is "Coerced" Wine Considered Libation Wine?
Question
Hello and blessings,
I wanted to ask about a person who is an “anus”—someone acting under coercion—and in his views is a complete atheist, to the point that he secretly eats on Yom Kippur. Even so, his wine is not considered forbidden as idolatrous wine, since he does not publicly desecrate the Sabbath (see Teshuvot VeHanhagot by Rabbi Sternbuch, vol. 1, Yoreh De’ah no. 413, that even in the case of an apostate, so long as he does not desecrate publicly, his wine is not forbidden).
Now, that same coerced person does not refrain from public desecration because he is ashamed of desecrating, but because he is hiding his identity. If he were among ten Sabbath-observant people in a way that his identity remained concealed, presumably he would not refrain from desecrating the Sabbath.
What is the law in a situation where he usually refrains, but desecrates the Sabbath when his identity remains concealed?
And what is the law when he always refrains only because “it just never comes up”—meaning, he has never encountered an opportunity where his identity would remain concealed, and therefore he is Sabbath-observant in public. Can he be characterized and assessed as someone who in certain situations will in the future desecrate the Sabbath publicly, such that already now his wine is forbidden?
Thank you very much
Answer
Simply speaking, the criterion that was established is public desecration of the Sabbath, and so long as that does not exist, there is no reason to invalidate his wine. By the way, this is ordinary non-Jewish wine, not actual libation wine. Moreover, someone who truly and sincerely does not believe should be judged leniently, because this is not the Sabbath desecrator the Sages were talking about.
Discussion on Answer
No. Simply speaking, a public Sabbath desecrator is someone who is known as such and for whom this is his regular way. One should remember that this sanction is, in simple terms, not a punishment but an educational-social measure meant to create a condemning attitude toward Sabbath desecrators. Therefore there is no logic in applying it to someone who is not known as such.
If it already happened that he desecrated when his identity was concealed—that is, dressed in secular clothing in a place where no one knows him—would that invalidate the wine?