wine – בין דין לדין

The Proof of the Potation Is In The Pyrotechnics

Now, I have always been told that liquors burn at 100 proof (50 percent alcohol) or higher. In fact, some sources claim fires only start around the 57 percent range. There are even stories from the past seeming to confirm this. Tavern owners in the 1700 and 1800s would set a match to samples of whiskey brought in by dealers. If they lit, it was “proof” of the alcohol content. If not, they considered the barrel to be watered down or otherwise inferior. However, the B-52 flares when bartenders touch a lighter to orange liqueur. Same when French restaurants torch crepe suzette: it’s Grand Marnier (40 percent) that bursts into flame. And one of Cassel’s recipes at a previous restaurant required him to reduce then ignite port wine.

Here’s what we found:

Grand Marnier indeed lights up quickly. The flame is low and steady, burning blue to yellow–and is easily extinguished. Other 40 percent spirits also ignite, though with less force. When poured onto a plate and lit, for instance, vodka (at room temperature) carries a small blue plume over about half its surface area. Same with tequila (100 percent agave reposado), although the flame is almost invisible. Both are rather unstable, the slightest movement or breath being enough to douse them. Yet even a liqueur rated at 38 percent burned momentarily.

Higher proof samples ignite instantly–and they resist attempts to extinguish the resulting blaze. For example, Chartreuse (55 percent) literally erupts, the burst from a tablespoon of the bitter liqueur drizzled on a plate reaches five or six inches in height. When I lit this next to a sink, my quick but clumsy effort to move the fiery plate under the faucet caused flickering liquid to splash around the drain… where it continued to burn. …

But the old stories are wrong. It’s not just the 100 proof stuff that burns.

VinePair elaborates on the science and reports further details:

Things are a little more scientific these days. We now know that it’s the alcohol vapor that catches fire, not the liquid, just like with gasoline. More vapor comes off the alcohol as the alcohol heats up, making it easier for it to light. Colder alcohol means less vapor, which means less chance for flames.

The vapor also impacts what you can use as a lighter. A match elicits less vapor from the alcohol than a torch, which is much hotter.

So how low can you go (in alcohol by volume) before the floater of alcohol on that would-be burning cocktail turns into a failed party trick? Here’s the guide, from top to bottom.

Everclear

Sells at either 75.5 percent alcohol by volume, or 95 percent (although the latter is illegal in some states). Everclear will maintain a consistent and difficult-to-put-out flame.

Lit Level: Dangerous.

Bacardi 151

It’s right there in the name: 151-proof, or 75.5 percent alcohol by volume. Once again, consistent flame to be expected.

Lit Level: Dangerous.

Absinthe

Absinthe can range from 45 to 74 percent alcohol by volume. It’ll catch on fire, but you don’t really want to ruin the taste of a good absinthe, right? Will light and maintain a flame, but it will go out easier.

Lit Level: Moderate to Dangerous.

Whiskey, Vodka, Tequila and Gin

Throw it back to history for this one. Cask strength whiskey will quickly light on fire and sustain a decent burn without being impossible to put out. The more common stuff, which averages around 40 percent alcohol by volume, will burn a small blue flame over the top of the drink that goes out with a light breath — same for vodka, tequila and gin.

Lit Level: Moderate.

Light Liqueurs, Wine and Beer

Don’t bother trying to light a floater of any alcohol under 40 percent alcohol by volume. You can get a little action in the 30-percent range, but it’s not worth the trouble.

Lit Level: Not Lit.

So the putative early proof-testing seem to have been binary: alcohol was assumed to burn if and only if it was at least 100 proof. Modern investigation elaborates that the appearance and durability of the flame are indicative of the percentage of alcohol content. A third variation of this procedure, however, is reported in the eighteenth century Polish work שו”ת הר הכרמל: the liquor is ignited and the alcohol burned off. Measuring the remaining quantity of liquid (and presumably comparing it to the initial quantity) enables the determination of the percentage of alcohol content:

מה שנוהגין לפעמים לבחון משקה יין שרף כמה מחזיק הוא ערך מים שבו ושופכין היין שרף על כלי בדיל ומדליקין היין שרף לראות כמה נשאר מים ושאל השואל אם יש לכלי זה על ידי כך דין נשתמש חמץ על ידי אור ובעי ליבון ואין לכלי זו תקנה לפסח או נימא דמקרי שלא על ידי אור ובהגעלה סגי:1

שו”ת הר הכרמל או”ח סימן ה’, הובא בשערי תשובה (מרגליות) סימן תנ”א ס”ק כ”ז [↩]

Ascetics, Aesthetics, and Cosmetics

My halachah column for this past year’s פרשת נשא:

In Parashas Naso (6:11), a Nazarite is commanded to bring a sin-offering. As we have noted in previous years, the Talmud (Bava Kama 91b) cites an explanation that this is to atone for the sin of having (unnecessarily) deprived himself of the enjoyment of wine. Elsewhere (Nedarim 10a), the Talmud derives from this that one who engages in (discretionary) fasting is called a sinner.

But in yet another discussion of the topic, the Talmud (Taanis 11a-b) again begins by citing the opinion that the Nazarite and the faster are considered sinners, but then proceeds to cite two other opinions: one that considers them both ‘holy’, and one that invokes the term ‘pious’ (although Rashi and Tosafos actually disagree whether it is the faster, or the one who refrains from fasting, who is termed pious).

The Tosafos complicate matters even further, noting that the same sage (Shmuel) who maintains that the faster is considered a sinner, elsewhere maintains that fasting is permitted, and even a mitzvah! They explain that although fasting is inherently sinful, the mitzvah involved outweighs the sin. This is obviously difficult to understand.

R. An-Shlomo Astruc in his Midrashei Ha’Torah adopts a similar position, elaborating that the ‘sin’ requiring ‘atonement’ is not the Nazarite’s abstemiousness itself, but the underlying fact that his urges have become so powerful that he is compelled to become a Nazarite and renounce wine “which cheereth G-d and man” (Shoftim 9:13) in order to subdue his base nature and evil characteristics and eliminate his carnal lusts. He explains that just as some substances are good for the physically healthy but harmful to the ill, so, too, is wine good for the morally healthy but abstention therefrom a tonic for the morally deranged (cf. Gilyonot Nechama year 5710).

The Ramban in his commentary to our parashah sides with the view that Nazarism is praiseworthy. He explains that a Nazarite ideally ought to maintain his elevated status permanently – “he should remain all his days a Nazarite and holy to his G-d” – and that by declining to do so, he commits a grave sin, “and he requires atonement as he returns to becoming defiled by the lusts of the world”.

My parashah lecture, on the same topic, along with accompanying handout, is available at the Internet Archive. [See also our previous posts here and here about the permissibility of cosmetic surgery.]

The Song of the Warrior-Judge

From this week’s parshah:

וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַתֹּף–בְּיָדָהּ; וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל-הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ, בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת. וַתַּעַן לָהֶם, מִרְיָם: שִׁירוּ לַיקוָק כִּי-גָאֹה גָּאָה, סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם.1

From the haftarah:

וַתָּשַׁר דְּבוֹרָה, וּבָרָק בֶּן-אֲבִינֹעַם, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, לֵאמֹר.2

How could Devorah have sung together with Barak, in apparent contravention of the principle of קול באשה ערוה? Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenberg suggests Divine dispensation:

תוכחת מגולה יפה ומעולה אדבר עם בחורים וגם בתולות זקנים עם נערים ובפרט עם נשים נשואות שהם מזמרות ומשמיעות קול שיר בזמירות בשבת עם בחורים זקנים עם נערים יחד. ואינם משימין אל לבם שהיא מצוה הבאה לידי עבירה חמורה …
ואל תשיבני מדכתיב ותשר דבורה וברק בן אבינועם וגו’ כמו שנשאלתי מן אשה משכלת. כי יש לומר על פי הדיבור שאני וכיוצא בזה ממש תירצו התוספות בפרק החולץ …3

Rav Efraim Zalman Margolis explains that Devorah merely composed her wonderful poem, but did not actually sing it vocally before a male audience:

ושמעתי שלכך לא כתיב ששרתה יעל לפי שאמרו (מגילה טו.) יעל בקולה מביאה לידי הרהור וזנות, מה שאין כן דבורה שפיר אמרה לפי מה שכתבו הפוסקים דדוקא לקריאת שמע איתמר
אמנם נראה דבלאו הכי אין ראיה מ”ותשר דבורה”, שעיקרה לא נאמר אלא נוסח השירה והמליצה הנפלאה, אבל לא נזכר ששרתה בקול לפני אנשים.4

I mentioned these sources in the introduction to a miscellaneous lecture I recently gave on poetry, song and grammar in the Jewish tradition; it is available, along with my notes, at the Internet Archive. [It is based on a series of essays I published about five years ago on the Seforim Blog titled “Wine, Women and Song: Some Remarks On Poetry and Grammar”: part I; part II; part III.]

In a follow up post, we shall, בג”ה, discuss the problem of Miriam’s singing.

שמות טו:כ-כא [↩]
שופטים ה:א [↩]
באר שבע, ספר באר מים חיים אות ג, הובא באליה רבה סימן ע”ה סוף אות ה [↩]
מטה אפרים, דיני קדיש יתום, שער ד’ סעיף ח’ באלף למטה [↩]