Some suggest that the above ruling applies only to situations of Biblical prohibitions; Rabbinical prohibitions, on the other hand, are treated more leniently, based on the dictum safeq d’rabbanan l’hakkel [when in doubt regarding a Rabbinical prohibition, one may be lenient]. As stated above, it is unknown when and if the forbidden wine blios went out. Since stam yeinam is a Rabbinical prohibition, the argument goes, one may assume that any particular bottle of Scotch is from a fill which did not receive prohibited wine blios. This argument, however, appears to be refuted by the poskim.
Another example of this concept: The Shulchan Aruch (92:5) writes that if a drop of milk splashes against the outside wall of a pot filled with meat soup and there is shishim in the soup against the drop of milk and the drop fell below the soup level, the soup is permitted (and must be emptied out immediately from the other side of the pot). What is the status of the pot? The Rema (92:6) writes that the pot requires hagalah, and if the pot is used without hagalah to cook soup within 24 hours of the first cooking then the second batch of soup is also forbidden unless it has shishim against the drop of milk. (See Shach 92:27 why chanan does not require shishim against the entire volume of the walls.) The Shach (92:19, 27) agrees with the Rema that the second batch of soup is forbidden (unlike the Taz s.k. 17 who permits b’dieved the second batch of soup) and explains that we are concerned that some of the milk did not spread in the walls of the pot and may subsequently come into the second batch. Although most of the milk likely spread inside the walls and was nullified, shishim is required against the entire drop because it is impossible to know how much of the absorbed milk remains in the wall. Thus, we see another example of a pot which absorbed non-kosher taste and requires shishim against the entire non-kosher food every time something is cooked in the pot (within 24 hours) even though some of the blios likely went out in the previous cooking.
Perhaps after the third fill one can assume the blios have all been nullified – just like we find that miluy v’iruy three times can kasher a wine barrel. Although the Shach (135:33) is of the opinion that miluy v’iruy does not work to kasher a wine barrel which definitely stored non-kosher wine longer than 24 hours, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe YD III siman 32) rules in accordance with the Noda B’Yehuda (Mahadurah Tinyana, YD siman 58) who is of the opinion that miluy v’iruy may be done.
Bitul Chad B’trei and Mixtures
The Shulchan Aruch (109:1) rules that a mixture of two pieces of meat (both pieces are the same flavor – min b’mino), one kosher and one not, may not be consumed. Only if the mixture consists of three pieces, two kosher and one not, may the mixture be consumed, based on the concept of bitul chad b’trei; see ibid. for more details. The Shach (109:9), explaining a seemingly difficult Rema, clarifies that this halachah applies even when the mixture consists of two pieces, one kosher and one Rabbinically prohibited. Even in this situation, the mixture is prohibited (unless there are at least two kosher pieces larger than the non-kosher one). He explains that this ruling follows the majority of poskim, unlike the ruling of Or Zarua who actually permits a mixture with only two pieces. The Or Zarua reasons that either piece may be assumed to be the kosher piece, based on the dictum safeq d’rabbanan l’hakkel. (However, one person may not consume both pieces.) The Shach, based on the Beis Yosef and other poskim, rules that neither piece may be consumed, because the dictum safeq d’rabbanan l’hakkel does not apply. (In a situation of three pieces the mixture may be consumed based on bitul chad b’trei.) Thus, it is apparent that safeq d’rabbanan l’hakkel (without qualifications of bitul) cannot permit a questionable mixture. Accordingly, although Sherry casks may have been used for numerous fills, every fill remains prohibited (unless the laws of nullification apply).
Are Blios of Stam Yeinam Prohibited?
The Mishneh Halachos (10:109) suggests a novel idea to allow Sherry-matured Scotch. Many poskim are of the opinion that since most gentiles do not serve idols in contemporary times, the prohibition against stam yeinam in modern times is solely to prevent intermarriage – not out of concern that it was used for idol worship (see Tur and Beis Yosef YD 123). Accordingly, the Ran (quoted in Beis Yosef 123:26) is of the opinion that ‘honey’ produced by gentiles from wine is permitted because the concern of intermarriage arises only from actual wine – not honey. (This refers to ‘honey’ produced by cooking and concentrating sweet wine. A thick, sweet syrup is produced, similar to honey.) Although the halachah does not follow the Ran and the honey is prohibited (Shulchan Aruch 123:26), the Mishneh Halachos suggests that all poskim agree that wine blios – as opposed to actual wine – which mix into Scotch were not included in the original prohibition. Because the drink is classified as Scotch – not wine – and the wine taste is indiscernible, it is not included in Chazal’s prohibition against wine. Consequently, Sherry casks, which contain only blios of wine, will not prohibit Scotch stored in them.
Besides for the fact that this highly novel approach does not appear in other poskim, it must be noted that this leniency is predicated on the fact that wine is undetectable in Sherry-matured Scotch – thus there is no concern of intermarriage. If the wine is discernable in the Scotch then even blios are subject to Chazal’s concern of intermarriage. As noted above, although the actual taste of wine cannot be distinguished, the wine affects the overall flavor and is discernable. Accordingly, this leniency does not seem to apply to Sherry casks.
Standard Absorption of Vessels – Mishnah Bava Metzia 40a
As mentioned earlier, if one wishes to nullify wine blios absorbed in a Sherry cask, nullification must take place against the entire thickness of the walls. Although one would intuitively take the wood mass into consideration when calculating how much wine is absorbed, the Shulchan Aruch (98:4) writes that we measure the blios contained in the walls as if the walls were hollow and full of blios. Since it is impossible to ascertain the precise volume of non-kosher taste absorbed in the walls, we must consider the walls to be completely imbued with non-kosher taste. It is interesting to note that although the poskim write that a vessel generally does not contain 60 times the volume of its walls (see Shach 93:1), some poskim provide general measurements for the liquid-to-wood ratio. Based on these general rules some suggest that we may assume that Sherry casks have the necessary liquid-to-wood ratio to allow bitul.
The Pri Megodim (Hanhagas Ha’nishal 2:5) writes that the contents of a vessel are certainly thirty times the volume of its walls, but he does not give a source for his ruling. The Ginzei Yosef (ad loc.) and Minchas Shai (ad loc.) are greatly disturbed by the lack of source and suggest that the Pri Megodim actually means that the contents are 30 times greater than the klipah – not the entire thickness of the walls. The Machatzis Hashekel (OC 451:40), Nishmas Adam (Hilchos Pesach siman 24) and Chasam Sofer (OC siman 120) appear to side with the Pri Megadim that the contents are thirty times the walls, but the Ginzei Yosef (ibid.) points out that the Chasam Sofer appears to be unsure about the matter.
The Yad Yehuda (Hilchos Melicha, 69:64, pg. 69a, column 2) asks that the opinion of the Pri Megodim seems to be contradicted by a Mishnah. The Mishnah (Bava Metzia 40a) states that if a custodian was entrusted with wine (and poured the wine into his own vessel), he may deduct a sixth when returning it, for this proportion is absorbed by the barrel (see Rashi ad loc. See also Reshash ad loc.). Thus, it appears that the contents are only six times the walls – not 30? The Shoel U’maishiv (1:3:28) was also asked this question and responds that the Mishnah in Bava Metzia refers to a case of cold liquid stored in a vessel (kavush); accordingly, a sixth is absorbed. The Pri Megodim, on the other hand, is referring to a case of cooking (bishul); in such a case the contents are thirty times the walls. (See Darkei Ho’ra’ah perek 39 who explains why kavush absorbs more than bishul.)
Based on the above, there seems to be a clear Mishnah that kavush absorbs a sixth of the contents, and this is the opinion of Yad Yehuda and Prisha (YD 135:34, in haga’ah. See also 103:7). Accordingly, some poskim rule that Sherry casks are permissible because, being a case of kavush, we may assume that the contents are six times the volume of the walls (see Mishneh Halachos, 10:109).
This position is difficult for numerous reasons: The Darkei Ho’ra’ah (ibid.) points out that the Mishnah states that a sixth was absorbed in the walls, implying that the contents are a fifth against the walls – not a sixth. For example, if 30L of wine are poured in a barrel and a sixth is absorbed, 5L of wine were absorbed, which is one fifth of the remaining wine (25L). Accordingly, the necessary liquid-to-wood ratio of sheish is not present.
Furthermore, the Darkei Ho’ra’ah (ibid.) points out that many poskim explain the Mishnah differently. The Shitah Mekubetzes (ad loc.) quotes the Rosh who understands that the deduction of a sixth is caused not only by the absorptions but also by the sediments. Accordingly, there is no proof from the Mishnah as to the exact ratio of wine absorptions. (See, however, Yad Yehuda ibid. who questions this explanation.)
Additionally, this position is subject to dispute. Some poskim bring proof from elsewhere that a vessel contains eight times the volume of its walls. The Darkei Ho’ra’ah (ibid.), Kreisi U’Pleisi (94:9) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, YD II siman 36) prove this from Tosfos (Chullin 100b end of d.h. b’she’kadam) and the Rosh (Chullin 7:38) who explain that it is possible to kasher a large vessel within 24 hours of use for non-kosher (ben-yomo) by boiling water in it two times (provided that there is no concern of chanan). The rationale is that although some blios came out of the walls during the first boiling and subsequently returned to the walls because the contents were unable to nullify them, the blios were diluted before returning to the walls. Therefore, when one boils water a second time, there is sufficient water to nullify the diluted blios. For example, if two ounces of non-kosher food are absorbed in the walls, and one boils 100 ounces of water in the pot, the two ounces are not nullified by the first cooking because the pot does not contain sixty times their volume. However, the two ounces were diluted somewhat in the water, allowing only a small amount of non-kosher food to be returned to the walls. After the second boiling the non-kosher food is indeed nullified because there is sixty times against the non-kosher food. Since two times will always nullify the non-kosher food, it must be that the maximum blios that come out of the walls is an eighth of the contents, thereby allowing the second boiling to nullify all forbidden blios (the double dilution is represented by the square root of 60, which is approximately 8). Thus, these poskim assume that the contents of a pot are at least eight times the walls.
The question therefore arises that the above conclusion, based on Tosfos, that a pot contains eight times the volume of its walls, seems to be refuted by the Mishnah which indicates that a vessel contains six times its walls? The Darkei Ho’ra’ah (ibid.) proves from here that the deduction allowed by the Mishnah is not due solely to the wine absorptions, but also to other factors.
The Maharsham (Vol. I siman 191, Vol. VIII siman 148) addresses this issue as well and concludes that it is impossible to assume a standard ratio in this matter, and every vessel has a different liquid-to-wood ratio dependent upon the thickness of the walls. He concludes that most vessels contain at least four times the walls, and some even contain five or six times the walls. See also Darkei Teshuvah (93:11).
The Minchas Shai (ibid.) also concludes that there is no standard ratio and it depends on the size of the pot and the thickness of its walls. Although Tosfos seems to give a standard ratio for pots, perhaps he was referring to huge vats with thin walls. Alternatively, Tosfos does not mean that two times boiling will nullify the blios in every pot; most pots will suffice two times boiling, but some pots will require extra boiling’s in order to nullify all the absorptions.
In conclusion, although some poskim write that a standard vessel contains 30 times the volume of its walls, it appears that they were referring only to a case of bishul; kavush has a different ratio. Although some poskim prove from the Mishnah in Bava Metzia that a pot absorbs a sixth of its contents, the proof is inconclusive. Other poskim prove that a standard vessel contains eight times its walls, but many poskim write that there is no standard rule to determine the volume of a pot’s walls, and every pot must be judged based on its size and wall thickness. Therefore, in a case such as Sherry casks, where the liquid-to-wood ratio is unknown, we must view the walls as hollow, full of blios, requiring nullification against the entire thickness of the walls.
Absorptions of Liquids in Vessels
As mentioned above numerous times, if the liquid-to-wood ratio of a vessel is unknown, such as the case with Sherry casks, it is necessary to view the walls as hollow, full of blios, requiring nullification against the entire thickness of the walls (as discussed in Shulchan Aruch 98:4). Although the volume of the non-kosher wine does not appear to have decreased by such a large amount, one must assume that all of the taste of the non-kosher wine was imparted into the walls of the barrel (ibid.). The reason for this halachah is simple: since it is impossible to ascertain the precise amount of non-kosher taste that was imparted from non-kosher food, one must assume that all of the taste was imparted. For example, if one ounce of non-kosher food falls into soup, one needs to have 60 ounces of kosher soup relative to the entire ounce even if the ounce of non-kosher food is still intact (see Taz ad loc. s.k. 7 and Aruch HaShulchan 98:51).
A novel approach suggested by the Netziv and Rav Moshe Feinstein may permit Sherry casks. The Netziv (Maishiv Davar Vol. II siman 23) and Rav Moshe (Igros Moshe, YD I siman 41) write that although the halachah is that a sixty-to-one ratio is required against the entire non-kosher food, the halachah is different with regard to liquids. A liquid can only impart flavor when it itself is absorbed; if the liquid remains at its original volume then one does not need 60 times relative to all the liquid (e.g., if one cooks 10 ounces of pork brine in a kosher pot and, after cooking it, discovers that 8 ounces remain, one needs 60 times only against 2 ounces). The rationale for this distinction is that when it comes to solids, it is possible to separate the taste (ta’am) from the food (mamash), as opposed to liquids where it is impossible to do so. Accordingly, since many experts maintain that the walls of a barrel do not absorb more than 5-10% of the liquid contents, one would require the proportion of bitul only relative to this minute amount, which is certainly present.
However, many poskim argue against this leniency and feel that the proportion of bitul required is relative to all the liquid that was in the pot, and that no distinction is made between solids and liquids. This is quite apparent from the Rema (92:8) who writes that if one places a pan of milk under a pot of meat inside the oven, a sixty-to-one ratio is required relative to the milk, including the milk remaining in the pot. In addition, the Badei HaShulchan (92:146 and biurim d.h. mah & 92:8 biurim d.h. u’v’inan) cites many poskim (including the Chavos Yair, Kreisi U’Pleisi, and Chavas Daas) who rule that the proportion of shishim is required against all the liquid and therefore concludes that this leniency requires further research (tzarich iyun).
Charred Sherry Casks
It is of interest to note that some distilleries char their casks before use, i.e., the interior of the casks are scorched with fire. Some argue that this may be considered a form of libun, which would kasher the Sherry cask and permit Scotch stored inside such barrels.
However, many (if not most) distillers do not char their Sherry casks. According to Kevin Erskine in Into the Wood (http://inebrio.com/thescotchblog/?p=138), it is quite unusual to char Sherry casks: “How ex-sherry casks are treated, once whiskey distillers get their hands on them, differs by distiller. Most will empty the cask of any residual sherry, nose the cask (to ensure the cask smells fresh), and then fill with new spirit. [The Macallan’s] Dave Robertson doesn’t believe anyone would char fresh sherry casks unless the sherry cask does not smell ‘right’, in which case they might char, or may simply reject the cask.” This was confirmed by Rabbi Akiva Padwa, who said that charring is generally not performed on Sherry casks; after all, such a process would completely ruin the Sherry effect of the barrel.
Even if charring were to take place before filling the barrel with spirit it is likely not considered a form of libun. Charring may be considered libun only if the exterior of the barrel reaches the temperature of yad soledes bo, as stated in Shulchan Aruch (135:14). According to Chris Ballard from Kentucky Cooperage, the exterior of the barrel definitely does not reach a high temperature during charring, and it is certainly possible to place one’s hand on the exterior during charring (indicating that the exterior did not reach the degree of yad soledes bo). Therefore, charring is not an effective form of kashering Sherry casks.
Most importantly, after rejuvenating Sherry casks, distillers generally “recharge” the casks with fresh wine: “Rather than retiring casks from the ageing process, another option is to extend a cask’s lifespan by recharring... Recharring can take around three to four minutes using gas burners (which also of course partially caramelizes wood sugars in the layer underlying the char). Recharred casks can either be filled with spirit, or undergo additional ‘re-seasoning.’ European oak casks, for example, may be filled with sherry to help ‘recreate’ the original influences, prior to filling with spirit.”
In summary: Scotch distillers generally do not char Sherry casks before filling with spirit. Even if some casks were charred, such an act is not considered a valid form of kashering. Furthermore, after charring, casks are generally recharged with fresh (non-kosher) wine. Accordingly, one may not rely on charring to permit Sherry casks.
Summary of Section VII
Numerous suggestions have been proposed to permit Sherry-matured Scotch. However, analysis of the suggestions has revealed that they are questionable from a halachic standpoint and are unable to comfortably permit such Scotch.
The purpose of this write-up was not to issue a final ruling regarding Sherry Casks, for this one should speak to his rov. The purpose was simply to educate the reader with the various concerns involved and help raise awareness of which whisky’s are problematic and which ones are not. This write-up was based on a 116-pg. write-up from Rabbi Akiva Niehaus, titled “Sherry Casks, A Halachic Perspective”. If this topic is of interest to you, I highly recommend you get hold of the original article and read through it. (If you would like me to send it to you via email, simply send an email to [email protected] and I will send it.) If you feel there are any important points I missed out please let me know.
