Being we are still in close proximity to Pesach I would like to discuss a topic which I think is very practical for many people. Before Pesach many people are careful to finish off all their whisky to avoid having to sell it with their mechiras chometz to the non-Jew over Pesach, and over the next few weeks is the time people replenish their stocks. Therefore, I would like to discuss the sensitive topic of whisky that is matured in Sherry Casks.
Even those who don’t drink alcoholic beverages at the Shabbos table, when they make a simcha they make sure to obtain a bottle or two of Scotch whisky to put out. Below we will try and determine if there are any potential kashrus problems.
I. The Process of Scotch Production
According to the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 (United Kingdom, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 23rd November 2009), in order to be called Scotch Whisky, the spirit: (a) must be distilled at a Scottish distillery from water and malted barley, to which only other whole grains may be added, have been processed at that distillery into a mash, converted into a fermentable substrate only by endogenous enzyme systems, and fermented only by the addition of yeast; (b) must be distilled to an alcoholic strength of less than 94.8% by volume so that it retains the aroma and taste of the raw materials used in its production; (c) must be matured only in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 liters; (d) must be matured only in Scotland; (e) must be matured for no less than three years; (f) must be matured only in an excise warehouse or a permitted place; (g) must retain the colour, aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in its production and maturation; (h) must not contain any added substance other than water and plain caramel coloring; and (i) may not be bottled at less than 40% alcohol by volume.
Whisky (without an e) generally refers to spirit produced in Scotland and Canada; spirit produced elsewhere is generally spelled whiskey (with an e).
For an explanation of all these terms and processes I suggest you read the article written by Rabbi Akiva Niehaus, titled “Sherry Casks, A Halachic Perspective” of where most of what we will bring is taken from.
Summary
According to Scottish law, Scotch may only contain water, barley (or other grain), yeast and caramel coloring, all of which do not pose any kashrus issues. The only source of concern is that the maturation may have taken place in previously used wine casks, thus presenting an issue of stam yeinam (as we will explain below).
II. Some Background on the Use of Casks
In days of old, Scotch manufacturers used any type of available barrel. New barrels were generally not used; the sharp tannins found in the wood would ruin the delicate flavor of Scotch. Scotch manufacturers needed to find used casks and the vast majority of available used casks were Sherry casks. The reason for this is that Spanish wine manufacturers used to ship their Sherry wine in the cask to England for bottling because shipping bottled wine was cumbersome and expensive. As a result, there was an overabundance of wine casks hanging around in England with no particular use for them. The Scotch producers were quite pleased to purchase these barrels at a discounted price for their Scotch maturation.
This changed in the 1970’s when the Spanish wine manufacturers decided to bottle their wine in Spain before shipping to England. As a result, there was a shortage of wine barrels, and the Scotch manufacturers needed to find a different source of barrels. The perfect suppliers turned out to be American bourbon producers. According to American law, bourbon must be produced in new barrels. The bourbon manufacturers had plenty of unneeded used barrels which they were glad to sell cheaply to Scotch producers.
In the 1990’s Scotch drinkers sensed that something about their Scotch was different; it just didn’t have the same flavor as it used to. At this point, Scotch producers realized that the Sherry casks might actually have been contributing to the superior flavor of the original Scotch and decided to revert back to wine casks. However, Sherry casks now were very expensive (Sherry casks can cost ten times as much as bourbon casks) and shipping them to Scotland added to the expense. Some distillers decided that the superior taste was well worth the expense and returned to maturation in Sherry casks (passing on the added cost to the consumer, of course). Other distillers, wishing to save the expense of maturing Scotch for many years in relatively expensive Sherry casks, continued to mature their Scotch in the much-cheaper bourbon casks, then transferred the mature Scotch to Sherry casks for 6 months to 2 years in order to gain some of the benefit of those barrels. This is called “Sherry finish.” Some distillers disassemble the casks before shipping them to Scotland in order to reduce their shipping costs, but others ship them to Scotland whole (in which case, the casks may still have some wine inside). According to Oxford Wine Online, the casks are so important that some distillers (such as The Macallan) now construct their own casks and lease them to Sherry producers before reclaiming them for whisky maturation. Some distillers treat the casks themselves: they fill fresh casks with wine (and even steam them before doing so to ensure that the casks fully absorb the wine), empty the barrels, and then put the matured Scotch inside to finish.
III. The Halachic Issues
The potential problem raised by the use of Sherry casks is that the Sherry absorbed in these casks is almost certain to be stam yeinam. When a non-kosher liquid rests in a vessel for twenty-four hours, the walls of the vessel absorb non-kosher blios [absorptions] through a process known as kavush [soaking]. A kosher liquid which subsequently rests in the vessel for 24 hours absorbs the non-kosher blios, potentially rendering it forbidden. Sherry casks, having stored non-kosher wine for more than 24 hours, contain blios of stam yeinam. When these casks are subsequently used to mature Scotch, blios of stam yeinam mix into the Scotch, creating a potential kashrus problem. At first glance, this issue seems to be clearly discussed in the Shulchan Aruch.
The Rema (Yoreh Deah 137:1) rules that if kosher wine is stored in a barrel previously used for yayin nesech, the wine becomes forbidden. If the volume of wine is shishim [60 times] greater than the yayin nesech, the wine is permitted. If water, beer, or any liquid other than wine is stored in a wine barrel, that liquid is permitted (Shulchan Aruch 137:4). The source for this halachah is a Gemara in Avodah Zorah (33b) where Ravina allowed Rav Chiya to store beer in a barrel which previously stored non-kosher wine. The poskim explain that storage of beer is allowed because the non-kosher wine ruins and detracts the flavor of the beer. In fact, any liquid which is ruined when mixed with wine may be stored in a wine barrel. (This is in contrast to kosher wine which may not be stored in a non-kosher wine barrel since it is enhanced by the non-kosher wine). Thus, since Scotch is not wine, it would seem to be an open-and-shut case that Sherry casks are permitted by the Shulchan Aruch. However, the story regarding Scotch is complicated by additional considerations.
A) Bitul of Stam Yeinam in Scotch
If a non-kosher food becomes mixed into kosher food, the mixture is forbidden unless: (a) the non-kosher ingredient ruins (pogem) the mixture upon contact, or (b) the kosher ingredients are of substantially greater volume than the non-kosher ingredient, causing it to be nullified (batul). In subsection a we will discuss whether Scotch is “ruined” when mixed with wine; in subsections b and c we will discuss the amount of wine absorbed in the cask walls (blios) that must be nullified and the volume of Scotch necessary to nullify them.
a. Does Stam Yeinam Require Bitul When Mixed with Scotch?
At first glance, it would appear that since Scotch is not wine, its halachic status should be similar to the non-wine liquids described above. However, this is not so clear. As explained above, the reason that non-wine liquids remain permitted when stored in a wine barrel is that these liquids are ruined when mixed with wine. So, the question becomes this: is Scotch in fact ruined when mixed with wine? The Noda B’Yehuda (Mahadurah Tinyana, YD siman 58) writes that whiskey (yayin saraf), like other liquids, is ruined when mixed with wine, but elsewhere (siman 67) he writes that it is impossible to ascertain whether or not whiskey is ruined when mixed with wine. The Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 451:40), Chayei Adam (125:15) and Maharsham (3:150) write that whiskey is enhanced when mixed with wine. It appears that the poskim are unsure of the relationship between whiskey and wine.
Presumably, the mere fact that many distillers go out of their way to use Sherry casks as opposed to the substantially cheaper bourbon casks indicates that they specifically want the blios of wine, and do not feel that it ruins Scotch.
Therefore, it appears that Scotch in wine barrels is comparable to wine stored in wine barrels, thus requiring nullification in order to be permissible. This is also the opinion of Rav Yitzchok Weiss (Minchas Yitzchok 2, 28:3).
It is important to note that non-kosher taste absorbed in the walls of a vessel generally becomes stale (pagum) after twenty-four hours elapse (aino ben yomo). If so, Sherry casks cannot prohibit Scotch because one may assume that the casks sat empty for a 24-hour interim. This leniency, however, is not applicable to Sherry casks. Wine, unlike other food and drink, remains potent, and even improves, after this time period has elapsed (Shulchan Aruch 135:16, Rema 137:1, Shach 137:10). Accordingly, the leniency of aino ben yomo does not apply to Sherry casks.
b. Is Bitul Required Against the Klipah or the Entire Kli?
In order to ascertain whether wine blios in the Sherry casks are batul in Scotch, it is necessary to clarify how much forbidden wine remains in the wine barrel and subsequently mixes into the Scotch. Although the wine barrels are presumably emptied before they are filled with Scotch, there is still wine absorbed in the walls of the barrel. How much wine remains in the walls? If a forbidden liquid is cooked in a kosher pot, the blios are assumed to fill the entire thickness of the walls of the pot, thus requiring bitul against the entire volume of the walls. However, in the case of kavush (where a forbidden liquid remains in a vessel for more than 24 hours without cooking) which generally has a halachic status similar to cooking, the halachah regarding the extent of absorptions may be different. The Shach (98:13), quoting the Toras Chatos and the Issur V’Heter Ha’aruch, is of the opinion that kavush is similar to cooking and one must reckon with absorptions of the full thickness of the wall; the Taz (105:1), however, argues that only a klipah [the “peel” – a thin layer is affected]. The Pri Megodim and the Chochmas Adam (57:11) both follow the opinion of the Shach that the full thickness of the wall is considered to contain forbidden blios, and this is the accepted ruling.
Regarding kavush involving yayin nesech, the Shulchan Aruch (135:13) states clearly that yayin nesech affects only the klipah of a vessel, and therefore rules that removing the klipah of a non-kosher wine barrel is an effective method of kashering wine barrels. This seems to be in accordance with the position of the Taz, that kavush affects only the klipah. How is this to be reconciled with the position of the Shach and other poskim who are of the opinion that kavush generally affects the entire vessel? The Shach (135:33) writes that the leniency of the Shulchan Aruch applies only where one is uncertain if the cask ever stored non-kosher wine or if the wine was stored for a full 24 hours. If, however, non-kosher wine was definitely stored in a cask for at least 24 hours, the entire thickness of the cask is assumed to contain prohibited blios, conforming to the general rule of kavush, and removing the klipah is ineffective.
Many poskim follow the opinion of the Shach. The Chochmas Adam (81:11) and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (48:17) rule that if yayin nesech was stored in a cask for 24 hours, the whole vessel is assumed to contain prohibited blios. They conclude that “l’tzorech gadol” [in case of great need] one may rely on the poskim who reckon the klipah alone. This is also the opinion of the Imrei Aish (YD siman 44). Further, the Beis Meir (on the Chok Yaakov OC 451:58) offers a proof to the Shach’s view from the Mordechai (Pesachim siman 567).
However, some poskim argue on the Shach. The Chacham Tzvi (siman 75) and Macha’ne Ephraim (Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros 11:15, quoting his son) argue with the Shach and maintain that even if yayin nesech was stored in a barrel for many days, only the klipah is prohibited. This is also the opinion of the Chazon Ish (55:6), Yad Yehudah (Hilchos Melicha, 69:64, pg. 69a, column 2) and Chikrei Lev (siman 77).
Based on the above, it appears that according to the opinion of the Shach, nullification is necessary against the full thickness of the walls, whereas according to the Chacham Tzvi, bitul is only required against the klipah. In a dispute of this nature, poskim generally advise one to follow the stringent opinion of the Shach and other poskim. Indeed, many contemporary poskim follow the stringent opinion, requiring nullification against the full thickness of the cask.
c. Is Sheish or Shishim Required for Bitul of Stam Yeinam?
It was established in the last section that, according to many poskim, nullification is necessary against the volume of the entire thickness of the walls of the vessel. Now, it is necessary to determine the required ratio of bitul. Is the standard bitul b’shishim (60 times the volume of wine) required to nullify the non-kosher wine blios or is bitul b’sheish (six times) sufficient? Generally speaking, it is assumed that the flavor of non-kosher food is noticeable unless it is nullified in 60 times its volume of kosher food. Non-kosher wine, however, appears to have a different ratio of nullification.
The Shulchan Aruch (134:5) states that yayin nesech mixed with water is batul b’sheish, a ratio of just six-to-one. What is the source for this ruling? The Mishnah (Avodah Zorah 73a) states that yayin nesech is nullified in water if it does not contribute flavor (aino nosen ta’am) to the mixture. At what point does wine not contribute flavor? This is subject to dispute, as will be explained.
The Gemara (73b) relates that if one had two cups of wine – one permitted and one not permitted – and he diluted each of them with the proper amount of water needed to dilute their strength, and then mixed the two cups together, we view the permitted wine as if it is not there, and the water overwhelms the prohibited wine and nullifies it. The Gemara in Shabbos (77a) reveals that the standard rate of dilution in Talmudic times was one part wine and three parts water. The Ra’avad (Avodah Zorah 39a d.h. v’Rebbi Yochonon, 73a d.h. yayin nesech) and Ri Hazaken (quoted in Ran, Ritva, and Rashba, Avodah Zorah 73b) understand that the above Gemara in Avodah Zorah is referring to two equal cups of wine; thus, when the diluted cups were mixed, the total mixture contained one measure of prohibited wine, one measure of permitted wine, and six measures of water. Still, the Gemara rules that if we view the permitted wine as if it is not there, the prohibited wine is nullified in the combined water – which is only six times greater than the prohibited wine. The Ra’avad and Ri Hazaken deduce from here that, unlike most forbidden substances which prohibit a mixture unless nullified in a ratio of sixty-to-one, non-kosher wine can only prohibit a mixture up to six times its volume. As a result, if the volume of water is six times greater than the forbidden wine, the mixture is permitted.
Some Rishonim argue on this conclusion. The Ritva, Ramban, and others, maintain that wine is no different than other forbidden substances, and sixty measures are necessary to nullify one measure of wine. They therefore explain that the Gemara refers to unequal cups: The forbidden cup contains one measure of wine and three measures of water, whereas the permitted cup contains 19 measures of wine and 57 measures of water. When combined, the total mixture consists of one measure of forbidden wine, nineteen measures of permitted wine, and sixty measures of water. When we ignore the permitted wine, the sixty measures of water will nullify the one measure of forbidden wine. According to this stringent opinion, wine is only nullified in a mixture of sixty-to-one, at exactly the same ratio as any other prohibited substance.
The Tur (134:5) cites both opinions and the Beis Yosef quotes the Rashba as siding with the lenient opinion. The Shulchan Aruch (134:5) and Rema (123:8) both rule in accordance with the lenient opinion that non-kosher wine is nullified in a ratio of six-to-one.
Why does wine have a different nullification ratio than other prohibited foods? The Rishonim offer two explanations. The Ra’avad explains that a small amount of wine contributes a detrimental flavor when mixed in water six times its volume and is considered nosen ta’am l’pgam (i.e., a non-kosher food does not prohibit kosher food if the taste of the mixture is compromised).
The Rashba (Teshuvos 1:633) argues that diluted wine actually enhances a mixture – not ruins it. Why, then, is wine nullified in sheish? The Rashba elsewhere (Toras Habayis 5:6 pg. 60b; Chidushei HaRashba, Avodah Zorah 73b) explains that wine, a light, fruity beverage, loses its “wine” status when mixed with other liquids six times its volume, and is referred to as “kiyuha” [acid] instead. This is also the opinion of the Ran (Avodah Zorah 36b d.h. v’garsinan) and Tosfos (Chulin 25b d.h. hamitamed). Rav Moshe Feinstein (Yoreh Deah 1:62 d.h. v’hinei) explains that the fact of the matter is that wine does not ruin water even in a volume six times its size. After all, many people mix a little wine into water to give it a bit of flavor, thus proving that wine actually enhances water. Why, then, is wine nullified in water when nullified in sheish? The answer must be that wine loses its status when mixed with other liquids six times its volume, referred to as kiyuha instead.
Thus, two explanations arise from the Rishonim as to why wine is nullified in a ratio of six-to-one: The Rashba and Ran are of the opinion that although diluted wine contributes a positive flavor, wine is extremely delicate and loses its identity when diluted in six parts, referred to as kiyuha instead. The Ra’avad argues that a small amount of wine contributes a detrimental flavor to a mixture when diluted in six parts and is nosen ta’am l’pgam.
We must now clarify whether the 6:1 ratio applies only to wine in water (as in the case mentioned above) or even when wine is diluted in other liquids. The Shach (134:21, quoting Issur V’Heter 23:16) states that non-kosher wine is batul b’sheish only when mixed with water, but if the wine is mixed with kosher wine or food, Although the Rema cites two opinions in this matter, the halachah clearly follows the lenient opinion, as stated in Shach (123:16) (Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 1:62).
