5784/2024

After reviewing the debate concerning non-kosher wine blended in scotch and whiskey, we are ready to address a very related but very different topic – whiskey or scotch aged in sherry casks. Whiskey and scotch producers often age their product in barrels previously used to store (non-kosher) sherry wine. There are reasons to be more lenient and more strict in this case. 

Although non-kosher wine is not added to the scotch or whiskey, cold liquids stored for more than twenty-four hours absorb into its container. Such absorption is called Kavush, which we roughly translate as pickling (another example of cold absorption). Our question is, does aging scotch or whiskey in barrels that absorbed wine taste render it non-kosher?    

The Core Debate

There is a rich discussion of this issue, including a 116-page pamphlet by Rav Akiva Niehaus, posted by the Chicago Rabbinical Council on its website (www.crcweb.org/Sherry%20Casks%202.pdf). OU Kosher presents a masterful summary of the debate in the Purim 5774 edition of HaDaf Kashrus (oukosher.org/content/uploads/2014/03/daf-hakashrus-purim 74. pdf) as does Rav Avrohom Manning (rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Sherry-Cask-Whisky.pdf).  

The issue revolves around the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling (Y.D. 135:13) that wine barrels absorb only a Kedei Klipah ( a thin surface layer) of non-kosher wine (Stam Yeinam). According to this view, the wine absorbed in the sherry casks is nullified in more than sixty times of whiskey than the barrel’s Klipah. 

However, the Shach (Y.D. 135:33) limits the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling to a case when we are unsure if the liquid was stored in the container for twenty-four hours or more. In our case, the wine is stored for far longer than twenty-four hours; thus, according to the Shach, the wine is absorbed throughout the sherry cask.    

According to the Shach’s standard, the whiskey does not nullify the absorbed wine in sixty parts or even cancel it in six parts, as Rav Niehaus explains in detail.  

Thus, the question becomes whether we follow the Shach. Teshuvot Noda B’Yehuda (2: Y.D. 58) and the Chazon Ish (Y.D. 55:6) rule leniently. Therefore, Rav Shlomo Miller (in his letter of approbation to Rav Niehaus’ work) states that baseline Halacha permits liquor aged in sherry casks. 

However, the Chochmat Adam (81:1) and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (47:17) advise stringency except in case of great need. One wonders what exceptional need there can typically be to imbibe scotch or whiskey aged in sherry casks. Thus, we are unsurprised that the CRC, Star-K, and OU do not recommend whiskeys or scotch aged in barrels that store non-kosher wine.

Rav Asher Weiss’ Interesting Lenient Approach

Rav Asher Weiss (Teshuvot Minchat Asher 1:44) firmly insists on the permissibility of liquor aged in sherry barrels. In his typical out-of-the-box and creative thinking (as well as wide-ranging worldly knowledge), Rav Weiss argues that we find in the Gemara and poskim that Beli’ot are extracted only through heat or Kavush after twenty-four hours. By contrast, we never see the phenomenon of extracting ta’am after twelve years of aging, in our sources. Rather, Rav Weiss thinks that the wine’s ta’am is not impacting the liquor it contains. Rather, a chemical reaction between the sherry wine and the oak container affects the whiskey or scotch’s taste. This impact does not forbid the impacted liquor.  

As interesting as Rav Weiss’s assertion is, other great poskim have not adopted this stance. 

In addition, Rav Weiss argues that only experts detect the impact of sherry wine on whiskey and scotch. He thinks the typical drinker does not notice the sherry’s influence and is not Halachically significant. He bases this ruling on his understanding of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 98:1) and the Taz (Y.D. 98:2)  as teaching that the Halacha does not forbid prohibited ta’am that can only be detected by an expert. 

However, on their labels, scotch and whiskey companies prominently display that their product is aged in sherry casks. It seems that sherry cask aging matters to more than professional beverage assessors.  

Rejected Lenient Approach #1 – Zeh V’Zeh Goreim

It has been proposed to apply the principle of Zeh V’zeh Goreim to permit liquor aged in sherry casks. This principle refers to when two factors create the result, one approved and the one forbidden, the resulting product is allowed. In our case, the wood and the Stam Yeinam impact the liquor. Thus, it is similar to the Rama (Y.D. 87:11), permitting cheese created by combining a kosher and non-kosher rennet. 

However, this approach is not accepted since the Shach (Y.D. 87:36) clarifies that we permit Zeh V’Zeh Goreim only when the permitted item could have accomplished the result without the forbidden item’s assistance. Since the wood could not achieve the impact alone, the Zeh V’Zeh Goreim principle does not permit the impacted liquor. 

Rejected Lenient Approach #2 – Chanan and Subsequent Fills

Another lenient argument is made based on the possibility the liquor was aged for a subsequent refill in the sherry cask. Any wine absorbed in a container is rendered null and void after twelve months in the barrel, even if it held a liquid such as water (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 135:16). The question is why we do not say Chanan in such circumstances. 

Chanan is an acronym for Chatichah Atmah Na’aseit Neveilah, the permissible item that absorbed forbidden food itself becomes forbidden. Thus, the water that absorbed ta’am of Stam Yeinam should become impermissible as Stam Yeinam and render the barrel forbidden. 

However, there are manifold reasons not to apply the principle of Chanan in such a case. First, the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 92:4) applies Chanan only to a mixture of meat and milk. Second, the Shach (92:12) rules that even the Rama, who applies Chanan to all prohibited items, believes the prohibition in such circumstances is only rabbinic, and we may be lenient in its application. Third, the Rama (Y.D. 92:4) cites opinions that Chanan does not apply to liquids and rules that we rely on these views in case of need. The Taz (Y.D. 92:15) rules that we follow this lenient ruling even in ordinary cases. Fourth, the Pri Chadash (Y.D. 92:17) and Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 92:25) rule that Chanan does not apply to rabbinic prohibitions such as Stam Yeinam. In addition, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igerot Moshe Y.D. II:36) writes that there is room not to say Chanan regarding a rabbinic prohibition when it is a liquid mixture.

Accordingly, subsequent fills of the sherry caskets are not rendered non-kosher even if one believes the sherry casks forbid the liquor they hold. Thus, even if the label describes the whiskey or scotch as aged in sherry casks, perhaps it is from a subsequent fill. Since Stam Yeinam is a rabbinic prohibition, maybe we can apply the rule of Safek Me’Derabbanan Le’kula, one may be lenient in case of doubt. 

However, this line of reasoning is invalid since whether a bottle’s contents are first-fill aging can be easily resolved with an e-mail to the company. The Shach (Y.D. 110, Kelalei S’fek S’feka 35) rules that when the facts can be determined (Efshar Levarer), the situation is not considered one of Safek.  

 Conclusion – OU Kosher’s Policy

The CRC and Star-K do not recommend whiskey or scotch aged in sherry casks. Similarly, the OU (following  Rav Yisroel Belsky’s recommendation to be strict, Shulchan Halevi, English, pp. 120-121) does not permit “sherry cask” whiskeys to be served by the caterers and restaurants it certifies. However, OU Kosher adopts a moderate view on this matter.  

They write, “Unflavored whiskey that is not labeled sherry cask and there is no reason to assume it was Kavush in a sherry cask is permitted, as per Rema (Y.D. 114:10). Rema says it is not necessary to add wine to a certain food unless one knows for sure that the non-Jew added wine, it is permitted. The same rationale can be applied to a blend of many whiskeys. The blend is also permitted since each whiskey might not have been stored in a sherry cask”. 

In light of the possibility for leniency regarding all sherry cask-aged liquors, the OU’s stance to be lenient in these limited situations is quite reasonable.