- This topic has 25 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
according to rav moshe, rav miller, rav heineman, rav ovadia (and others) it is ok. according to rav belsky it is not ok.
See crcweb.org about a detaiiled discussion.
Check with the mashgiach ruchani of your kiddush club. In most shuls, he has the most current information and halachic expertise on “spiritual” matters.
If the Sherry had a hecksher, it would not be an issue.
So if based on the “numbers”, its OK since more chashuvah rabbonim and poskim in modern times who are familiar with the “chemistry” and “logistics” of the distilling and ageing process hold its OK and R’ Belsky is an outlier.
Gedolah never fails to amaze on he/she or whatever pronouns preferred completely misses the boat.
No they do not! In some cases they may say that bidieved you might be able to be makel to some degree, but they still end very clearly advising not to rely on that. And according to the question, if the whiskey was in exclusively sherry cask(s), then almost everyone says it is assur.
Zicher kusher l’mehadrin if the casks had been used in the dedicated “kosher run” of Tio Pepe Light Extra Dry Fino Palomino, the best drink in the world except for coffee.
Rav Moshe Heinemann and Star K are NOT mattir sherry cask. Almost all genuine kashrus organizations are NOT mattir. There are kosher sherry cask whiskey ms available. Badatz in EY Eidann and some in the USA as well. Saying Stam that Tav Moshe Feinstein was mattir is also am haaratzus.
scotch whiskey:
Much has been written about the kashrus of whisky distilled in Scotland. Many aspects of this topic are unclear, causing widespread lack of knowledge among the general public. Many people rely on the fact that we have confidently been drinking whisky without a hechsher for many years now so we can continue to do so. The truth is that there are numerous shailos. Thus, we deemed it fitting to elaborate on the topic b’ezras Hashem.4. Many years ago, sherry casks came into popular use. These are barrels that a sweet, red wine called sherry, produced from Spanish grapes, sat in. The reason these casks were used was because sherry wine was imported to Scotland in barrels, where it was subsequently bottled. The empty sherry casks were widely available, so they were utilized for whisky maturation. Later, they started bottling sherry in Spain and there were no longer empty sherry casks for use in Scotland, so distilleries started using bourbon casks and the like. But whisky connoisseurs and enthusiasts noticed the flavor difference in their beloved drink and demanded that sherry casks be used once again – they missed the original, cherished flavor.
5. Expensive. Sherry casks are ten times more expensive than bourbon casks. Even so, whisky producers buy them; the investment is worth it for them to produce the quality whisky that their customers love. Some distilleries fill their barrels with sherry to make their own sherry casks; others lease their casks to sherry producers with the goal of ultimately using them for whisky.
6. Second aging. Some distilleries first age their whisky in bourbon casks, but then they take the trouble to transfer them to sherry casks for a second or third aging. This delays the process for a certain amount of time, e.g., six months, to improve the whisky and finish it with the delicate sherry flavor. This demonstrates that the distilleries are clearly interested in obtaining the sherry flavor.
7. They advertise and take pride in sherry casks. Distilleries take pride in and advertise their use of sherry casks. This usually appears on the whisky label, which describes how the sherry flavor can be detected. This enables them to mark up the price of the whisky.
8. Improved flavor. We can see from all the above, and we know from the connoisseurs, that they sherry absorbed in the walls of the barrels imparts a superior flavor to the whisky. It enhances, enriches, and accentuates the whisky with its flavoring.Sherry Cask Whisky
Does the Wine Harm or Enhance the Whisky?
24. Wine bliyos harm whisky. There is a posek who allows drinking
sherry cask whiskies. His main reason is that since it is clear from the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch that water, beer, and other beverages that sat in a container that had wine do not need bitul, as the wine harms them (above, 18), there is nothing that will cause us to say that wine enhances them. This posek understands that whisky too, which is in the category of “other beverages,” is harmed by wine. Thus, it .)הגר”ש מילר, קנדה( does not need any bitul whatsoever
25. Wine bliyos enhance whisky. However, in practice, we know and see that the wine enhances the whisky. Distilleries invest much time, money, and effort to obtain this flavor and they advertise that their whisky was matured in sherry casks. It is not a blanket rule or a halacha l’Moshe miSinai that wine gives an undesirable taste to all other beverages, as the above posek reasons; it all depends on the particular case. The proof for this is the halacha of Hadrianic pottery, a type of earthenware vessel made specifically to absorb the wine flavor in its walls and then release it into water. The halacha is that .)שו”ע סי’ קכ”ג סי”ג( the absorbed wine does in fact need bitul
26. Sherry casks are intentionally made to release the wine flavor into whisky (above, 5-8) and most poskim hold that wine enhances the whisky’s flavor (20). Hence, the consensus of nearly all the poskim when applied to the current reality is that the flavor that the wine .)שו”ת מנח”י שם( imparts to the whisky requires bitul
נתרם לע”נ מרת הגליון נתרם לע”נ האשה החשובה
Is the Whisky Enough to Be Mevatel the Wine?
27. Several experts in the fields of kashrus and measurements, calculated the dimensions of commonly used barrels and found that the volume of whisky in a barrel is not six times the entire volume of the barrel walls; it only has six times the volume of the barrel’s inner surface (Harav Akiva Niehaus of the Chicago cRc’s kashrus department, who personally visited Scotland to see things up close; much credit to him for his important essay, Sherry Casks). Thus, one may not be meikel unless he uses all the kulos: that six parts – and not sixty – is the minimum for bitul (15), and the Iggros Moshe already wrote that a virtuous person will be machmir; that only the surface volume requires bitul (22), and we already pointed out that most poskim hold bitul is measured against the entire volume of the container (23). Since the volume of the whisky is not six times the volume of the barrel, it is assur according to nearly all poskim.Go to the above mentioned website and search for ‘sherry cask scotch’ and download a 118 page booklet in pdf form on the subject discussing every aspect in detail.
Baltimore Maven: I havent looked at the crc article being cited here by others in a long while but i remember a footnote in it saying r’ heineman was mattir although i think in practice the star k does not allow it in order to placate the kanoyim.
Also, I have previously heard the arguments by those who claimed that r’ moshe was not really mattir and did not find them very compelling at all. I have a longer list of those who were mattir but I only write those that it was publicized that they were mattir.
Harambam hilchot Maachlot Asurot 11:15 is clearly mattir. The Gemoroh Avoda Zara, daf chaf tes, which he bases his ruling on also is pretty clear that it is permitted. The S”A in siman kuf lamed zayin, sif daled also is meikil.
Gadolhadora: that is not how halacha is made.
I read the 118 page sefer a few years ago
If I remember correctly, the main argument used against the heter is that when it was written the assumption was that the cask didn’t do much. Then there was a cask shortage and distillers used different casks for the first time.
It was then noted that the other casks gave an inferior product to the point that it affected sales. Distillers since then are willing to pay the price of the cask. This proved the sherry cask was important to the process which is a definite problem in terms of kashrus.I stand corrected. Upon investigation, Rav Moshe Heinemann would personally allow it although not in agudah or anywhere where there is a standard of kashrus. Although lhalacha he holds like reb moshe, he also feels like reb moshe writes that its מכוער הדבר to serve something which proudly displays on the bottle that it contains something not kosher
Here is a link to the document some posters have mentioned:
In all fairness, in the 20th century (at least the first part), most Jews in the world relied on “ingredient kashrus”. They look at the label for known non-kosher ingredients. At first there were very few products with formal hecksherim, and even fewer where the item being sold has a kosher label. Even today, many people rely on ingredient kashrus rather than demanding a hecksher.
But now we can find almost anything with a formal hecksher, including most types of alcoholic beverages. And since food processing is much more complicated, labels are more unreliable than ever. So not insist on a hecksher?
Ingredient kashrus belongs to an area where Jews had to shave and try to look like goyim to keep jobs, even if it meant walking three hours to get home on Shabbos during the winter when work ended too late to use transit (and considered yourself fortunate to have a found a job that didn’t require working on Shabbos, since a six-day, 54 hour work week was the norm). It is from an era where wearing a yarmulke in public put you at risk of bodily harm, and precluded almost all possibilities of employment other than working for a frum owned business or a frum institution.
Rav Moshe Feinstein’s “Heter” :
Many people maintain that Scotch matured or finished in Sherry casks
is permitted based on Rav Moshe Feinstein’s ruling in Igros Moshe (YD I
simanim 62-64) with regard to “blended whiskey.” Rav Moshe concludes
that “blended whiskey” is permitted mei’ikur hadin due to the fact that
stam yeinam added to the whiskey is batul b’sheish. (Rav Moshe advises
a ba’al nefesh to be stringent; see Addendum 6.) However, it is of vital
importance to realize that Rav Moshe was not referring to Scotch; rather,
he was referring to whiskey (perhaps Canadian or American) into which a
small amount of wine (less than 2½%) was added. Thus, it was quite clear
that the small volume of added wine was indeed nullified. Our discussion,
however, refers to Scotch; the issue of concern is that it is matured in
wine casks – wine is never poured into the barrel (it is actually illegal to
do so). Although one might think that Scotch is more lenient since it is
only an issue of absorbed wine (blios) – not actual wine (bi’en), it may be
more stringent due to the opinion of the Shach and other Poskim that the
volume of blios is measured by the entire thickness of the walls, and there
is not sufficient volume of Scotch to nullify the blios b’sheish. Accordingly,
Rav Moshe’s heter does not apply to Scotch.“food processing is much more complicated”
Rav Soloveitchik z’tz’l told his students that almost all ice cream was kosher without a hechsher. But that was when Ice cream consisted of milk, cream, eggs, sugar, and natural flavors. Times have changed. Fortunately almost all national and regional brands of ice cream have hechshers today.
IT’S VERY COMPLEX.
For the extremely stupid, ignorant and non-drinkers among us (meaning, me), can someone break down exactly what the issue is? Please explain to it to me like I’m five.
Thank you.
The Wolf
Super, super over-simplified: If treif wine, especially fortified wines with a high sugar content (remember all that yayn nesech stuff) soaks into the wood barrels in which it was aged and those barrels are subsequently used to age schnops and the wine in the wood is released and mixes with the schnops, the schnops is arguably “contaminated”. Again, over super simplified analogy.
If treif wine,
Thank you. I did not realize that the same barrels were used for wine and whiskey. Being a non-drinker, I never would have thought of that.
The Wolf
So what did we come out with?
> So what did we come out with?
yes. We need a resolution in a week! Could someone go back and review this plethora of opinion by the COVID rule: consider the poskim who figured out, followed, and publicized protective rules more reliable on any issues that require an intense inquiry, like above. If someone did not pass the COVID test, is less reliable on his ability to analyze complex situations. for example. I heard R Heinemann speaking last April, and he was on the “passed” side. [“if you do not behave according to most stringent societal opinions, someone somewhere will not give a ventilator to a Jewish person”]. For the poskim who are not with us, you might check behavior of his students, although this is not entirely fair ….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.