Sherry Cask: An Open and Shut Halachah?

We're in the middle of discussing the halachas and controversies related to sherry cask whiskeys. So, just to review the metzius and what it is that we went through in the first year. So, there are certain whiskeys, specifically scotches, that are aged and matured in casks that were previously used to age and mature wine. The assumption is that these casks have in them bleois of wine. Being that the wine was not kosher, it's bleois of stam yaynum. And there's makom then to be concerned that the scotch that's aging in it right now is going to obtain some of those bleois, and as a result, there's going to be a little bit of stam yaynum inside those scotches. And the question is, from a halacha perspective, are you now allowed to drink the scotch, or are you not allowed to drink the scotch? So, we mentioned that if you ask the man on the street, what's the halacha regarding these sherry cask whiskeys? If he knows one thing about the sugya, he's going to tell you, I know the Remoishe Feinstein wrote a tshuvas on the topic. He said it's mutar me'ikra din, however, ba'al nefesh ya'ach. But we mentioned that it's a mistake. Number one, Remoishe didn't write one tshuvas on the topic. Remoishe wrote three tshuvas on the topic. Number two, although Remoishe wrote tshuvas related to something that's me'inyan le'inyan ba'al eisin din, but he actually never addressed this specific issue. What Remoishe was addressing was a different metzius, which was there were scotch makers that were physically pouring a little bit of wine into the scotch, into the whiskey. It seems that it was done at a ratio of up to 2 and 1/2%, meaning at best, you would have about 40 times whiskey relative to the wine. And Remoishe was asked, are you allowed to drink this whiskey or you're not allowed to drink this whiskey? Now, the more general context was that R' Pinchas Teitz, he's the child in these chuvahs, the gaon of Elizabeth, the great gaon, and one of the great uh rabbinic figures in post-war America had come up with a patent. He was able to finagle where the whiskey makers would be able to replace the wine with a kosher ingredient like this, this wouldn't be an issue. And he sends to R' Moshe what he was able to to write for R' Moshe says, "Tav yolaich habrocho, it's a beautiful thing." Stating that even the whiskeys, the way they've been previously with the little bit of wine and mixed inside of it is really not the end of the world. And in short, we did the longer version in the first year, in short, what R' Moshe said was that being that it's a paskening the Shulchan Aruch that stam yayin is bottle not bishishim, but rather bishisha, based on a Gemara that when we went through the first year we had not learned, but we've since learned it. A Gemara of Avodah Zarah daf ayin gimel amud beis, the way many of the Rishonim learned that Gemara. And although it's machlokes Taz and Shach whether the only time we say that stam yayin is bottle bishisha is when it's nisarev with mayim, but maybe not if it's nisarev with shaar mashkin. And if that's the case, then be makim to say then when it's nisarev with shaar mashkin, maybe shisha is not enough and it's told by the Dinim, you would actually need shishim. But says R' Moshe, the Taz paskens that shisha is enough even to shaar mashkin. And the Magen Avraham does, and the Prish Chadash does, and the Massa Shekalim does. And even though the Shach says not that way, but he has a whole lot of reiyos to prove that the Shach himself would be moideh when it comes to whiskey. The bottom line, says R' Moshe, is that even though at first glance it sounds like you wouldn't want to touch this whiskey with a 10-ft pole, but really, like acharonim, it's often halachos in Shulchan Aruch, stam yayin is bottle bishisha. But if that's the case, being that you have 40 times of whiskey connected to the wine, which is a lot more than the six, which is the magic number, which is what you would really need. It's for that reason this is going to be I says maybe we should be concerned with which means not only is it not allowed to be but someone's not allowed to do it on behalf of the year either. But in this case they were It's partially based on the and the post there this won't be a problem because whenever something's done on behalf of someone else to the extent that it's being done on behalf of the world so to speak, so we assume that it's being done based on whoever the majority of the world is. And being that the majority of the buyers of these whiskeys are not Jews, it's for that reason there's no problem of either and that's why there's no question in the world this is something that be allowed to drink. Stating that says his immortal words In the original Remus gave four reasons why should be in the follow up Remus added a why should be what were the five reasons? Number one Remus said a phenomenal he said that's that although you find that wine is bottle the shisha but for sure the wine is going to be meaning there's no one in the world that's going to tell you that if you dilute wine at a six to one ratio you no longer going to taste the wine. That's not true. You have to say that once there's six times of water club the wine the taste of wine that you taste is a key it's an acid it's not a real time and as a result it's not going to be a problem. Remus said being that you can't deny the fact that the is there and not only is it there it's probably the so could be although as it relates to drinking the wine as it relates to the time of the wine, for that this is far of ki uv al mah. But as it relates to having hana'ah from the wine, then already maybe the tam ki uv al is going to be considered a tam and it would create an issur hana'ah. Says Rav Moshe, if tam ki uv is not a tam when it comes to achilah and shteiyah, why should it be with regards to hana'ah? So for there Rav Moshe says it's a Mishnah in Sukkah and Tumah that all these issurei hana'ah, even if you burn them, are forbidden to have hana'ah, which is why issurei hana'ah halachah is forbidden to have hana'ah from them because we don't want people to have hana'ah even from the efer. So if the efer of issurei hana'ah is a problem, then it goes without saying, says Rav Moshe, I think that the tam ki uv would also be a problem. And being that we're dealing with stam yeinam, and stam yeinam we know is not only forbidden to have shteiyah in the first Mishnah in Avodah Zarah, those three Mishnahs are forbidden to have shteiyah it's also forbidden to have hana'ah. And even though we know that the din of this wine is a machlokes between Rav and Rav, whether we still treat stam yeinam with the chiyur of issurei hana'ah based on Tosafos in Avodah Zarah on 72b, whether we follow the Rashba and both Rav Shimon Rashba who found in the Teshuvos HaGeonim that being that the pagans today don't do the flicking of wrists anymore, so for that reason you could be lenient, but the Shach and the Taz both said that the only time we have a problem is when there's a monetary loss. So on some level we do treat yayin as being issurei hana'ah. If it's issurei hana'ah, maybe you have to reckon with the tam ki uv club of the issurei hana'ah, maybe that would be a reason not to drink it. Now says Rav Moshe, it's possible this is not the halachah. Why? Because the Shulchan Aruch says you're allowed to drink it when it's bottled with six. So when the Shulchan Aruch says you're allowed to drink it, he's telling you you could drink it and have hana'ah because the shteiyah is hana'ah. So obviously this is not a real problem, but there is zechor l'shvar to say that it should be an issue. He makes a tally of machlokes between the Rishonim and the Sugyas of tam karka which is way way way beyond the scope of what we're doing right now, but either way that's the first reason Rav Moshe gives that maybe the wine after it should be muttar. The second reason Rav Moshe says is because even though it's true it's brought down in Shulchan Aruch that stam yeinam is bottled with six, but really it's a machlokes shniya, it's totally a big machlokes between them how to learn the Gemara and Avodah Zarah and Gemara on this. And even though the Machaber paskens meforesh this halacha, but really the Rama, if you remember, brought two days. And even though the Shach said that the ikkar deya of the Rama is to be mekuval, the Rama did bring another day. And it's rooted in shittas Rishonim. We mentioned the Mordechai. But the bottom line is there is an opinion in the world that holds that stam yeinam is only botel b'shishim. So, a baal nefesh should be machmir. Again, it's not the halacha in Shulchan Aruch, but the baal nefesh should be frummer than the Shulchan Aruch and he should say that, you know what, maybe this is going to be an issue. The third reason that Rav Moshe gave was because we're dealing here not with stam yeinam being mixed with water, but rather stam yeinam being mixed with whiskey. And as we mentioned, it's really machlokes Taz and Shach whether or not, even if you hold, which is the halacha, that stam yeinam is botel b'shishim, is that going to be true even for shar mashkin or not? The Taz says meforesh yeah. And as we mentioned, the Magen Avraham, the Pri Megadim, and the Machatzis HaShekel also says yeah. But the Shach says no. And even though says Rav Moshe, I hold that for sure the halacha is like the Taz. And even the Shach, I don't think was chayev go over here. But a baal nefesh should be machmir. It's the stamest loshon of the Shach. And if you remember, he was coming from a stamest loshon of the Rama. So, the bottom line is, says Rav Moshe, this is a another good reason for a baal nefesh to be machmir. Additionally, Rav Moshe says there's a Machatzis HaShekel, there's a chiddush from the Machatzis HaShekel that the poskim don't necessarily bring, but there is a chiddush from Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz who said that whenever the yein was put into be mashpiach, so could be over there it's going to be different than in the chishin. Fourth reason for the baal nefesh to be machmir. And then, finally, the fifth reason that Rav Moshe mentioned in the second teshuvah was the Rashba. Which Rashba? The Rashba in Chelek Gimel in the teshuvos that the Shulchan Aruch paskens in siman kuf lamed daled seif gimel, and that is kol hamashkin shel shehdarkam l'aarev bahem yein o chometz assur. Meaning, to the extent that there's yein inside the taruves, but it's not put there. The derech of the is to put it there. It's one of the ingredients. So then we don't say bitter. This is based on the Raavad in the Sugya of Gevinas Akum, Yayin Nevilah Akum, two reasons. But the bottom line is this is a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch. So says Reb Moshe, at first glance, this case is mamash that. Where the derech is to be me'arev yayin. And over there, to the extent that we don't say bitter, I feel that aleph, well, that would be a a good reason to be mach. Now you're going to tell me this is not just a good reason for a ba'al nefesh to be machmir. This is a reason for it to be unequivocally assur. It's a mefurash Halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Says Reb Moshe, although at first glance it would seem that way, but there's a teshuvah mefursemes from the Noda BiYehudah, where the Noda BiYehudah in Yoreh De'ah Tinyana Siman Nun Vav said that as much as it's mefurash that the Shulchan Aruch paskened like the Teshuvos HaRashba in Hilchos Yayin Nesech, but in Hilchos Machalei Akum in Siman Kuf Tes Vav Seif Gimmel, with regards to the Halachos of Chemes Akum, over there it's mefurash that the Shulchan Aruch paskened not like the Rashba. Ay, if that's the case, isn't there a stira? So the Noda BiYehudah wasn't really meyaresh the stira, but the Noda BiYehudah did say that being that this Rashba is a very controversial Rashba because many Rishonim hold not that way, and the Shulchan Aruch himself was meikel in Hilchos Machalei Akum, so it's for that reason, says the Noda BiYehudah in his Halacha, he was dealing where there was a little bit of nevelah in the taruvis. And he went like Chiyya and paskened diloy ka Rashba, even though the derech was for the chevra to put this nevelah inside that mashka. And the reason is because as much as the Rashba said what he said, and the Shulchan Aruch seemingly paskened like the Rashba, but bimakom acher he paskened not like the Rashba. And we're going to go like that makom acher. Said Reb Moshe, that although over here it would seem much more difficult to go diloy ka Rashba, the reason is cuz the Rashba said it by Yayin and we're handling Yayin, right? You know, the Bihur was being made by Neveila. But over here we're handling Yayin and the Carasburg said it by Yayin. But this is where Ramasha is Ramasha and Ramasha said that it's true that you see the Shulchan Aruch is machmir when it comes to Yayin. But you have to say that the reason the Shulchan Aruch was machmir by Yayin is because Yayin is more chomer mishum chomer of the Azara. We know it's assur behana'ah, but that's all the machaber the Shita say. But there are more who holds that there's mana zeh. Stam yeinom is more kulah dikh. You don't have the chumer of avodah zara anymore, like we mentioned a minute ago. It's not assur behana'ah. So other dinim, there's no way in the world that it could be more chomer than Neveila. And if the Neveila was made by Neveila and said you don't have to be chashash for the Carasburg, then who are dinim leading down when it comes to stam yeinom? You won't have to be worried about the Carasburg. So Ezra Ramasha is stating that it is halacha Shulchan Aruch that would seem to say that this shaila that I'm being asked right now is assur. If you know the rest of the story, you know it's not. In fact, his lashon is so sharp, he says, "Ein lo chashash lo zeh klal." But it's a tam chamesh, he says Ramasha. For the ba'al nefesh to be machmir. Either way, this is a a 12-minute sikum of really the first rate bite, which is the foundation. It's the building block of this entire topic. But as mentioned, this teshuvah that Ramasha wrote was not about sherry cask whiskeys. It was about whiskey where there's a little bit of wine that was mixed into it. Ramasha said it's mutar mi'ikar hadin, five reasons why a ba'al nefesh should be machmir. But sherry cask we said is different. So first things first, why? Why is it different? Sounds very very similar. You have whiskey, scotch, there's wine that's being nisarraf into the whiskey, albeit through the beliyos in the defanos of the casks. But at the end of the day, the shaila is the same shaila and you would think that, you know, it should play itself out in a very similar way. The reason is very obvious. It's because the ratios and the proportions and the numbers of the taruvos are very very different. Right? The nuance is in the numbers. R'Moshe's case was where there was a little bit of stam yayin that was being mixed into whiskey. The ratio was 40 to 1 whiskey clappy stam yayin. Said R'Moshe, "40 to 1 is more than 6 to 1. I feel the bishul mashkin, there's no im b'af nislach l'chatchila, it's multimeg adin." Stating that, five reasons why the bal nefesh b'machna. When it comes to the sherry casks, here the numbers are very very different. And just to demonstrate, there's a klal in the world of taruvos that we assume that the contents of a kadeirah, the contents of a cask, of a chavis, whatever it might be, usually does not have 60 times connected whatever's below or inside the tvanos of that kadeirah, inside the tvanos of that chavis, inside the tvanos of the cask. So to assume that there's going to be 60, that there's going to be shishim of your single malt scotch relative to the bleios of yayin that are inside the cask, that's then not a rival. That's for sure not going to work. But we already have a lot of information. We know you don't need 60. R'Moshe already wrote a tshuvas and R'Moshe said that six is enough and it's going to be true even for shaar mashkin. But it's still going to be a problem. And the reason it's still going to be a problem is because if you do the math and you try to hashmin how much whiskey there is inside these sherry casks relative to the amount of bleios that there are inside the casks, you're not even going to get 6 to 1. And the reason is cuz these casks are very very thick. And because they're so thick, they're saturated with wine much more than you would expect. So you're not even going to get 6 to 1. So if you're not going to get 6 to 1, so at first glance you're going to have a problem. R'Moshe sat down and wrote a tshuvas. He had 40 to 1. So as long as R'Moshe was able to demonstrate very very simply that all you need is six, right? The kishmin in R'Moshe's tshuvas wasn't the bal nefesh achmas side. The first part of the tchuva was very straightforward. All you need is six, and you have your six. That was very easy. The problem with the sherry casks is when you sit down and you start running the numbers, you don't even have six. And because you don't really have six, it almost feels like it should be dead on arrival. Stating that there's a off on a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. And this halacha is in Yoreh Deah siman kuf lamed hey, it's in sif yud gimmel. Says the Shulchan Aruch, afilu b'machnis yayin l'kiyum. If somebody puts wine inside a cask, even if he wants it to be there for a long time, he's machnis yayin l'kiyum, einu bo'elaya yosem k'dei klipa. The choves that you're putting the wine into does not have the ability to be bo'elaya more than a k'dei klipa. So, what's a k'dei klipa? This is Yoreh Deah terminology 101. The k'dei klipa is like that first initial layer that's making direct contact to whatever it is is inside of it. But, the Shulchan Aruch says as m'foresh that if somebody puts wine inside a choves, we don't say that the entire choves is now going to have ble'as of wine in it, but all that's going to have ble'as is going to be the k'dei klipa. But, yosem k'dei klipa is not going to be an issue. If that's the case, at first glance, when we assess the numbers of the sherry casks, l'chairo, all your cheshboning is the k'dei klipa. If all your cheshboning is the k'dei klipa, it's poshut you're going to have shisha. Not only is it poshut you're going to have shisha, it's very possible you're even going to have shishin. But, shisha without a question you're going to have. And if that's the case, l'chairo, hader din Remoishes Tchuva. So, Remoishe already wrote a tchuva. But, Remoishe is oken. We know exactly what the case is. It's mamish Remoishes Tchuva. Now, Remoishe was talking about blended yayin soruf. We're talking about sherry casks. If you know, you know that it's not mamish the same thing. The man on the street has a little bit of a mistake. He thought Remoishe wrote a tchuva about it. He he didn't. Good, but the true is 100% applicable because at the end of the day you end up with a very similar equation. The numbers are a little different, but the equation is the same and if that's the case, well you shouldn't be able to apply but this doesn't work. And the reason it doesn't work is because it's a shock. The shock says and the shock is cotton lemon given right here in it's literally on this law. So again, the says I feel in your daily life. The shock near. The mistletoe on Marina High. This is the way it is mistletoe. We should enjoy your door should be in your own home. When we don't know for sure that the wine has been sitting inside these casks for a full day. But if you would know for a fact that the wine was inside of it for a full day, then the law is have a late coverage. Then already it's going to be coverage. And it has the ability to answer the entire cali So says the shock in his not such fine print right on the side of this law. That although the says that if you store wine inside of it's only going to take That's true if you don't know for sure that it was in place. But if you know for sure that it was in place, it's what's known as coverage. That already starts making it play this flying all over the place. And the ones that are going to come out of the is going to be enough to be by layer inside the entire cali. And if it's inside the entire cali, now cali law is not going to be enough. Now the truth is, if you take a look at the law, right here on the page. The quotes a true from the law. And this is in your opinion. The original true that we've been talking about as it relates to the law in law. This one is law. Then ask the question that the law he thinks is a law. And the reason is because one of the Naskan Minas Lahalacha with regards to whether or not a Kalis by layer could be a clipa or it's by layer legamri is how you would go and kosher this Kalis. To the extent it's only by layer could be a clipa, so then it's much easier to do a Hagala. Once it's by layer legamri the Halacha is you have to do Milui V'Irui, which is today's daf, it's tomorrow's daf, and it's going to be the last daf here in the Masechta. But then already you would have to do much more of a Hagala, you would have to do a Milui V'Irui. Says the Noda B'Yehuda that the Shach himself here in Siman Kuf Lamed Hey, Sif Katan Yud Gimel, paskins that in the event that the B'lios were inside Meis L'Meis, you wouldn't have to do the fancy Hagala. And a more nominal Hagala that in and of itself would be okay. If that's the case says the Noda B'Yehuda is really contradicting what he's writing over here. Cuz in Sif Katan Lamed Gimel, what did the Shach say? That if it's near Meis L'Meis, then it's Yotzei Mikdei Klipa. But in Sif Katan Yud Gimel, the Shach said that if it's near Meis L'Meis, you don't need the sheer Hagala that you would need when it's by layer legamri, but you can get away with the lesser Hagala. Lo Chareitz Astira. Says the Noda B'Yehuda it is. And I believe that the Ikar is like the first Shach. Meaning the Ikar is that even if it's near Meis L'Meis 100%, still you would need only Kdei Klipa and that's why the Shach said the minimal Hagala would be enough. I hear he said not though he says the Noda B'Yehuda Chareitz Astira. But the bottom line is the Ikar is like the other Shach. So although it's true that you have the Shisha K'Neged Kdei Klipa, the problem is you have a Shach that the Shach says when it's near Meis L'Meis, Kdei Klipa is not going to be enough. But the Noda B'Yehuda again comes to the rescue. And the Noda B'Yehuda says there's an Eitza cuz there's another Shach and the Ikar is like the other Shach and if that's the case, really based on this Noda B'Yehuda, you'd be able to walk away and be Meikel. So really, if you're willing to take on the Noda B'Yehuda's Chiddush in the Shach, then sherry cask whiskey is Mamash from Moshe. And if it's Mamash from Moshe, then you're going to end up literally where Moshe ended up. Meikar Hadin it's Mutar. Why is Meikar Hadin it Mutar? Because Meikar Hadin all you need is shisha to be stamina and over here you have shisha I there's no way in the world you're going to have shisha cuz the casks are so thick yeah but it's just a good day clipper so you can have shisha connected to the clay clipper you can have shisha connected to the clay clipper so that in and of itself is going to be enough I am asking emotion ready pass again that for sure I'm asking it's fine I am about to miss emotion ready said that's not either an issue now emotion said that for sure five reasons why it should be and the emotion is going to be applied here as well meaning let's go through them is there a no yeah maybe you should have to do so or not based on the story of maybe based on that meaning the bit of the shisha makes that but if it comes to the of shisha and that's the first reason about to be the second reason emotion said about to be is because maybe you need shisha maybe not shisha now it's not clear that would be a problem by shari cask because once you work with it could be you would actually have shisha and if you would have shisha that wouldn't be a problem but could be you wouldn't but regardless if you wouldn't then you would have that the third reason emotion said about is maybe you don't have shisha when it's again if you're working with shisha you would have that reason for shisha if you have shisha that's a mood point the emotion said that when it's you need shisha again if you don't have shisha that's going to be a reason for shisha but again from what I read it sounds like you're actually going to have shisha so could be that's not going to be an issue and then finally the was the of the that's something that's going to be in effect as well so the bottom line is really once you take on this so you end up with a shisha of shisha you have for sure shisha connected to the clay clipper so you're talking you have shisha as well but you would have is emotion shisha where it's going to be without a question in the world again based on the of a going emotion in terms of emotion shisha could be have all five reasons, it's mustabe you'll only have two of the five reasons, which would make it even more cool of it. But there's one problem with all this. The problem is that in as much as the Noda BiYehuda said that Ha'Gaon the Shach said that when the yayin was inside, for sure for yotzei me'esra'el is that the halacha is k'dei k'lipa is not enough. But the halacha is not really like that. The Shach was the Shach himself was oiser m'd'oraisa, we pasken like the other Shach. But a lot of poskim don't agree with this. Noda BiYehuda, the Chachmas Adam, who's the Chayei Adam, who's one of the Mordei HaShmais says, when it comes to yerideya, he says he could be someach on this, meaning he can go not like the m'furash Shach here in Siman Kuf Lamed Gimmel, but makom tzarich gadol. But otherwise, the Shach said "Rachav Pischah K'tanah", can't be m'furash that in the event it's your du'ach, sh'haya yayin nitzak b'soch yayin shalem, havealei kavush u'ktzishah oiser kol ha'keli. And if these are the words of the Shach, unless there's a hefsed gadol, you have a real reason to go not like the Shach, I don't see how you can go not like the Shach. And there's other poskim that felt very strongly this way as well. And if that's the case, really to make this hanacha l'chatchilah mamash and say go enjoy your 18-year-old McCallan based on the fact that the numbers work out and it's Ramah's T'shuva being that you're completely disregarding an oifen Shach here in Shulchan Aruch it's hard for any posek to tell you that it's okay. Ha'Gaon the Noda BiYehuda al b'fo'el. And Ramah's T'shuva is not going to help you for this prat, cuz remember, Ramah wrote his T'shuva about bitul b'shishim, afilu b'sh'ar mashkin. Ramah addressed the fact that there's no problem with that, it's not k'dei k'lipa, Ramah neutralized the Rashba, Ramah answered member of Titus of the kashrut of the timer. Tavlin. Remocha did a lot of the work for us, but Remocha never gave us a psak as it relates to this. We don't have such a psak from my going to God Remocha finds strangely. How do you deal with this shach? And as a result for us to go ahead now and to say that we're going to name on the night of Yehuda even though it's reasonable. It's reasonable what you can be moicha on someone who's going like the night of Yehuda? Way above my pay grade. But at the same time up in the shach and it's clear from the post game that the post game name on the shach and as a result although at first glance the sherry cask shilo would seem to be mamesh Remocha shuva but really after further review it is a little bit more complicated because you're willing to overlook a shach. And again, you have the places of the night of Yehuda the grace of places both literally and figuratively of the night of Yehuda to rely on. But at the same time who's going to go and be my career being good only good only a post game. We don't have a shuva from the grace of Moshe. And as a result it makes sherry cask actually a little bit trickier. Stating that everything that we just spoke out right now is just a sniff in the shilo. It's just a sniff. This was the appetizer. This was the full spice. And really really really the sugi of sherry cask is somewhere else. It's not here. If somebody sits down and learns the sherry cask sugi and this is where he focuses on kuf lamed hey yud gimmel you're saying good but you should be saying a lot better cuz this is really not where the sugi is. So where is the sugi? The sugi is in a different alacha in shulchan aruch. It's in yoreh de'ah. It's in siman kuf lamed zayin. It's in sif dalet. Shulchan aruch paskins as follows. Kelim assurim machmas yayin shel Kelim that are assur because of yayin shel meaning stored wine for 100 years inside of it. And right now these kelim are assur cuz they have beliefs of iron. Multilethal iron you're allowed to put inside. You ready? Bain Mayan, water. Bain Shaker, beer. Bain Shama Shaker or any other Shaker. It's multilethal to do it and you can drink from it. You can have a laugh from it. You can do whatever you want from it. It's a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch. If there are Kayla that are also iron shall go in, it's multilethal to go ahead and put any Shaker that you want. Now, iron is also the previous Halacha and that's what many of the Halachas that are going on here in Hilchos iron are talking about. But when it comes to Mayan, Shaker, or Shama Shaker, here the Halacha is there's no problem whatsoever. It's going to be multilethal. Now, what's the background to this Halacha? So, we're going to go down memory lane a little bit. The Makor that is an issue with Kayla that was used to store Stam Yayin, that that should now be a problem for a Yid to put his wine inside of it is a Mishna. It's the Mishna. It's the first of the three Mishnayos in the second paragraph of Maseches Avodah Zarah that talks about the wine that was used by Kohanim. The Mishna says like this, Ailu D'varim She'Yidim Kohanim V'Issurim Issur Hana'ah. And one of the that's mentioned in the list is Kohanim the Kankanim. The Noidos, these were the leather flasks used to use to store wine. Kankanim, were the earthen wear jugs that they used to store their wine. So, the Halacha is if you have the Noidos, such Noidos or Kankanim, the Yayin She'Yisrael Konis Ba'Hen, then the Halacha is a Yid would not allowed to put his own wine inside. And if he put his own wine inside, Assur his wine would be Assur. V'Issur Issur Hana'ah, it would also be Assur Hana'ah. And the Gemara says that's really Machlokes whether it's Assur Hana'ah but the bottom line is Noidos Kohanim the Kankanim, the Yayin She'Yisrael Konis Ba'Hen, Assur Hana'ah. V'Issur Hana'ah, the Halacha is they're going to be Assur. And the reason is cuz we assume that the wine is going to be by Leia from the noid days and the kankane of the that previously had stored wine and as a result it's going to be a problem. Says the Gamara what about beer? Could you put beer in the noid days for kankane or not? So the Gamara says both said it's also for Robert said it's Ravina the Gamara said Ravina allowed Rav to put beer. Also and he went and he put wine. And even though you would have thought that maybe Ravina would have said moving forward you know don't put beer cuz I'm afraid you're going to put beer you may end up putting wine as well. He wasn't worried about it. The whole thing wasn't a Gamara says that Rava and Ravina were both matter to put beer in noid days and kankane of the that previously had wine inside of it. Now the Gamara says beer. What about other so the re said the whole the whole mashkin without me. Any mashkin any beverage in the world with the exception of wine you're allowed to put inside the noid days and kankane and it's going to be this Gamara with this this one line this is the kailam mashmas mutalite in the been Mayan been shamashkin. Now why is it that it's muta? I mean at first glance sounds a little bit like a right? Why is it that it's muta? You're not allowed to put wine but when it comes to any other beverage then already it's going to be muta. What's the reason? So if you look in the noid and it's all coming from the in the Gamara Gamara Gamara there's two reasons that emerge. The in this mutalite in the the reason is because we assume that the Tam Hayayin is going to be bottled. The Taz quotes the Tur who says a different reason. It's not because the Tam Hayayin is bottled into the Mashkin that's inside the notice the Kankane. But rather the reason is Key and Shaya Hayayin Poig and Ison. It's because even though the Tam is there, but the Tam is Noisin Tam of Gan. It says the Taz forgot the Bashar of the Kaim Noisin Tam of Gan also the Katinu even though ordinarily the Halacha is that Noisin Tam of Gan is also the Katinu over here being that the Bli is happening between them, right? There's no heat over here. It's Tzoinein, it's called. And as a result here it's going to be more cooler dig and over here you could be Mat of the Katinu where it's Noisin Tam of Gan. In other words, the Shach says that the reason is Mat of the Tam Hayayin cuz it's going to be bottled. The Taz quoting the Tur says that it's because it's Noisin Tam of Gan. If you look at the Shach two Sif Katans later, so the first Shach we read was Sif Katan Tes Vav. This one is Sif Katan Yud Zayin. I'm picking up in middle. Says the Shach quote, "The reason that Tam is Mat of the Tur if you going to tell me that the reason this is Mat for the reason that the Tur gave Mishum Shaya Hayayin Poig and Ison the Cos of the Rosh and the Rosh said the same thing. It could be this way Rashi holds as well. It could be the Mash when we and it's Mash from the Bash says the Shach that this is the real reason. That the real reason it's Mat is not even so much that the wine is bottled, but that it's Noisin Tam of Gan. But the bottom line is you go through the Noisin Kaelim over here often not three fancy when I feel my If you look at the Shach and the Taz, it's clear there's two reasons why this Halacha is so. Either it's because of the fact that we assume that whatever is inside is Mat of the Tam Hayayin or it's because it's Noisin Tam of Gan. The Shach gives the former reason. The Taz gives the latter reason, but the Shach himself seems to quote the Bash and even suggest that the Tam Iker really is pun is because of the The that it's Noisin Tam of Gan and being that it's Noisin Tam of government, it's going to be more than that. But here's the bottom line. Here's the bottom line. The bottom line is it's a lot of freshness in Shulchan Aruch. Kelim asura machmas yayin shel Muttar leetain lesoicham bein mayin, bein sheichar, bein shaar mashkin. And so the taam zayin because we assume that it's mevattel taam yayin. Should the taam be because it's noisen taam of Doesn't matter. It's a often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Kelim asura machmas yayin shel muttar leetain lesoicham bein mayin, bein sheichar, bein shaar mashkin. The Makor is Gemara in Kiddushin daf lamed gimel amud beis. With what Tosfos speaks out in Divrei Masculo Shulchan Aruch amud beis sheichar. And if that's the case, it would seem like Chazal Beruach Hakodesh knew that one day there was going to be a big metumtum. Could you drink the Makans or not? And they gave it to you literally. They gave it to you in a I was going to say on a silver platter. They gave it to you on a shot glass. They gave it to you. They said it's muttar mamash. It's muttar lechatchila. There's no question in the world. And by the way, it's your doyen in the Yeshiva that a goyen haposek Reb Miller shlita is a very big meikel when it comes to sherry cask whiskey. And his cool is based on the fact that it's a often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. So halacha in Shulchan Aruch the Shulchan Aruch paskins it's muttar. I don't know what the whole tummel is about. It's often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Kelim asura machmas yayin. Sherry casks muttar leetain lesoicham bein mayin, bein sheichar, bein shaar mashkin. In shaar mashkin is included whiskey. And if that's the case, lechora, what exactly is the tummel? You don't have to get involved bittuls and you have to get involved in the klippas and we don't even need a Moshiach's truval. Wow. It's seemingly a mefurash halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Me'ikar hadin, this is something that should be muttar. Stating that shnei teshuvos bedaf. And both of which are addressed by Reb but just to speak out the Sugya below. The first is that there are a lot of poskim that feel that it's very hard to say that this halacha in Shulchan Aruch of Keilim Assurim Machmas Yayin Shel Mutar Lehatilam LeSechachim BeMayim U'BeShechar is applicable to the Sherry Cask Whiskey Controversy. And the reason is because what's underpinning this halacha? Either we say that the ta'am yayin is batel or the ta'am yayin is not batel, but it's nosein ta'am lifgam. The reality of the situation is that the Scotch makers that store their Scotches in Sherry Casks, they flaunt it. They spend a tremendous amount of money to cultivate these casks to be able to age them and mature them in them. You're going to tell me that they believe that the ta'am yayin is batel, that it's not there, or better, that it's nosein ta'am lifgam? Where they're plastering literally on their expensive bottle of whiskey that you should know that there's an ingredient in it that makes this taste disgusting? That's poel gamur? Of course not. So you speak to these chevre, they're going to tell you, "What do you mean? This is sophisticated ben Noach shel sophisticated. This is the most intricate taste you'll ever have in your life, but it's leshvach, it's not lifgam." So it's true that Shulchan Aruch said Keilim Assurim Machmas Yayin Shel Mutar Lehatilam LeSechachim BeMayim U'BeShechar U'BeMayim Chamim Lo BaZeh U'Lo BaZeh Ta'am Lo Ba. The ta'am is Again, these are all puns, by the way. Every time we say the word ta'am, you can say pun intended. But Lo BaZeh Ta'am Lo Ba. Mitztaref U'Mevatel Ta'am Yayin. Oh, because it's nosein ta'am lifgam. And nobody's going to tell you that the wine that's inside these expensive whiskeys are batel and no one's going to tell you that the nosein ta'am lifgam. So I'll tell you Rav Shlomo's teretz to this kasha is, and I've seen it in print many times, and I spoke to one of his greatest talmidim, his teretz to this kasha is, "What do you want? You want to tell me the Gemara got it wrong? Like, what are you trying to say?" Chazal gave us an unequivocal psak. Chazal said that it's mutar. Khazars said that the tam ayin is bottle. Khazars said that it's nice and tam of gone. Oh, but the big knocker at Glenmorangie time is not that way. I hear. So what do you want to do? So the re got it wrong. The Khazars didn't know. They are more machatoyes. Ravina Rav was a big mumchin why but not like the Glenmorangie shisha, right? Is that what you're supposed to say? Right that Rav was sorry, right? We passed like Rav when it comes to wine, I think. But the point we once said that Rav was a po by beer, Rav was a po by wine. But is that that's the takeaway? So what do you want? Khazars said it's muter. Khazars didn't give such a carver. I the kasha. I Khazars said it's nice and tam of gone and they said it's nice and tam of shvach. So Rav says like this, it's printed in his shivas. He says lo chol kushiya yesh tarits. We don't mechalel halacha because we have a kasha. I have a kasha. You have a kasha. Oh but lo chol kushiya yesh tarits. Right? Any kasha you're going to ask on this is going to be a tarits. And then Rav suggests a few terutzim which are very novel and creative. Actually make a lot of sense. One thing Rav says is that it could be that the tam of shvach that you have from the sherry wine that's inside your scotch is actually not so much that you're tasting the wine but it's that you're smelling the wine. And the truth is when they advertise these casks, what they tell you is that it's going to enhance the aroma, it's also going to enhance the palate. It's going to enhance both. But he said it's very yutachin. It's very yutachin that where it's being mashpia. And the reason they're so proud of it is because the scotch is going to smell better. Now you're going to say that what do you mean? I taste it. So Rav says that it's your dua that the chush hareiach is mashpia on tam as well. In fact, people that don't have chush hareiach, right? This was a big deal after COVID. That people that can't smell, they can't enjoy their food as much. So the reality is is that when you smell food, it actually enhances the palate, enhances the taste. So, it could be, says Reb Miller, and that could be, it has to be, that the etzem, the ta'am of the yayin inside the scotch is l'shvach. It's the rei'ach of the yayin that's l'shvach. Now, as it relates to halacha, rei'ach we know lo moseh. So, you could smell a fen aiv as marigolds, that in itself is not going to be a problem. They're advertising it l'shvach because it is being mashpi'a, but the shvach is not in the ta'am, it's in the rei'ach. I mean that it's in the rei'ach. Rei'ach lo moseh, so for that reason it's not going to be a problem. He says, "Am I wrong? Maybe I'm wrong. I don't care." He says, "You want a teretz? It's a suggestion. The ikar is not this. You're going to sit and you're going to tell me, 'But the But the Glenfiddich guy said not that way.'" Whatever, it's fine. This is We're not living and dying on this war. But the bottom line is that this is a reasonable approach to maybe go by them. They said something else, which it seems that others have said as well, and that is that when we say that the sherry cask enhances, it's mashpi'a the whiskey, is Does that mean that the wine is going from the cask into the scotch and making the scotch better? As if to say, "What we want is we want a little bit of wine inside the scotch, and you know, we figured out a way to do it. What we're doing is we're going to use casks that had previously been used to store wine." As a result of this bittul yayin, there's bittul yayin, so what it was batel it's going to be maflet, and like this you're going to have wine. So, Reb Miller said, "If that's really what you're trying to accomplish, this is a chelem a ma'aseh. What you should have done I'm a chelem a ma'aseh to say that. This is a chelem a ma'aseh. What you should have done was you should have taken a little bit of wine and you should have poured it into the whiskey. Why do you do that? That was Reb Moshe's teshuvah, right? So, that's what you should be doing." He says, "It's clearly not something they're trying to do. What they're trying to do is is the scotch makers want to age their scotch in these very, very sophisticated casks, and they're putting a lot of different ta'am in inside this cask to give it that intricate sophistication. One of the things they're putting in is wine. But here's the point, the wine is not being mashpia the shecher. What it's doing is it's being mashpia the cask, and then the cask is going ahead and that's being mashpia the whiskey. So, clubbing the wine that's going directly into the whiskey, that in and of itself is that in and of itself is not going to be a problem. Stating that stating that the reason that it's for shlak and the reason they're spending all this money is not because they're for damien. No, they got it right. But the way it's working is is that the wine is being mashpia the cask, and then the cask is being mashpia the whiskey. But being that it's not the wine directly into the whiskey, so could be that would be an atzah and as a result that's not going to be a problem at all. By the way, that also triggers the sugya of zevachim which is a whole another sub category to this discussion that we're not going to get into right now. But the bottom line is, said Reb Miller, at the end of the day it's enough in the halacha and shulchan aruch. Keilim masura machmas yayin shel mutar leeting lesoychen bein mayim bein shecharim bein shaar mashkin. This is really where the sherry cask sugya is at. It's adam mefurash halacha in shulchan aruch, and it's for that reason Reb Miller in all his teshuvos paskens that it's mutar lechatchila. You're allowed to go ahead, you're allowed to drink it. It's based on this halacha. I the metzius is made not that way, but kol kashya yesh teirutz. But at the end of the day the halacha doesn't budge because we have a kasha, and as a result the halacha will be the way it's mentioned right here. Now, Reb Miller in his teshuvah he adds to this that there's another few sniffin halacha that it's kedai to to be mitztaref. I'm going to mention three. One, Reb Miller says, is at the end of the day it's katz yetzotzen that you have a shiyur bitul anyways. Because again, this was the whole first part of it. We said the sugya is really in kuf lamed Zayin Daled. The Sugya is not in Kuf Lamed Hey Yud Gimel. But you do have Kuf Lamed Hey Yud Gimel. Meaning you have Remus Chuva. At the end of the day, it's Yutkin that being that the wine is bottled b'shisha, afilu b'shaa mashkin, like Remus Feinstein pasken. And even though you're not going to have shisha k'neged all the wine that's inside the cask, but k'neged d'klipa y'ul. And even though the Shach said you can't be someuchan k'dei klipa where it's say yotzei m'slais, but the Noda b'Yehuda already said, and even though Chiyadam already said that b'makom tzarich you could be someuchan not that way. So we see already some wiggle room here. So he says as a sniffle hakel, it's Yutkin this is something you could be someuchan. Another sniffle hakel that Remus Miller mentions in his truvis is also based on a mateus, and that is that it seems that after the whiskies are stored in these casks, before they bottle them, they pour a lot of water inside of it. And being that they pour a lot of water inside of it, they do it just to make it a little less alcoholic, but they pour a lot of water inside of it. And being that they do that, the water that's being poured inside of it is being moisef now to the kamus of the whiskey. And now we're ready for sure there's going to be a shiyur where you'll be able to m'vatel us. Even though if you don't want to be someuchan k'dei klipa, etc., but with that water for sure it's going to be okay. Now, if you're holding in the lamdus a little bit of taruvis, you're going to say one second. Once the wine was m'chlaf into the whiskey, so didn't the whiskey itself become ossur based on the halacha of Chanan? Right, who's Chanan? Chaticha naseh n'veila. So based on the halacha of chaticha naseh n'veila, maybe that should be a problem. So there Remus Miller says based on the truvis in the G'mora that when you're dealing with a taruvis of lach b'lach by niseh d'rabbanan, you don't say Chanan. There's makom l'hakel. That's the makom l'hakel. Starker makom l'hakel when it comes to this. And as a result, the water that's being added later is going to be m'vatel the little bit of wine that was there. So by the time it makes it to your kiddush, at that point for sure it's already bottled, and as a result it won't be an issue. A third sniffle hakel that's K'dei to mention, Remus Miller mentions in his uh shmuzin on this, and that is that there's a from who says that it could be anything that's also anything that's also anything that's also that could be well now the this is the who says in the that is he says being that it's only so if you don't have a it's already at that point at that point you could be and it's going to be enough and being that only cuz already said that is not an issue so today has the of if but these are all the of Miller is came up with the answer leading to being Mayan shaker there's two reasons mentioned in in the post game why that's the case either because the time of the bottle the reason seems to be the second reason and that is cuz it's nice and and if that's the case it's based on a new in arc so really after all said and done this whole was often right is that true is that true and if that's the case how could you even be like what's going on over here you're going to be can I go on often I think we stopped here we're all right we know where we're going so what's going on here like what's what's the other side of the story right I mean it's often so I yeah where exactly you going to go with this but I think it's good I can mention that as much as it's true it's a often in arc that would suggest that this should be there's also an often in that would suggest it should be awesome and again we addressed this already we're going backwards a little bit but we're doing it to make a point. And that halacha is the Rashba. Kuf lamed daled yud gimmel. Meaning, any single time you have a taruvas of yayin and shaar yisur and you want right now to go ahead and be someayach on a bitul, if it's the derech to be me'arev the yayin inside, the halacha is you're not going to have the bitul. It's going to be assur. Sherry cask whiskey fits very neatly into this halacha in Shulchan Aruch. And if that's the case, just based on the psak in Shulchan Aruch, it should be assur. Meaning, we're we're coming very gishmak now. We're saying, "What do you mean it's often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch?" There's another halacha. And the halachas are not a stereo. They're they're talking to each other. Where it's not the derech, where it's a mikvah alma, so then you have kuf lamed zayin daled. Where it's the derech l'arev, so then you have kuf lamed zayin daled yud gimmel. So, l'chumra, in as much as it's a often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch in kuf lamed zayin daled that it should be mutar, it's also often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch in kuf lamed zayin daled yud gimmel that it should be assur. So, you can't just come and say it's often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Cuz there's another halacha in Shulchan Aruch that would seem to be assur. Now, what's the teretz to this kasha? So, what's the teretz to this kasha? We know the teretz to this kasha. Teretz is the Noda B'Yehuda. In Noda B'Yehuda, tinyana, siman nun vov. The teretz is Reb Moshe and Reb Shmuel in the second teshuvah. In Noda B'Yehuda, chelek aleph, siman sameach gimmel. We know the answer. The answer is k'var hoyu askainim. Noda B'Yehuda and Reb Moshe and Reb Shmuel. And that is that we don't pasken like this Rashba. We don't pasken like this Rashba. Based on the Rashba in Chemas Akum in kuf tes vov gimmel and the stereo and the Rama and the Taz and Shulchan Aruch and the Taz and as a result it's for that reason halacha l'maaseh b'zman hazeh we're going to be meikel. But, remember it's a often a halacha in Shulchan Aruch. You have to jump through this hoop. And if you don't jump through this hoop, then you missed, right? You have to jump through this hoop. Cuz at the end of the day, there is a often a law that says now doesn't even address this in the truth to me. Amazing. I discussed it with one of his So the question is cuz it's and it's matter. And being that we know that this is not a law that you have to worry about, so it's not a law that you have to worry about. So again, maybe you just said it a few hundred years ago. So if that's the case, the that is the that is the to be Now remember, said right? Can't forget that. But at the same time, this sounds like something that would be matter. But the truth is that there's really more to say as it relates to sherry cast copy the two things. Number one, there is a that's out there that suggests that could be even the only said what he said if you're putting a inside the So you have sherry cast is no all there are is And being that all there are is there is a to say the would have never said what the said when all you're dealing with is this. Could be yeah, could be not. But it is a strong that I heard from Number one. Number two. Number two. If you assume that the reason that came which is the reason of the and even the which is the reason of the says that the and he also seems to suggest that that's the reason. If you speak to the they'll tell you that's the reason. So if you work that that is the reason, then it's you're talking for sure there's no cuz the whole rashba is when you're being So if I'm being says the rashba meaning no but to the extent that over here I'm not coming inside the I'm coming inside the fact that it's it's an that's why it's it's if it's the rashba never said that with a to put in a all of a sudden it's going to be to drink. What the rashba said is that when you're coming to a So then you can't go ahead and be Maybe you work with the there's no when it comes to but over here we're not coming into it There's no This is an couple of days ago. The bottom line is that's the So if it's then it's it's it's that the whole of the wouldn't be applicable at all. So we have the of the So we have the of the rashba of What do we have to count to that? You have three but one is literally the and the from and then we have a which is only a and that is maybe there's enough The would say and then we have what seems to be a very compelling argument and that is that if you assume that the reason for that there is based on the fact that it's Well if it's based on then it could be this whole rashba this whole rashba is not going to be at all. So what's the bottom line? So what's the bottom line? The bottom line is is we have the of the and the of the of the is that you don't have or even shisha of whiskey connected all the blears that are inside the cask. However, you definitely have shisha and you likely even have shishim connected to the day clipa. If that's the case, if you're willing to be so much on the night of Yehuda who said that the shach said that once it's the Isla is you have to assume that the blears are in the entire cask, not only in the day clipa. If you're willing to go like that you don't have to worry about that. Well, then all you have is day clipa you can have shisha you probably even have shishim and if that's the case it's going to be able to drink the sherry cask based on but the reality is but but the reality is that the sherry cask whiskeys are going to be motar. If you want to take on the of the shach which sounds like the appropriate approach to the well if that's the case then you don't have the requisite because here you have to assume all the blears inside the entire cask and if it's all the blears inside the entire cask you're not going to have shishim you're not even going to have shisha and if that's the case you're going to have a little bit of an issue. Stating that you have which is Caleb it's an often a that says all mashkim that is you have this after. Why is it motar? So it's a little bit awesome either because it's bitter or because it's the end of the day you have and if you have so based on that you would think that it should be motar. Additionally you have the three sniffing that he threw out all the three sniffing that he that mentioned number one you have the sniff of the night of Yehuda who said that you could be so much not like the shach and the day clipa. Number two they put a little bit of water and there's no and as a result once they add the water at that point you for sure going to have a and then there's the finish from the heart say, that maybe when it comes to this, even more of is going to be enough. But, it's all because of with three sniffing the huckle and based on that, you would think it's going to be more than stating that what you have steering you in the eyes the rashba. Which is also the words of the column asking to go in dark and light of I just want to bring it out. The rashba really talks to every single of this chuvah. Because they could chuvah is Not if you take on the rashba. What would the sniffing the huckle? I have shisha connected to the but if there's a rashba, there's no at all. But, we when we add the water. Yeah, but if there's a rashba, there's no at all. What all you need is but if you have a rashba, there's no at all. So, the rashba knocks out the icker chuvah and it even knocks out all the sniffing the huckle. However, the rashba would seem to knock out this entire What's the answer? The answer is Moshe said that He's making a toys. That this rashba is when when it was when it was when it was very very serious. But, this it's not worse than And if that's the case, you don't worry about the rashba. You would have different and certainly if the reason it's more than what sounds like the reason So, there's mitigating factors where maybe the rashba won't be a factor. The bottom line is what you have staring you in the eye is the rashba. So, just one last point and that is Rebelski was also asked this question. Come over every I think in the last 50 years was asked this question. Rebelski was asked this question and he wrote a chuvah and it's in the chuvah of If you want to look it up inside, it's in the section. It's in chof hey. And he was asked the shaila. These cherry cask whiskeys, are they motor or are they and writes a whole chuvah. And you know what his truva is? I'll tell you what his truva is. His truva is that by the time you have a motion truva in the smicha, where you went through a lot of the you went through everything you have to go. He says, "But at the end of the day, what's staring me between the eyes is the Rashba. It says, "I can't get past the Rashba. At the end of the day, there's an often a Rashba that said shall go in the dark and in the day and and the Shulchan Aruch paskins it. And he says in the forest she says, "V'hinei, even though it's true that the Noda B'Yehuda and Rav Moshe Feinstein were both meikel and they already gave us a psak l'doros that you could be meikel." He says, "But And he makes a big deal that the only thing everything else he throws in the ragag. But his whole truva is the Rashba. Rav Miller's whole truva is kuf lamed zayin dalet. Often Shulchan Aruch. Anything that the derech is to put the your light to put some mashkim inside. Rav Belsky's truva was kuf lamed dalet yud gimmel. Often Shulchan Aruch. Kol hamashkin shel shedarku b'yayin chametz asur. Now, the reason Rav Miller said it's often Shulchan Aruch is because he wasn't even addressing the Rashba. He knew the Rashba. Obviously, he's not learning the Rashba. So he says, "You're He's not learning more than tiny bits nice and not nice." And look at the McCallan's wrapper. So he said, "I wrote in my life, it's often Shulchan Aruch." Now, there happens to be a Rashba. He's not even busy with that. He's not even addressing it. Kol ha'oros skainim. They already paskened that it's not a problem. Rav Belsky's whole truva was this halacha writer. Kol hamashkin shel shedarku b'yayin chametz asur. So in conclusion, that the shery cask sugya is a very interesting sugya because really the meikel has an often halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Often halacha in Shulchan Aruch is not like a fancy svar. It's often halacha in Shulchan Aruch. And the machmir has an often halacha in Shulchan Aruch. you can sit at a kiddush fight the fight and you could say what are you talking about? Kiva masura and sugar and with the lead in the second it sounds like check made it's mother and you can sit at a kiddush and you could be the former who's making kiddush on wine not on whiskey and you could be sitting there screaming what are you crazy no way in the world. Schlomo cuz call it sugar and sugar often a lot of sugar and And the truth is I hear I hear both. They're both true. They're both true. The master of Schlomo Miller the great basic pasquin that it's mother either Schlomo Schlomo Belsky the great pasquin he pasquin mother be great then you can't go connect to the motion I don't want to share it's actually interesting because you know all these nuances in a lot are are always very fascinating. The reality is as far as I know the cash organizations right they don't give out sugar on cherry cask whiskey or usually doesn't give out sugar on cherry cask whiskey in the O U with a sugar so Belsky you see why not Belsky didn't like it and Belsky held that it wasn't okay. I actually had the last week I was at a wedding and I was sitting next to somebody who's a a big connector in one of the very important cash global cash organizations in the world I asked him this question which question I didn't say the question yet. I asked him that why is it that the O U gives out sugar of stone and they don't give out sugar on cherry cask. I mean the motion the truth that came out in both that it's more to make a din by the first sugar in fact the motion sound like he was more when it came to sugar of stone than it was the cherry cask right the motion said there's no you are out to be he says I'm by cherry cask or the equivalent there of the motion said cherry cask using that word loosely sugar the motion said that he himself is make all to to give cuz he doesn't want to be you are all right he's worried that he's going to be secure but the bottom line is that in the mice it's just the opposite. I'm going to tell you what he told me. He told me that part of our mission statement is to make kosher food available to Jews around the world. He said to be when it comes to we feel that's a tremendous but to be from to the when it comes to sherry cask new it's not the end of the world. In fact the quote who ran the U the lotion is that therefore even though there's a very very stark mocking to be make basically gave you the reason. He told you himself because it's not such a I mean that there's not such a so it's for that reason that he felt you don't have to be the rules make it happen doesn't even write is so interesting but the make all the was we know the have we know that the have all my list my in terms of the bottom line this is above my pay grade all I could say is drink responsibly and at the end of the day we should all be we should be drinking together of this and we should be sharing and one day we should be to drink from the the said that we have no amen