An Email from Chaim asking why Lagavulin 16 is not on my Whisky list

Last night I received the following email from my Contact form.

Love your reviews. I noticed you did not have Lagavulin 16 which is Star-K approved on your list. Any particular Reason?

Thanks!

Regards,

Chaim.

Shavuah Tov Chaim,

Firstly, thank you very much for your positive feedback. I spend hours in research and have spent decades building up contacts within the Whisky industry in order to keep my Whisky list up to date. Moreover, it takes hours to write my whisky reviews. I know people are reading them as I see the Google statistics but it is very frustrating that I get almost no feedback, comments, let alone discussion in the comments section, from people like you who do read and enjoy my blog. So, thank you for taking the time to write.

Now, to your question. I do make it clear in my notes at the bottom of my Whisky No-Stam-Yeinam list what the parameters of the list are, but I'll elaborate for you here.

The Difference between Certified and Approved Products


Star-K is a large and, in my opinion, very reliable Orthodox Kashrus organisation those poskim and Rabbonim have the sechus to give certification to products they deem kosher.

So as well as giving certification which would mean the company paying them a fee and then Star-K sending a mashgiach to the place of manufacturer and examining the entire process that goes into producing the product, Star-K also give their "Approval" to products that, according to their established psak, based on the information they have received from the manufacturer and their knowledge of the relevant issues involved, they will then give their "Approval" to that product.

Similar to Star-K, the Kashrus London Beth Din also issue a list of approved products, as well as certifying products for a fee. As I understand it, the decision to approve any product includes making general assumptions and will employ "koolers" (leniencies) in order to make their determination. On the other hand, if they were asked to give certification for that same product, then they would demand a far higher kashrus standard and not rely on these same assumptions. That is after all, the difficult job of the Posek. To know when to apply koolers and when to be machmir. In general, I trully believe that both these organisations can be totally relied upon.

I, on the other hand, am not a posek and cannot make any such determination.

My Single Malt Whisky list is simply a statement of fact. It is a list of official bottlings (as I cannot keep track of all limited edition bottlings from independent bottling companies), of releases that, based upon my research, have no Stam Yeinam influence, that is, they have had no (or virtually no) maturation in any non-kosher Ex-Sherry, wine, brandy etc. casks.

Now, you must understand that the term "Single Malt" means that the spirit used to produce this whisky has come from one single Scottish distillery and made from 100% malted barley. That doesn’t mean however, that the whisky in that bottle has come from a single cask.

Actually, in most cases the bottle is made up of a marriage of a group of casks from the same source, or even many casks of completely different sources and of completely different years! Almost all standard bottlings are in fact a blend (or marriage) of many different types of casks and of different ages.

For instance, you might have a Single Malt Whisky that has a 15 Year Old age statement. However, it turns out that almost all the whiskies in that bottle have come from casks that were at least 20 Years old. So why can’t they call it a 20-Year Old? Because one of those many casks would have contained whisky which was 15-Years-Old and the SWA regulations state that the age statement is of the youngest whisky, not the majority.

Each of those many casks used in the marriage or blend of the final bottling might well be made up from the same type of cask, for instance, all Ex-Bourbon casks. However, the majority of expressions on the market are actually made up from a combination of types of casks which might include Virgin New oak casks, Ex-Bourbon, Ex-Sherry or even Ex-Beer or Rum..

Moreover, each of those casks may have come straight from the winery, bodega or Bourbon distillery, which would make them “First-Fill” fresh casks, or may have been used once or many times before to mature whisky, which would make them “Refill” casks.

The Flavour Influence of Fresh First-Fill Ex-Sherry Casks
A fresh First-Fill cask imparts an undeniable and dominant sherry/wine flavour to the Single Malt Whisky. A Second-Fill cask, much less so, and a 3rd, 4th and 5th, probably no flavour influence from the previous sherry contents whatsoever!

It is well established amongst the leading experts in the whisky world, and can be readily demonstrated in blind tastings, that when it comes to single malt matured in fresh, wet First-Fill Ex-Sherry casks, there will be a dominant Sherry/wine flavour influence in the form of red and black berries, dates and raisins as well as plum and prunes flavour notes, coming directly from the sherry which the cask previously held.

Nevertheless, for whatever reason, there seems to be quite a few prominent Rabbonim who have still not accepted what I would deem evidently obvious and provable beyond any shadow of a  doubt. There are those who seem to be bending over backwards to deny actual sherry flavour influence and still insist that those clearly identifiable red fruity flavours are somehow coming from somewhere else, anything other than the sherry. (If anyone would like to know more about this, I'd be happy to elaborate on this issue and quote names and bring facts and proofs).

To make things even more interesting, many modern single malts today are "finished" in a highly active fresh Cask in order to impart a dominant flavour influence of the previous contents of the cask. For instance, very popular today are expressions which have spent most of their time maturing in standard Ex-Bourbon hogsheads but then are re-casked for 6 months in fresh Ex-Sherry casks. The distillery make no bones about it. They do this for the flavour.

What goes on my list and what does not make it?

If from my research, I find that there are more than say 10% Ex-Sherry casks (whether they be fresh First-Fill or refill), used in producing this expression then it won't go onto my list as it contains whisky from casks that previously contained Stam Yeinam. Moreover, if I find that any of the casks, even if they are less than 10% of the final marriage, came from fresh First-Fill Ex-Wine or Sherry casks, then it also will NOT get on the list! This includes casks which have been used to mature the whisky for the entire duration of the maturation as well as those fresh Sherry or wine casks which have been used to "finish" the whisky.

Please note that I am not giving any kashrus certification to those on the list. Neither am I saying that those off the list are NOT-kosher. I only state that those on my list, to the best of my ability, I have determined that they have had no Stam-Yeinum cask influence, that is, no Ex-Sherry casks used to mature the whisky that went into the bottling.

Lagavulin 16-Year-Old

In the case you mentioned, the Lagavulin 16, even a simple Google will show that this expression contains a significant amount of whisky which was matured in Ex-Sherry casks! That's a fact! This is the reason why the Lagavulin 16 YO does NOT appear on my list.

That is the "simple" explanation.

However, I don't want to leave you high and dry....

Possible alternatives to Lagavulin 16, with no Stam Yeinam issues are:

Laphroaig 10-Year-Old (matured in 100% Ex-Bourbon casks)

Caol Ila 12 (matured in 100% Ex-Bourbon casks)

Ardbeg 10 (OU certification).

Bowmore Tempest (KLBD Certification).

Tomintoul “Old Ballantruan” 10-Year Old (OU certification).

The Glenlivet Nàdurra Peated Whisky Cask Finish (matured in 100% Ex-Bourbon casks)

Lagavulin 8-Year-Old and 12-Year-Old (matured in 100% Ex-Bourbon casks)

Kilchoman 100% Islay 5^th/6^th/7^th and 9^th Edition (matured in 100% Ex-Bourbon casks)

(Excluding 8^th edition as this contains a percentage of Ex-Sherry cask matured whisky).

Kilkerran (Glengyle) 8 Year Old Cask Strength (2017 and 2018), (matured in 100% Ex-Bourbon casks)

I hope you can see from the above list which I jotted down, off the top of my head, that you have no small amount of alternatives which have no issues of Stam Yeinum.

I'd be interested in your feedback. Have you tried any of the above and if so, how do you think any of them compare? I must tell you that I had a similar conversation with a guy in a large wine store, here in Yerushalayim, who said to me..."Ah, I've tried some of them but they are missing that black/red fruity sweetness I so much enjoy with the Lagavulin 16!". I thereupon asked him where he thinks that black/red fruity sweetness flavour he so much enjoys, is coming from?
(Oops!)

Having said all that, let’s go into more details.

I have already stated, that even though a particular single malt may have been matured in Ex-Sherry casks, if the casks are 3rd/4th or even 5th Fill, no noticeable actual sherry flavour influence can be identified. Why then, do I insist that my Whisky list only includes those single malts which have had no or almost no Ex-Sherry cask maturation?

The Wide Grey Area and the question of where you draw the line?

Knowing how Diageo (the parent company) and Lagavulin work, I can tell you that they operate on a massive industrial scale. being that the Lagavulin 16 is their main regular standard all-year-round expression and they produce a lot of it, they will use whatever casks they have available at any one time which is AT LEAST 16 Years-Old. That is, every single cask they use must contain whisky which has been matured for at least 16 years for them to legally call it a 16 Year-Old.

For example, they may theoretically have used 80% Ex-Sherry casks and 20% Ex-Bourbon casks for batch January  2019 and only 65% Ex-Sherry casks and 35% Ex-Bourbon casks for batch March 2019.

But it gets even more complicated than this. For one batch, they could have used some fresh new casks that have come straight from the Bodegas (winery) in Spain (what we call "First-Fill casks"), which would have a significant flavour influence on that batch. I'm not saying that they did but it's possible! On the other hand, they could have used 90% Ex-Sherry casks but those casks had already been used some 3, 4 or 5 times before, for maturing whisky and therefore, by any objective standards, would have no stam-yeinam flavour influence on the whisky whatsoever!

So, the kashrus status might well vary from batch to batch. I do not know (without checking) if one of those batches might have gone over the acceptable level for any specific kashrus organisation where they would not approve it, and (I could be wrong about this but) I am reasonably certain that kashrus organisations such as Star-K, do not check every single batch! (If someone could correct me on this I'd be happy to modify my comment).

Now, as I understand it, Star-K have had to make a judgement call and have determined that, based upon what they know, (which may or may not be as up to date or as in depth as my information), that the Ex-Sherry cask influence (even though they may be the majority of casks used to produce Lagavulin 16), is not sufficient to say that the expression has any serious kosher issues. Therefore, they have issued their "Approval" of this expression.

Too many Grey Areas

One of the problems with their "Approval" system (and I state again that this is only my personal opinion and feeling), is that there are simply too many variables from batch to batch.

But it gets worse! - STR Cask Rejuvenation

Now, the Poskim who are asked to give a psak on whisky, may or may not be aware that Diageo have been practicing cask rejuvenation and re-seasoning in sherry for a while now. This is a process, also known in the industry as STR (Shaved, Toasted and Re-Charring), where an old tired out Ex-Sherry, Bourbon or any type of cask, is rejuvenated and then is often seasoned in fresh Sherry. The work (including Cask sherry seasoning), is carried out in their cooperages in Scotland.

Actually the original term STR, was a method developed to tone down the dominant wine influence of Red Wine casks. An example is shown above with Kilchoman's STR Cask release made with STR Red Wine Casks. However, it is important to realise that the term STR is now widely used to refer to any type cask which has gone through a rejuvenation process.

I am not sure whether Kashrus organisations are fully aware of the magnitude of this new but now widely used practice of sherry seasoning after rejuvenation. I am concerned that Kashrus Organisations are not fully up to date with current practices within the Whisky industry and might be relying on the assumption that single malts such as the Lagavulin 16, being that they are the distillery's standard "budget" range, that they would not waste expensive high-quality First-Fill Ex-Sherry casks with loads of sherry flavour, on their standard release. Therefore, they assume that all casks used in the 16-YO are old refill Ex-Sherry casks with no flavour influence. I do not think we can make this assumption any longer.

It could well be that Lagavulin (as well as many other distilleries),  have now started using these STR re-seasoned casks for even their budget ranges, which they themselves have seasoned in sherry in Scotland and are able to produce at a fraction of the cost of a genuine new Ex-Sherry cask, fresh from Spain. They may very well be using these type casks to boost the sherry flavour of their product. I have spoken to them a number of times and I can tell you that Diageo are not always forthcoming with this specific information. This is especially true when their cask usage varies from batch to batch.

BenRiach 16-Year-Old

I can tell you that when I visited the BenRiach distillery, one of the managers there very kindly showed me an Excel sheet of batches of their BenRiach 16-Year-Old. It showed that in some batches they had used old refill Ex-Sherry casks which made up of less than 20% of the final marriage and the other 80% were 1^st Fill and refill Ex-Bourbon. Then the next batch was made up of over 20% Ex-Sherry, some of which were First-Fill!

So, without this detailed information of every single batch, it would be impossible to keep track of the kashrus status of this expression at any one time. This is the reason that the BenRiach 16 was on my list a few years ago but I was, after my enlightening distillery visit, forced to remove it!

The new Lagavulin Releases, eg. The 10 Year Old

Beware of new Diageo releases that state that they were matured in Rejuvenated American Oak or Rejuvenated Ex-Bourbon casks. Notable examples being the latest  Lagavulin Feis Ile Festival releases, as well as the new Lagavulin 10 and 11 Year olds.

I know for a fact, that after visiting the distillery (for the third time) back in November 2019, that they have now started using Ex-Bourbon casks made from American White Oak but re-seasoned them in Sherry!!! (I also have a personal email from them stating as such). These STR rejuvenated casks are being used for a significant percentage of their new releases.

That means that they can claim that they are “Rejuvenated American Oak casks” or “Rejuvenated Ex-Bourbon casks” on the label, but in actual fact, they are (in my opinion), the equivalent of fresh First-Fill Sherry casks which would thereby impart a powerful and significant Sherry flavour!!!

Therefore, almost all of the new Lagavulin editions from 2019 have not make it onto my list. I am still checking the latest 12-Year-Year-Old. So far, I have not reveived any firm information as to whether this contains any of these STR casks.

More grey areas. Take for example, some of the Kilchoman releases. They say that some releases are 90% Ex-Bourbon and 10% Ex-Sherry or Ex-Wine cask maturation used in the final bottling. That seems OK doesn't it? After all, 90% influence over 10% influence seems a good enough ratio? However, the Ex-Bourbon casks used are old refill casks and the Ex-Wine casks are fresh new casks straight from the winery, imparting a massive wine flavour to the whisky whish can be readily identified!

The Wide Grey Area in the Middle.
Just where do you draw the line?

In conclusion, it seems evidently clear to me that there is a clear halachic problem with Single Malt Whisky matured in Fresh First-Fill Ex-Sherry casks. On the other hand, everyone agrees that there are no kashrus issues whatsoever with Single Malt Whisky matured in either Ex-Bourbon, Ex-Rum, Virgin New oak or any combination thereof*. The problem comes with the wide grey area in the middle! Just where do you draw the line?

Again, I AM NOT giving a pasak and saying that any of these expressions which exist in this wide grey area in the middle are NOT KOSHER! I am saying that in my opinion, when there are so many wonderful whiskies outside of this grey area, (as can be seen from my long list), why take the risk and drink something that may well go over the line of acceptable leniency to be out and out not-kosher!??? In my opinion it just isn't worth it.

Having said all this, I must again state that Star-K are a totally reliable hechsher. However, in my PERSONAL opinion, based on 30 years of research and experience, I would not trust their Whisky "Approval" list. You are however, perfectly entitled to do so.

Nuff said?

brachos from Yerushalayim, Ir HaKodesh. 

Reb Mordechai


* The only possible exception would be Scotch whisky matured in casks which came from an American Bourbon distillery which was wholly privately Jewish owned where the owner did not sell their chametz before Pesach. However, this is subject outside the scope of the current discussion.