A Welcome Step Forward: Why the OU’s New Beer Policy Should Extend to All Alcoholic Beverages

by Rabbi Yair Hoffmam

The Orthodox Union’s recent announcement requiring kosher certification for all beers served at OU-supervised establishments and events, effective January 1, 2026, represents a significant and welcome development in the world of kashrus supervision. This policy shift, developed in coordination with the Star-K, OK, and several local kashrus agencies, acknowledges a crucial reality: the food and beverage industry has evolved dramatically, and our kashrus standards must evolve accordingly.

The OU’s reasoning is sound and straightforward. While traditional unflavored beers once consisted of simple, universally kosher ingredients—water, hops, barley, and yeast—the explosion of craft brewing has introduced a bewildering array of flavored varieties, diverse additives, and shared production equipment that can compromise kashrus status. What once could be assumed kosher can no longer be taken for granted.

This policy change deserves strong support, but it also raises an important question: should the very same logic be applied with even greater force to distilled spirits, particularly whiskey, scotch, bourbon, and other barrel-aged liquors? The kashrus concerns surrounding these spirits are not merely comparable to those affecting beer—they are substantially more severe.

The Barrel Problem: More Serious Than Most Realize

For years, many kashrus agencies have maintained “approved lists” of scotch whiskeys and other spirits that, while not bearing formal certification, were deemed acceptable for consumption. These lists were compiled based on certain assumptions about production methods and the amounts of non-kosher wine absorbed into the wooden barrels used for aging. Unfortunately, recent mechanical engineering research and industry investigation have revealed that these assumptions were incorrect.

The fundamental issue centers on the oak casks used to age premium scotch whiskeys. The vast majority of Scotland’s most respected distilleries age their whiskeys in barrels that previously contained sherry or port wine—wines that are not kosher. These barrels, typically holding 220-250 liters, absorb far more wine into their wooden staves than was previously understood. Rather than the negligible “kdai klipa” (peelable amount) that many poskim assumed, actual measurements demonstrate that each barrel retains approximately twelve liters of absorbed non-kosher wine within its porous oak structure.

To put this in perspective: a 225-liter barrel containing twelve liters of absorbed non-kosher wine means that roughly 5.3% of the barrel’s contents derives from non-kosher wine. This is more than three times the 1.67% threshold (shishim, or one-sixtieth) required for bitul, nullification of a forbidden substance. Even according to the most lenient opinions that require only 16.6% (one-sixth) nullification for wine mixing with other liquids, the absorbed wine in these barrels cannot be considered nullified.

The Halachic Framework

There is a fundamental debate between the Shach (YD 98:13) and the Taz (YD 105:1) regarding the halachic concept of kavush, marination. If something is marinated in a non-kosher vessel, what is the formula for how much nullification is needed? Do we need sixty times the amount of the kosher food to the entire vessel, or do we need sixty times the amount of the “peel of the vessel”?

The Shach rules that it is against the entire vessel—even in regard to marination. The Taz rules that only sixty times the volume of the peel is required. Regarding non-kosher wine, however, the Shulchan Aruch (YD 135:13) rules that only sixty times the peel is required.

How does the Shach contend with this ruling? He states (YD 135:33) that the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling is only in regard to a doubt regarding how long the wine was in the barrel. Since non-kosher wine in the post-idolatry world is only a Rabbinic violation, when there is a doubt one may be lenient. But the Shach writes that if it is known with certainty that the wine was in the barrel for twenty-four hours or more, then even according to the Shulchan Aruch one would require sixty times the amount of the entire barrel. The Chochmas Adam (81:11) rules like the Shach and states that only l’tzorech gadol—for a great need—may one be lenient like the Taz’s view.

For some reason, however, many of the current kashrus agencies have been lenient (in terms of their approved lists) in accordance with the Taz and not the Shach. But even according to the lenient view, there is still a problem.

The Problem Even According to the Lenient View

The Shulchan Aruch (YD 135:13) seems to write that only kdai klipa (a peelable amount of wood) of the wine absorbs into the barrel. But the assumption that this is an insignificant amount made by kashrus agencies is questionable. Kdai klipa is when the “peel” remains intact when taken off. When dealing with wood, it appears that the kdai klipa is much thicker than when dealing with metal, especially in cases where the previously absorbed wine can physically be seen coming out. The bliyos (absorptions) of wine would not be batel (nullified) into the whiskey, especially since the wine is placed in the barrels specifically to add taste.

According to an article in Applied Thermal Engineering Vol. XXV (pp. 709–718) published in 2005, depending upon the porosity of the wood, the “impregnation front” stops at between the first 4 and 5mm into the inner side in oak casks with 25mm thick staves. But it can and does also absorb further into the other 21 millimeters as well. The article provides mathematical calculations demonstrating how much absorbs into the wood—and it is quite significant.

Additional Complications

Many smaller distilleries engage in a practice called “sloshing”—adding a few bottles of wine into an empty barrel or bourbon barrel until the wine becomes impregnated into the barrel. While regulations prohibit adding more than 2.5 percent of an outside alcohol, after it gets absorbed the barrel appears empty, making detection impossible.

There is another halachic issue that has been employed as a leniency, but this too is questionable. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 134:5) writes that when non-kosher wine falls into water, the non-kosher wine is pogem the water (makes it taste bad) and one only requires bitul b’shishim—one-sixth and not one-sixtieth. Many authorities, such as the Shach (134:21; see also Nekudas HaKesef in Siman 114), are of the view that this applies only to water but not when dealing with another liquid where the wine actually enhances the flavor. Where the wine enhances the flavor, they write that one-sixtieth is required. This accords with the Ramah (YD 114:4) who requires shishim when wine is mixed with apple juice. The Taz (114:4) disagrees and states that we only need bitul in 16.6%. How does the Taz deal with the Ramah in 114:4? He writes that it is simply a quote of the Mordechai’s view.

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe YD Vol. I, Siman 62) ruled like the Taz, but said that a baal nefesh—someone concerned about his soul—should be stringent and follow the view that 1.67% is required. Rav Feinstein also discussed the possibility that the view of the Nekudas HaKesef may be stringent only when the other liquid is not sharp, but if it is sharp, then even the Nekudas HaKesef may be lenient up to 16.6 percent.

The “Ikro Kach” Debate

There is a debate between the Rashba and the Noda BiYehuda of which most people are unaware. It pertains to the issue of bitul b’shishim, something becoming nullified in a sixty-to-one ratio.

The debate concerns “ikro kach”—an item that is normally part of the process of production. If this is the case, the concept of bitul of the non-kosher ingredient does not apply according to the Rashba. The Noda BiYehuda (Mahadura Tanina #56), however, permits it.

What is the practice? The custom is to follow the Rashba (see Bais Yoseph YD 134 and Magen Avraham OC 446) when we have a kosher infrastructure in place, but when we are new to an area, we follow the lenient view of the Noda BiYehuda (Melamed L’ho’il Vol. II #29).

Many people relied on the Noda BiYehuda’s view in the 1940s and 1950s. Nowadays, however, this view is generally not relied upon because the United States is considered an area where we have an infrastructure. (This question was posed to the gedolim of Europe by Rav Geffen of Atlanta, Georgia, in regard to Coca-Cola. i discussed the issue and the Melamed L’ho’il with Rav Yisroel Belsky zt”l in the late 1980s, who said even back then that America is considered as having an infrastructure.) Few people rely on the Noda BiYehuda’s view in the United States nowadays, except perhaps in regard to non-kosher wine casks.

The Infrastructure Exists

The debate until now centered around the kashrus of placing something non-kosher that is less than shishim. Here, however, there is more than shishim in the sherry casks. This fundamentally changes the calculation.

There are enough whiskeys and tequilas produced under reliable supervision that America can certainly be considered as having a kosher infrastructure for spirits. Numerous whiskeys, bourbons, and tequilas are produced under hashgachah from the Star-K, OU, OK, and other respected agencies. 

The Star-K is notably vigilant regarding the provenance of oak casks and barrels, requiring full documentation as to origin. Distilleries producing bourbon finishes with tequila, fresh-fill Cabernet, or fresh-fill Pinot Noir all require rigorous supervision to ensure kashrus integrity.

Beyond Beer: A Comprehensive Approach

The OU’s new beer policy recognizes that we can no longer rely on assumptions when manufacturing processes have become complex and opaque. The same principle demands application to distilled spirits. While the OU, Star-K, and other agencies maintain that certain scotch whiskeys remain on “approved” lists, the time appears to have come to reconsider these classifications in light of the engineering data regarding barrel absorption.

The discovery that sherry casks contain absorbed non-kosher wine exceeding the shishim threshold fundamentally changes the calculation. This is not a matter of stringency for its own sake or creating unnecessary restrictions. Rather, it is about accurately applying halacha to the facts as they actually exist now, not as they were once assumed to be.

Moreover, the kashrus community’s response to the OU’s beer announcement has been universally positive, with widespread recognition that modern production realities necessitate vigilance. If this reasoning is accepted for beer—where the kashrus concerns are primarily about additives and shared equipment—how much more so should it be applied to spirits, where the core production process itself involves prolonged aging in barrels that absorbed substantial quantities of non-kosher wine?

The Path Forward

The Orthodox Union and its partner agencies have demonstrated admirable leadership in addressing beer kashrus comprehensively. It would be beneficial if these organizations extended the same rigorous approach to all alcoholic beverages. The policy could be clear and straightforward: beginning on a specified date, only spirits bearing reliable kosher certification should be permitted at certified establishments and events.

Such a policy would benefit the community in multiple ways. First and foremost, it would ensure that kashrus standards reflect both halachic requirements and factual realities. Second, it would create market pressure encouraging more distilleries to seek proper supervision, thereby expanding consumer choice. Third, it would eliminate the confusion created by different agencies maintaining varying “approved” lists based on different assumptions and different levels of leniency.

The transition doesn’t jave to be difficult. Major brands like Jim Beam, Wild Turkey, and numerous craft distillers already operate under hashgachah. The OU itself maintains a database of nearly 1,000 certified breweries for beer; similar resources exist for spirits. With adequate notice—perhaps implementing the policy by Pesach 2026—caterers, venues, and consumers would have ample time to adjust their purchasing and planning.

A Question for Our Rabbonim

A psak halacha for the community at large properly belongs to our poskim and kashrus agencies to decide not to internet articles nor on the other hand to pressures from wealthy baalei batim.  True, we all love our whiskey sours (including this author- hope my wife and sister aren’t reading). However, given the engineering evidence regarding barrel absorption and the ready availability of certified alternatives, the question deserves serious reconsideration: Should we continue to rely on leniencies that were formulated based on factual assumptions that have proven incorrect?

The OU’s beer announcement represents a watershed moment in kashrus policy—an acknowledgment that changing realities demand updated standards. The logic is compelling, the precedent is established, and the infrastructure exists. The natural next step would be to extend this same rigorous approach across all categories of alcoholic beverages.

As we move forward into 2026 with heightened standards for beer, this presents an opportunity to comprehensively address kashrus concerns in all alcoholic products. The Orthodox Union, Star-K, OK, and their partner agencies have shown that coordinated action is possible. It would be beneficial if these organizations built upon the momentum of their beer initiative to provide the Torah-observant community with clear, rigorous, and consistent standards for all alcoholic beverages.

The question should be posed to our rabbonim, our poskim, and our kashrus agencies. But the engineering data and halachic considerations appear to point toward a clear conclusion: in an era when certified spirits are readily available, the time may have come to move beyond “approved” lists and embrace comprehensive certification as the standard.

The author can be reached at [email protected]