Bishul Akum



| |

|Bishul Akum |

| |

|For technical information regarding use of this document, press ctrl and click here |

| |

|By Rabbi Joshua Flug |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

Bishul Akum

I. Introduction-

a. The Mishna lists food cooked by a non-Jew among food items that one may not eat. {‏1}

b. The Gemara states that this is a rabbinic ordinance, but does not state the reason. {‏2}

i. Rashi on the Mishna states that the reason is because we are concerned about intermarriage. {‏3}

1. The Gemara provides this as the reason for the prohibition of pas akum. {‏4}

ii. Rashi on the Gemara states that the reason is that we are concerned that the non-Jew will end up feeding the Jew non-kosher items. {‏5}

iii. Tosafos note both reasons and side with Rashi on the Mishna that the concern is intermarriage. {‏6}

c. There are a few practical differences between the two reasons:

i. Mumar

1. If the concern of bishul akum is intermarriage there is no concern of intermarriage with another Jew.

2. If the concern of bishul akum is that the non-Jew may feed the Jew non-kosher food, that same concern applies to a mumar.

3. This idea is introduced by Tiferes L'Moshe {‏7} and further explained by Pischei Teshuva {‏8}. There does not seem to be a definitive hachra'ah on the matter.

ii. A Jewish Home (Ra'avad's opinion)

1. The concern for intermarriage still applies if the non-Jew cooks in a Jewish home.

2. The concern for non-kosher is certainly mitigated if the non-Jew is cooking in a kosher home with exclusively kosher ingredients (although the concern for basar b'chalav still exists).

3. Tosafos cite the opinion of Ra'avad (R. Avraham ben David, not the Ba'al Hasagos on Rambam) that bishul akum does not apply in a Jewish home. Nevertheless, Tosafos, in presenting the opinion and rejecting it, make it clear that neither side of the debate thinks that it is contingent on the reason for bishul akum. {‏6}

4. Mordechai, according to the version in parentheses, seems to present this dispute as contingent on this issue. {‏9}

5. As a matter of practical Halacha, Rama writes that if a non-Jewish maidservant cooked food, one may be lenient b'dieved. {‏10}

a. The source for Rama's ruling is Issur V'Heter, who clearly states that we rely on Ra'avad's opinion b'dieved. {‏11} Rama also authored Toras Chatas where he explicitly states that we rely on Ra'avad's opinion b'dieved. {‏12}

b. Nevertheless, Shach is of the opinion that we only rely on this leniency b'dieved when the non-Jew is an employee who has no choice of whether to cook the food, and therefore there is less of a concern for intermarriage. {‏13}

II. The Leniencies of Bishul Akum

a. There are a number of leniencies with regards to bishul akum. We will first list them and then deal with each one individually:

i. Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to bishul akum.

ii. Anything that is not for the king's table is not subject to bishul akum.

iii. If food was cooked without intention to cook it is not subject to bishul akum.

iv. If a Jew participates in the cooking process, it is not subject to bishul akum.

v. If there is a cooked effect without a heat source, the food is not subject to bishul akum.

b. Ne'echal K'mos Shehu Chai and Aino Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim

i. The Gemara has two version of a statement of Rav: {‏14}

1. In Sura, the version is that anything that is eaten raw is not subject to the laws of bishul akum.

2. In Pumbedisa, the version is that anything is not fit for the king's table is not subject to bishul akum.

ii. Tosafos quote Rabbeinu Tam that we may be lenient and follow both versions. {‏15} Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is adopted by Shulchan Aruch. {‏16}

iii. Are these two leniencies subjective?

1. You can have a food that is eaten raw in one place and not in another place. There are also certain foods that may be suitable for a king in one country and not in another country.

a. Rav Hershel Schachter- If it is cooked in the same place that it is eaten, you certainly follow local practice. However, one can question whether you can be lenient if it is cooked in a place that it is eaten raw and then shipped to a place where it isn't eaten raw. {‏17}

2. Ostensibly, the same argument could be applied to oleh al shulchan melachim.

3. This discussion has practical ramification regarding canned foods that are cooked overseas in places where they may or may not eat the same foods raw as we do and where the standards of what is fit for a king's table may be different.

iv. An important difference between ne'eachal k'mos and aino oleh al shulchan melachim.

1. Ne'echal k'mos shehu chai certainly follows the raw product. It doesn't matter what you plan on doing with it, if you can eat it raw, it is not subject to bishul akum.

2. With regards to aino oleh, it is arguable that you assess whether the finished product is oleh al shulchan melachim and not whether that food can be made in a way that is oleh al shulchan melachim. Therefore, potato chips are not subject to bishul akum according to most poskim, while baked potatoes are. In fact, P'ri Chadash rules that legumes that are roasted are permissible because they are not oleh al shulchan melachim, but cooked legumes are oleh al shulchan melachim. {‏18}

v. Details of ne'eachal k'mos shehu chai

1. How edible does it have to be?

a. We have a similar discussion in Hilchos Berachos: if someone cooks foods that are normally eaten raw, the beracha is shehakol.

i. Magen Avraham- If people prefer to eat them cooked but they are also edible raw, one recites ha'adamah if eaten raw (i.e. they are considered edible raw). {‏19}

ii. Eliyah Rabbah- If people prefer to eat them cooked, then the raw fruit or vegetable is shehakol. {‏20}

iii. Mishna Berurah rules in accordance with Eliyah Rabbah. {‏21}

b. If one applies the same standards to bishul akum, a stringency would emerge and foods like sour apples might be subject to bishul akum. Nevertheless, regarding bishul akum, Ritva takes the approach that as long as people eat it raw, it is considered ne'echal k'mos shehu chai. {‏22} This also seems to be the consensus of poskim. (see for example, R. Schachter's teshuva on sushi {‏17}.)

2. What if it is only edible raw if other foods are mixed in?

a. Magen Avraham states explicitly that if it is edible raw only with other foods, it is still considered edible raw. {‏23}

b. Yad Ephraim questions Magen Avraham from fish that are edible through salting, yet they are still subject to bishul akum. He claims that if the food is prepared through salting so that it is currently edible and then it is cooked, there is no bishul akum. However, if the food is not ready to eat and a non-Jew cooks it and now it is ready to eat, it is prohibited. {‏24}

c. A practical difference between Magen Avraham and Yad Ephraim is whether fish that is used as sushi is now exempt from bishul akum. According to Magen Avraham, the fish itself is edible raw. However, according to Yad Ephraim, fish that is used for cooking is usually not edible raw at that time (either due to the danger of parasites or due to the fact that most people don't eat raw fish without something added to it) and therefore it is subject to bishul akum.

vi. Details of Aino Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim

1. What exactly is the definition of oleh al shulchan melachim?

a. R. Menachem Genack: {‏25}

i. Most poskim assumes that it is a food that is suitable for a royal banquet.

ii. Chazon Ish assumed that as long as the food is eaten by an important person, it considered oleh al shulchan melachim, even if he eats it privately. As long as it is not a low-grade food, it is considered oleh al shulchan melachim.

iii. R. Genack notes that R. Soloveitchik felt that the opinion of the other poskim is a justification to eat canned foods without a concern for bishul akum.

1. The Star-K consults with the White House chef to determine what is oleh and what is not. R. Heinemann notes that if it was oleh after cooking but before canning, it would be subject to bishul akum.

2. What if it is served at a royal banquet but not as the main course?

a. The Gemara, in mentioning oleh al shulchan melachim, adds l'lafes bo es hapas. {‏14} What does this mean?

b. Rashba- It can't be limited to foods that are eaten with bread because we know that rice is subject to bishul akum. Rather, the point of the Gemara is that if it is oleh as a main course or it served as a side dish to be eaten with the bread, it is subject to bishul akum. {‏26}

c. Rambam adds that if it is served as "parperes" it is also subject to bishul akum. His example is grasshoppers. {‏27}

i. P'ri Chadash- Grasshoppers are not a dessert, rather they are a side dish that is eaten with bread. {‏28}

ii. Toras Chaim- Even though it would seem that desserts are not subject to bishul akum, Rambam's inclusion of parperes includes desserts if they are a significant food item. {‏29}

iii. Click here for a list of grasshopper recipes. You will see that they can be used for a main course or for dessert.

c. Leniencies relating to the non-Jew's participation:

i. No intention to cook- The Gemara states that if a non-Jew scorches his field and ends up roasting grasshoppers in the process, those grasshoppers are nevertheless permissible. {‏30}

ii. Cooking performed in partnership- The Gemara states that if the Jew places the food on the fire and the non-Jew stirs, or vice versa, the food it permissible. {‏31}

1. What is considered significant participation?

a. Ran notes that the implication of the Gemara is that the Jew must either place the food on the fire or stoke the coals while the food is on the fire. It is not sufficient to light the fire and allow the non-Jew to do the rest. {‏32}

b. Issur V'heter is clear that it is sufficient for the Jew to light the fire. {‏33}

i. He then quotes Maharam that b'dieved is sufficient if the non-Jew lit a fire from another fire that was lit by a Jew (eish me'eish).

c. Shulchan Aruch codifies the opinion of Ran. Rama codifies the opinion of Issur V'Heter with Maharam's extension. {‏34}

i. Rama does not state explicitly that you may only rely on eish me'eish b'dieved, although it can be read in that manner.

ii. Taz is reluctant to rely on Issur V'Heter and therefore rules that one should only rely on a Jew lighting the fire when the cooking takes place in a Jewish home (combining this leniency with the leniency of Ra'avad). {‏35}

iii. R. Ovadia Yosef discusses what Sefardim should do regarding eating in a restaurant that relies on the ruling of the Rama and all the Jew does is light the fire. {‏36} [The source sheet only contains portions of the teshuva.]

1. He notes that aside from Rama's leniency, one can add the leniency of some Rishonim that food cooked by a non-Jew who is working in a Jewish household is not subject to bishul akum.

2. Even though Sefardim don't rely on either of these leniencies alone, one may be lenient based on s'fek s'feika.

3. He concludes that a Sefardi may eat at a Jewish restaurant that relies on Rama's leniency, but "Hamachmir tavo alav beracha."

2. When the Jew completes the process:

a. Rosh is of the opinion that even if the Jew participates at the final stages of the cooking, it is not considered bishul akum. {‏37}

b. Rashba disagrees and maintains that once the food is cooked to ma'achal ben d'rosai, it is considered bishul akum and it doesn't help if the Jew completes the process. {‏38}

c. Shulchan Aruch rules that one should be stringent unless it is a she'as hadeshack or hefsed mamon. Rama rules in accordance with the opinion of Rosh. {‏39}

i. This machlokes is very relevant to "instant" products which are generally cooked most of the way and the consumer completes the process.

d. Foods that have a cooked effect without the use of a heat source

i. There is a general rule that soaked foods are treated as if they are cooked and salted foods are treated as if they are roasted. {‏40}

ii. Rashba writes that regarding bishul akum we are not concerned about foods that were salted by a non-Jew. The reason he gives is that in order for something to be considered bishul akum, there must be a heat source. {‏41}

iii. There is a discussion in the poskim about food that was cooked by a non-Jew using steam:

1. R. Aryeh Bulchover contends that since the steam is produced by fire, its use is certainly subject to bishul akum. {‏42}

2. R. Avraham Braun disagrees and maintains that bishul akum does not apply to products that are steamed by a non-Jew. {‏43}

iv. Bishul Akum in Microwave Ovens:

1. Introduction:

a. Microwave ovens do not produce heat. They cause the water molecules in food items to vibrate rapidly which causes the water molecules to heat up.

b. Regarding Shabbos, R. Moshe Feinstein rules that one who microwaves food on Shabbos violates the melacha of bishul. He claims that it is not comparable to cooking in the sun because the critical difference between cooking on a fire and cooking in the sun is whether it is considered normal to cook this way. R. Moshe (in the 1970's) thought that microwaves would be considered a means of replacing conventional cooking. {‏44}

c. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disagrees and maintains that whenever there is no fire, even if it is normal to cook that way, it is considered bishul b'chama. {‏45}

2. Direct discussion of bishul akum in microwaves:

a. R. Ephraim Greenblatt- There is no bishul akum if a food is cooked in a microwave. {‏46}

i. He seems to follow R. Shlomo Zalman's logic regarding microwaves in general.

ii. He does note that when there is no fire, there is no concern for bishul akum.

iii. He also adds that since chazal never included microwaves in the original g'zeirah, we should not add to the g'zeirah.

iv. He concludes that he is personally stringent on the matter.

b. R. Shmuel Vosner- The prohibition includes microwaves. {‏47}

i. All of the reasons for prohibiting bishul akum apply equally to microwaved foods.

ii. The only reason why salted foods are excluded is that the end product is different than a food that is cooked. This exclusion is not applicable to microwaves.

c. A practical note on this matter- There aren't too many foods that are cooked in a microwave whose end product is oleh al shulchan melachim:

i. Potatoes seem to be the most prominent food that is oleh and you can cook it in the microwave.

ii. Microwaved eggs may not be oleh.

iii. Most other foods are not actually cooked in the microwave. They are only reheated.

III. Other leniencies

a. R. Moshe's leniency regarding factories:

i. R. Natah Greenblatt wrote a teshuva about bishul akum in factories. {‏48}

ii. His claim was that intermarriage is not an issue in factories because there is no way to determine who actually cooked the food.

iii. Although some people claim that we should say that the gezeirah applies regardless of the reason, that claim only holds true when you cook in utensils similar to those that were around in the time of chazal. However, the utensils in factories are so different from home utensils that we can argue that the gezeirah never included such utensils.

iv. R. Moshe Feinstein agreed to this teshuvah and it later became known as R. Moshe's leniency.

v. R. Hershel Schachter- we do not rely on this leniency alone, but we can use this leniency as a mitigating factor. {‏49}

b. Ikar V'Tafel

i. Tosafos discuss why there is no prohibition of bishul akum on beer. They give two answers: {‏50}

1. Beer is not oleh al shulchan melachim.

2. The same way that we apply ikar v'tafel to berachos, we also apply it to bishul akum. Therefore, since the ikar is water and water is not subject to bishul akum, the grains in the beer are considered tafel and there is no prohibition.

3. Pischei Teshuva quotes these two answers and notes that there is a practical difference regarding coffee: {‏51}

a. If the reason why beer is permissible is that it is not oleh, coffee which is oleh is subject to bishul akum.

b. If the reason why beer is permissible is that we follow ikar v'tafel, it's arguable that the water is the main ingredient in coffee as well.

c. It seems that the minhag ha'olam is to be lenient regarding bishul akum on coffee.

IV. Hechsher Keilim

a. Rashba rules that we have to treat bishul akum like any other prohibition relating to food. Therefore, if a utensil was used by a non-Jew for cooking, it requires hecsher, even if all of the ingredients were kosher. {‏52}

b. Ra'ah- The gezeirah was based on a concern for intermarriage. Since there is no concern for intermarriage when someone tastes bishul akum that was absorbed in the walls of the utensil, there is no need for hechsher keilim. {‏53}

c. Shulchan Aruch quotes both opinions and seems to side with the opinion of Rashba. {‏54}

i. Shach notes that b'dieved bishul akum is batel b'rov. {‏55}

ii. Practically speaking, in almost situations, when you use a bishul akum utensil, there will be a rov of food against the utensil.

מש' עבודה זרה לה:

[pic]

גמ' עבודה זרה לז:-לח.

והשלקות מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אמר קרא אוכל בכסף תשבירני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי כמים מה מים שלא נשתנו אף אוכל שלא נשתנה ... מידי אור כתיב אלא מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא.

רש"י ע"ז לה: ד"ה והשלקות

[pic]

עבודה זרה לה:

[pic]

רש"י ע"ז לח. ד"ה מדרבנן

[pic]

תוס' ע"ז לח. ד"ה אלא

[pic]

תפארת למשה יו"ד קיג:ט

[pic]

פתחי תשובה יו"ד קיג:א

[pic]

מרדכי ס' תתל

[pic]

שו"ע ורמ"א יו"ד קיג:ד

יש מי שמתיר בשפחות שלנו ויש מי שאוסר ואפילו בדיעבד (תשובת הרשב"א ס' ס"ח). הגה: ובדיעבד יש לסמוך אדברי מתירים (ארוך כלל מ"ג והגהות ש"ד).

או"ה הארוך מג:יג

[pic]

תורת חטאת עה:יז

[pic]

ש"ך יו"ד קיג:ז

[pic]

עבודה זרה לח.

[pic]

תוס' ע"ז לח. ד"ה איכא

[pic]

שלחן ערוך יו"ד קיג:א

[pic]

מדריך כשרות (תשובת הגר"צ שכטר) עמ' ק

[pic]

פרי חדש יו"ד קיג:ה

ומותר לאכול אפונים קלויים כו' דאינן עעש"מ ואף במקום העולים מותרים משום שאינן עשויים ללפת בהם את הפת ומהאי טעמא קליות של גוים מותרים וכמ"ש בס"ק ג. אבל אפונים וקטניות מבושלים אם עעש"מ משום לפתן אסורי'.

מגן אברהם רה:ג

[pic]

אליה רבה או"ח רה:א

[pic]

משנה ברורה רב:סד

[pic]

ריטב"א ע"ז לח. ד"ה כל

[pic]

מגן אברהם רג:ד

[pic]

יד אפרים שם

מ"ש המג"א דאל"כ דג מליח ליתסר כו' כתבתי בקונטרסי הנ"ל לתמוה ע"ז. דלכאורה הוא ראיה לסתור דדג שלא נמלח תחלה ונתבשל ע"י עכו"ם יש בו משום בישולי גוים אע"פ שראוי לאוכלו חי ע"י מלח רק בדג מליח שכבר הכשירו לאכילה מה לי שראוי לאוכלו בפ"ע או שהוכשר ע"י ד"א אבל כשעתה אינו ראוי לאכילה רק שהיה יכול להכשירו ע"י ד"א והוא בשלו זו לא שמעלו שלא יהא בו משום בש"ג הואיל והיה יכול להכשירו בלא בישול.

מסורה חוברת א' מאמר הרב גנק

[pic]

רשב"א תורת הבית ג:ז

[pic]

רמב"ם הל' מאכלות אסורות ז:יט

גוי שהצית אור באגם כדי להעביר החציר ונתבשלו בו חגבים הרי אלו מותרים ואפילו במקום שהן עולין על שלחן מלכים משום פרפרת.

פרי חדש קיג:ג

ומאי דקרי הרמב"ם לפולים וחגבים דאתו משום פרפרת אינו ר"ל פרפרת בעלמא דהיינו לקנוח סעודה אלא ר"ל לפתן ללפת בהם את הפת.

תורת חיים ע"ז לח.

[pic]

עבודה זרה לח.

[pic]

עבודה זרה לח:

[pic]

ר"ן עבודה זרה טו. ד"ה פת

[pic]

איסור והיתר הארוך מג:יג

[pic]

שלחן ערוך יו"ד קיג:ז

[pic]

ט"ז יו"ד קיג:ו

[pic]

שו"ת יחוה דעת ה:נד

[pic]

רא"ש עבודה זרה ב:לב

[pic]

רשב"א תורת הבית הארוך ג:ז צה.

[pic]

שלחן ערוך יו"ד קיג:ט

[pic]

חולין קיא:

[pic]

רשב"א תורת הבית הארוך ג:ז צה:

[pic]

שם אריה יו"ד ס' כב

[pic]

זר זהב מג:ד

עי' בתשו' שם אריה ס' כ"ב שרב אחד רצה לומר לענין הצוקער שנעשה בבתי מלאכות של כנענים דלא הוי בהו משום בישול כנענים משום שאינם מבשלין המין שנעשה ממנו הצוקער על האש ממש רק שנעשה ע"י קיטור והבל ממים רותחים שנכנס לתוך היורה שמונח בה הבל המים עכת"ד ובאמת דברים נכונים הם ומה שדחה הרב המחבר את דבריו והביא ראיות מחיובי שבת שתולדות האור הוי כאור אין ראיה באמת לפי דעת רבינו דבישולי כנעני קיל ובפרט שענין הבישול ע"י מכונת הקיטור הוא דבר שנתחדש עתה מקרוב וא"כ י"ל דזה לא היה בכלל גזירת חז"ל כשגזרו על בישולי כנעני.

אגרות משה או"ח ג:נב

[pic]

מנחת שלמה יב:ב בהערה

[pic]

שו"ת רבבות אפרים ח:תקיא

[pic]

שבט הלוי ח:קפה

[pic]

מסורה חוברת א' עמ' צד (תשובת הרב נטע גריבלאט)

[pic]

מדריך כשרות עמ' צט-ק

[pic]

תוספות עבודה זרה לא: ד"ה ותרוייהו

ואין לאסור של תבואה משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים כמו סלקא ודייסא דאע"ג דלא חזי לכוס כשהוא חי דס"ל כאידך לישנא דרב דאמר כל שאינו עולה על שלחן מלכים אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים ואשכחנא ר' יוחנן סבר לקמן פרק רבי ישמעאל (דף נט.) כוותיה ובפרק החולץ (יבמות דף מו.) ועוד יש טעם אחר להתיר השכר דאין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים דכי היכי דהתבואה בטלה לגבי המים לענין ברכת שהכל נהיה בדברו ה"נ היא בטלה לענין איסור בישול.

פתחי תשובה יו"ד קיד:א

[pic]

רשב"א תורת הבית הארוך ג:ז צה:

[pic]

בדק הבית ג:ז צד.

[pic]

שלחן ערוך יו"ד קיג:טז

[pic]

ש"ך יורה דעה סימן קיג

ואם נתבשלה בהן בדיעבד ויש רוב בתבשיל שרי דבשולי עובדי כוכבים בטלים ברוב כדלעיל סי' קי"ב ס"ק כ"ג וע"ל סימן קט"ו ס"ק י"ז.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download