Issur of Bishul Akum
1. In the previous issue (373), we discussed the concept of the issur of bishul akum (par. 5); the reasons for the issur (6); the categories of non-Jews the issur of bishul akum applies to (9); the status of a mumar (12); the status of secular Jews today (17); and which types of cooking the issur applies to (24).
Two Criteria
Both Criteria Together
2. Not all foods are subject to the issur of bishul akum. We find from Chazal two criteria which must be fulfilled for the issur of bishul akum: 1) The food cannot be eaten raw. If the food can be eaten without any cooking, there is no issur even if a non-Jew cooks it. 2) The food must be fit for a royal table [עולה על שלחן מלכים]. If it is unfit for a royal table, there is no issur of bishul akum.
3. The poskim explain that both criteria need to be present together for the issur of bishul akum to apply, i.e., it has to be something that is both not eaten raw and fit for a royal table (שו''ע יו''ד סי' קי''ג ס''א). In the current issue, we will clarify the halachos pertaining to these two criteria along with practical examples.
Not Eaten Raw
First Criterion
4. It says in the Gemara (ע''ז דף ל''ח ע''א): R’ Shmuel bar R’ Yitzchak said in the name of Rav, “Anything eaten in its raw state is not subject to bishul akum.” The Shulchan Aruch paskens this (שם). One may even allow a non-Jew l’chatchila to cook something that can be eaten raw (טור, לבוש). Thus, vegetables that cannot be eaten raw, e.g., potatoes, are subject to bishul akum, as opposed to carrots, which are eaten in their raw state and thus have no problem of bishul akum.
5. Reason. The reason Chazal did not make their gezeira on food eaten raw is because the main reason for the issur is out of concern for closeness, which can lead to intermarriage (Issue 373, par. 7). If a food can be eaten raw, the non-Jew’s preparation of it is not so significant, as it would have been able to be eaten even without the cooking, so the non-Jew did not help the Jew so much. Therefore, this type of cooking does not lead to closeness and intermarriage (רש''י ביצה דף ט''ז ע''א ד''ה אין בהם).
6. The second reason for the issur of bishul akum—concern the non-Jew will put in assur food (Issue 373, par. 6)—also does not apply to food that can be eaten raw. The concern for assur food mixed in only applies to something that causes a Jew to spend time with a non-Jew. When something can be eaten raw, the non-Jew did not help that much, so it does not cause the Jew to get close to the non-Jew (חלקת בנימין סי' קי''ג סק''ג).
Definition of “Eaten Raw”
7. Commonly eaten raw. Some poskim hold it depends on whether a food is regularly eaten raw, i.e. eating it raw is a normal manner of eating it, even if it is not always eaten that way (רש''י יומא דף פ''א ע''ב ד''ה שריא ועוד ראשונים, וכך נקטו רוב הפוסקים, בישולי עכו''ם פ''ג אות ג'). However, if a food is always cooked, it is considered “not eaten raw” even if is edible in its raw state, and it is included in the issur of bishul akum.
8. Edible raw. Others are meikel and classify anything that can be eaten raw as “eaten raw” even if it is always cooked (ריטב''א ע''ז דף ל''ח ע''א ועוד ראשונים).
Depends What Most People Do
9. Most people eat it raw. The position of the poskim is that for these purposes, we care what most people do. Thus, if most people eat a food raw but a minority of people do not, that food is always considered “eaten raw” even for a person who cooks it, and it does not become assur through bishul akum (פר''ח סק''ג).
10. Most people cook it. The same is true in reverse. If most people cook something and a minority of people eat it raw, the food is assur through bishul akum even for someone who usually eats it raw (שם ).
11. Most people in the world or in that place? If the practice of most people in the world is known, we follow that practice, and the minority practice is disregarded (פר''ח שם). However, if there is no definitively known majority practice in the world, we follow the majority practice of that country (ערוך השלחן סי''ב, שו''ת שבט הלוי ח''י סי' קכ''ה) or even each city, and the minority practice in those places is disregarded (תפארת ישראל ע''ז פ''ב אות נ''ב).
Eaten Raw with Difficulty
12. Machmirim. Many poskim hold that a food that can only be eaten raw with difficulty is not classified as “eaten raw” and is subject to the issur of bishul akum (רשב''א, רבינו יונה הובא בב''י ד''ה כתב הרשב''א ). The Mechaber cites this without qualification (שו''ע סי' קי''ג סי''ב ) and this is the position of several Acharonim (פר''ח סקכ''א, חכמת אדם כלל ס''ו ס''ג, ערוה''ש סכ''ו ).
13. Meikilim. However, there are some who are meikel on this, depending on the food. Sometimes they are meikel on some foods that can be eaten raw with difficulty and do not apply the issur of bishul akum (גאון הובא ברי''ף ורא''ש). This is the opinion of the “יש מתירים” in Shulchan Aruch (שם, שו''ת שבט הלוי ח''ט סי' קס''ב בדעת הרמ''א ). Even within the meikel opinion, there is a machlokes Acharonim, as will be explained.
14. Large, salted fish. When it comes to large, salted fish which can be eaten with difficulty, some hold that the meikilim (above, 13) are only meikel in this type of scenario, where the fish was first fixed up in some way, i.e., through salting. In such a case, they are meikel not to subject it to the issur of bishul akum since it can be eaten with difficulty. However, if a food was not fixed up in any way, one may not be meikel to treat it as “eaten raw” even if it can be eaten raw with difficulty (ב''ח סק''ז, חת''ס חי' יו''ד מכת''י).
15. However, others hold the meikilim allow any food which can be eaten raw with difficulty even if it did not previously undergo any stage of preparation. They only forbid foods that can only be eaten raw with great difficulty, e.g., eggs or bitter dates (ט''ז סקי''ד).
Fit for a Royal Table
Second Criterion
16. There is another statement of R’ Shmuel bar R’ Yitzchak in the name of Rav in the Gemara (ע''ז שם): Anything not eaten as an accompaniment to bread on a royal table is not subject to bishul akum. This means even if a food is not eaten raw and one benefits from a non-Jew cooking it, if the food is of the sort that is unfit for a royal table, there is no issur of bishul akum. This is paskened in Shulchan Aruch (סי' קי''ג ס''א).
17. Reason. Like the first criterion (above, 5), the poskim explain here too that the gezeira of bishul akum was primarily to prevent intermarriage—perhaps a non-Jew will invite a Jew to dine with him. However, a person does not invite his friend to eat something unfit for a royal table, so Chazal did not apply their gezeira (ט''ז סק''א).
18. Similarly, the reason that assur food might get mixed in only applies in a scenario where it is common for a non-Jew to invite a Jew to eat. However, Chazal did not make a gezeira for a basic food unfit for a royal table (שלחן מלכים).
Type of Food
19. Accompanies bread. Some hold that the criterion that it must be fit for a royal table is only for food eaten with bread, as the Gemara’s words indicate (ט''ז); something not eaten with bread is not subject to the issur of bishul akum (ריטב''א ע''ז שם, שו''ת מהריט''ץ סי' ס' הובא בדרכ''ת סקי''ב).
20. Main, dessert. However, most poskim hold that food served as its own course, without bread, or as a dessert not eaten with bread is also subject to the halachos of bishul akum. If it is fit for a royal table, it is assur (רשב''א תוהב''א ב''ג ש''ז, סתימת השו''ע, חכמת אדם כלל ס''ו דין א', שו''ת שבט הלוי ח''ב סי' מ''ג).
Definition of a “Royal Table”
21. Officials, distinguished people. In the Gemara’s words, the formulation is “something fit for a royal table.” However, the poskim write that it is not only royalty—the same applies to officials or other distinguished people (או''ה כלל מ''ג ד''ב, חכ''א כלל ס''ו ס''ג, ערוה''ש סי''ח, ברכי יוסף שיו''ב אות ב'). The Rishonim and poskim discuss the precise definition of food “fit for a royal table.”
22. Inviting others. Some define it as respectable food one would invite others to honor them and serve them. The gezeira was made put of concern for a non-Jew inviting a Jew to dine together, not specifically food used to honor royalty or officials (רמב''ם פי''ז מאכ''א הט''ו, או''ה כלל מ''ג אות ב'). The concern is one might marry his daughter; this concern applies to any non-Jew’s daughter, not just the daughter of a king.
23. Wedding seuda. Others classify anything that would be served at a wedding seuda as food fit for a royal table. However, others are puzzled about this, as there is no source for it. The food does not need to be of such a high caliber that it would be served at a weding seuda (קונטרס בירורים תשובה ג' אות ג').
24. Shabbos seuda. Others use the classification of food eaten at a Shabbos seuda that one would invite guests to. This would include corn salad, for example, whereas corn salad would not be served at a wedding (שם). [But it is hard to believe that p’tcha/gala is considered fit for a royal table...]
25. King would eat privately. The classification of “fit for a royal table” obviously only includes food a king would eat publicly. The fact that a king would eat something privately with his family or as a snack certainly does not give it the classification of “fit for a royal table,” as kings also like simple foods sometimes and they eat them when they are not in public or on camera (ס' בישולי עכו''ם פ''ד אות ב').
26. Hotels. Some use the classification of food served as a meal at hotels (ס' שלחן מלכים עמ' שפ''ג בשם הגרב''צ אבא שאול). However, this is also not precise, as hotels serve what many people like, not necessarily respectable foods that distinguished guests would be invited to eat. For breakfast in particular, hotels serve basic foods, e.g., breakfast cereals and the like, since that is what the general public is accustomed to (מו''ר בשו''ת שבט הקהתי ח''ו סי' ער''ד אות ד').
Type of Food or Specific Dish?
27. The poskim discuss whether we focus in a general sense whether a type of food is fit for a royal table or whether a particular dish is fit for a royal table the way it was prepared. In other words, if a non-Jew cooked something which, in its current state, is unfit for a royal table, but would be fit for a royal table if prepared differently, is it subject to the halachos of bishul akum?
28. Meikilim. Many poskim are meikel and focus on whether the food in its current form is fit for a royal table (רמ''א ריש סי' קי''ב, ט''ז סק''ב, פמ''ג שם, שו''ת שבט הקהתי ח''ו סי' ער''ד).
29. Machmirim. However, some poskim are machmir and focus on the type of food—if it is fit for a royal table in one form, it is considered fit for a royal table no matter how it is prepared and may not be eaten if cooked by a non-Jew (רא''ה דף ל''ח ע''א ד''ה פסקא, או''ה שער מ''ד ד''ג, מרן פוסק הדור בתשובות והנהגות ח''א סי' תל''ח שירא שמים יחמיר בזה ).
Various Foods
Examples
30. We have cited some rules and principles about the issur of bishul akum, including the type of cooking (Issue 373, par. 24) and the criteria of not eaten raw (above, 4) and fit for a royal table (16). Now, we will begin to specify multiple different foods discussed by the poskim in terms of whether they are subject to the issur of bishul akum nowadays. Of course it is impossible to list every type of food, as foods are location-dependent (above, 9) and they change at different times. Nevertheless, from these examples it is possible to derive conclusions for similar and dissimilar situations.
Rice
31. If a non-Jew cooks rice, the food is assur due to bishul akum as rice is not eaten raw and is fit for a royal table (חכ''א כלל ס''ו דין ב', ערוה''ש סי''ט ).
32. Rice cakes. Puffed rice, spelt, and wheat cakes or the like are unfit for a royal table, so there is no issue of bishul akum strictly speaking. However, some say it is proper to be machmir since rice is a type of food that is fit for a royal table even though rice cakes themselves are not (עי' לעיל אות כ''ז, שו''ת חיי הלוי ח''ד סי' נ''א סק''ד) (the Eidah Chareidis’s Vaad HaKashrus is makpid on bishul Yisroel for rice cakes).
Corn
33. Eaten raw. Generally speaking, most people do not eat corn raw. However, it is occasionally eaten raw, and is edible raw (8), although not commonly eaten raw. Thus, the poskim discuss whether it has issues of bishul akum (ספר עץ חיים עמ' ס''ט).
34. Fit for a royal table. Similarly, the poskim discuss whether it is fit for a royal table. In general it is not served on a royal table, but it will occasionally be served in a vegetable salad or the like, so perhaps it is considered fit for a royal table (עי' קובץ מבית לוי יו''ד הל' בישול עכו''ם, שו''ת פלגי מים סי' מ'). [A bit over twenty years ago, before the US presidential election, President Bush was photographed in Iowa taking corn straight from the field and eating it raw. It must be determined whether this is proof that corn is eaten raw or fit for a royal table...]
35. Baby corn. Baby corn is a respectable food fit for a royal table and is not eaten raw, so it is subject to the issur of bishul akum (אהל יעקב סי' קי''ג אות נ''ד ובהערה).
Fries [aka Chips]
36. French fries. French fries—deep fried potato slices—are assur due to bishul akum according to most poskim since they are not eaten raw and are fit for a royal table nowadays (שו''ת שבט הלוי ח''ב סי' מ''ה, שו''ת נהרות איתן ח''ג סי' מ''א, אהל יעקב שם אות נ''ה). Although potatoes were once considered a lowly food (ערוה''ש סי''ח), nowadays many potato dishes are served at fine meals, so potatoes in general are considered fit for a royal table.
37. Frozen French fries. Frozen fries undergo a certain cooking process in the factory. There is a machlokes whether the initial factory cooking must also be done by a Jew (שו''ע) or only the second cooking must be done by a Jew (רמ''א) (see the coming issue בעזהשי"ת).
38. Vending machine fries. Although it is possible non-Jews or public mechallelei Shabbos purchased chips from a public vending machine [e.g., SnackiFry in Manchester...], there is no concern of bishul akum and one may buy from it (עי' מש''כ באריכות שו''ת חוקי חיים ח''א סי' פ''ב-פ''ד ).
Potato Chips
39. Potato chips are made by cutting a potato into thin slices and frying or baking them in oil. Many discuss whether there is a problem of bishul akum: are they considered fit for a royal table?
40. Meikilim. Some are meikel. They treat chips as unfit for a royal table in their current form. Although fried potatoes are fit for a royal table (above, 36), a potato snack in the form of chips is not served at a royal table. We already mentioned that if a particular dish is not served at a royal table in its current form, strictly speaking it is mutar even if it would be served in a different form (ע''פ הרמ''א ס''א, עי' לעיל אות כ''ז כ''ח).
41. This is the position of many kashrus agencies, which allow their kashrus symbol to appear on potato chips cooked by non-Jews, e.g., the cRc, KLBD, OK, Star-K, and OU. The reasoning is that something eaten as a snack, in whatever form it comes, is unfit for a royal table.
42. As an additional factor for heter, some meikilim use an original rationale that anything made in a factory without a Jew seeing or knowing the non-Jew doing the cooking is not subject to bishul akum (שו''ת מהריט''ץ סי' קס''א, שו''ת אג''מ ח''ד יו''ד סי' מ''ח אות ה'). However, most Acharonim do not rely on this heter at all, not even as an additional factor (ברכי יוסף סק''ט, שו''ת שבט הלוי ח''ט סי' כ''ג בשם החזו''א).
43. Machmirim. However, many are machmir to give chips the status of “fit for a royal table” since potatoes themselves are fit for a royal table even though in snack form they are not served there (see above, 29; אמת ליעקב סי' קי''ג). This is the position of the highest-level kashrus agencies, who accordingly only grant their hechsher if the chips are cooked by Jews.
In the coming issues בעזהשי"ת – bishul akum with more examples of foods, how to do bishul Yisroel, and more
לז''נ האי צדיקה חסידא ופרישא מרן ראש ישיבת מנשסטר רבי יהודה זאב סג''ל זצוק''ל בן הרה''ג משה יצחק הלוי זצוק''ל עלתה נשמתו הטהורה ביום כ''ב שבט תשנ''ג הונצח ע''י מקורביו הרה''ח ר' יהושע שמואל בלייער ירושלים
