Bishul Akum: Difference between revisions

#The rabbis<ref>This gezeirah is d’rabanan in nature (Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b, Yerushalmi Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:8, Ran Meseches Avodah Zarah page 28 “rebbe,” Rosh Meseches Chullin 3:61,  Issur V’heter 43:1, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:9, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:16, Aruch Hashulchan 113:1, Sdei Chemed mareches bais page 133:69, see Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:247 who seems to say there is a semach to a d’oraisa and therefore one should be very careful with these halachos).  Refer to Kav Hayosher 75:5. </ref> enacted a decree forbidding food that was cooked by a non-Jew.<ref>Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b.</ref> However, it is permitted to derive benefit from the food.<ref>Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b. </ref>

#There are a number of reasons for this restriction. Some early commentators<ref>Rashi (Beitzah 16a s.v. ein and Avodah Zarah 35b s.v. v’hashlakos) and Tosfot (Avoda Zara 38a). Refer to Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Tur Y.D. 113, Ramban Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b.</ref> explain that the rabbis wanted to prevent socializing with non-Jews, which might lead to intermarriage<ref>Devarim 7:3. </ref><ref>Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Issur V’heter 43:1, Tur Y.D. 112. Refer to Pardes Yosef Vayeichi 49:page 838 (new). The issur applies even if one may not come to intermarriage (Refer to Rashba 1:248, Ramban Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b, Levush Y.D. 113:1, Shevet Hakehasi 6:273). There is no difference if the non-Jew bows down to idols or not in regard to this halacha (See Pri Tohar 112:3, Matei Yehonosson 112, Rav Poalim Y.D. 4:17, Yechaveh Daas 5:54, see Rav Poalim Y.D. 4:17, Shema Shlomo Y.D. 2:67, Shulchan Melachim pages 194-198).  Regarding whether an issue of bishul akum exists if there will be animosity see Taz Y.D. 152:1, Shach on Taz Y.D. 152:1, Chavos Yuer 66, Shulchan Melachim pages 189-194 in depth. </ref>. Others<ref>Rashi a"z 38a s.v. m’d’rabanan.” Refer to Tur 113, Ha’go’es Ashri Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:28, Levush 113:1, Chochmas Adom 66:1. </ref> think that the motivation for this restriction is that we are concerned that if the Jew often eats the non-Jew's food, the non-Jew might later serve a non-kosher food item to the Jew.<ref>Refer to Bishul Yisroel page 3:footnote 1 on the two views of Rashi. </ref> Most rabbis agree with the first reason.<ref>Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:9, 15, Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a “ela”,  Issur  V’heter 43:1, Tosfas Harid Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b, Ohr Zeruah Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:190:page 53, Tur 113, Bais Yosef 113, Bach, Levush 113:1, Taz 1, Shach 1, Prisha 3, Chochmas Adom 66:1, Pischei Teshuva 113:1, Aruch Hashulchan 2, 6, Kaf Hachaim 1, Chelkes Binyomin 113:1. The Halichos Shlomo Moadim 2:3:footnote 11 says the reason for the increase in intermarriage today is because of the many leniencies we accept for bishul akum. </ref>  

#The rabbis were more stringent with these laws of ''bishul'' (cooking) than with [[Pat Akum|bread of a non-Jew]].<ref>Shach 112:17, Aruch Hashulchan 113:1-2, see Mesora 1:pages 84-85. Refer to Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:45, Noam Halacha page 64:footnote 3 in depth.</ref>

#There are two basic exceptions to the restrictions. A food that falls into either of these two categories<ref>This is expressed in Tosfas in Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a “ika”,  and “dagim”,  and codified by the poskim. Refer to Rosh Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:28:page 83, Ran page 15, Rashba Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Ramban Meseches Avodah Zarah 37b, Toras Habayis 3:7, Meiri Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:14-15, Bais Yosef 113,  Bach, Shulchan Aruch 113:1, Levush 2,  Aruch Hashulchan 5. Refer to Mordechai Meseches Avodah Zarah 830:page 42.</ref> is not subject to the laws of [[bishul]] akum and may be eaten by a Jew even initially.<ref>Chelkes Binyomin 113:3.</ref>

#There is a third, somewhat obscure exception, which permits food which does not change when it is cooked.<ref>The Shevet Ha’Levi 6:108:2 says this reason and the reason of edible raw is the same reason. Refer to the Pri [[Chadash]] 113:1. See Meseches Avodah Zarah 37b (bottom), Ohr Zeruah Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:191:page 53, Ha’go’es Ashri Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:28, Ran Meseches Avodah Zarah page 28 “rebbe”, Meiri Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Toras Chatos 75:16, Minchas Yaakov 75:32, Aruch Hashulchan  8. The Ran on page 15 (Meseches Avodah Zarah) says this third exception is not found in other Rishonim. See Darchei Moshe 113:3, Shach 113:1. </ref> However, most poskim maintain that this may not be relied upon to permit [[bishul]] akum.<ref>Issur V’heter 43:1, Shach 1, Be’er Heitiv 1, Pri [[Chadash]] 1, Pri Tohar 1, Aruch Hashulchan 9, Darchei Teshuva 14, Zivchei Tzedek 113:1, Kaf Hachaim 3, Chelkes Binyomin Biurim “davar” pages 60-61, Shevet Ha’Levi 2:43, Hamesivta 5754:pages 78-80.  Refer to Avnei Nezer Y.D. 96:1. </ref>

#The poskim debate the definition of "eaten raw." Some say that it depends on each individual's eating habits.<ref>Pri [[Chadash]] 113:2-3, Aruch Hashulchan 112:12, Darchei Teshuva 113:3 quoting the opinion of the Bnei Chai.</ref> However, many say that it follows the custom of most people.<ref>Rashi Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b “l’inyun”, Rashba Toras Habayis 3:7. Refer to Chochmas Adom 66:3. Refer to Shiurei Beracha  113:1, Darchei Teshuva 3, Chochmas Adom 66:4, Aruch Hashulchan 113:12, Kaf Hachaim 10, Shevet Ha’Levi 5:93:page 97, Chelkes Binyomin 113:6, Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 116:16. Refer to Chelkes Yaakov 113:5. </ref> Accordingly, if most people eat a food raw then one may eat it if a non-Jew cooked it. Even if he personally would not eat this food raw, his eating habits are insignificant in determining a norm of eating habits for most people.<ref>Chelkes Binyomin 113:6, see Biurim “nechal.”</ref>

#Some say that [[bishul]] akum doesn't apply to corn because it would be normal to eat corn raw, however, it is just uncommon, however, others hold that [[bishul]] akum does apply to corn since it isn't eaten raw.<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/788653/Rabbi_Mordechai_I_Willig/Yoreh_De'ah_Shiur_06_Bishul_Akum Rabbi Mordechai Willig in a shiur on yutorah.org (min 55-57)] quotes Rav Yisrael Belsky as saying that [[bishul]] akum doesn't apply to corn since it would be normal to eat it raw, it is just that we are picky, however, Rav Hershel Schachter held that [[bishul]] akum does apply unless a majority of people eat it raw.</ref>

#We mentioned earlier that food which is fit to be served on a king's table is subject to the halachos of [[bishul]] akum.<ref>Refer to Darchei Teshuva 113:10 if this applies to a Jewish king or non-Jewish king. In addition refer to [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 187-188 if this applies to something which is fit for a king’s table sometimes. See Tosfas Meseches Beitzah 16b “dagim”,  Avodah Zarah 38a “dagim”.</ref> This term requires clarification. What if a king eats it for breakfast but would not eat it for supper? Some say that this refers to food that would be served at a royal dinner;<ref>Based on the Gemorah in Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a. Refer to Shevet Hakehasi 6:274:4. </ref> the prevailing opinion is that it refers to anyone of stature, not just a king.<ref>Issur V’heter 43:2, Shiurei Beracha Y.D. 113:2, Ben Ish Chai Chukas 2:9, Zivchei Tzedek 113:2, Kaf Hachaim 13:2. Refer to Aruch Hashulchan 18 who seems to hold this way as well. See Chelkes Binyomin 113:10, [[Bishul]] Yisroel page 133.  See Shulchan Melachim 2:pages 1164-1165. </ref> Others say it means food which would be served at a state dinner,<ref>Refer to Kashrus Kurrents from the Star-K “Food Fit For A King”.</ref> while some apply it even if a food is eaten by a king at breakfast<ref>Refer to Mesora 1:page 86:2, Shulchan Melachim 2:page 1209:3.  </ref> (this is not the halacha). Others are of the opinion that it refers to a food that one would serve on [[Shabbos]] to invites guests,<ref>Based on the opinion of the Rambam in Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 116:18, opinion of Harav Falk Shlita in [[Bishul]] Yisroel (teshuvos) page 28:3. Refer to [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 134-135 who says this clause is not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, but it seems to be l’halacha anyways. </ref> or food served at a fancy meal in honor of a mitzvah.<ref>Shevet Ha’kehusi 6:274:4, see Dinei Machalei Nuchrim pages 18-19. </ref> Harav Yisroel Belsky and is the OU policy hold that it refers to food served at a wedding smorgasbord.<ref>Based on a personal conversation. Refer to [[Bishul]] Yisroel (teshuvos) page 28:3 who does not seem to agree with this. </ref> Examples of foods which do not fit the above and are permitted are: chickpeas,<ref>Refer to Darchei Moshe 113:3, Rama 113:2, Aruch Hashulchan 13, 15-16, Halichos Olom 7:pages 102-103, Opinion of the Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 119:14, Halichos Olom 7:page 102,  OU Documents A-64:1, A-130, M-7. Refer to Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:17, Ben Ish Chai Chukas 2:12. See Minchas Yaakov 75:31 who says (in his days) cooked chickpeas were fit to be served on a king’s table.</ref> corn, snacks,<ref>Toras Chaim Avodah Zarah 38a, Zechor L’Avraham 5762-5763:page 749, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:438, Noam Halacha page 190, opinion of Harav Elyashiv Shlita quoted in [[Bishul]] Yisroel page 169:footnote 3, Kitzur Hilchos [[Bishul]] Akum (Sharf) 11. </ref> Rice Krispies,<ref>Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 117:21, Star-K article entitled “Food Fit For A King”.</ref> and popcorn.<ref>Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 118:2, Rivevos Ephraim 7:page 450, Noam Halacha page 193, Chai Ha’Levi 4:50:10. </ref>

#[[Bishul]] Akum applies to instant rice which was cooked by the non-Jewish manufacturer. Parboiled rice, however, which requires further [[cooking]] to be edible is not [[Bishul]] Akum at the time of manufacturing and need to be finished [[cooking]] by a Jew.<ref>[http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-issues-bishul.htm Article on star-k.org]</ref>

#Many hold that [[Bishul]] Akum does not apply to potato chips since in that particular way of preparing a potato it isn't fit to be served on a king's table.<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/788653/Rabbi_Mordechai_I_Willig/Yoreh_De'ah_Shiur_06_Bishul_Akum Rabbi Mordechai Willig in a shiur on yutorah.org (min 55-57)] quoting Rabbi Belsky from the OU Papers on [[Bishul]] Akum</ref> Some are strict about this and won't eat pringles with an OU because of the bishul akum issue.<ref>[https://kavhalacha.co.il/index.php/parashathashavoa-dafyomi-halachayomit-lectures-9/harav-david-yosef-17/3459-2017-05-30-05-42-83 Rav Eliyahu Pinchasi] based on Rav Elyashiv and the Badatz Edah Charedit.</ref>

#Many hold that the definition of fit for a king's tables depends on the current custom and not a previous custom.<ref>This is the opinion of the Chochmas Adam 66:4 as well as Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:18, Pri Tohar 7, Shiurei Beracha 113:9, Kaf Hachaim 6 and 11, Chelkes Binyomin 113:6, [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 198-199. The Pri [[Chadash]] 113:5 argues (see Sdei Chemed mareches [[bishul]] akum u’pitan 5:page 287, Darchei Teshuva 113:7). </ref>

#The consensus of the poskim is that there is a concern of [[bishul]] akum with beverages (i.e. soup) if one cannot drink it without [[cooking]] it or it is fit to be served on a king's table.<ref>Refer to Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 31b “v’travaihu,” Rosh 2:15, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:14, Orchos Habayis 8:14:footnote 41, [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 185-186. Refer to Pri [[Chadash]] 113:3, 114:6 who seems to argue. See Sdei Chemed mareches “[[bishul]] eino yehudi u’pitan” page 349:10. </ref>

#There is a discussion in the poskim if an important person should go beyond the letter of the law regarding the laws of [[bishul]] akum. Some poskim say that such a person should refrain from any food cooked by a non-Jew even if it can be eaten raw, if it is fit to be served on a king's table.<ref>Refer to Meseches [[Shabbos]] 51a, Meiri [[Shabbos]] 51a, Ritvah 51a, Shach Y.D. 152:2, Bach Y.D. 113, Shiurei Beracha 113:4-5, Tosfas [[Shabbos]] O.C. 257:17 in depth, Kaf Hachaim 12, Shevet Ha’kehasi 4:200, M’Bais Levi 8:page 31:13, Shevet Ha’Levi 6:108:3, Minchas Yaakov 75:30, Dinei Machalei Nuchrim page 9:footnote 4, see Pri Megadim Eishel Avraham 257:15. The Taz 3 says it is a pious act. Some even says this applies to water (Kaf Hachaim 13 quoting the opinion of the Arizal). </ref> The reason is that if one sees an important person being lenient even though it is permitted strictly speaking, the onlooker will potentially be more lenient in a circumstance where it can be forbidden.<ref>Rashi Meseches [[Shabbos]] 51a s.v. adom, Meiri Meseches [[Shabbos]] 51a </ref>  

#If it is eaten raw and fit to be served on a king's table one should be stringent.<ref>Refer to [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 385-386. </ref> However, others disregard this concern,<ref>Dugel Mirvuva Y.D. 113, Zivchei Tzedek 113:10, Machzik Beracha O.C. 257:2, Kaf Hachaim  113:12, Hamesivta 5754:page 82, see Chelkes Binyomin 113:4. </ref> and the custom seems to follow the latter opinion.<ref>Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see Pri [[Chadash]] 113:3, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 113:11, Chai Ha’Levi 4:51:6.</ref> Even the stringent opinion makes allowances for health reasons (see below).<ref>Tashbatz 1:89, Maharsham 5:36:page 35. </ref>

#A food which is fit to be served on a king's table and is not eaten raw is still not a concern of [[bishul]] akum if it is eaten for health reasons. It is not a "chashuva" food, and sharing it will not lead to closeness with a non-Jew.<ref>Radvaz 3:637, Meiri Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Maharsham 2:262, Noam Halacha page 75, Chelkes Binyomin 113:page 11 (biurim). </ref>

#A food that is forbidden because of [[bishul]] akum and placed into the freezer is still forbidden even though it is inedible while it is frozen.<ref>Dinei Machalei Nuchrim page 48:6, Noam Halacha page 71:16:footnote 28, Kitzur Hilchos [[Bishul]] Akum (Berger) page 27. </ref> By the same token, if a Jew cooked food and froze it, there is no concern if a non-Jew heats up the food.<ref>Kitzur Hilchos [[Bishul]] Akum (Berger) page 26-27.</ref>

#Potatoes which were milled or pureed and then dehydrated to be used for producing other food is subject to Bishul Akum since it is edible without further cooking such as adding lukewarm water.<ref>Rav Shlomo Machpud in Daat Kashrut 5762 p. 136 writes that since the potatoes were steamed and then pureed they are ready to be eaten with simply adding lukewarm water and therefore forbidden. He cites Rav Masas in Shemesh Umagen 2:44 who is lenient but also cites Rav Mordechai Eliyahu who was strict. Rav Masas argued that since the pureed needed further processing it is like the original cooking wasn't ineffective.</ref>

#There is a discussion among the poskim if canned food is subject to the halachos of [[bishul]] akum. Food which is cooked before it is canned and is just put in a can for storage would be forbidden.<ref>[[Bishul]] Yisroel page 34, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:247. </ref> However, one could argue that food cooked in a can is not fit to be served on a king's table.<ref>Refer to Mesora 1:page 86 (bottom), Mesora 2:pages 74-75, OU document A-64:4,  Star-K article entitled “Food Fit For A King” page 2, opinion of Harav Pinchus Sheinberg Shlita quoted in Divrei Chachamim pages 182-183:22. </ref> The custom seems to treat canned goods as a concern of [[bishul]] akum (if the food is not edible raw) even if it is cooked with indirect steam.<ref>Refer to [[Bishul]] Yisroel (teshuvos) pages 46-47, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:247. Also see [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 34-36. Some are lenient because many products do not get changed when cooked in a can (Aleh Ezra Y.D. 5). </ref> However, this can be used as an additional factor to be lenient in certain cases.

#An interesting question arises regarding kashering the utensils of a convert which were only used for kosher food. It would seem from the language of the Shulchan Aruch<ref>Y.D. 113:16. </ref> (when he discusses the obligation to kasher from [[bishul]] akum) that he does not require kashering.<ref>Opinion of Harav Herschel Schachter Shlita and Rabbi Ari Senter Shlita. Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita added that the non-Jew before he converted did nothing wrong when [[cooking]] for himself so his utensils are not [[bishul]] akum (if they were used for kosher food). </ref> However, when the question arises one should discuss it with a competent Rav.

#Most poskim are of the opinion that [[bishul]] akum is nullified in a simple majority ([[Nullification|botel b'rov]])<ref>Toras Chatos 75:9, Shach 112:23, 113:21, Be’er Heitiv 18, Shiurei Beracha 113:10, Chochmas Adom 66:11, Aruch Hashulchan 53, Darchei Teshuva 90, Kaf Hachaim 91, see Mishna Brurah 328:63. Refer to Darchei Teshuva 113:91 if one is permitted to be mevatel [[bishul]] akum with his hands. Refer to Yeshoshua Yaakov Y.D. 113:3 in depth why one is permitted to mix a [[bishul]] akum food with a non-[[bishul]] akum food.</ref> while some maintain you need shishim (60 times).<ref>Refer to Hagalas Keilim 10:footnote 11, Chelkes Binyomin 113:136. </ref> Sephardim hold you need 60 times but if you have majority and not sixty you can add more permitted ingredients in order to nullify it.<ref>Divrei Dovid 2:20 proves the Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:3 holds that bishul akum isn't nullified by a majority. He cites this approach from the Bear Sheva 19, Minchat Cohen 1:1, Pri Chadash 99:17, Maharashdam 41, Kahal Yehuda 113:2, Misgeret Hashulchan 113:2, Ayin Hamayim 112:11, Kiseh Eliyahu 113:2, Maharam Shik 134, and Yeshuot Yakov 113:3. [http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/online/f_01598.html#HtmpReportNum0002_L3 Patbag Hamelch 2:23] agrees.</ref>

#If food which is edible raw is mixed<ref>There is no concern of being mevatel an issur here (Darchei Teshuva 113:18). </ref> with food that is not edible raw, the mixture is not subject to the halachos of [[bishul]] akum if most of the ingredients are food which can be eaten raw.<ref>Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1381&st=&pgnum=77 Tashbetz 1:89], Shulchan Aruch 113:2, Toras Chatos 75:12, Levush 15, Chochmas Adom 66:6, Aruch Hashulchan 14. See Mishna Brurah 203:11. Refer to Meseches Beitzah 16a-16b, Avodah Zarah 38a, Rashi Meseches Beitzah 16a “asirei,” Avodah Zarah 38a “ku mashma lon”,  Ran page 15.  Refer to [[Bishul]] Yisroel pages 330-333.</ref> Some permit even if it is half and half<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 14, Darchei Teshuva 19. Some say if the five grains are mixed in they are the main ingredient in this regard as well as in hilchos berochos (Darchei Teshuva 113:20, Chelkes Binyomin 113:21, see Hamesivta 5754:pages 88-89 where he asks on the Aruch Hashulchan). </ref> (this will be discussed in a later issue). Some say that the five grains are considered the main ingredient as is the case in hilchos [[berachos]].

#Some say this is only permitted if the food which is not edible raw is not recognizable in the mixture.<ref>Darchei Teshuva 113:22, Divrei Dovid 2:20. See Kaf Hachaim 17</ref>

#Sometimes, a food may be eaten raw but is a tafel to the main food which has a concern of [[bishul]] akum (not eaten raw). The question is if the food eaten as a tafel is subject to the halachos of [[bishul]] akum.  The rules here follow the same rules as [[berachos]]. A food which is mixed to the same degree where it is considered mixed in regard to the halachos of [[berachos]] would not be permitted because of [[bishul]] akum. For example, if peas (edible raw) are mixed with other food then there would be a [[bishul]] akum concern for the peas as well.<ref>Gemara Avoda Zara 38a, Shulchan Aruch YD 113:2, Refer to OU document A-131. </ref>

*[https://halachablog.com/2016/01/18/bishul-akum-and-microwaves/] writes that Shevet Halevi 8:185, Shraga Hameir 6:52:3, and Rav Elyashiv (Shvut Yitzchak v. 6 p. 61) hold that there is bishul akum for microwaves.

*The [https://oukosher.org/faqs/are-there-kosher-concerns-of-bishul-akum-if-the-food-is-cooked-in-a-microwave-by-a-gentile/ OU] writes that it is a dispute whether there is bishul akum when cooking in a microwave since it is an innovation or perhaps it is considered a normal form of cooking today.</ref>

==Sephardim==