Bishul Akum (Hebrew: בשול עכו"ם, tran. cooking of a non-Jew) is a rabbinic restriction that forbids a Jew from eating many foods that a non-Jew cooked. The reason for the restriction is to prevent intermarriage and to avoid eating non-kosher ingredients mixed in. There are many leniencies that relate the quality of the food or the significance of the cooking for the particular food in question. Additionally, a Jew is partially involved in the cooking process this can alleviate the issue of bishul akum. This is a key reason for the need to have a hashgacha on many foods even though all of the ingredients are kosher.
- The rabbis enacted a decree forbidding food that was cooked by a non-Jew. However, it is permitted to derive benefit from the food.
- There are a number of reasons for this restriction. Some early commentators explain that the rabbis wanted to prevent socializing with non-Jews, which might lead to intermarriage. Others 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. Most rabbis agree with the first reason.
- The rabbis were more stringent with these laws of bishul (cooking) than with bread of a non-Jew.
- There are two basic exceptions to the restrictions. A food that falls into either of these two categories is not subject to the laws of bishul akum and may be eaten by a Jew even initially.
- A food that can be eaten raw may be cooked by a non-Jew for two reasons. First, the cooking does not really improve the food because it can be eaten raw (and not considered cooked). Second, food which is edible raw is not an important food and one would not invite someone to his home to eat such foods. Examples of such foods are beets, cheese, fruits, honey, juice, ice cream, milk, (this will be discussed in a later issue), sugar cane, zucchini and other vegetables, and water. Examples of foods that are not edible raw are asparagus, cauliflower, chicken, meat, potatoes, (this will be discussed in a later issue) and pumpkin.
- The prohibition of bishul akum is limited to foods which are served on a king's table (oleh al shulchan melachim) and accompany bread (such as meat, eggs, or fish) or as an appetizer. Only these types of foods are served at social gatherings and only then is there the concern for intermarriage. When there is no invitation, there is also no concern that the Jew will become used to eating the non-Jew's food, and therefore, there is no concern that the non-Jew might later serve the Jew non-Kosher.
- Many say that any food that is fit to be served on a king's table is subject to bishul akum even if it is not eaten with bread. Others say that the above stipulation is to be taken literally and even an important food is only prohibited if it is eaten with bread. The accepted custom follows the stringent opinion.
- There is a third, somewhat obscure exception, which permits food which does not change when it is cooked. However, most poskim maintain that this may not be relied upon to permit bishul akum.
- A bakery's food is permissible even if the baker is not Jewish as long as the ingredients are kosher. 
What Does "Eaten Raw" Mean?
- The poskim debate the definition of "eaten raw." Some say that it depends on each individual's eating habits. However, many say that it follows the custom of most people. 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.
- A food which can only be eaten raw in difficult circumstances is not considered halachically edible raw, while others argue and hold it is still considered halachically edible raw.
- If it is common to eat the item raw with other ingredients, then the raw item is still considered edible raw. A food which was edible raw while fresh is not considered edible raw after it dries out.
- 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.
- Eggs are considered inedible raw are therefore subject to the laws of bishul akum.
"Fit to be Served on a King's Table"
- We mentioned earlier that food which is fit to be served on a king's table is subject to the halachos of bishul akum. 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; the prevailing opinion is that it refers to anyone of stature, not just a king. Others say it means food which would be served at a state dinner, while some apply it even if a food is eaten by a king at breakfast (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, or food served at a fancy meal in honor of a mitzvah. Harav Yisroel Belsky and is the OU policy hold that it refers to food served at a wedding smorgasbord. Examples of foods which do not fit the above and are permitted are: chickpeas, corn, snacks, Rice Krispies, and popcorn.
- Is "Fit to be Served on a King's Table" according to the category or specific food? Some poskim hold that if a certain type of food can be prepared in a way that could be served at a king's table, then any dish prepared from this food falls under the problem of bishul akum, even if this particular dish would not be served at the king's table. However, most poskim disagree with this position and maintain that each dish must be evaluated individually. Accordingly, if a specific potato is prepared in a way that it is fit for a king's table then only that type of potato is a problem of bishul akum. This opinion is followed by most kashrus agencies.
- If a food would only be fit for the king's table after certain spices and seasoning were added, it is still considered fit for the king's table even without the spices.
- 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.
- 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. Some are strict about this and won't eat pringles with an OU because of the bishul akum issue.
- Many hold that the definition of fit for a king's tables depends on the current custom and not a previous custom.
Product Shipped From one Place to Another
- If a non-Jew cooks a food which is edible raw then it is permitted even if it is shipped to a country where it is not eaten raw. This is not a common issue as a food which is edible in one country is usually edible in a different country as well.
- If a non-Jew prepared a food which is not edible raw in a country where it is not served on a king's table and shipped it to a country where the food is fit to be served on a king's table the food is forbidden because of bishul akum. If the situation is reversed, and a non-Jew prepared a food which is not edible raw and it is fit to be served on a king's table in that country, then the food is forbidden even if it is shipped to a country where it is not eaten on a king's table.
- 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. 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.
- If it is eaten raw and fit to be served on a king's table one should be stringent. However, others disregard this concern, and the custom seems to follow the latter opinion. Even the stringent opinion makes allowances for health reasons (see below).
Types of Food
- 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.
- 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. By the same token, if a Jew cooked food and froze it, there is no concern if a non-Jew heats up the food.
- 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.
- 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. However, one could argue that food cooked in a can is not fit to be served on a king's table. 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. However, this can be used as an additional factor to be lenient in certain cases.
- Sufganiyot fried in oil by non-Jews are permitted. 
- There is a discussion in the poskim if food cooked by a non-Jew renders the pot treif. Some poskim say that no hagalah (kashering) is required. Some explain that the main reason for the issur of bishul akum is because of intermarriage, and there is no socializing with flavor absorbed in the pot. However, many poskim maintain that hagalah is in fact required, and this is the overwhelming custom. The reason is that the food itself becomes forbidden, and the blios (absorption) from the food are considered as forbidden foods. This applies even if the utensils were not used within twenty-four hours (eino ben-yomo) in which case the taste of the food is pogem (ill tasting). Nonetheless, one can do hagalah (after waiting twenty-four hours) for an earthenware utensil (which we normally do not kasher) three times and use it for kosher food. This is common if a non-Jew used a crock-pot to cook food.
- 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 (when he discusses the obligation to kasher from bishul akum) that he does not require kashering. However, when the question arises one should discuss it with a competent Rav.
Doubts and Mixtures
- The halacha is that anytime one has a doubt whether a Jew stoked the coals, or if a food was cooked 1/3 by a Jew, then we can be lenient. Some even say that if one is not sure whether a particular food is subject to the laws of bishul akum he may be lenient since the entire prohibition is rabbinic (Klalei_Halacha#Safek_Derabbanan_Lkula). There is a discussion if we can be lenient if one is unsure if a food is fit to be served on a king's table. Some poskim are lenient even if one can verify the status, but the custom is to be stringent.
Rov or Shishim
- Most poskim are of the opinion that bishul akum is nullified in a simple majority (botel b'rov) while some maintain you need shishim (60 times). 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.
Mixing Edible with Non-Edible Raw Food
- If food which is edible raw is mixed 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. Some permit even if it is half and half (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.
- 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.
Forms of Cooking
- Some poskim hold that there is no prohibition of bishul akum when cooking in a microwave, while others disagree.
Jew Watching non-Jew
- Ideally, according to Sephardim, one should not eat in a restaurant where the food was not put on the fire by a Jew, regardless of who lit the flame. Rav Ovadia Yosef articulated a leniency to eat in a restaurant or hotel with Ashkenazic hashgacha that only makes sure that a Jew turns on the fire but not that a Jew is involved in the cooking. One should ask a qualified rabbi regarding how to apply this leniency in various situations, such as Jewish homes where the maid did some cooking, Shawarma cut by a non Jew, etc.
Special thanks to Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits Rabbinical Administrator for KOF-K Kosher Supervision and author of Halachically Speaking for this article. To reach the author please email firstname.lastname@example.org. Most of the halachos can also be found in original print on thehalacha.com.
- For Sephardim, see the sources to the above Halachot and these articles:
- See בהלכות בישולי נכרים by Rav Moshe Yosef, of Badatz Beit Yosef
- Patgan HaMelech by Rav Moshe Parzis (ToratEmmet edition, Otzar HaChochmah edition, YouTube Shiur)
- BISHUL YISROEL SEPHARDI: AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY, By: Rabbi Tzvi Rosen, Star-K
- HalachaYomit.co.il (May 24th 2017, June 18th 2018)
- The Prohibition of Bishul Akum – Eating Foods Prepared by a Gentile, by Rabbi Eli Mansour, DailyHalacha.com
- Bishul Akum for Sephardim, Din online
- Lo Basi Ella L’orer: Bishul Akum (OUKosher)
- Drinking Coffee on the Road (OUKosher)
- Playing With Fire (OUKosher)
- Coffee (OUKosher)
- Master List Of Bishul Akum Status Of Foods (OU Kosher)
- FOOD FIT FOR A KING: REVIEWING THE LAWS OF BISHUL AKUM & BISHUL YISROEL (Star-K)
- Some Contemporary Bishul Akum Curiosities (R' Kaganoff)
- The Right Type of Help (R' Kaganoff)
- Bishul Akum Problems in the Home (R' Kaganoff)
- 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.
- Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b.
- Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b.
- 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.
- Devarim 7:3.
- 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.
- 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.
- Refer to Bishul Yisroel page 3:footnote 1 on the two views of Rashi.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Chelkes Binyomin 113:3.
- Rashi Meseches Beitzah 16a “ein”, Chochmas Adom 66:1, Bais Yitzchok 33:pages 565-566, Chelkes Binyomin 113:3, 5.
- Meseches Shabbos 51a, Avodah Zarah 38a, Ran Beitzah page 8b “im tzolon”, Rosh Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:28, Rif page 14, Issur V’heter 43:2, Tur 113, Shulchan Aruch 113:1, Toras Chatos 75:16, Levush 2, Chochmas Adom 66:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:6. Refer to Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a “dagim”.
- Rashi Meseches Beitzah 16a “ein buhem”, Levush 113:2.
- Ran Meseches Beitzah 8b “im tzolon”, Taz 113:1.
- OU document A-110. Refer to the opinion of the Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 119:12 regarding borscht.
- Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a “ika”, Darchei Teshuva 113:5, Kaf Hachaim 15. Refer to Bishul Yisroel pages 576-557 regarding processed cheeses.
- Refer to Shevet Ha’Levi 6:108:5. This is even if they are fried in sugar or honey (Aruch Hashulchan 13).
- Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a “ika”, Rosh 2:28, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:23, Issur V’heter 43:5, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 114:7, Aruch Hashulchan 113:13, Yalkut Yosef Y.D. 2:page 149, Shevet Ha’Levi 6:109.
- Aruch Hashulchan 23.
- Refer to Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:14, Shulchan Aruch 113:3. This is only if the vegetable is not cooked with meat that is bishul akum since the fat from the meat gets absorbed into the vegetable (Shulchan Aruch 113:3, see G’ra 3, Darchei Teshuva 33-34, Chelkes Binyomin 33).
- OU document A-110.
- OU document A-110
- Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Rosh 2:28, Ran page 15, Rashba Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Tur 113, Shulchan Aruch 113:1, Levush 3, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:6, Chochmas Adom 66:1, see Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a.
- Aruch Hashulchan 10.
- Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:15, Ritvah Meseches Shabbos 51a, Meiri Meseches Avodah Zarah 35a.
- Rambam Hilchos Machalas Asuros 17:18, Issur V’heter 43:2, Tur 113, Bais Yosef, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:1, Toras Chatos 75:16, Shach 112:5, Chochmas Adom 66:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:6, Chelkes Binyomin 113:12, Bishul Yisroel pages 180-181. Others say a dessert which is not eaten with bread is not a concern (Pri Chadash 114:6, Chasam Sofer 113:2, Kaf Hachaim 7), while others disagree (Refer to Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:1, Aruch Hashulchan 7, Darchei Teshuva 12).
- Rashba Toras Habayis 3:7.
- Chachmas Adam 66:1. See Chelkas Binyomin 113:3, and Bishul Yisroel pages 130-131.
- Rashba Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Toras Habayis 3:7, Levush 3, Pri Tohar 3, Tiferes Yisroel Meseches Avodah Zarah 2:52, Aruch Hashulchan YD 113:7, Darchei Teshuva 12, Shevet Ha’Levi 2:43, 10:124, Bishul Yisroel page 148:footnote 15 quoting the opinion of Harav Elyashiv Shlita.
- Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Issur V’heter 43:2, Zer Zahav 2, Meiri Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Pri Chadash 113:3, 22, opinion of Harav Henkin zt”l quoted in Shearim Metzuyanim B’halacha 38:4, Hamesivta 5754:pages 83-84, Teharas Hamayim page 328:footnote*. Such an example would be a fancy spread (Bishul Yisroel pages 170-172).
- 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.
- 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.
- Yehave Daat, 5, 53
- Pri Chadash 113:2-3, Aruch Hashulchan 112:12, Darchei Teshuva 113:3 quoting the opinion of the Bnei Chai.
- 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.
- Chelkes Binyomin 113:6, see Biurim “nechal.”
- Rashba Toras Habayis (hakutzer) 3:7:page 213 (new), Ran Meseches Avodah Zarah 16b s.v. beitzah, Meiri Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Tur 113, Shulchan Aruch 113:12. Refer to Pri Chadash 113:21, Chochmas Adom 66:3, Ben Ish Chai Chukas 2:22, Aruch Hashulchan 26, Kaf Hachaim 71, Shevet Ha’Levi 9:162, Chelkes Binyomin 113:117, Bishul Yisroel pages 85-87. Refer to Bach 113 “umeiy shnu” who explains why if a food is cooked is it permitted even if it can be eaten if one pushes himself.
- Rama 113:12. Refer to Ramban and Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38b.
- Gilyon Maharsha Y.D. 113, Magen Avraham O.C. 203:4, Mishna Brurah 203:11, M’Bais Levi 8:page 26:1, Chelkes Binyomin 113:6-7. Refer to Bishul Yisroel page 102, OU Document A-59 quoting the opinion of Rav Schachter Shlita, OU madrich pages 100-101. See Darchei Teshuva 113:4, Bishul Yisroel page 102 quoting the opinion of Harav Shmuel Felder Shlita. Refer to Bishul Yisroel page 463 who is not sure what status sushi has in this regard.
- Aruch Hashulchan 15. See Dugel Mervuva Y.D. 113. Refer to Bishul Yisroel pages 88-90.
- 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.
- Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:14
- 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”.
- Based on the Gemorah in Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a. Refer to Shevet Hakehasi 6:274:4.
- 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.
- Refer to Kashrus Kurrents from the Star-K “Food Fit For A King”.
- Refer to Mesora 1:page 86:2, Shulchan Melachim 2:page 1209:3.
- 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.
- Shevet Ha’kehusi 6:274:4, see Dinei Machalei Nuchrim pages 18-19.
- Based on a personal conversation. Refer to Bishul Yisroel (teshuvos) page 28:3 who does not seem to agree with this.
- 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.
- 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.
- Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 117:21, Star-K article entitled “Food Fit For A King”.
- Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 118:2, Rivevos Ephraim 7:page 450, Noam Halacha page 193, Chai Ha’Levi 4:50:10.
- Refer to Aruch Hashulchan 113:10, Emes L’Yaakov Y.D. 112:footnote 42, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:438, opinion of Harav Elyashiv Shlita quoted in Bishul Yisroel page 146:14, Igros Moshe Y.D. 5:48:5, Dinei Machalei Nuchrim pages 23-24, Bishul Yisroel pages 139-144, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:438, Be’er Moshe quoted in Pischei Halacha (Kashrus) page 116:17. Refer to Tiferes Yisroel Avodah Zarah 2:52.
- Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see OU documents A-21, A-23, and A-106, Maharsham 2:262, Gan Shoshanim 2:page 202. Refer to Chelkes Binyomin 113:6, 8, biurim page 96, Shevet Ha’kehasi 6:274, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:249, Bishul Yisroel page 143, Kerem Ephraim pages 64-65.
- Tiferet Yisrael (Avoda Zara Yachin. 2:52) writes that when judging whether something is fit for a king we judge the type of food. Teshuvot Vhanhagot 1:438 agrees and forbids potato chips.
- One proof is that the Iser Vheter that is cited and accepted by the Shach (113:2) writes that intestines are forbidden because of Bishul Akum even though they aren’t fit to serve a guest (S”A YD 101:5). Since meat is important we judge all meat as fit for a king’s table even the parts which are very low quality. This is echoed by the Pri Chadash 113:2 and Aruch Hashulchan 113:10. Rav Pesach Falk (author of Machazeh Eliyahu, in Am Hatorah 5754 p. 75) argues with the Tiferet Yisrael based on a number of proofs.
- Another factor to use to permit potato chips is that usually they aren’t eaten with bread and some poskim hold that any food which isn’t eaten with bread isn’t included in Bishul Akum. Pri Chadash 113:3 is lenient. See Darkei Teshuva 113:12 for those who are lenient. Chayei Adam 66:1 and Yechava Daat 4:42 don’t hold of this Pri Chadash. Rav Heinemann is lenient for potato chips since they are not eaten for a meal at all. Rav Shlomo Machpud (Daat Kashrut 5762 p. 136) agrees.
- Darchei Teshuva 113:9, Chelkes Binyomin 113:8. Refer to OU document A-41.
- Article on star-k.org
- Rabbi Mordechai Willig in a shiur on yutorah.org (min 55-57) quoting Rabbi Belsky from the OU Papers on Bishul Akum
- Rav Eliyahu Pinchasi based on Rav Elyashiv and the Badatz Edah Charedit.
- 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).
- Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita as expressed in OU document A-88, see Pri Chadash Y.D. 113:22, Shiurei Beracha 113:1, Kaf Hachaim 113:11. Refer to Shevet Ha’Levi 9:163. The reason for this is since the food is edible raw in one place there is no certainty that it will not be edible raw in the place where it is shipped since it is many days from when the food is made and the food may be dry.
- OU document A-88
- Refer to Bishul Yisroel (teshuvos) pages 31-32. See OU document A-131.
- Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita as expressed in OU document A-88, opinion of Harav Falk Shlita as expressed in Bishul Yisroel (teshuvos) pages 31-34 in depth. Refer to Shiurei Beracha 113:7, Ben Ish Chai Chukas 2:12, Chaim Shaul 1:74:6, Kaf Hachaim 113:20, Kerem Ephraim pages 62-63, Bishul Yisroel pages 61-62. In regard to tortillas see Dinei Machalei Nuchrim pages 93-101 in depth.
- 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).
- Rashi Meseches Shabbos 51a s.v. adom, Meiri Meseches Shabbos 51a
- Refer to Bishul Yisroel pages 385-386.
- 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.
- Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see Pri Chadash 113:3, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 113:11, Chai Ha’Levi 4:51:6.
- Tashbatz 1:89, Maharsham 5:36:page 35.
- 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).
- 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.
- Dinei Machalei Nuchrim page 48:6, Noam Halacha page 71:16:footnote 28, Kitzur Hilchos Bishul Akum (Berger) page 27.
- Kitzur Hilchos Bishul Akum (Berger) page 26-27.
- 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.
- Bishul Yisroel page 34, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:247.
- 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.
- 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).
- Halichot Olam, 7, Page 106
- The Shach 113:20 says cooking for herself is more stringent because it is unlikely that a Jew will intervene. Refer to Prisha 113:17, Chochmas Adom 66:11. See Shulchan Melachim 2:pages 959-957.
- Some say if the cooking was not done in front of us then there is a concern of non-kosher being cooked and all would agree that hagalah is required (Chelkes Binyomin 113:134).
- Tosfot Harosh Avoda Zara 40a s.v. vani, Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Issur V’heter 43:8, Shulchan Aruch 113:16, Levush 16, Shiurei Beracha 18. Refer to Hamesivta 5754:pages 123-125 who says most poskim hold no hagalah is required.
- Bedek Habayis 3:7:page 209 (new), G’ra 40, 42, See Aruch Hashulchan 113:50.
- Rashba in Toras Habayis 3:7 (end), Rashba Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, Ran (teshuvos) 5:11, Toras Chatos 75:14, Tur, Bais Yosef, Shulchan Aruch 113:16, Levush 16, Shiurei Beracha 18-19, Chochmas Adom 66:11, Mishna Brurah O.C. 328:63, Aruch Hashulchan 113:50, Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 113:89, Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:41, Kitzur Hilchos Bishul Akum (Berger) page 45:67. Refer to Matei Yehonosson 113:16, Pri Chadash 25, Kashrus 2:pages 13-20 in depth. See Shulchan Melachim 2:pages 943-951.
- Shulchan Aruch 113:16, Aruch Hashulchan 113:50, Chai Ha’Levi 5:54:1. Some say if the cooking was done in a Jewish home or Jewish establishment no hagalah is required since there are two sefikos. One doubt is if such utensils require hagalah and the other doubt is if there is bishul akum in a Jew’s home (Halichos Olom 7:page 104:footnote).
- Toras Habayis 3:7:page 214 (new), Aruch Hashulchan 113:50. See Gr’a 113:40, 42. Refer to Tzitz Eliezer 22:44 in depth on this dispute.
- Ben Ish Chai Chukas 2:24, Kaf Hachaim 113:89-90, Chelkes Binyomin 113:138, Bishul Yisroel pages 373-374, opinion of Harav Falk Shlita stated in Bishul Yisroel (teshuvos) page 67. Refer to Chochmas Adom 66:12. See Darchei Teshuva 113:92 who brings a lenient opinion. See Rama O.C. 452:2, Mishna Brurah 20. The opinion of Harav Falk Shlita stated in Bishul Yisroel (teshuvos) pages 78-79 is that in time of need one can be lenient and do hagalah even within twenty-four hours. Refer to Chochmas Adom 66:12.
- Kaf Hachaim 113:90, Chelkes Binyomin 113:142.
- Shulchan Aruch O.C. 451:22.
- Bais Yosef 113, Shulchan Aruch 113:16, Toras Chatos 75:14, Levush 16, Chochmas Adom 66:11, Mishna Brurah O.C. 328:63, Aruch Hashulchan 113:50, Kaf Hachaim 95, see Gilyon Maharsha 113, Mishna Brurah 328:63, Shevet Ha’Levi 9:162:16. Refer to Shevet Ha’Levi 6:108:8, Kashrus 2:pages 237-238.
- Kitzur Hilchos Bishul Akum (Berger) page 46:70.
- Y.D. 113:16.
- 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).
- Rama 113:11, Chochmas Adom 66:9, Aruch Hashulchan 48. Refer to Bishul Yisroel 304-310.
- Even if the doubt is if a Jew was involved in the cooking of the food (Chelkes Binymon biurim “v’chein” page 100).
- Taz 11. This would not be valid according to the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch since stoking the coals is not bishul yisroel (Kaf Hachaim 68).
- Chochmas Adom 66:9
- Tosfas Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a “ika”, Issur V’heter 43:10, Tur 113, Rama 113:11, Toras Chatos 75:7, Chochmas Adom 66:9, Aruch Hashulchan 48. Refer to Darchei Teshuva 70.
- Opinion of the Shevet Ha’Levi quoted in Kerem Ephraim page 48:15:1. Refer to Pri Megadim Sifsei Da’as Y.D. 110:34.
- Shach 110:34 (dinei sfek sfeika), Bishul Yisroel pages 490-491, opinion of Harav Falk Shlita quoted in Bishul Yisroel page 52 (teshuvos) 5:16.
- 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.
- Refer to Hagalas Keilim 10:footnote 11, Chelkes Binyomin 113:136.
- 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. Patbag Hamelch 2:23 agrees.
- There is no concern of being mevatel an issur here (Darchei Teshuva 113:18).
- Ritvah Meseches Avodah Zarah 38a, 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.
- 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).
- Darchei Teshuva 113:22, Divrei Dovid 2:20. See Kaf Hachaim 17
- Gemara Avoda Zara 38a, Shulchan Aruch YD 113:2, Refer to OU document A-131.
- Rav Heinemann at Star K holds that there is no bishul akum on a microwave.  quotes Rav Asher Weiss (Minchat Asher Devarim) as being lenient in case of need. See Chelkas Binyamin p. 106, Lehorot Natan 7:64 and Rivevot Efraim 8:111 for more lenient opinions.
-  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 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.
- Rivash 514, Noam Halacha page 76.
- Rav Ovadyah Yosef in Yechave Daat vol. 5 Siman 54, Yabia Omer vol. 9 Yoreh Deah 6, Halichot Olam vol. 7 page 120. Patbag Hamelech p. 69 writes that initially one can be lenient but it is proper to be strict, however, Divrei Dovid YD 4:18 disagrees and encourages using a strongly language to be strict and only those who can't be strict have what to rely upon to be lenient. See also Shu"t Rav Pealim vol. 3 Yoreh Deah Siman 9, Shu"t Ohr LeTzion vol 2. page 12, Shu"t HaRav HaRoshi (R' Mordechai Eliyahu) 5750-5753 Siman 152 page 346, Shu"t Maamar Mordechai (Eliyahu vol. 3 Yoreh Deah Siman 4, Shu"t Minchat Yitzchak vol. 7 Siman 62, Shu"t Binyan Av (R' Eliyahu Bakhchi Doron) vol. 1 Siman 33, Shu"T Binyan Av vol. 3 Siman 35 and 36 and vol. 5 Siman 46, Ohr Torah (Sivan 5752 page 363, Iyyar 5752, Av 5752 Siman 155, Adar 5764 Siman 94, Iyyar 5764 Siman 88 page 559, Sivan 5764 Siman 99), Shu"t Shema Shlomo vol. 2 Yoreh Deah Siman 7-10, Shu"t Dibrot Eliyahu (Abergel) vol. 6 Yoreh Deah 55, Lilkot Shoshanim (R' Eliyahu Bochbot) vol. 5, Shu"t Divrei Benayahu (Dayan) vol. 17 Siman 29, Shu"t Ateret Paz (R' Shmuel Pinchasi) vol. 1-2 Yoreh Deah Siman 2 page 102 and on, Ateret Avot vol. 3 page 273, Shu"t Birkat Yehudah (R' Yehuda Bracha) vol. 1 Yoreh Deah 23-31, Shu"t Asher Chanan (Aflalo) vol. 3 Yoreh Deah 35, Shu"t Avnei Derech (Rav Elchanan Prince) vol. 8 Siman 528, Shu"t Avnei Derech vol. 9 page 513,Shu"t Avnei Derech vol. 10 Siman 86-88, and שו"ת: לספרדים יש בעיה לקנות שווארמה כשהמוכר ערבי regarding the general issue and shwarma, Shu"t Avnei Derech vol. 9 Siman 99 and vol. 10 page 453 regarding sushi, OU Daf HaKashrus Adar 5774, Banim Chavivim (R' Eli Yanay) page 483, and the Further Reading section below.