bishul akum‏ | Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Beit Midrash

קטגוריה משנית

Since there is an allusion to the prohibition of bishul akum in this week’s parsha:

The ABC’s of Yummy Bishul Akum Foods
By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Question #1: Artichokes
In most places, artichokes are eaten cooked, but Egyptians eat them raw. Do artichokes cooked in Egypt present a bishul akum concern in America?

Question #2: Bishul akum equipment
If a non-Jew cooked kosher products in my pots, do the pots now require kashering?

Question #3: Cooking for the ill
If a non-Jew cooked on Shabbos for someone who is ill, must I treat the food as non-kosher when Shabbos is over?

Historical Background
Based on a pasuk, the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 37b) suggests that the prohibition of bishul akum, banning food cooked by non-Jews, might be min haTorah. Subsequently, the Gemara rejects this assumption, concluding that bishul akum is a rabbinic injunction that was not yet prohibited when the Jews traversed the Desert. Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Tam infers that bishul akum was enacted very early in Jewish history; otherwise, how could the Gemara even consider that it might have a Biblical origin (Tosafos, Avodah Zarah 37b s.v. Vehashelakos)?

Chazal instituted the law of bishul akum to discourage social interaction, which might lead to intermarriage, and also to guarantee that kashrus is not compromised (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 35b s.v. Vehashelakos and 38a s.v. Miderabbanan, and Tosafos ad loc.).

Introduction
Before we can address our opening questions, we need to understand some of the basic laws of bishul akum. Although Chazal enacted a prohibition on food cooked by non-Jews, they permitted three categories of food; in all three of these instances, the social interaction considerations are mitigated. Here is an easy acronym by which to remember these three rules:

YUM – Yisrael, Uncooked, Monarch

Yisrael:
An important rule is that even if a non-Jew performed most of the cooking, as long as a Jew participated in a significant way, the food is permitted as "bishul Yisrael." The reason that Chazal were lenient is because the social interaction that they wanted to discourage is decreased when the cooking is dependent on a Jew’s involvement.
The level of Jewish participation required is a dispute among rishonim that manifests itself in practical differences between Ashkenazic and Sephardic practice.

In Ashkenazic practice, if a Jew ignites or adds to the fire used for cooking, the food qualifies as bishul Yisrael, even if a non-Jew added the ingredients and did all the actual cooking. On the other hand, Sephardic Jews require direct involvement of a Jew in the actual cooking. This means that a Jew must place the food on the fire or participate in some other significant way. Simply igniting the fire upon which a non-Jew places food is insufficient to make the food kosher (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 113:7).

These differences in interpretation are particularly relevant in situations involving restaurants, caterers and other food service, where the kitchen help is frequently non-Jewish. In some instances, Sephardic authorities permit the food, after the fact, based on a combination of leniencies (Shu"t Yechaveh Daas 5:54).

Uncooked:
Foods that are consumed raw are exempt from the prohibition of bishul akum. The reason for this exception is because the respect and social interaction is decreased when the food served is edible without cooking.

This exemption of "uncooked food," which is called ne’echal chai, applies to items like applesauce or canned pineapple, as both apples and pineapples are eaten uncooked. However, in some cases there are disputes among halachic authorities as to whether a specific foods is considered edible raw or not.

What is the halacha if a particular vegetable is commonly consumed uncooked in one country, but not in another? For example, artichokes are commonly eaten raw in Egypt, but not in Spain, although both countries grow them for export. Are artichokes cooked in Spain prohibited as bishul akum, but those grown in Egypt are not? Assuming that artichokes cooked in Egypt are not prohibited as bishul akum, do cooked Egyptian artichokes become prohibited upon being shipped to Spain or somewhere else where they are always eaten cooked? Indeed, this is the ruling of the Kaf Hachayim (Yoreh Deah 113:20). However, there are authorities who disagree with this ruling, contending that the prohibition of bishul akum must take effect at the time that the food is cooked. Since, in Egypt, artichokes are eaten raw, cooking them in Egypt does not prohibit them as bishul akum, the subsequent shipping cannot make them prohibited. Of course, this approach creates the rather anomalous ruling that cooked artichokes in Spain are prohibited as bishul akum if locally cooked, but permitted if imported from Egypt!?

Certainly, styles of food preparation also change. For example, until relatively recently, broccoli or cauliflower were always served cooked and would have involved bishul akum. Contemporarily, both are commonly served as a raw vegetable, with the result that even when cooked they are no longer prohibited as bishul akum.

Similarly, the popularity of sushi, sashimi and similar Japanese dishes outside Japan influences whether various types of fish that are now eaten raw will be prohibited if cooked by a non-Jew.

Another food that has changed are carrots. Our European grandparents and great-grandparents never ate raw carrots, which would have made them (the carrots, not the grandparents) subject to bishul akum considerations.

Monarch:
Bishul akum applies only to foods that one would serve on a king's table. Less prominent dishes are exempt, since they are unlikely to lead to improper social interactions. The Gemara refers to this as oleh al shulchan melachim lelafeis bo es hapas, literally, served on a king’s table to be eaten together with bread. However, this definition, also, may depend on what form the particular food has and on what is considered appropriate to eat at a gourmet meal. At one point, potatoes were considered poor people’s food and would never be served at a respectable event. For this reason, some prominent authorities exempted them from the prohibition of bishul akum. Since, in today’s world, potatoes are served at weddings and other fancy events, they certainly can be forbidden as bishul akum.

There are other interesting issues regarding potatoes. Although nothing harmful will happen to those imbibing raw white potatoes or sweet potatoes, few people eat them that way. Thus, we may arrive at an interesting conclusion: expensive cuts of fish may be exempt from bishul akum regulations because they are now considered edible raw, whereas the far more humble potato is included in bishul akum regulations because it is not eaten raw.

Of course, this brings us to the question of whether potato chips are included in the prohibition of bishul akum. I find more acceptable the opinion of those who rule that, since potato chips are not served at state dinners and other upper-class events, they are exempt from bishul akum concerns, although I am aware that there are halachic authorities who insist that potato chips be bishul Yisrael.

Bishul akum equipment

At this point, let us examine the second of our opening questions: If a non-Jew cooks kosher ingredients in my pots, do the pots absorb non-kosher bishul akum? Must the pots be kashered before they are used again, or does bishul akum only ban food but not pots?

We find a dispute among rishonim, some contending that since bishul akum was limited to circumstances that encourage social interaction, the taste of bishul akum that is absorbed into pots was not included in the prohibition. Thus, equipment that cooked bishul akum does not require kashering (Bedek Habayis, Bayis 3, Shaar 7; Rosh, quoted by the Tur, Yoreh Deah, end of Chapter 113, and by Rabbeinu Yeruchem).

The detractors
Others contend that any time food becomes prohibited because of a rabbinic edict, the equipment used to cook it also becomes prohibited and requires kashering (Mishmeres Habayis, Bayis 3, Shaar 7). This is based on a general ruling, kol detikun rabbanan ke’ein de’oraysa tikun (Pesachim 30b, 39b et al), "whatever the Sages established, they followed a system similar to those governing Torah laws." Many prohibit using equipment until they are kashered, even if non-Jewish servants or employees cooked for themselves in a Jew’s house. According to this approach, to avoid prohibiting the pots when non-Jewish workers cook for themselves in a Jewish house, you must make sure that someone Jewish participates in the cooking in a way that avoids the prohibition of bishul akum (Tur end of Yoreh Deah 113, quoting the Rashba).

Earthenware pots
When the Ran discusses this dispute, he conceptually agrees with the lenient approach, but concludes that the equipment should be kashered (Shu"t Haran 5:11-12). This leads to a new question. Metal pots can be kashered by hag’alah, boiling them, but most pots in earlier generations were made from earthenware, a more available and less expensive material, which the Torah implies cannot be kashered. If bishul akum food was cooked in an earthenware pot, the Ran concludes that it should be broken, since it cannot be kashered (see Pesachim 30b; Avodah Zarah 33b-34a).

This last ruling of the Ran is curious, because the Rashba, who ruled that bishul akum does require kashering the equipment used to cook it, permitted kashering earthenware pots used for bishul akum by boiling them three times, called hag’alah shalosh pe’amim (quoted by Tur Yoreh Deah 123 and accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 113:16). The basis for this heter is a passage of Talmud Yerushalmi (Terumos 11:4), which states that earthenware used to cook food prohibited only rabbinically may be kashered by boiling the vessel three times.

Halachic conclusion
The Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch mention both opinions, whether bishul akum requires that the equipment be kashered. The Shulchan Aruch concludes it must be kashered.

Cooking for someone who is ill
Now, let us examine the third of our opening questions: "If a non-Jew cooked on Shabbos for someone who is ill, must I treat the food as non-kosher when Shabbos is over?"

Allow me to explain the issue. If someone is ill, we are permitted to have a non-Jew cook for the sick person. This may be done, even if no life-threatening emergency exists, as long as the person is ill enough to be choleh kol gufo, usually defined as someone ill enough to go to bed (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:17), or whose discomfort is intense enough that he feels that his entire body is affected (Rema ad locum).

With this halacha in mind, we need to address the following question: If a non-Jew cooks on Shabbos for someone who is ill, is the food he cooks prohibited because of bishul akum? As I will discuss shortly, the ill person may eat the food cooked on Shabbos by the non-Jew, but may someone who is healthy eat the food? For that matter, may the ill person, himself, continue to eat it after Shabbos, when now someone Jewish can cook for him? According to those who rule that bishul akum prohibits the pots and other equipment used, do we need to kasher the equipment used by the non-Jew to cook on Shabbos?

These shaylos have major ramifications for hospital and nursing home kitchens. In theory, they are permitted to have non-Jews cook on Shabbos for the benefit of their patients who qualify either as choleh she’yeish bo sakanah or as choleh kol gufo. (Visitors or those attending the cholim would not be permitted to eat the food cooked on Shabbos.) If the heter to cook on Shabbos for the ill is not included in the prohibition of bishul akum, the cooked food may be eaten after Shabbos, both by the ill and by visitors and staff. On the other hand, if the food is considered bishul akum, the food may not be consumed after Shabbos. Furthermore, the equipment in the kitchen has become non-kosher and now requires kashering, notwithstanding that it was permitted to have the non-Jew cook in it on Shabbos!

Exclusion or medical exemption?
To answer these questions, we should realize that there are different ways of looking at the heter that permits a sick person to consume food that would otherwise be prohibited as bishul akum.

Exclusion:
One approach understands that any food cooked on Shabbos for a person who is ill was excluded from the prohibition of bishul akum. If we understand the halacha this way, anyone may eat it after Shabbos, and the equipment does not need kashering.

Medical exemption:
A differing approach understands that Chazal permitted someone ill to consume food that would otherwise be prohibited as bishul akum. This is a temporary exemption created to allow those who are ill to have hot, freshly cooked food on Shabbos. When Shabbos is over and fresh food can now be cooked by someone Jewish, the prohibition of bishul akum starts again, even for those for whom it was originally cooked. According to this opinion, after Shabbos, the food already cooked becomes prohibited for anyone to eat, even those for whom it was originally cooked. In addition, the equipment used to cook the food on Shabbos needs to be kashered.

The rishonim debate this matter, some contending that since it was permitted to cook and eat this food on Shabbos, it remains permitted. Furthermore, the fact that a healthy person is not permitted to eat it is because of the laws of Shabbos – we are concerned that someone may ask the non-Jew to do something on Shabbos that is not permitted, but not because of the laws of kashrus. Since the cooking was not performed for social reasons, but to have fresh food for the ill, no prohibition of bishul akum was involved at the time that the food was cooked. Therefore, it does not become prohibited as bishul akum after Shabbos is over, even for a perfectly healthy person (Bedek Habayis, Bayis 3 Shaar 7).

Others disagree with every point that was just made. They compare the food cooked for an ill person on Shabbos to the situation of a person who is deathly ill and requires fresh meat which is unavailable. The halacha in this situation is that, if no shocheit is available, you are required to kill an animal, rendering its meat neveilah, and cook it for the sick person. As soon as a shocheit becomes available, you are no longer permitted to feed the sick person non-kosher food. Of course, the pot in which the neveilah was cooked must be kashered.

Similarly, although it is permitted to have a non-Jew cook for someone who is ill, the food may be eaten only by the ill and only until fresh food is cooked after Shabbos. Once that time arrives, the food cooked by the non-Jew becomes prohibited as bishul akum, even for a sick person, and it certainly was never permitted for someone well to eat it. In addition, the pot used by the non-Jew to cook for the ill on Shabbos is prohibited because of the bishul akum, and must be kashered.

Returning to our question about hospital and nursing home kitchens: If they were to permit non-Jews to cook on Shabbos, this last opinion requires that all food cooked on Shabbos must be disposed of on motza’ei Shabbos, and the entire kitchen might require kashering every week!

How do we pasken?
The Rema and the Shach conclude that the food is permitted after Shabbos, even for a healthy person to eat, whereas the Taz, Mishnah Berurah (328:63) and others rule that it is prohibited, even for the ill person to eat, once food cooked by a Jew becomes available.

Conclusion
The Gemara teaches that the rabbinic laws are dearer to Hashem than the Torah laws. In this context, we can explain the vast halachic literature devoted to understanding this particular prohibition, created by Chazal to protect the Jewish people from major sins.