Ask the Rabbi: Bishul Akum on Food that Is Improved by Cooking | Rabbi Daniel Mann | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions

קטגוריה משנית

Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Question: I learned that there is no bishul akum (the Rabbinical prohibition on food cooked by a non-Jew) for foods that can be eaten raw (ne’echal chai) because it is considered bishul only if it accomplishes something truly significant. Does this exemption apply even when the food’s improvement through cooking is significant enough to change the beracha to a "higher" one?

Answer: The most basic exemptions from the prohibition of bishul akum are when the cooked food is not fit for fancy settings and when the food was fit to be eaten before the cooking (Avoda Zara 38a). The general logic for both is likely, as you said, that the prohibition is only when the cooking reaches the bar in importance, thereby heightening the danger that the association between a Jew and non-Jew will go further than it should (see Tosafot ad loc.). While your understanding of the rationale of the halacha of ne’echal chai is correct, when looking for rulings on whether a food belongs to the prohibition or the exemption, that rationale is not nearly as important as the Talmudic parameters.
The gemara’s language is: "All that is [fit to be] eaten the way it is, raw" is not included in bishul akum. There is an opinion that edibility is measured by the practices of the one who wants to eat, but the accepted approach is that it follows a cross-section of people of one’s society (see Chelkat Binyamin 113:5). In any case, the poskim (see Ritva ad loc.; Shach, Yoreh Deah 113:19) agree that it does not have to be equally good or customary to eat the food raw; it just must be a viable option. Accordingly, even if the cooking is important, the prohibition of bishul akum may still not apply because the food could have been eaten beforehand.
The parameters are very different for berachot on such foods. For vegetables that are clearly preferred cooked or not cooked, respectively, the beracha for the preferred manner is Borei Pri Ha’adama and for the less preferred is Shehakol (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 205:1). This "favoritism" in berachot is even when either option is fully viable, just that the "demotion" comes when there is a "change for the worse" relative to the classic option (Rama ad loc.).
The comparison between bishul akum and berachot is apt not to a change of beracha but to the cancellation of a beracha. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 202:2) says that regarding a food that generally receives a beracha, if an individual piece of that food is "unfit to eat even al y’dei hadechak (if there is a need to eat it)," then there is no beracha. If such a food could be remedied by cooking and a non-Jew did so, it would indeed be forbidden as bishul akum.

Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions (628)

Rabbi Daniel Mann

605 - Ask the Rabbi: “Cooked” and Sweetened Wine for Kiddush

606 - Ask the Rabbi: Bishul Akum on Food that Is Improved by Cooking

607 - Ask the Rabbi: Beracha upon Returning Tzitzit

It is unclear whether the cutoff point is the same in the two areas. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 113:12) cites two opinions as to whether a food that is "edible" raw only al y’dei hadechak is subject to bishul akum. If it is permitted in that case, then both areas are similar in that we draw the line at totally not edible. In borderline cases, there is logic to distinguish between berachot and bishul akum. In the former, the fact that one is eating it raw can be an indication that it is edible (achshevei), whereas the fact one is cooking can slightly strengthen the outlook that cooking was needed.
Regarding bishul akum, poskim deal with apparent contradictions on borderline edibility. The gemara (ibid.) says that if a Jew cooked food until ma’achal ben drusa’i, then further cooking by a non-Jew does not forbid it. This is difficult for the stringent opinion above because after the first stage, it is edible only al y’dei hadechak. The Bach (YD 113) answers that bishul akum applies even to marginally edible food, but if it was brought to that point in a permitted manner, the prohibition does not apply. There is also an apparent contradiction in the Shulchan Aruch, as despite the two opinions above, he outright forbids eggs and bitter dates cooked by a non-Jew (YD 113:14, 15), even though they could be eaten beforehand al y’dei hadechak! The Taz (ad loc. 14) distinguishes between levels of dechak.

Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions