For donations Click Here

Bishul Akum: Who’s Cooking?

In Parashas Balak we find: “…for it is a nation that dwells alone, and does not reckon with the nations.” One of the basic halachos relating to the concept of Israel as a nation that dwells alone is the concept of bishul akum.

Although the food might be entirely kosher, we may not eat (certain types of) food cooked by a non-Jew, to ensure that the nation of Israel should indeed stand alone (see below concerning the precise rationale for the prohibition).

Which foods fall under the prohibition of bishul akum? Does the prohibition apply to food that was cooked by non-Jews in a Jewish home? Is the halachah different for a non-Jew working for a Jew? Does the prohibition apply to microwave cooking?

These questions, among others, are discussed below.

The Prohibition

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 35b) teaches that a Jew must not eat vegetables cooked by a non-Jew. The Gemara (ibid. 37b) explains that the prohibition is rabbinic, but is alluded to by a verse in Devarim comparing food to water: “Just as water has not changed, so food [that one may take from a non-Jew] should not have not changed.”

Rishonim dispute the rationale for the prohibition. According to Tosafos (citing Rashi in his commentary on the Mishna, Avodah Zarah 35b), the intent of the prohibition is to distance Jews from non-Jews, lest they come to marry. This is also the explanation offered by Rambam (Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:9), and by several other Rishonim (see Tur, Yoreh De’ah 113).

However, in his commentary to the Gemara, Rashi states that the prohibition is to distance Jews from prohibited foods, a rationale also mentioned in Or Zarua (Avodah Zarah 192). Based on this idea, Hagahos Ashri (Avodah Zarah 2:28) explains why the prohibition applies solely to cooked foods: foods that are raw, whose appearance has not changed from their natural state, will not be mistaken by Jews for non-kosher foods. However, food that can be eaten raw may also be eaten when it is cooked, so that the rationale will not apply to all cases.

Which Foods are Prohibited

Not all cooked foods are included in the rabbinic enactment of bishul akum. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 38a), and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 113), write that the prohibition does not apply to foods that are commonly eaten raw as well as cooked, and also to foods that are not served at a king’s table (a measure of importance).

The reasoning behind these exemptions is based on the rationale for the prohibition. Ran explains that foods which are eaten raw are not considered important foods, and there is therefore no concern that such foods will cause closeness that might lead to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews.

Rashi, however (Beitzah 16a), states simply that foods which can be eaten raw are not included in the enactment because they are not considered cooked, that is, because they can be eaten raw, the process of cooking is not considered as applying to them.

The two explanations will also apply to the exception for foods that are not served at the king’s table: either the food is not important enough to cause intermarriage, or the food will not cause Jews and non-Jews to dine together, and thus provides no cause for concern that a Jew will eat non-kosher foods.

Cooked in a Jewish Home

Tosefos (Avodah Zarah 38a) writes an important qualification concerning the prohibition. Citing Raavad, Tosefos states that the enactment was only made in the house of a non-Jew, but not to food cooked in the house of a Jew. Yet, Tosefos cites Rabbeinu Tam who disputes the distinction, and rules that the prohibition applies even to food cooked in a Jewish home.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 113:1) rules stringently: Even food cooked by a non-Jewish employee in a Jewish home is prohibited. However, in one particular case, namely where the cooking is done by a gentile servant, we find a leniency in the rulings of Remo. He rules (Yoreh De’ah 113:4) that one may rely on the lenient opinion that permits the cooking of a non-Jewish servant in a Jewish home.

The Remo explains that we can assume that one of the Jewish house members will stir the pot, thereby participating in the cooking process and rendering the food permitted.

Shut HaRashba, the source of the ruling, writes a different reason why the cooking of a maid is not included in the prohibition. He argues that the concern about intermarriage applies only to food that a non-Jew cooks of his own volition, since this is liable to cause intimacy between a Jew and a non-Jew. However, when a non-Jew is required to cook the food (due to his status as a servant), the prohibition does not apply because there is no likelihood of intermarriage (Rashba, no. 68; meyuchasos 149, as cited in Shach, Yoreh De’ah 113:7).

Unlike an alternative explanation which relies on the fact that the non-Jewish slave is owned by the Jew (see Beis Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 113), perhaps this line of reasoning (the non-Jew is cooking out of compulsion) is applicable to a paid laborer. Because the cook is working from an obligation and not out of free will, the prohibition of bishul akum does not apply.

Indeed, the Shach implies—according to one of the explanations he suggests—that the leniency, bedieved, applies even today as long as the cooking was done in a Jew’s house. However, according to the other explanations, that he suggests there is no place for such leniency. Furthermore, the Bach (Yoreh De’ah 113) writes that the leniency applies only to a true slave and not to an ordinary employee.

Non-Jewish Kitchen Staff

A case in point is Jewish old-age homes in which non-Jews are often employed for cooking. Since the Shulchan Aruch is stringent, there is less room for leniency for those of Sephardic ancestry. For Ashkenazim, who follow the rulings of the Remo, perhaps there is room for leniency under extenuating circumstances. [Of course, a Rabbi must be consulted to evaluate the particular circumstances.]

In most places where non-Jewish staff are employed to cook, the heter of a Jew lighting the fire is used. Indeed, according to Remo even if a Jew stokes the fire it is sufficient to permit subsequent non-Jewish cooking, though other poskim (such as the Vilna Gaon) rule that stoking or lighting the fire is not sufficient.

There is room to consider whether this heter is valid for Sephardim who follow the rulings of Shulchan Aruch. Whereas Remo (Yoreh De’ah 113:7) writes that the leniency of a Jew’s lighting the fire applies to all cases of bishul akum, Shulchan Aruch writes that it applies specifically to bread and not to other cooked foods. Kaf Hachaim writes that the principle halachah follows the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, which should be adhered to even bedieved. How then may Sephardim rely on the heter of a Jew’s lighting the fire?

It is possible, however, that even Sephardim may be lenient with regard to kitchen staff in a Jewish establishment, by combining two reasons for leniency: 1) the fact that the food is cooked in a Jewish home, and 2) the fact that the fire was lit by a Jew. Because of this combination, Rav Yaakov Meir Stern (Beis Halevi, vol. 12) writes that Sephardim may also eat food prepared in this way.

It is noteworthy that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach stated that in our times, when intermarriage is so prevalent, even Ashkenazim should follow the Sephardic practice and act stringently—presumably even in a Jewish home.

Microwaves

Commenting on a ruling of Shulchan Aruch, which distinguishes between cooked food (prohibited) and salted or smoked foods (permitted), Remo gives a general rule: the prohibition of bishul akum applies only to cooking by fire (Yoreh De’ah 113:13) and not salted or smoked.

What is the halachah concerning food cooked in a microwave? Is a microwave considered fire with respect to bishul akum or not?

A microwave may not fit the definition of bishul akum as given by Tur and Remo, because a microwave does not cook with fire.

However, it is possible that the qualitative difference between food cooked by fire (roasted, or cooked in water on a flame) and food cooked in a microwave is not substantial enough to permit bishul akum by means of a microwave. Whereas there is a great difference between food that is salted or pickled food and food that is cooked, the difference between cooked food and microwaved food is not great, and the prohibition may apply.

We find in Darkei Teshuvah (113:16) that the prohibition does not apply to food cooked in the sun (or on a sun-heated roof), though such food is similar to food cooked on a fire. (He even presents a dispute among authorities concerning steamed foods!) However, with regard to food cooked in a microwave we find that both Shevet Halevi (VII, no. 185; IX, no. 162) and Rav Elyashiv (quoted in Shevus Yitzchak) are stringent, applying the prohibition of bishul akum to microwaved foods.

Snacks & Cornflakes

Among the most frequently asked questions concerning bishul akum is about snacks: potato chips, pretzels, candies, and the like. Do such foods come under the prohibition of bishul akum or not?

At first glance, it appears that such foods do not fall under the prohibition. As the Gemara states, only foods which are commonly served at a king’s table together with bread are prohibited (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:15, uses the same expression). The implication is that only foods served as part of a meal are prohibited.

Although Rambam adds (17:18-19) that even parperes, which is usually understood to mean a dessert, is prohibited, such foods are part of the meal. Rashi writes that parperes is classically food and drink (such as fish or wine) served as an introduction or conclusion to the meal. However, the prohibition will not apply to snacks (such as potato chips) that usually have no connection to a meal.

Thus, even if a king might sometimes eat a snack, this does not place the snack under the prohibition of bishul akum, since it is not eaten as part of a meal. In addition, the expression “a king’s table” implies that only foods commonly served at an important meal are prohibited, and not foods that are out of place at an important meal, the reasoning being that unimportant foods do not lead to invitations and closeness between Jews and non-Jews.

Indeed, we find that Peri Chadash (113:2) writes that foods which are served only as a dessert are permitted, a ruling confirmed by Chasam Sofer (annotations to Shulchan Aruch, 113:1; see, however Beis Meir 111). The same, it appears, will apply to potato chips and similar snacks.

However, although the reasoning used above will also apply to cornflakes and other breakfast grains, it is worthwhile to note that according to Chasam Sofer, the prohibition applies to cornflakes.

According to his reading, the prohibition applies even to foods eaten with bread, and all the more so to foods eaten as a meal on their own—which, he states, is the Rambam’s parperes. Cornflakes, which are eaten as a meal on their own even by kings, will thus fall under the prohibition of bishul akum. Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh De’ah 113:6-7) also rules stringently on this matter.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *