Print this Article
By Rabbi Michael Ovadia
Introduction
The prohibition referred to as “Bishul Akum”, is the rabbinic injunction against the consumption of food cooked by non-Jews. According to almost all Rishonim, this prohibition was enacted in order to prevent intermarriage[1]. Because food that was cooked by a non-Jew is considered non-kosher, all utensils in which it was cooked are prohibited and must be koshered for future use. However, not all food items were included in this decree. There are two basic conditions which must be met before a food is forbidden as Bishul Akum:
The exceptions
The first condition is “Eino Ne’echal Hai”, which means that only food that is not edible without cooking, is forbidden if it was cooked by a Jew. A food that can be eaten raw was is not subject to this prohibition. The second condition is that it must be “‘Oleh ‘Al Shulhan Melachim”, fit for a king’s table (or other dignitaries).
The reasoning behind the latter condition is simple; a food-item which is not served to dignitaries is not respectable enough for one to invite his friend over for, and therefore there is no concern that the non-Jew will invite his Jewish neighbor over this item. However, the logic behind the first condition – Eino Ne’echal Hai – is not as clear.
Food that can be eaten raw
It would seem from the Ran, that Hachamim were not concerned about foods that can be eaten raw, because even if the non-Jew was to cook them for the Jew it would not be such a major gesture, as the food can be eaten even without preparation. Therefore, such foods would raise the concern of forging a close relationship that can ultimately lead to intermarriage[2]. Alternatively, one can say that – just like the second exception – something that can be eaten raw is not respectable enough to invite one’s friend over[3].
Yet another explanation lies in the words of the Rambam[4]. The Rambam cites the two aforementioned conditions, but adds after the first condition that only a food that was cooked from beginning to end by a non-Jew is prohibited, but if a Jew helped in the beginning or the end it was not prohibited. Curiously, the Rambam repeats this condition later on – in slightly different words. This is quite perplexing: why would the Rambam interject this Halacha between the two conditions?
This would lead one to conclude that the Rambam wants to tell us the reasoning behind the first condition. The reason food that can be eaten raw is permitted because the non-Jew did not do entirely prepare the food to be eaten. A food that is eaten raw is naturally ready for consumption, and therefore the non-Jew’s additional cooking is not an exclusive preparation that would prohibit the food[5].
Unfit for a king’s table
There is some debate regarding the second condition of “‘Ole ‘Al Shulhan Melachim”. What is the yardstick for this condition? Do we look at the food-item (i.e. potatoes) and assume that anything prepared from that type of item is prohibited, or do we look at the type of food that is prepared (i.e. french fries or potato chips, are not respectable, but potatoes may be) and distinguish between different dishes and how they are made? Canned tuna may not be served to dignitaries, but seared tuna is.
Hacham Ovadia Yosef zt”l held[6] that canned tuna is subject to the laws of Bishul Akum. One can surmise that he holds we follow the food-item, not the way it was prepared. Jewish companies who package canned tuna ensure that it is Bishul Yisrael by having a Jew turn on the machinery which cooks the fish.
Turning on the fire
There is a dispute between Maran and the Rama regarding the amount a Jew needs to be involved in the cooking in order to render the food “Bishul Yisrael”. The Ashkenazim follow the Rama who rules that it is enough for a Jew to light the fire. After that, any food that is cooked by a non-Jew on that flame is permitted. Sefaradim, however, follow Maran, who rules that this leniency was only said with regards to bread, not other foods.
Therefore, according to Sefaradim, in order for a food to be considered Bishul Yisrael, a Jew must either place the item in the oven or on the stove in a place that it can cook, or stir the food-item or remove it and replace it on the flame before it is half-cooked. Additionally, it is enough for a Jew to light the fire after the item is already in the oven or on the stove[7].
Canned tuna is made in steamers, which means that the button to turn it on cannot be pressed until the doors are closed (similar to a microwave). Therefore, when a Jew presses that button it is automatically Bishul Yisrael for Sefaradim as well.
A non-Jewish employee
In his famous Teshuva[8], Hacham Ovadia rules that a Sefaradi may eat in a Jewish establishment which is under Ashkenazi supervision, despite the fact that it only requires that the Jew lights the fire under the food. While it is true that Maran holds that it does not suffice and that a Jew must actually place the pot in a place that it can cook, nevertheless, one can say that there is still a Safek – a doubt – whether Maran or the Rama are right.
He then relies on the opinions of the Rishonim that the prohibition of Bishul Akum was only said with regards to a non-Jew who is cooking on his own volition. House-staff and employees that are working for a Jew were not included in the prohibition, since they must cook for the Jew as part of their job, and this does not create any closeness that may lead to intermarriage. Although Maran does not follow this leniency, once again, it may be enough to create a Safek – a doubt – whether the prohibition exists in such a case. Hacham Ovadia combines these two leniencies to create a S’fek Sefeka – a “double-doubt” – whether eating in an establishment where the Jew only turns on the fire is actually a problem. Still, he concludes that in such a case – “HaMahmir Tavo ‘Alav Beracha” – one who is stringent should be blessed, as the opinion of Maran is that this is not permitted.
Sources:
[1] גמ’ ע”ז ל”ז, ט”ז יו”ד קי”ג סק”א ושא”פ. ורש”י פי’ שמא יאכילנו דברים טמאים.
[2] כן דייק מו”ר ר’ קלמן שווארץ שליט”א מלשון הר”ן ‘מאי אהני ליה’
[3] כן משמע מט”ז סק”א, ע”ש
[4] פי”ז ממאכ”א י”ד-ט”ו
[5] וכן פי’ הגרי”נ רוזנטל זצ”ל בס’ משנת יעקב על הרמב”ם
[6] יבי”א ח”ה סי’ ט’
[7] כנה”ג הגב”י או’ ל”ב, קהל יהודה, זבחי צדק, כף החיים
[8] יחוה דעת ח”ה סי’ נ”ד