Bishul Akum #5

As Hagacha Pratis would have I found myself this week in a Dunkin Donuts when a YU Rosh Yeshiva and Rav for the Vaad of Bergen County (Teaneck) walked in. We got to shmoozing and I asked him about the eggs and cheese. He replied that while the Vaad does not give the Hechser to the Dunkin Donuts in Teaneck he thought it was for sure permissible to eat the egg and cheese. His logic was based off the Yerusalmi we mentioned last week that having a non-jew steam food is not a violation of Bishul Akum. He felt the only explantion for this is that Bishul Akum only applies to heat (fire) cooking and not other conventional cooking methods. But what about coffee? I am told by my consultants that Dunkin Donuts coffee is far superior to Starbucks-- and the people that drink Starbucks coffee are doing it more for status than taste. Coffee is made by heating water with an electric element (which for halachic purposes is a fire). So shouldn't coffee be Bishul Akum? The answer to this is that cooked water does not qualify for bishul akum. Although roasted coffee beans cannot be used without brewing, and coffee is a prestigious beverage which is served at weddings (conditions that would create a bishul akum). Nevertheless, since the water is considered the main component of the beverage and the coffee is considered a flavoring, freshly brewed coffee would not be subject to the restriction of bishul akum. As we mentioned in prior weeks any food item that could be eaten raw/uncooked there is no violation for a non-jew to cook it. Thus, since water is something drinkable uncooked and the coffee is just flavoring the water there is no violation to drink coffee brewed by a non-jew. Enjoy the Coffee.

Bishul Akum #4

What's the only thing better than eggs and cheese on a bagel? Processed eggs and cheese on a bagel. Which brings me to this week's discussion. Last week we mentioned that if a Jew assists in the cooking process (usually through igniting the pilot light) the food cooked is viewed as Bishul Yisroel and not a violation of Bishul Akum. But what about food cooked in a microwave? Each time you turn on the microwave it is a new cooking and thus it would seem you would need a Jew to push the actual button. You might be asking: microwaves don't cook they reheat, but in theory (or in my favorite food: Dunkin Donuts Egg and Cheese---YUMMMM!!!!) how is the non-jew allowed to push the button? This question bothered me for a while. If you haven't realized I love egg and cheese and the possibility of not being able to get one from Dunkin Donuts really bothered me. I finally, got the courage and asked a rav of the Vaad of Queens and he told me that currently no restaurants in Queens cook by means of a microwave, but it did come up years ago and they ruled that in fact a Jew must push the button. However, if you ever ordered an egg and cheese (my favorite) in the Dunkin Donuts in the Five Town the non-jew pushes the button. So what is the deal? The basis for this argument is that the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch rule that smoked foods (lox) are not included within the Bishul Akum restriction. The Rama (ibid.) writes that only foods cooked by using fire are included in this prohibition. Approximately one hundred years ago, rabbinical authorities began to debate whether steamed foods (veggies) are included within the Bishul Akum prohibition. Proponents of the lenient view argued that steaming is analogous to smoking and not cooking, since the food is not directly cooked through means of a fire. Another argument for leniency was that since the steaming of foods was first introduced many centuries after Chazal forbade Bishul Akum, steaming was not a form of cooking that was included in the original decree. Rav Ovadia Yosef rules leniently that steaming is not included within the parameters of the Bishul Akum decree. Today, rabbinical authorities debate whether cooking by means of a microwave oven is included in the prohibition of Bishul Akum. The arguments for leniency are that when one cooks with a microwave he is not cooking by fire and that microwave technology was not available at the time when Chazal promulgated the Bishul Akum decree and thus was not included in the prohibition. Those that are stringent base there stringency on the fact that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch only ruled smoking isn't Bishul Akum because it was not common then. However, nowadays microwave cooking is considered a normal way of cooking, and thus perhaps prohibited. In addition, the cooked food is almost identical in taste to food cooked over a fire, and therefore a microwave would be included in Chazal's enactment of bishul akum. Although there are those who rule stringently we have what to rely on. At the end of the day we can certainly assume that eggs and cheese is not on the President's menu anytime soon.

Bishul Akum #3

Last week we spoke about the two exceptions to the aveirah of Bishul Akum (food that is readily edible without cooking and food not fit to be served on a kings table). This week I would like to discuss what happens if those exceptions do not exist. As we mentioned last week most kosher restaurants employ non-Jewish chefs and the food cooked in the kitchen does not fall into those exceptions. So how is that food kosher? Isn't that a perfect example of Bishul Akum? There is in fact a machlokes between the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama as to whether it is enough for a Jew to just participate in the cooking process (even if the food item is not exclusively cooked by a Jew) to be considered Bishul Yisroel and not Bishul Akum. The Shulchan Aruch ruled the Jew must place the food item on the fire for it to be considered Bishul Yisroel (and thus is the stringent opinion of many Sefardim). However the Rama ruled leniently and allowed the Jew to merely add kindling to the fire to be considered the cooked item Bishul Yisroel. The Star-K paskened that there a two ways for a Jew to participate in the cooking process: a) The food is placed in a cold stove or cooking apparatus and then the Yehudi lights the fire. b) The fire or pilot light in an empty oven is first lit by the Yehudi and remains lit continuously. After being lit the food can be placed inside by anyone. The first method is the optimal one. I am sure many people have heard of this leniency using the pilot light, but there are some questions we can ask on this. The following questions and answered were compiled by Star-K: 1. If a pilot light is burning continuously, how long can it remain lit without Yehudi intervention and still be considered bishul Yisroel? If the pilot is directly heating the stove or the pot, as the old style pilot lights of a gas oven, the light can burn indefinitely and still retain bishul Yisroel status. If the pilot light indirectly lights the burner but does not add heat to the food, as the old style central pilot light of a gas cook top, then a halachic authority needs to be consulted to determine if the burner needs to be lit each time (even the first time) by a Yehudi even though the pilot light burns continuously.2. Can bishul Yisroel be achieved by setting a timer that will ignite the oven at set intervals? No. Since the Yehudi does not perform direct lighting of the oven it would not qualify for bishul Yisroel. In commercial settings (e.g. hotels, hospitals or factories) where large boilers provide the steam for the cooking equipment, bishul Yisroel requirements would be fulfilled if the Yehudi flips a switch or presses a button that directly ignites a boiler. 3. If an oven that was lit by a Yehudi was subsequently turned off, but remained warm until being relit by an akum, would the bishul Yisroel status of this oven be nullified? As long as the oven remains warm the bishul Yisroel status remains intact. Some Rebbeim a few years back wanted to take this leniency one step further and proposed that instead of lighting a pilot light, why not have the Masgiach, or another Jew, install the light bulb in the oven. The light bulb will provide heat to the cooked food, and will stay on longer than the pilot avoided (and thus avoiding the fear the pilot light will go out and the non-Jew will inadvertently relight it). However the OU points out that various poskim have argued against the light bulb system. The main contention with the "light bulb" is that when a Jew adds a wood chip to a fire, it is rendered aish yisrael because the Jew is instrumental in preparing and intensifying the fire. In contrast, a light bulb remains separate and distinct from the fire, and the Jew is not a contributor to the primary source of heat. The OU does not subscribe to the light bulb system, though a number of other kosher organizations do utilize the light bulb hetter. It is worth noting that even those kosher organizations that use this leniency require the bulb to be producing substantial heat that in theory could be equated to the wood chip on fire. However, just to have a light bulb that does not provide heat into the cooking chamber would not suffice. Have a good Kosher shabbas.

Bishul Akum #2

Last week we began our discussion on Bishul Akum. To review: the Rabbi's forbade eating any food that was cooked by a non-jew. This week we will discuss a few of the exceptions to the rule and in the following weeks discuss some important issues and potential violations that result from this rule. Again before the question of Bisul Akum is even asked we must be certain and know that the food and all preparation utensils are kosher before eating. When it comes to Bishul Akum there are two exceptions already mentioned in the Gemara. The Gemara in Avodah Zara writes that any food that can be eaten raw, when cooked by a non-jew is not forbidden. Since one can eat this food prior to cooking the Rabbis were not worried one would form a bond with the non-jewish chef. Some examples that of food eaten that use this exception are apple sauce, fruit cocktails, and canned vegetables. The second leniency mentioned in the Gemara is termed: " Aino Roy L'Shulchan Melachim"- literally translated as not fit for the table of kings. This exception is similar to the exception mentioned above in that the Rabbis were not afraid of a bond being created between a jew and his non-jewish chef when the chef was cooking simple, non-Chasuv food. Some examples of this leniency are potato chips, candy, and bagels. However we must ask the following question: since we do not have kings anymore, how do we establish what is "fit for their table" and what isn't? The Star-K generally assumes that whatever would be served at the White House State Dinner would be a problem of Bishul Akum. For example, when dealing with the question of potato chips Rav Moshe Heinemann, Chief Mashgiach of the Star K, was in contact with the head chef of the White House Dinner who when asked about serving potato chips replied "We would serve whatever the guest wants, however, we never served potato chips." That being said, there are many food items that do not fall into these two exceptions and in the coming weeks we will explore what if any leniency can we use to allow non-jews to cook such food. In an informal survey I found that a majority of kosher restaurants employ non-jewish chefs- shouldn't this be a problem of Bishul Akum? Stayed tuned next week. Same HalachaTime, Same HalachaChannel.

Bishul Akum #1

There are two impetuses (impeti) that led me to research and write up the following topic. First, the last few weeks we spoke about the issue of chodosh/yoshon and I figured it was appropriate to continue that discussion with another edible issue. Second, one of my coworkers this week was badgering me (unclear why this word makes sense, why not cougaring, or elephanting- maybe parshaman will research this one) about Kosher food- especially Starbucks coffee- which got me to thinking......... Along with the many revolutionary ideas and changes that took place in the 20th century, there is one change that forever changed how Jews eat. That change was the development of Kashrus organizations. Not to long ago, every Jew knew all the halachos of what's kosher and what wasn't and he would go to the store and buy whatever it was that was kosher. However, with the 20th century came huge advances in food preparations. No longer was a piece a meat just a piece a meat, but now that meat had additives, preservatives, fillers, etc. Thus with the complexity of the food industry and various secret recipes no longer was one able to rely on his own Kup (brain) to determine what was kosher and what wasn't. This problem led to the formation of Kashrus organizations: various Rabbis who thoroughly researched each food item to determine precisely what the ingredient are, how it is made, packaged, shipped, etc. Thus, nowadays for one to read the ingredients list on the back of any food item and assume it is kosher is clearly dubious. For how do you know what all those terms mean? Further even if you knew all of the ingredient were kosher- you couldn't be certain the item was kosher- for perhaps they cooked something traif in the same vat right before. Now realize, halachic requirement and FDA requirements are very different. I don't claim to be an expert in either- but I would assume that according the FDA as long as a pot is thoroughly cleaned you can reuse it for another food item. However, halacha might assume that the taste of the first (non-kosher item) goes into the walls and emerges when being cooked with the second, seemingly kosher, item. However, if one were able to ascertain that the food is clearly made of only kosher ingredients and was positive nothing non-kosher got into the food in the storing, cooking, packing, shipping process then there still is another hurdle one must leap before eating the item: Bishul Akum. The Rabbis (as recorded in Gemara Avodah Zara) decreed that one may not eat any food that was cooked exclusively by a non-jew. Rashi gives to reasons for this either because it would lead to intermarriage, or perhaps if the jew gets into the habit of eating food cooked by a non-jew one day the non-jew (whether by accident or on purpose) will come to feed the jew some non-kosher food. Tosfos provides a Nafka Mina (practical difference) between these two schools of reasoning: what if the non-jew cooked the food in a Jews home using only ingredients from the Jews cupboard (couldn't have said pantry, or cabinet, but cupboard is soo Old School)? According to the reasoning of Intermarriage- the prohibition would still apply (you are developing a bond with the non-jew), however if the reasoning is we are worried the non-jew will serve you traif- here there is nothing to worry about. In the coming weeks we will hopefully discuss when this issur applies, to what food items does it apply to and are there any leniency's. In the meantime if you have any questions please feel free to email thehalachaboy@gmail.com or any responsible Rav.