The Mishna, Avodah Zarah, 35b, states that it is prohibited to eat food that was cooked by a non-Jew (bishul akum). This prohibition applies even if all of the ingredients are assumed to be kosher. This article will provide an overview of the prohibition and discuss which food items are subject to the prohibition of bishul akum.

The Reason for the Prohibition

The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 38a, notes that the prohibition of bishul akum is due to a rabbinic enactment. Rashi presents two distinct reasons for this prohibition. First, Rashi, Avodah Zarah 35b, s.v. V'HaShelakot, states that bishul akum is prohibited as a safeguard to intermarriage. Second, Rashi, Avodah Zarah 38a, s.v. M'Derabanan, states that the reason for bishul akum is that if one regularly eats food prepared by a non-Jew, the non-Jew may end up feeding him non-kosher food.

R. Moshe Ben Avraham Tzvi, Tiferet L'Moshe, Yoreh De'ah 113:9, notes that there is a practical difference between these two reasons regarding a Jewish idol-worshipper. If the concern is one of intermarriage, there is no prohibition of marrying a Jewish idol-worshipper's daughter. However, if the concern of bishul akum is that one may eat non-kosher, the prohibition equally applies to eating food prepared by someone who does not keep kosher. Tiferet L'Moshe's comment is cited by Pitchei Teshuva, Yoreh De'ah 112:1.

There may be another practical difference between these two reasons. Tosafot, Avodah Zarah, 38a, s.v. Ela, cite the opinion of R. Avraham Ben David, who is of the opinion that the prohibition of bishul akum does not apply in a Jewish home. They then cite Rabbeinu Tam who disagrees and maintains that there is no distinction between a Jewish home and a non-Jewish home.

This dispute seems to be rooted in the two reasons for bishul akum. If the concern is that the non-Jew is going to feed non-kosher to those who eat his food, it is arguable that in a Jewish home - where there is no non-kosher food to be found – the concern is mitigated. However, if the concern is intermarriage, there should be no distinction between a Jewish home and non-Jewish home. Tosafot do not analyze the dispute between R. Avraham Ben David and Rabbeinu Tam in this manner. However, there is one version of Mordechai, Avodah Zarah no. 830, which implies that this is the point of contention between the two opinions.

As a matter of practical Halacha, Rama, Yoreh De'ah 113:4, rules that b'dieved (ex post facto- if the food was already cooked) one may rely on the opinion of R. Avraham Ben David. However, one may not rely on this opinion to allow a non-Jew to cook in a Jewish home. [This understanding of Rama's opinion is based on the comments of Issur V'Heter HeAroch 43:13, the source for Rama's ruling and Rama's own comments in Torat Chatat 75:17. See also, Shach, Yoreh De'ah 113:7, who presents an alternative understanding to Rama's opinion.]

The Leniencies of Bishul Akum
There are numerous leniencies built in to the prohibition of bishul akum. The two most prominent leniencies are that it is permissible to eat food that was cooked by a non-Jew if the item was edible in its raw state (ne'echal k'mot shehu chai) and that it is permissible to eat a food item that is not fit for the king's table (aino oleh al shulchan melachim) if it was cooked by a non-Jew (Gemara, Avodah Zarah 38a).

Regarding these leniencies, there is a discussion regarding a food item cooked by a non-Jew in which some of the ingredients are subject to these leniencies and some are not. Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 31b, s.v. Tarveihu, question why beer is not subject to the prohibition of bishul akum. They present two reasons. First, beer is not for the king's table. Second, the water is the main ingredient of beer and as the main ingredient, it defines the whole food, or in this case, beverage. Water is not subject to bishul akum because it is drinkable "raw."

R. Meir Eisenstat, Panim Me'irot 2:62, notes that there is a practical difference between the two reasons. According to the first reason, coffee that was made by a non-Jew is prohibited because coffee is fit for a king's table. However, according to the second reason, coffee that was made by a non-Jew is permissible because the water is the main ingredient. Panim Me'irot's comments are cited by his grandson, R. Tzvi H. Eisenstat, Pitchei Teshuva, Yoreh De'ah 114:1. R. Ovadia Yosef, Yechave Da'at 4:42, concludes that it is permissible to drink coffee that was made a non-Jew.

Regarding the definition of oleh al shulchan melachim, R. Menachem Genack (Mesorah Vol I.) notes that most poskim are of the opinion that the food item must be fit to be served at a royal banquet. However, Chazon Ish, in an oral communication with R. Shimon Schwab, ruled that even something that a king would eat in an informal setting it subject to bishul akum. R. Genack then quotes R. Yosef D. Soloveitchik that if one follows the majority opinion, (in conjunction with other leniencies) many canned foods are not subject to bishul akum. The Star-K has consulted the White House executive chef regarding what is served at a state dinner in order to determine what is oleh al shulchan melachim. [See R. Moshe Heinemann, Food Fit for a King at http://www.star-k.com/kashrus/kk-issues-bishul.htm. R. Heinemann notes that if the food item is fit for a royal banquet before the packaging process, it is subject to bishul akum even if it becomes unfit through the packaging process.]

Desserts
The Gemara states that an item is only subject to bishul akum if it is something that is eaten with bread (l'lafet bo et hapat). Rashba, Torat HaBayit 3:7, rules that this leniency does not apply to appetizers or side dishes. It only applies to items that cannot be served on their own and are not generally eaten with bread.

Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 7:19, adds that items that are eaten for parperet are subject to bishul akum even if they are not generally eaten with bread. There is a dispute regarding the translation of parperet. R. Yosef Karo, Beit Yosef 113, translates parperet as desserts. R. Chizkiyah De Silva, Pri Chadash 113:3, translates parperet as appetizer or side dish. According to R. Karo, desserts are subject to bishul akum (if they are fit for a king's table). According to R. De Silva, they are not.

Is Fish Edible Raw?
Regarding food items that are eaten raw, Pri Chadash, op. cit., discusses a situation where certain people eat the item raw and others will only eat it cooked. He concludes that in order to consider something to be edible raw, it must be something that majority of the world population would eat raw. R. Yechiel M. Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan 113:12, qualifies the ruling of Pri Chadash and concludes that if one locale eats a certain item raw and another locale does not, the item is considered edible raw in the locale that eats it raw and not it edible raw in the place that does not.

R. Shmuel Vosner, Shevet HaLevi 9:163, addresses this issue in discussing whether fish that is eaten as part of sushi is subject to the laws of bishul akum (if that particular fish is cooked by a non-Jew). He notes that according to Pri Chadash, it is not considered edible raw unless most of the world would eat that particular fish raw. He also adds that if one travels from a place that does not eat that fish raw to a place that does, one cannot consider it edible raw.

R. Vosner's responsum was written in 1994. Sushi has certainly become much more widespread in the last twelve years. However, there is another consideration that must be addressed before deeming certain types of fish as edible raw. While sushi is currently very popular, the raw fish is not eaten by itself, but rather with rice. Perhaps, in order to deem an item as edible raw, it would have to be something that people would eat by itself and not with rice or vegetables. [Although sashimi (raw fish) is eaten without any significant additional ingredients, sashimi is not as popular as sushi in the U.S. and one can question whether it is popular enough to assume that these species of fish are eaten raw (in the U.S.) based on sashimi alone.]