Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 19

Another two enactments, whose goal was to limit the chances of intermarriage, were "Bishul Akum" (Idolater's Cooking), and "Pat Akum" (Idolater's Bread). Both of these have extremely strict and extremely lenient interpretations. The implications of these interpretations are also significant in how we approach other issues as well. The enactment against eating food cooked by a non-Jew was always understood to be of a limited nature. It only applied to food fit to be served at the table of a king, only for foods normally eaten with bread, and which are never eaten raw. Some have suggested that kings aren't so fussy today, but I have seen letters of confirmation from both the White House and Buckingham Palace to the effect that absolutely no canned or packaged foods are EVER served. (I'm not sure this is still true today, as former President Trump loves McDonald's) The enactment stipulated that if a Jew had any part in the cooking (even stirring the pot), that is not Bishul Akum, so long as the Jew's action was before the food was fully cooked. One will often see canned foods with a Hareidi Hechsher indicating that it is "Bishul Yisrael" (Jewish cooking), which usually simply means that a Jew adjusted the heat. Authorities differ as to whether canned, frozen or otherwise packaged goods are "fit for the Table of a King". Most Hareidi authorities say that they are, and must be cooked, at least partially, by Jews. Most centrist and Modern Orthodox authorities rule that they are not, and therefore need no special preparation. Moshe Feinstein wrote a responsum stipulating a number of conditions needed for canned goods to not be subject to the rules of Bishul Akum, but he instructed the Kashrut services that there is no concern with the "cooking" (actually, steaming) of canned goods. A great debate exists between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim in this area, with the Sepharadim actually more strict. In most kosher restaurants, both in the U.S. and Israel, the kitchen staff is mostly non-Jewish. Whereas Sepharadim would require that a Jew adjust the stove, or stir the pot, Ashkenazim rely on a minority opinion that it is enough that a Jew lit the pilot light. This view is mentioned in RAMA; the primary Ashkenazic view in the Shulchan Aruch, but he warned to only rely on it in a dire emergency. Sepharadim do not rely on this at all. Askenazim rely on it even in the first instance, contrary to the actual ruling of RAMA. When I lived in Beit El, there was a sign at the diner that sits at the entrance to the community "Strictly Kosher for Ashkenazim, Not Kosher for Sepharadim". There is, however, another possible "out" which I shall come to shortly. The Sanhedrin also forbade baked goods of a non-Jew. As I indicated previously, a decree is only valid if accepted by the people within a year. Many communities accepted this decree fully. Many did not, except for bread baked by a non-Jew in his home. They did, however, partake of baker's bread, as there was no close social contact, and hence no fear of causing intermarriage. There remains a threefold policy to this day. Some authorities forbid all non-Jewish bread. Some forbid only privately baked bread, but will use baker's bread in an emergency. Some consider baker's bread (providing the ingredients are kosher) as completely kosher, even in the first instance. I once saw an online page (part of an online ordination course. I am opposed to these in principle) on the subject, that said that one could be sure that any packaged bread with a hechsher is Pat Yisrael (Jewish bread). I asked my son who works in this field. He had a good laugh. This distinction between commercial and private baking later became the basis for those who allow milk from commercial dairies. Those who rely on non-Jewish cooking in restaurants, often deduce logically that the same rule should apply (since the person one is dealing with is not the one who cooks the food), although, to the best of my knowledge, no actual halachic authority has issued such a ruling. (About five years ago, one "B List" rabbi issued a blanket "heter" (permission) to eat in a vegan restaurant, as, he claims, the prohibition of non-Jewish cooked foods only applies in a festive setting. This view  has no source, and has few sane adherents.) Another theoretical "out" not yet addressed by authorities, is if fish cooked by a non-Jew is forbidden, since today raw fish is commonly consumed in the form of sushi. ("Sushi Grade" is a U.S. advertising term, with no real meaning). Rav Abadi recently came out that it is permissible to eat a fish dish cooked by a non-Jew if all ingredients are kosher,. Many permit hard-boiled eggs cooked by non-Jews, as some people eat raw eggs (the presence of a shell makes no difference, as it is very porous). In my next post, I will get into the question of utensils. Do we, or do we not, need to consider the possibility of utensils in a restaurant, or a canning plant, having been previously used for non Kosher? Next time.