[By Rabbi Yair Hoffman]
A friend in the field of Kashrus recently related a quote of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l. When he heard of the extent of leniencies practiced in the United States in regard to Bishul Akum, he remarked, “It is no wonder that there are such serious problems of assimilation there.”
What is bishul akum? The prohibition of consuming bishul akum, foods prepared by an eino Yehudi, is of rabbinic origin. The reasons that the sages enacted this prohibition were twofold: It was a measure to avoid intermarriage and it was a means of further preventing the consumption of non-kosher food.
There are some foods to which the sages did not extend the prohibition. Bishul akum does not apply to foods that can be eaten raw. Nor do the laws of bishul akum apply to foods that are not fit for a king’s table or that of a prestigious government official.
The overwhelming majority of our restaurants in the United States rely upon a leniency in regard to Bishul Akum that numerous halachic authorities simply have rejected or recommended not to implement. Yet unless there will be a groundswell of support to begin being more stringent – people will continue to rely on the leniency.
It is ironic, but most of our shuls do not allow food to be served in the shul if it was prepared in a private home, yet they permit food that, according to most Rishonim and the Vilna Gaon as well, is not considered kosher.
It must be noted that no one is chalilah impugning the authority of the Rama who writes of the leniency – but the question is shouldn’t we strive to improve the level of Kashrus observance if it is possible?
The leniency. What is the leniency that we should perhaps consider reevaluating?
The leniency is called “hadlakas ha’eish” and is espoused by Rabbi Moshe Isserles, author of the Rama in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 113:7). The Shulchan Aruch states explicitly that a Jew must contribute significantly to the cooking process. Essentially, the Rema’s ruling states that if the Jew were to merely light the fire, this is enough to countermand the prohibition of bishul akum. It is unclear, however, whether the Rema meant this as an ideal or whether he merely ruled that post facto the food is not prohibited.
In addition, today most kashrus organizations have taken the Rema a step further and rely on a pilot light lit by a Jew many days, weeks or months prior to the actual cooking – a practice to which that many halachic authorities have raised further and quite serious opposition.
Why we should be stricter. The reasons that we might consider reevaluating the leniency are as follows:
1. There appears to be scant basis for this leniency in the Talmud itself. The section of the Talmud that deals with the issue of bishul akum is found in Tractate Avodah Zarah (38a). A bereisa quoted there states that someone may place the food upon the fire and allow the eino Yehudi to continue cooking it until it is finished. The bereisa seems to be teaching us the parameters of what constitutes bishul akum. Had the leniency of merely lighting the fire been acceptable as well, it is likely that the bereisa would have informed us of this. Later on, the Gemara states this very leniency of lighting the fire in regard to the baking of bread. (Halachah generally draws a distinction between the prohibitions of breads baked by an eino Yehudi and foods cooked by an eino Yehudi.)
In addition to the idea that lighting the fire is sufficient, the Rema seems to be lenient in another matter as well. He indicates that if the Yehudi partook in a part of the cooking that would not have eventually accomplished a full cooking of the food, it is still sufficient.
The Shach (Y.D. 113:9) writes that this is against our Gemara.
2. A number of Rishonim hold that food prepared with this leniency is not kosher. This is also the opinion of the author of the Shulchan Aruch. This is the view of the Rashba, Ran, Ritva, and RiVash, among others. The Shulchan Aruch too clearly prohibits food that was prepared by an eino Yehudi when only the fire was lit by a Yehudi. It should also be noted that none of the other Rishonim mention any hint of such a leniency in their codes. Not the Rif, the Rosh, nor the Rambam.
3. The Vilna Gaon writes that food prepared with this leniency is not kosher. The Vilna Gaon identifies the source of the Rema’s leniency in regard to when the Jew had stoked the fire. He states that the Rema’s ruling was based on the idea found in the Talmud in Tractate Shavuos that when someone else other than a kohein brings a korban onto the fire, he is liable with his life. This is true even when the non-kohein merely sped up the cooking process by stoking the fire. The Vilna Gaon writes that the Rema’s extension of this idea to include just lighting the fire is incorrect. The Vilna Gaon would thus not have eaten at any one of our restaurants that rely on this leniency.
4. A few Acharonim, including the Chayei Adam, write that we should avoid relying upon this leniency if possible. The TaZ also writes that this leniency of the Rema should only be relied upon in the home of a Yisrael, but otherwise should not be relied upon. Indeed, when the author of the Levush, Rabbi Mordechai Yaffe, a student of the Rema himself, reformulated the ruling, he left out the words employed by his teacher in the original formulation, “and this is how we rule.” The implication is that the Levush himself was uncomfortable with it.
5. Avoiding this leniency would provide necessary jobs for Jewish youth as well as Jewish men who are out of work. Very few jobs are available for young Jewish men and women who are not in college or studying in yeshiva. If we as a community were to avoid this leniency, then jobs in the local cooking industries would open up. An extra 30 to 40 jobs in one neighborhood alone would be a tremendous boon to those looking for work.
6. It would cause an overall improvement to our kashrus standards and help prevent people from stumbling in this area of halachic observance. The reality is that in many homes in the neighborhood, cooking is done by einam Yehudim, even with ovens that do not have pilot lights, with the result that bishul akum is virtually ignored in our neighborhoods. Part of the reason why they take it so lightly is that they do not see the restaurants observing this either. If our local Vaad would upgrade this standard, the change would be readily identifiable and people would realize the seriousness of this halachah.
7. It would show that we also care that our Sephardic brethren can keep kosher in our establishments as well. It is unfortunate that in this area we have established our kashrus standards to meet only the requirements of Ashkenazic Jews who hold of the leniency, while ignoring the needs and requirements of our Sephardic brethren. This is perplexing because we do often accommodate those who observe chalav Yisrael at a much greater expense, even though the majority of local residents do not exclusively eat chalav Yisrael. Why have we not been as accommodating toward Sephardim?
A counter-argument. One might counter that in a restaurant setting, it is not highly likely that bishul akum would result in intermarriage. While this may be true, we must consider that the sages who enacted the protective fences of Judaism were much wiser than we are. Aside from the respect that we must have for halachah itself, there are also farther-reaching repercussions to consider. The issue of laxity involving the bishul akum of household help is serious and has, unfortunately, led to some serious lapses.
The Midrash tells us (Shir HaShirim Rabbah) that, at least according to one opinion, the entire episode of the rise of Haman happened because we were lax in the area of bishul akum at the initial party made by Achashverosh.
The author may be reached at [email protected].
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
21 Responses
There are places where the Mashgiach does not even ignite the pilot light. He ignites it remotely through a smart phone.
Thank you Rabbi Hoffman!
You wrote a similar article a few years back. This is a huge issued that no one want to touch. Most of us Sepharadim can’t really eat anywhere that’s Kosher, and the Kashrut agencies are too busy inventing other Chumrot than instituting this basic Halachah.
Kudos to the Rabbi for successfully bringing sensationalism into the beautiful world of Shas and Poskim.
Yes, let’s add more stringencies to a religoun that is full of them.
I still say that potato chips do not belong on the kings table.
It surprises that the author would write an article against a b’peirush Rama without citation of contemporary Poskim. Perhaps no Poskim agree with the author’s viewpoint, the Rema’s heter being so well established. Frankly, there are many more egregious practices without halachic support upon which the author might choose to spill his ink.
Here he goes again. Using Reb Shlomo Zalman zt”l to push a personal agenda.
First of all, this psak from Reb Shlomo Zalman zt”l is printed in a footnote in the Sefer Halichos Shlomo. It is a well know psak.
However, this article misrepresents the psak in a huge way.
Chalila V’chas to say Reb Sholomo Zalman zt”l was saying that relying on a Rama is causing intermarriage. Ashkenazim have every right to rely on the Rama. Most restaurants are not makpid to serve strictly Beis Yosef meat either. There would not even be enough true Beis Yosef meat to supply all the restaurants. So Sefardim would not be able to eat at most fleshing restaurants anyway!
Besides, most restaurants do not need to rely on the Rama. This author claims “overwhelming majority of our restaurants” are relying on leniencies. This is simply not true. The majority of reliably certified restaurants have a frum person working there, or have a working Mashgiach. Without a frum person there, you run into many more problems than a leniency in bishul akum.
Reb Shlomo Zalman zt”l was responding to a specific leniency which is not even applicable to restaurants. He was referring to the use of a light bulb or a very week glow bar inside pilotless ovens. There is only ONE major kashrus organization here in the U.S. that uses this kula. They feel that since the bulb generates heat, as long as the Yehudi turns on that bulb, it is now considered that the aino Yehudi is just adding to the existing fire.
Reb Shlomo Zalman zt”l held there is no basis in halacha for this kula. He was in absolutely no way condemning an Ashkanazi who relies on the Rama.
This leniency has nothing to do with restaurants. It is only applicable to factories. It is nogea to canned foods and other things which require bishul yisroel.
There is also a huge kula used on the bishul of canned Tuna fish which most poskim are not comfortable with. That is far worse than the bishul akum in the restaurants.
And point #5 is absolutely ridiculous! It would also shoot the price of Kosher food through the roof!
Point #6 is also non-sensible. How would people know who is turning on the fire in the restaurant? (And since the real change has to be in the factories, it is doubtful anybody would know about the change.)They also check the vegetables for bugs in the back of the restaurants, and that doesn’t seem to change the way people eat them in their homes!
Point #7. That would be nice to look out for the sefardim. But then we would only be able to get Beis Yosef meat. We also would not be bale to use many of the canned sauces and products which restaurants use. That would add up to a huge overhaul at a great expense.
I understand why you as a Sefardi might want change. But why blame it on Reb Shlomo Zalman zt”l. He never said Ashkanazim should not rely on the Rama!?!
On one hand we should be extra careful with Bishul Akum.
But at the same time our Yeshivos should throw away innocent Erliche 13 year old boys, and separate them from their friends, because “they are not scholastic and genius enough for my Choshiveh Yeshiva”.
Or in other words, most of our shuls permit food that, according to most Rishonim and the Vilna Gaon as well, is not considered kosher. Obviously the Rema is no match for R. Yair Hoffman. And what happens if thew recipe contains Tropicana orange juice. Then I guess HaGaon Rav Chaim is no match for R. Yair Hoffman either.
Rabbi Hoffman:
Very nice article. Are there any contemporary Ashkenazi poskim who hold like you? And have you discussed this issue with the heads of any major kashrus organizations? (The maaseh with Rabbi Auerbach may or may not be germane.)
Very good article, Rabbi Hoffman. Thank you very much!.
I can already see the negative comments from those who prefer to seat comfortably at their level and call everything they don’t practice a chumra. The truth is that in spiritual matters, if you don’t go up, you will for sure go down.
Regarding the last point about Sefardim. It should be noted that great sfardi Poskim like Rav Ovadiah Yosef permitted sfardim to eat in Ashkenazik restaurants who relied on this leniency.
Dear Leahleh, I congratulate you for laughing at Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach. You are very wise.
Rabbi Aurbach was not connecting assimilation rationally with bishul akum, he was talking of that in light of this spiritual reason, one can understand why forces conspired to foster assimilation.
And what about all the Tzadikim who run to “all you can fress” resorts for Pesach? I don’t see them concerned at all.
Very interesting and enjoyable reading. Restaurants that prepare and serve meat should have a full-time, shomer shabbat mashgiach who lites all flames and turns on all electric appliances however, requiring all kitchen staff to be Jewish would put many restaurants out of business, rather than increase the number of jobs for the Jewish community. In my area, over 90 percent of chefs, sous chefs and fry cooks are Hispanic and work for low wages that don’t appeal even to teenagers. They are generally older and far more responsible and reliable than teenagers so, productivity would suffer and labor costs would go up if they were replaced. The Kitzur has references to gentiles in Jewish homes that allow for supervision of their food preparation so, a full-time restaurant mashgiach would be operating on the same basis while supervising food preparation. I’m not sure that current circumstances, in general, warrant a call to arms, even for Sefardim.
Rabbi Hoffman sure sounds cogent.
However, let’s begin from the beginning.
We are discussing a rabbinic enactment, not a Biblical law. As such, we always rule leniently on questions of rabbinic enactments, and strictly on Biblical laws.
The Remah’s ruling is not to be challenged, even by scholars such as Rabbi Hoffman or by Rabbi Hoffman’s interpretation of Rabbi Auerbach. Remember again, we are talking about a rabbinical enactment.
Chacham Ovadia’s ruling is acceptable to all Sefardim, and by Ashkenazim too!!
We strongly urge Rabbi Hoffman to focus more of his energies on what is coming out of his mouth (or from his pen) as opposed to what is going in. If Rabbi Hoffman is not satisfied with acceptable kashrus certifications, he is strongly encouraged to not personally accept them. Further, he should broadcast his challenges to the congregants of the shul where he serves as Rav. Congregants of all other shuls will be getting their personal directives from their respective Rabbis. If the esteemed Rabbi Hoffman does not officiate as Rav of any shul, then his opinion lacks any authority, though it may make for interesting discussion. With all due respect, all of the rabbis giving hechsherim, together with all their mashgichim, accepted by the many congregations that accept those hechsherim, represent halacha as “clarified from the behavior of the people” (Pesachim 66: regarding the ruling of Hillel on the shechita of the Korban Pesach on Shabbos, an issue considerably more serious than anything that Rabbi Hoffman may be questioning).
If you would follow the words of Rabbi Hoffman the price of kosher food would rise even further than it already is.
For most people they would pay no matter what the cost, however there are people on the fringe who will not pay and decide that kosher food is too exepensive.
So rather than getting people to keep a chumra, he will cause people to eat treif.
While this may only be 1-2% of the purchasers of Kosher food, its still significant and will not be replaced because some people will keep the chumra
Rabbi Hoffman, After your stellar work on Tropicana, writing against minhag Israel is not a good idea. The reason that minhag oker halacha is that a minhag that is not provably false and is practiced must be accorded the assumption of having halakhic basis. As I assume you realize that two hundred years separated the Rama from the (vast) majority of studied rishonim. The Rama had traditions from that period which both halakhic and academic scholars have documented. You don’t need a microscope to see the problems in your attempt to create another chumra.
No kako #11. There are those of us who ask sheilos and abide by what our Rav says. My [Chassidish] Rav says we should accept the psak of the Rama, which he mentioned is what many if not most contemporary Ashkenazi poskim also say. The psak was not a bedieved, it was a l’chatchila. He said that not doing so meant accepting a chumra and not every chumra has spiritual value. He also said that he has not delved into the Tropicana issue but that a psak from Rav Chaim Kanievsky is one that can be relied on without further questioning. We are not members of the Chumra a Day club, sorry.
All the kashrus agencies accept a glow bar in an oven. Its WAY better than a kisem!! Its the light bulb that’s the issue and its not used lmaaseh
FYI:There is a hashgacha on the Jersey Shore that requires every dish to be stirred by the mashgiach, or, at least the fire for that very dish to be turned on by him. It caters to a sefardi kehila.