By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com
The following column may appear controversial, as it calls for a shift in our current practice. However, we should always look to do the right thing. We must, in fact, do the right thing, even when it is difficult.
The Jewish nation has a mandate to be an ohr amim – a light to the nation. In our davening we recite daily the words – “Hodu la’Hashem, kiru bishemo, hodi’u ba’amim alilosav… sapru ba-goyim k’vodo b’chol ha’amim nifla’osav.” Some will say that this is not for now, but for a future time. But, even if it is for a future time – in order to do this, we need to be able to remain on mission.
ON MISSION
There is a Rabbinic enactment that was designed to keep Klal Yisroel on mission. The enactment is known as avoiding bishul akum in order to maintain Jewish continuity. In terms of the Kashrus standards of our communities, for some reason, our community vaadim have latched onto a unique leniency – specifically our reliance on merely having the fire turned on by the mashgiach to avoid what would otherwise be considered bishul akum.
The leniency is called “hadlakas ha’eish” and is, truth be told, adopted 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 ben or bas yisroel must contribute significantly to the cooking process. Essentially, the Rema’s ruling states that if the ben or bas Yisroel were to merely light the fire, this is enough to countermand the prohibition of bishul akum.
WAS IT POST FACTO OR EVEN IDEALLY?
It is unclear, however, whether the Rema meant this leniency as an ideal to adopt or whether he merely ruled that, post facto, the food is not to be declared “prohibited.” This is actually a debate among Poskim, and one should ask one’s own Rav as to his thoughts. It is significant.
Aside from this question, there is another issue. Today most kashrus organizations have taken the Rema a step further and rely on a pilot light lit by a ben or bas yisroel many days, weeks, or months prior to the actual cooking – a practice to which that many halachic authorities have raised serious opposition. The extension is a step removed from the Remah’s heter, and it is unclear if he would have advocated the extension either.
SCANT TALMUDIC BASIS
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, in fact, 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.) Why didn’t the Gemorah suggest this for cooking?
A DEBATE BETWEEN THE RAMAH AND SHACH
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 Gemarah.
OTHER RISHONIM
A number of Rishonim hold that food prepared with this leniency is not kosher. 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.
THE VIEW OF THE VILNA GAON
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 kohain brings a korban onto the fire, he is liable with his life. This is true even when the non-kohain 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 for cooking is incorrect. The Vilna Gaon would thus not have eaten at any one of our restaurants that rely on this leniency.
OTHER ACHARONIM
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, it 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.
RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY’S VIEW
This author posed the question to Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita.
בחו”ל כל וועד של כשרות סומכים לכתחילה על היתר הדלקת האש של הרמ”א [וזהו שלא כהחיי אדם והגר”א].
האם ראוי להם להחמיר – או אינו כדאי?
In America, every Vaad HaKashrus relies lechatchila on the leniency of the Ramah of a Jew lighting the pilot light to stop bishul akum. This is not in accordance with the Chayei Adam and the Vilna Gaon. Should they be stringent or is it not worthwhile?
ראוי להחמיר.
We see that it is the Gadol HaDor’s view that our kashrus agencies should adopt the Vilna Gaon’s view ideally, and, ideally, not rely on the leniency mentioned in the Ramah.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
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 try to avoid this leniency, then jobs in the local cooking industries would open up. An extra 30 to 40 jobs in our neighborhood alone would be a tremendous boon to those looking for work.
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 Vaads would upgrade this standard, the change would be readily identifiable – and people would realize the seriousness of this halachah.
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?
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
A counterargument. One might counter that in a restaurant setting, it is not highly likely that bishul akum would result in intermarriage. Also, there is an additional expense involved here.
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. Also, it is Rav Chaim Kanievsky’s opinion that we should make the move. So why shouldn’t we do so?
NOT ATTACKING THE RAMAH
This article is not stating that the Rema should not be relied upon even b’dieved. We should not question a lenient ruling that has become part of the mesorah of K’lal Yisrael. But there is no loss involved in following the ruling of the Vilna Gaon and the Gadol Hador. This article is advocating improving the standard so that we can observe the laws of kashrus l’chatchilah, in the best manner possible. 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.
We can only stand to benefit by upgrading our observance of this aspect of kashrus. We can perhaps even add the following four-word acronym to existing hechshereim: BYLH – Bishul Yisroel lechol hadayos.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
19 Responses
Thanks for this informative article.
Some information is missing.
This is not a new question pertaining to technology that was invented in recent years. This is an age-old question. So I am curious:
1. What did the great Poskim in the US hold about this? Rav Henkin? Rav Moshe Feinstein? I personally do not know, but if the current situation was agreed upon by them, it would be ludicrous to suggest that this needs to be changed because Rav Chaim Kanievski said so.
2. The author writes “for some reason the kashrus organizations have latched on to this kula.” I wonder whether the author asked the heads of the kashrus organizations why they latched on to this kula? And whose pesak it is based on? That might prove informative.
I’m sorry, I can’t. Did you really say there are few jobs available for young Jewish men and women?
Is it a problem to be employed with a job that doesn’t fit the typical frum stereotype?
Or maybe frum employers should hire more yidden instead of relying on cheaper labor options. I’m not in business, so I don’t know if this is economical. But there are certainly jobs available. Also, I’m pretty sure most entry level mashgichim are payed very close to minimum wage.
Pursuant to my previous comment, here’s Rav Moshe Feinstein’s opinion, taken from the OU website. Note that this is addressing pilot lights – it’s unclear whether Reb Moshe would be perfectly happy with a real fire which was lit by a Jew.
10 Rabbi Yisroel Belsky related that Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt“1 was not happy with the common practice of relying on a pilot light to resolve the problem of bishul akum, presumably because the pilot light burns indefinitely and it is difficult to consider this as a perpetual aish yisrael. Furthermore, not all poskim are in agreement with the Rama regarding a gentile lighting a fire from aish yisrael. See for example, Gra,113:18. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe, zt“l stopped short of prohibiting this common practice. In addition, it should be emphasized that one can rely on a pilot light only if it is unlikely that it will be extinguished. In restaurants, pots overflow regularly and the pilot light is often not lit. One of the primary responsibilities of a mashgiach in a restaurant is to over see the fires and make certain they are not turned on by the help. Similarly, if the pilot light of a home stove is prone to go out regularly, there is no guarantee that the non-Jew will not relight it when the residents are away from home.
The OU in Israel just put out a booklet on Kashrut and expounded their standards and specified that OU certified restaurants have Jewish cooks and do not allow non Jews near the actual,cooking area. Non Jews may be involved in other aspects of food preparation and kitchen activities.
Could the author please provide his sources confirming that most kashrus authorities in the USA rely on this kula?
Thank you for this article, and let’s see if appropriate steps are taken AS DETERMINED NECESSARY BY OUR RABBANIM WHOM WE TRUST TO DIRECT KASHRUS in our food establishments.
Thank you, Ohevet Yisroel, for your additional fact update.
I will add, that I was fascinated to learn (approximately 18 years ago), that it is common practice in many restaurants in Israel, to allow a Sepharadi customer on their request, to go back into the kitchen and do some very lemaaseh act on the prep of the dish they ordered, such as to flip the steak or fish in the pan to complete the cooking “lechatchila.”.
Re previous comment: Kashrus authorities i.e. Kashrus organisations
Rabbi Hoffman – this issue should be taken up first with the Poskim of the various Kasheus organizations, rather than put to the public in its current form. The Hashgachos who rely on the various views that allow for lighting the fire to resolve the issue of Bishul Akum did not just wake up one day and “latch on” to the idea – there was thorough Halachic analysis, debate, and thought that went into reaching their positions. You do them – and the community – a severe disservice by presenting the issue in the one-sided way you do.
As to Rav Chaim’s response of “ra’ui l’hachmir” – with no disrespect c”v toward Rav Chaim, Rav Chaim is not the Posek for the US, and never has been. When there was a question about the new Eruv in Flatbush, Rav Vosner from Money said it was good, in opposition to the positions of many local Flatbush Rabbonim (Rav Belsky, Rav Hillel David, and others), and wrote to his father asking him for his Haskamama on his (the son’s) reasoning. His father responded that he was correct, but should not have gotten involved to go against the position of the local Rabbonim. Kal v’chomer here, where you are using a statement from Rav Chaim to change the widely-accepted practice in a different country.
One additional point – even in Israel many of Rav Chaim’s views are not universally – or even widely – accepted. One specific one is with respect to names – Rav Chaim has on numerous occasions said that certain names (such as Shira) are “not names” and should be changed. I believe that you yourself may have questioned this in one of your articles. As such, using Rav Chaim’s two-word response to a rather leading question as grounds to change accepted Halachic practice seems a bit much.
Respectfully,
an Israeli Yid
Without weighing in on the merits of the article’s proposition, the idea that Rav Kanievsky, shlita, who while a massive Talmud Chacham is not a posek, can be relied on here based on a terse question and even terser answer, is strange, particularly since there is not shortage of American rabbanim who are deeply involved with kashrus in America who have sufficiently broad shoulders to come to their own conclusion.
The way the sheila was presented, simply that they are somech on the heter without explaining why they do so, makes it sound like there is no reason why not to be machmir. And so in response to such a sheila it would seem poshut to say ראוי להחמיר and indeed why not. However this is not the sheila. The sheila is that being machmir would require hiring a person purely for the sake of being machmir, and so the sheila actually is whether a kitchen is required to 1. hire a full time worker in order to be machmir at a הפסד גדול, and 2. whether a kitchen that does not have a worker to do the job should have its hechsher removed. The sheila of whether to be machmir is often a question of at what cost, as it is here. And its not clear that Rav Chaim gave a definitive answer to this question.
This article is classic Reb Chaim Kanievsky clickbait (obviously no disrespect to RCK). The big psak? ראוי להחמיר. Oh, ok. RCK would probably give that answer to a thousand shailos.
We probably rely on this heter because our social and historical conditions are completely different than in the times of chazal. They didn’t have kosher restaurants and mass industrial food production. Same reason why most American Jews rely on R’ Moshe (and others) for chalav yisroel as well.
Move on nothing to see here . . .
Just curious for those in EY…what percentage of restaurant employees working back in the kitchen (versus those out front taking orders and serving customers) are not yidden? How much difference would it make in terms of having to hire new staff and possibly increase wages to attract yidden to food-prep work). At the few kosher restaurants I’ve been to in the U.S., a large percentage of kitchen staff are NOT yidden. In the current employment market, where just about every restaurant seems to have a “help wanted” sign on the door, finding competent Jewish cooks and food-prep staff could be challenging to already challenged restaurants with all the Covid regs etc.
Why have we not been as accommodating toward Sephardim? Because we don’t in any way whatsoever wish to be abetting them to consume meat in the 9 days prior to שבוע שחל בו תשעה ב”אב which is a terrible leniency in times of so many צרות
@ 147 Um, Sefardim are just following the Shulchan Aruch. No on asked us to be machmir.
Ask R’ Chaim if it’s ok that the American kashrus organizations serve chadash…
נא לעייו בספר החשוב “משמרת הבית” להגרמ”מ קארפ שהאריך בזה, פרק ב הערה עח, וכבר העיר בכ זה, ומסיק “ולפלא על הרבה השגחות בפרט בחוץ לארץ דנותנין הכשר למהדרין וסומכין לכתחילה על הדלקת האש על ידי המשגיח, וכבר נתבאר מהפוסקים דהיתר זה רק בשעת הדחק ובודאי לא מהדרין, דהרבה פוסקים מחמירים בזה, וכן דעת רוב ראשונים והאחרונים, וההיתר דחוק מאד”.
“even though the majority of local residents do not exclusively eat chalav Yisrael.”
The very clear majority certainly do only eat Cholov Yisroel.
If its good enough for Rabbi Heinemann, which it is, its good enough for me.
@147 no sephardim dont have the minhag to eat meat during the 9 days