[Avodah] What is bishul Akum?

[Jay F. Shachter]

> 
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:14:28 +0000
> Subject: [Avodah] What is bishul Akum?
> 
> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
> 
> A. Chazal forbade certain foods cooked by an aino-Yehudi.  (In a
> future Halacha Yomis we will discuss which foods are included in
> this restriction.)  Such food is known as bishul Akum.  Rashi offers
> two reasons for this decree.  First to diminish fraternization,
> which might lead to intermarriage (Rashi, Avoda Zara, 35b).
> Secondly, an aino-Yehudi may add non-kosher ingredients to the food
> as it is being cooked.  By requiring the involvement of a Yehudi in
> the cooking process, the kosher integrity of the food is more easily
> safeguarded (Rashi, Avoda Zara 38a).
> 
> It is clear from the Talmud that if a Jew contributes to the cooking
> process, the food is treated as bishul Yisroel and not bishul Akum.
> What level of Jewish involvement is necessary for the food to be
> permissible?  According to Rav Yosef Cairo (Shulchan Aruch YD 113:7),
> this participation must consist of a Yisroel putting the food on the
> fire.  Sefardim follow this opinion.  However, Ashkenazim follow the
> opinion of Rema that if a Yisroel turns on the fire, or even adjusts
> the fire, this is considered bishul Yisroel and the food may be
> eaten.
> 

I have said this before, although perhaps not on this mailing list.
If I have said it before on this mailing list, then there is at least
one member of this mailing list, who needs me to say it again.

The original poster ("OP") is using incorrect terminology.  Or, to
speak more precisely -- and to anticipate the OP's predictible,
inevitable defense of himself -- the OP is quoting verbatim, and
without comment, an employee of the OU, who is using incorrect
terminology.  There is no such thing as "bishul Akum".  The correct
term is "bishul nokhri".  This is more than a pedantic distinction
(although we are Jews, and we love pedantic distinctions); it is a
distinction which, if not made, leads to xillul haShem, and it is
very, very serious.

Our texts have been censored.  There are certain passages in our texts
that say disparaging things about non-Jews.  Our non-Jewish rulers
have, at times, compelled us in consequence to change nokhri to `aqu"m
in all of our texts (our non-Jewish rulers did not consider themselves
to be idolaters, so, after requiring us to globally change "non-Jew"
to "idolater" in our texts, they were then satisfied that we were
saying nothing disparaging about them).  The result of this censorship
is that it left us with texts in which the word `aqu"m is sometimes
used to describe a din `aqu"m, and sometimes used to describe a din
nokhri.  Bishul nokhri is a din nokhri; it is not a din `aqu"m.  It
applies to all non-Jews, including Muslims and atheists.  It is
important for people to be aware of this distinction.

The counter-argument (and there will inevitably be a counter-argument,
because few people will want to admit that he, and his rosh yeshiva,
are being mgalleh fanim battorah shelo k'halakha) is that everyone who
says bishul `aqu"m, and everyone who hears someone else say bishul
`aqu"m, knows that it is a din nokhri that also applies to Muslims and
atheists, and that no one is confused.  The counter-argument is wrong,
because we must be scrupulous at all times to make the distinction
between a din nokhri and a din `aqu"m, because there are Jews who are,
in fact, confused between din nokhri and din `aku"m, and even if no
one is confused about bishul nokhri (a point, parenthetically, that I
do not concede), we must nonetheless habituate ourselves to speak
correctly, and to use the correct term at all times, because to fail
to do so leads to xillul haShem.  Thus, there are Jews, who are
recognizably Jews, who think that it is permissible to keep extra
change given to them by a non-Jewish shopkeeper, if they make it clear
that they are relying on the shopkeeper's calculation.  This is not
the halakha; these Jews are misapplying a din `aqu"m to non-Jews who
are not idolaters.  These Jews are thieves.  That would be enough to
obligate me, pursuant to Leviticus 19:17, to correct them.  But there
is more than that.  These Jews are not only thieves, but they are also
guilty of xillul haShem, and they endanger my life.  During times of
persecution, when we need non-Jews to risk their lives to save our
lives, and the lives of our children, few non-Jews will risk their
lives to save Jews, who are known to engage in that kind of xillul
haShem.  When Jews do not engage in xillul haShem, when they treat
non-Jews the way the Torah requires us to, there will be more non-Jews
-- not many, but a few -- who will risk their lives to save our lives,
and the lives of our children, and this is not hyperbole.  It is a
fact, it is a documented, indisputable fact, it describes events that
took place during the lifetimes of many people who are alive today,
and that can recur tomorrow morning, to you, and to your children,
wherever you may live.  So we must insist that we use the correct
terminology, we must habituate ourselves to use the correct
terminology, always, and your rosh yeshiva is a mgalleh fanim battorah
shelo k'halakha, if he does not.

I apologize if I have made this point before on this mailing list.  I
would not have to do so, if the OU did not hire illiterates to produce
its Halakha Yomis, or if the OP did not post quotes from them, without
comment, on our mailing list.


               Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
               6424 North Whipple Street
               Chicago IL  60645-4111
                       (1-773)7613784   landline
                       (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                       jay at m5.chicago.il.us
                       http://m5.chicago.il.us

               When Martin Buber was a schoolboy, it must have been
               no fun at all playing tag with him during recess.