Bishul Akum – Myth and Reality

For the definition of Bishul Akum (food cooked by a non-Jew), as understood and as supervised by the Kashrut organizations, here is a segment from the discussion on the Star-K website:

Occasionally, there may be circumstances where both ingredients and equipment are 100% kosher and through a violation of a Rabbinic ordinance some foods or food products would be prohibited, while other food products undergoing the very same process would remain 100% kosher. This disqualifying process occurs when certain foods are totally and exclusively cooked by an aino Yehudi, a person who is not required by the Torah to keep kosher. When a kosher raw chicken is boiled in a pot of water by an aino Yehudi it is as non-kosher as chicken cooked in butter! Our Rabbis call this disqualification bishul akum, literally, food cooked by a person not required by the Torah to keep kosher. There are two reasons why our Chachomim, Sages, enacted this ordinance: First, as a precaution against inadvertently eating non-kosher food; second, as a prevention against unnecessary socialization that could lead to intermarriage.

In this short segment there are several problematic points, which I fear border on misinformation.

1. The author refrains from saying “non-Jew”, apparently since the website is frequently visited by non-Jews who seek supervision for their products. Instead he uses the Hebrew term “aino Yehudi” (is not Jewish), or the more cumbersome “a person not required by the Torah to keep kosher.”
2. The author analogizes Bishul Akum to chicken cooked in butter.
3. When providing the reasons for the ordinance by the sages, the author fails to clarify that the ordinance is included in the Mishnah, while the reasons are not given by the commentators for another thousand years.
4. The two reasons are presented as equals, even though the majority of halakhic literature deals only with the problem of intermarriage, and ignores the concern about non-kosher food.

This choice of wording is not accidental. It is meant to convey an image of a homogenous, impenetrable wall, and to justify the work of the Kahrut organizations, which could have relied on precedents to waive the need for supervision of the cooking process in the hospitality and food production industry. Let us analyze the subliminal message underneath each one of those half-truths.

1. Translating “aino Yehudi” as “a person not required by the Torah to keep kosher,” suggests that we cannot rely on that person to provide kosher food, since he is not commanded to eat kosher. It would be analogous to trusting a carnivore to serve a vegetarian meal. This, of course, is not the reason. When the sages of the Mishnah speak of a non-Jew, they refer to a pagan, and the decree has to do with the effort to alienate Jews from pagans.
2. This analogy is misleading. Poultry was still cooked in dairy until the third century, but eventually the rabbinical prohibition against it was widely accepted, while Bishul Akum was challenged throughout history and as we shall see, many ways were found to circumvent it. Also, the author knows that he cannot say that Bishul Akum is like eating meat cooked with dairy, because this would not be true. Meat with dairy is a biblical prohibition while Bishul Akum is a rabbinic decree. However, since for most people there is no difference between chicken or meat if the are cooked with milk, the author has succeeded in planting the seed of fear in the heart of his readers.
3. The fact that Medieval commentators were the first to present the reasons for the prohibition shows that there was a lack of clarity regarding the reasons. It might even suggest that the prohibition was not closely observed in the Jewish diaspora. This long historical gap is ignored.
4. The focus of the Halakhic literature on the reason of intermarriage shows that the second reason, that of the fear of eating non-Kosher food, was not widely accepted. However, it convenes the author to present the two as having equal status, because the critical reader will be quick to point out that the first and main reason is no longer applicable today. Eating tuna which was canned overseas by factory workers I will never see or know, will not cause intermarriage. There is a need, therefore, to highlight the second reason.

Tomorrow we will see the various exceptions given by the poskim throughout history. Their significance and practical applications are relevant to the whole system of kashrut and supervision, but in our context of visiting a household which might not be fully kosher, we will see that there is no need to worry about Bishul Akum.