Notes on Bishul Akum

Introduction: Bishul Akum is related to the concept of Pat Akum but has some differences. Both are Gezerot that we received from the Rabbamim in order to deal with assimilation with the other nations which would lead to inter-marriage. Pat Akum is about the ownership of the Pat (Pittah) – bread. However, Bishul Akum is about the act of cooking the item.

Additional notes of mine are labeled as “note”.

Tur: Yoreh De’ah Siman 113

Alef) The sages only forbade that which cannot be consumed raw (must be cooked) and also what is fit for the table of kings.
Note: The cooking of goods by an Akum.
Note: This includes “Leparperet” – an appetizer or dessert.
However, if the item could have been consumed in its raw state, even if it is fit for the table of kings, or if it is not fit for the table of kings but can not consumed raw (must be cooked), then it is not forbidden because Bishul Akum needs both requirements.

Hei) The Akum has to have the intention of cooking (for the sake of cooking), but if it is not for the sake of cooking (example: lighting the oven to dry vessels and there happens to be meat in it that the Akum didn’t know about), it is permitted [because] he did not do it for the sake of cooking. However, if he had in mind to do it for the sake of cooking, such as tossing wood into the oven, then even if he did not know that there was meat inside [the oven], it is forbidden.
Note: Because he had in mind to cook, it is Bishul Akum BeKhavanah.

Now, in different case, if the Akum did know that there was meat inside the oven but lit the oven only to dry a vessel (not to cook it), it is forbidden because we suspect that [since] he started the process of cooking, he knew that it would lead to cooking everything inside the oven [including the meat].
Note: Thus, we classify this as being Bishul Akum BeKhavanah even if some might say that it is not Bishul Akum BeKhavanah.

Vav) When a Jew does some of the cooking, [the cooked item] is permitted even though the Jew did not do all of the cooking.
Example: When an Akum put an item, to cook on the coals, and a Jew came and stirred the coals. This is permitted even if the roles are reversed.
Note: Permitted even if it would cook well without the involvement of a Jew, even if a Jew put it on and an Akum stirred the coals, or even if a Jew put it on the oven and stirred the coals, and even if an Akum sped up the cooking process.

Khet) What if a Jew put the tray into the oven and then took it out, and then an Akum put it back? This is forbidden unless the first 3rd of it is cooked by the Jew.
Note: There is significance to cooking a 3rd of it, and it is more significant if it’s the first 3rd.

Tet) It was written by the Rashb”A: If an Akum put it on the stove that cooked [the first] 3rd of it or more, and then a Jew came and stirred the coals, it is not permissible.

Note: Khet is when a Jew cooked the first 3rd, but Tet is when the Akum cooked the first 3rd.

Yud-Alef) Introduction by the Beit Yosef: If a Jew put a tray into the oven, and an Akum or a Jew took it out before it finished cooking a 3rd, then an Akum put it back into the oven [to complete the first 3rd], it is forbidden? Why? Because a Jew did not complete the first 3rd, so it is as if a Jew did not cook it.
Tur: A Jew put a tray on the flame, and then immediately, an Akum watched oven the cooking while the Jew walked out of the kitchen. [This is] permitted, and [we] do not suspect that maybe the Akum took it out before the first 3rd was cooked.
Note: It is permitted because Bishul Akum is an Issur D’Rabbanan. Thus, we are lenient.

Yud-Gimmel) It is only forbidden if it is cooked by fire, yet even though salting and marinating are akin to heating and coking, they are Permitted (not Bishul Akum). Therefor, meat or small fish, that is marinated by an Akum or salted [by an Akum] until it’s fit for consumption, is permitted even if [it is then] cooked afterwards [by an Akum].
Note: Because marinating it makes it edible even if it is raw. Bishul Akum only applies to that which can not be eaten raw.

Shakh: Zayin)
Note: The different Deot on the topic of a “shifkhah” (maidservant) will explain what some Poskim allowed her Bishul and some did not. One of the more important things to understand about this topic of the concept of owning a shifkhah.

Note: According to the RambaN, Shfakhot are owned by the person whom she is serving. Therefor, she did not work on Shabbat. Thus, she does not have the Din of an Akum.

Note: However, the Shakh states that nowadays, our Shfakhot are not owned by the person whom she is serving. Therefore, she is allowed to work on Shabbat. Thus, she has the Din of an Akum.

Note: The second De’ah was said by the Rav Shlomo Luria (Maharashal) who said that we should not rely on the first De’ah because from his De’ah, even if our shfakhot are owned by us, they still have the Din of an Akum. Thus, we should render her Bishul as if it is Bishul Akum. This is also the De’ah of the Rashba (Teshuvot Ha-Rashba).

Note: The Maharashal and the Rashba both say that Bishul Shfakhot are forbidden even as a Bidi-eved.

Note: Shakh has a good thought on the RM”A. He said that the RM”A made a compromise – that lechatichila, we shouldn’t Bishul Shfakhot, but Bidi-eved, if she has already cooked it, then it is permitted.

Note: The Shakh has another pshat. That Bishul Shfakhot is permitted because they are working in our homes as said by the Tur who says that Rabbeinu Avraham was linient on Bishul Akum if it’s in the home of a Jew. This is what the Shulhan Arukh ment when he wrote that some are also linient on the topic of Bishul Shfakhot. Thus, the RM”A wrote that it is permissible bidi-eved. The RM”A relied heavily on the heter of R” Avraham.