Question
May one eat food that was cooked by a Jew who publicly desecrates Shabbos? Does such food have the status of Bishul Akum, and are there any distinctions between Lechatchilah and Bedieved?
Answer
The issue is subject to considerable debate amongst the Poskim. Practically, the widespread ruling is that Lechatchilah one should not have a public Sabbath desecrator perform the cooking or light the fire for one’s food. However, Bedieved, if such a person cooked the food, one may be lenient to eat the food and the utensils do not require koshering. Nevertheless, one who is stringent is blessed.
Explanation:
The reason behind the Issur of Bishul Akum: The Sages enacted a number of restrictions against foods prepared by gentiles, including their wine (Stam Yeinam), bread (Pas Akum), and cooked foods (Bishul Akum). Two primary reasons are given for these decrees.
- The first and most well-known reason is to prevent excessive socialization and fraternization with gentiles that may ultimately lead to intermarriage.
- The second reason, particularly relevant to Bishul Akum, is the concern that one may come to consume non-kosher food through relying on the gentile’s cooking and food preparation.
While some Poskim emphasize only the reason of chasnus (intermarriage), others record the concern of non-kosher food, and still others record both reasons. The Beis Yosef cites both considerations.
One practical ramification of these two reasons is the question of food cooked by a non-religious Jew who publicly desecrates Shabbos (Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya).
The Practical Ramification: According to the reason of intermarriage, one could argue that the decree should not apply. After all, unlike a gentile, his daughter is Jewish and permitted in marriage. Logic would therefore suggest that the original decree against fraternization with gentiles should not extend to him. According to the second reason, however, the argument is quite different. If the concern is that one may come to consume non-kosher food, then there is little difference between a gentile and a Jew who does not observe the laws of kashrus. Just as one cannot automatically rely on the kashrus standards of a gentile, so too there is reason to be concerned regarding the food prepared by a non-observant Jew.
Ruling in the Poskim: Practically, we find a major debate amongst the Poskim regarding this matter. Many Poskim rule that a Jew who publicly desecrates Shabbos has the same status as a gentile regarding Bishul Akum and related decrees. Their reasoning is twofold.
First, they rely on the concern that one may come to eat non-kosher food, a rationale explicitly mentioned by numerous Poskim and fully applicable to one who does not observe kashrus. Second, even according to the reason of intermarriage, several authorities argue that the concern is broader than simply marrying the daughter of the cook himself. The concern is that close socialization with such an individual may lead one into broader social circles, including those with whom he socializes and associates. Since many non-observant Jews freely associate with non-Jews, the concern of relationships and eventual intermarriage remains relevant. Furthermore, some Poskim maintain that once Chazal treated a public Sabbath desecrator as a gentile regarding various matters of issur veheter, that status extends to these decrees as well. Accordingly, they argue that the enactments against the bread and cooked foods of gentiles apply equally to a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya.
The Practical Ruling: Despite the substantial arguments for stringency, the widespread practical ruling is more nuanced. The accepted approach among many contemporary Poskim is to be stringent Lechatchilah, and therefore one should not initially arrange for a public Sabbath desecrator to perform the cooking. However, Bedieved, if such a person cooked the food, the food itself is permitted to be eaten. Some authorities are stringent regarding the food itself, while being lenient regarding the utensils and not requiring hagalah. Even this question is itself subject to discussion among the Poskim. The primary rationale for the lenient Bedieved ruling is that the entire issue is rabbinic in nature and exists amidst a substantial halachic dispute. Accordingly, many rabbanim rule leniently after the fact. Nevertheless, although the accepted ruling permits the food Bedieved, an individual who wishes to be stringent and partake only of Mehadrin standards may certainly choose to do so.
Does the Concept of Tinok Shenishba Change the Halacha?
Some have suggested that nowadays the entire discussion should be viewed differently because many non-observant Jews have the status of Tinok Shenishba—individuals who were raised without proper Torah education. According to this approach, perhaps even the stringent opinions would agree that the prohibitions should not apply today. However, this argument is not simple. First, the precise definition and halachic application of Tinok Shenishba is itself debated amongst the Poskim. Second, even when an individual is given the status of Tinok Shenishba, we do not automatically ignore every halachic consequence of his lack of observance. For example, a Tinok Shenishba cannot write a kosher Sefer Torah, Tefillin, or Mezuzah, nor may he tie Tzitzis on behalf of others. Thus, the concept does not automatically remove all halachic distinctions. Likewise, one can argue that the concerns underlying Bishul Akum remain unchanged. If socialization with non-Jewish society and concerns of non-kosher food were the reasons behind the decree, then the question of why the individual became non-observant may not necessarily alter the application of those concerns. Therefore, it is difficult to use Tinok Shenishba as an automatic basis for leniency in this area.
The Chabad Approach
Regarding the Chabad approach, the Alter Rebbe explicitly records in several places that one who publicly desecrates Shabbos is treated like a gentile regarding various halachic matters. This would seemingly support applying the restrictions of Bishul Akum to such individuals as well. Likewise, the Ketzos Hashulchan records, virtually verbatim from the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, that the wine, bread, and cooked foods of a public Sabbath desecrator are forbidden, indicating that Chabad authorities adopted the stringent approach in principle. It is also noteworthy that when discussing related issues, such as participation in a Minyan or the status of a public Sabbath desecrator regarding wine, we do not generally find the Rebbe relying on the argument of Tinok Shenishba to entirely remove the classical halachic concerns. Accordingly, it is difficult to build a broad leniency in the area of Bishul Akum based solely on that concept.
In conclusion, while there is substantial debate amongst the Poskim, the commonly accepted practical ruling is to be stringent initially and avoid food cooked by a public Sabbath desecrator, while nevertheless permitting the food after the fact in many situations, especially in contemporary circumstances.
The Practical Ruling
The accepted practical ruling among many contemporary rabbinic authorities is:
- Lechatchilah: One should avoid having a public Sabbath desecrator cook the food or light the fire for the cooking.
- Bedieved: If he did cook the food, the food may be eaten.
- The utensils do not require koshering.
Sources
Pischei Teshuvah Y.D. 112:1 and 13; Darkei Teshuvah 112:5; 113:15; MMinchas Elazar 1:74; Hakashrus p. 446; Pesakim Uteshuvos 112:2; 113:2; Hearos Ubiurim 1141 p. 51
See regarding the general Issur of Bishul Akum: Michaber Y.D. 113:1; Avoda Zara 35b-38a
See regarding the reason for the Issur of Bishul Akum: Beis Yosef 113; Chasnus – Intermarriage: Michaber 112:1 regarding Pas Akum; Tur 112:1; Rambam Machalos Assuros 17:9; Rashi Avoda Zara 35b; Tosafus Avoda Zara ibid; Taz 113:1; Lechem Hapanim 113:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 113:1; Non-Kosher food: Rashi Avoda Zara 38a; Or Zarua Avoda Zara 191; Hagahos Ashri 2:28 in name of Rashbam; See Pirush Hamishnayos of Rambam on Mishenh Avoda Zara 35
See regarding the general labeling of who desecrates Shabbos in public as a gentile for many Halachic matters: Admur O.C. 39:1 “He is like a gentile for all matters”; Admur 128:52 in parentheses; Admur Y.D. 2:10 “He is a like a gentile regarding Shechita and for the entire Torah, except for Kiddushin”; Michaber Yoreh Deah 2:5 “He is like a gentile”; Rashba 7:53;
Poskim who rule that Issur Bishul Akum applies to a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya: Tiferes Lemoshe 113:9, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 113:1, regarding Bishul Akum [however not Pas Akum]; Erech Hashulchan 112:2; Peri Chadash 113:2 regaridng pas Karaim; P”M 112 S.D. 2; O.C. 325 A”A 22; Tuv Taam Vadas Telisa 2:16; Levushei Mordechai 1 E.H. 18; Chidushei Chasam Sofer 113:3; Kitzur SHU”A 72:2; Maharsham 2:262; Maharam Shick O.C. 281; Mahariy Asad Y.D. 31; Shevilei David 113:1; Avnei Nezer Y.D. 92; Ketzos Hashulchan 101:5“Anyone who publicly desecrates Shabbos is considered like an idle worshiper and [thus] if he touches wine he forbids it, and the bread which he bakes is like Pas Akum, as well as the food which he cooks is like Bishul Akum.”; Kaf Hachaim 112:11; 113:1; Minchas Yitzchak 3:73; Chazon Ish Y.D. 2:23; Koveitz Teshuvos 3:115; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:470; Pesakim Uteshuvos 112:2; 113:2
Poskim who rule that Issur Bishul Akum does Not apply to a Mechalel Shabbos BeFarhesya and applies only to Gentiles: Mahariy Ashkenazi Y.D. 16; Or Hachaim in Sefer Chafetz Hashem Chullin 4b; Semak 219; Erech Shaiy 112; Kaf Hachaim 113:1 that the matter is a dispute based on the reasons [Vetzaruch Iyun as that is not what he wrote in 112:11] Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:45 and 46 leaves in Tzaruch Iyun Gadol; Yabia Omer 5 Y.D. 10; Tzitz Eliezer 9:41;
Practical ruling to be stringent Lechatchilah but lenient Bedieved: Kaf Hachaim 113:1; Yabia Omer ibid; Shut hashluchim 54:4; Nitei Gavriel in Eileh Maseiy and Hearos Ubiurim 1141 p. 51; Rav Oberlander in Hearos Ubiurim 1141 p. 51; Rav Elyashiv in Ashrei Ish Y.D. 8:6 that one may be lenient in time of need such as by non-religious parents