“Question:
Is there an issue of bishul akum with parboiled rice [that has been parboiled by a non-Jewish company]?
Discussion:
Let us first discuss the basic principles of bishul akum:
Bishul akum is the rabbinic prohibition to eat a food item that has been cooked by a non-Jew. Bishul akum was only decreed on foods that meet the following two criteria: the food is inedible while raw, and the food is “oleh al shulchan melochim” literally “served at a royal banquet” (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah Siman 113 se’if 1). The exact definition of “served at a royal banquet” is subject to much discussion among the Poskim; some understand this definition literally, and some understand it to mean a food dish that is served at a respectable and formal meal.
Rice is certainly subject to bishul akum because it cannot be eaten raw and it is a food item that is classified as “oleh al shulchan melochom” (according to all definitions).
We now need to discuss the process of parboiling:
Parboiling is the partial cooking of food, often involving soaking and steaming, and in regards to rice is often done for various nutritional and/or cooking benefits. Parboiling does not render the rice edible, and the rice will still need further cooking to render it edible and fit for consumption.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah Siman 113 se’if 9) discusses a situation where a food item was cooked by a non-Jew until the stage of ma’chal ben derusai and the rest of the cooking process was performed by a Jew. (We find differing opinions in the Rishonim if ma’chal ben derusai is semi-cooked or a third cooked.) The Shulchan Aruch assumes a stringent position, and rules that the food is prohibited to be eaten because of bishul akum. I.e. since food cooked to the stage of ma’chal ben derusai it is technically rendered edible and therefore the food is forbidden because of bishul akum. The Shulchan Aruch does make an exception if this occurs on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov (which are extenuating circumstances) or involves major financial loss and permits the food to be eaten. The Remo (ibid) rules leniently in all situations, and concludes that the minhag is to be lenient.
[The Taz (s.k. 10) explains that ma’chal ben derusai is only considered “cooked” when this will result in a leniency; but is not considered “cooked” if this will result in a stringency. Therefore, over here by bishul akum we do not consider ma’chal ben derusai “cooked” as this will result in a stringency, and consequently if a Jew finishes off the cooking process the food is permitted to be eaten.
The Shach (s.k. 14) writes that the consensus of the Poskim is to rule according to the Remo.]
Returning to our situation of parboiled rice: The Remo will certainly rule leniently in this case, because even if food was cooked to the stage of ma’chal ben derusai by a non-Jew and a Jew finishes off the cooking process the Remo rules that there is no problem of bishul akum. And it is safe to assume that the Shulchan Aruch will also rule leniently, because parboiling rice does not render the rice edible, and therefore the process of parboiling has less significance than cooking a food to the stage of ma’chal ben derusai. The Shulchan Aruch only ruled that if a food was cooked to the stage of ma’chal ben derusai by a non-Jew then it is forbidden because of bishul akum; but if the non-Jew only cooked the food to a stage less than ma’chal ben derusai we have no reason to prohibit it even according to the Shulchan Aruch.
Conclusion:
Parboiled rice that has been parboiled by a non-Jewish company does not pose a problem of bishul akum and may be eaten by both Sephardim and Ashkenazim.