5. Question:Does the leniency of residual heat said by pas akum also apply to bishul akum? Introduction: Let us begin by defining a few terms: Pas Akum is the Rabbinical prohibition pertaining to bread baked by non-Jews (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah Siman 112 Se’if 1). If a Jew participated in the baking process, either by lighting the fire used to bake the bread, or by placing the dough into the oven, or by adjusting the fire, or even by adding some fuel to the fire used to bake with, this participation suffices to permit the bread, and it will not be classified pas akum (Shulchan Aruch ibid Se’if 9). Bishul akum is the issur d’rabonon pertaining to a food item (other than bread) 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 Remo (Yoreh De’ah Siman 112 Se’if 10) quotes the leniency of the Issur v’Heter in the context of pas akum and writes that as long as the oven did not have a 24-hour period that it was not in use, [all the bread baked in the oven] is permitted even several days later. It is clear from the Remo in his sefer Toras Chatos (Klal 75, Se’if 6) that this leniency of residual heat applies irrespective of residual coals remaining from a previous use of the oven. From the Issur v’Heter who is the source of the Remo, we see that this leniency is dependent on the residual heat actually “assisting” in the current baking. It is also clear from the Issur v’Heter that this leniency was said in an ex post facto situation specifically. However, regarding applying the leniency of residual heat to bishul akum, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvos v’Hanhogos volume 3, Siman 347) writes in the name of “Gedolei Hora’ah” that the Remo specifically mentioned the leniencies of lighting or stoking the fire to permit bishul akum, and did not mention the leniency of residual heat. This is because the leniency of residual heat was only ever said in the context of pas akum, which is a less severe prohibition than bishul akum. Therefore, regarding bishul akum residual heat is not considered acceptable participation even according to the Remo. Conclusion: Regarding applying the leniency of residual heat that is said in the context of pas akum to bishul akum, Rav Moshe Shternbuch writes in the name of “Gedolei Hora’ah” that it is not possible to extrapolate from pas akum to bishul akum, because pas akum is a less severe prohibition than bishul akum. Therefore, regarding bishul akum residual heat is not considered acceptable participation even according to the Remo, and even ex post facto the food will be classified bishul akum. |
Bishul Akum
Leave a Reply