Is cooking by a mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia, bishul akum? The mechalel Shabbos is not an akum.
If so, how about him having used the microwave, or the toaster oven? I'm asuming that only kosher food was used, & the microwave/toaster oven were used to heat previously cooked food (eg. kosher bread with kosher cheese, or kosher frozen pre-cooked fish). I was told by a posek when this person used a pan to cook eggs, because of the material of the pan (enamel coated cast- iron) to just clean the pan & not use it for 24 hours, implying that if it were not coated, it would have to be kashered.
Any insight on this topic would be appreciated.
YWN Coffee Room » Decaffeinated Coffee » Controversial Topics
Bishul Akum?
(358 posts)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
MeemaYehudis=
the aunt mod;)?
Posted 5 months ago # -
It's a Machlokes Haposkim whether such a person's food is Bishul Akkum. Most people seem to assume that it's Assur but someone (I think the Pishchei Tshuvah) on the page of the Shulchan Aruch is the only source I have actually seen on this issue and he says it's Muttar. Because the Issur is only a Gezeirah so that you don't marry the Goy's daughter, and a Mumar's daughter is Muttar to marry, so it's okay.
Posted 5 months ago # -
we asked a rav about a non religous person cooking and were told that they can not turn the fire on themselves but if u turn it on for them u can eat anything they cook (very insulting to them cuz they know the halachos so they feel ur treating them like a guy) so for example person makes chulent in crookpot the leave the room (bf its cooked) were told to unplug and plug in our self like we cooked it
Posted 5 months ago # -
golden mom;- a goy/a guy..lol "(bf its cooked)"- who's cooked??...;p
Posted 5 months ago # -
Golden Mom - the requirement to turn on the fire, & to unplug & replug is the way to prevvent "bishul akum", ie, participating in the cooking, so, according to the Rav you asked, this situation has the same halachos as bishul akum.
As far as the person being insulted, I told the person in question straight out that he can't cook in the house because he's not Shomer Shabbos. He also knew exactly what was meant, & appreciated being given the straight goods. But, I would really like to know the status of the microwave & the toaster oven, which are really halfway between an oven & a pot.Posted 5 months ago # -
The toaster is the same as the oven. The microwave is interesting. There are opinions on every end of the spectrum by the microwave.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I thought Bishul Akum refers only to the actual food and not to the cooking utensils.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Let me add to my previous post. What is "publicly breaking shabbot"? For example even though the halacha is very clear that we go ON SHABBOT to war to defend grass in a border town so that the goyim do not get a chance to enter, I see plenty of allegedly shomer shabbot jews that would never serve in tzahal. Am I allowed to eat by them? These Jews however are dressed as if they were religious and who know that a jew without a head covering was not raised in an envirenment where shabbot was not stressed as much as it should. As a matter of fact the Ari Hakadosh who lived several hundred years ago stated no jew is a bimazid sinner.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Original thinker: Chas Veshalom to apply Rav Moshe's P'sak by Chalav to Bishul. Chalav AKU"M is a Chashash of Tarfus. Bishul AKU"M is an Issur D'rabannan.
And mods, please edit the offensive word found in the previous post, even if it was meant tongue-in-cheek.
Posted 5 months ago # -
An irrelegious Jew does NOT create Bishul Akum, because the Gezeira was to prevent intermarriage and there is no prohibition against marrying the daughter of a sinner. Sources: Tiferes l'Moshe, Pischei Teshuva, Yabia Omer, Halichos Olam, Tzitz Eliezer. There are grounds to be stringent based on the Pri Chadash, but even he only considers it a Chumra.
Posted 5 months ago # -
hello:
yes, I was waiting for someone like you to come.Ok, so I got interested in this because it sounded so bizarre, and looked up the pischei teshuva and the tiferes l'moshe and did a bar ilan search (I'd like to announce to the CR oilam that I now have bar ilan access. yay!)
Do you think the tiferes lmoshe is making it talui on which reason you hold of, in which case he would say it is then part of that machlokes? (is that a machlokes, or just redundant reasons?)
available here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49592&st=&pgnum=49Mods: let this through, it is hebrew books.
Posted 5 months ago # -
The Tiferes l'Moshe is clearly making this leniency dependent on which explanation you hold of. He writes that the Nafka Mina between chasnus and issur would be a mumar. If Bishul Akum is due to chasnus, a mumar is mutar. If it would be because of concern of treif, it would apply to the mumar as well.
The problem is that the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch clearly state that that the sole motive is chasnus. It seems that issur is only a hava amina, not even a dissenting opinion.Posted 5 months ago # -
I found that there IS an opinion that forbids the cooking of a Mechalel Shabbos. The Maharam Shick in OC 281 s.v. Amnam writes that a Mechalel Shabbos is equivalent to a Goy for Bishul Akum and Pas Akum, just like Stam Yayin.
The Darkei Teshuva also quotes others.Posted 5 months ago # -
as mentioned earlier the pischei tshuva brings the two reasons for bishul akum and the din mummar is talui on that. i did speak to a highly respectable kashrus organization (i did not request permission to publicize their name so i wont) that l'chatchila does not allow it however bdieved they do not assur the foods and equiptment.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Concerning the keilim used for bishul aku"m, it's a machlokes rishonim. Both opinions are brought in the mechaber. Most poskim seem to follow the stricter opinion (although we're lenient, as per the mechaber, in the halachos of kashering).
Concerning a mechalel Shabbos, the Chasam Sofer (Y.D. 120) says, regarding stam yaynom, that the reason his wine is assur is neither because of chasnus, nor because of avodah zarah, but rather, it's a k'nas. The same reasoning would likely apply to bishul, and according to the C.S. it would be a problem despite the fact that we hold bishul aku"m is because of chasnus.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Regarding wine R' Heinkin says in his k'savim that the reason is avodah zarah and therefore it doesn't apply nowadays.
Keilim of bishul akum: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1525&st=&pgnum=283&hilite=
Posted 5 months ago # -
I believe Rav Belsky permits it based on the tshuva of Rav Moshe (YD 1:45-46) who holds it is because of chasanus.
Posted 5 months ago # -
ilovetorah: As I mentioned, there is only the single reason of Chasunos, as per the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch. Treif is simply a Hava Amina.
Posted 5 months ago # -
DY: we don't make up our own Knas and there is no source to invent a new Knas by Bishul
Posted 5 months ago # -
hello99, i do agree that the shulchan aruch only brings the taam of chasnus, but what do you mean that the taam of issur "is only a hava amina"? its the way rashi explains the gemara (avoda zara 38a)?
Posted 5 months ago # -
hello99,
The knas is not on yayin, or on bishul, it's on the mechalel Shabbos (on the gavra) that he has the din of a goy.
Posted 5 months ago # -
חזו"א הלכות שחיטה סימן ב
אות כ"ג בסוף
ונראה דפתו ושלקו דינו כיינו, וכ״כ הפמ״ג סי׳ קי״ב סק״ב
בש״ד בשם הפר״ח, דפתו של מחלל שבת בפרהסיא אסור
אבל בפ״ת סי׳ קי״ב סק״א בשם התפל״מ כ׳ דפת מותר וזה
דלא כמש״כ בפ״ח סי׳ קי״ג סק״א.Posted 5 months ago # -
ilovetorah: You're right. But note that Tosafos argues based on the Gemara 35. All the Poskim only quote Chasnus. Anyways, risk of Issur would not be relevant with a Hechsher
Posted 5 months ago # -
dy: if you look up the original source in the Pri Chadash you will see that it is only a chumra.
Posted 5 months ago # -
DY: I still don't any source for your "new" knas. They are equating a "Kariate" with a Goy to apply the regular issur of bishul or pas Akum. I hear the logic of comparing a Mechalel Shabbos to a Kariate, but they certainly do NOT say any new knas.
Posted 5 months ago # -
hello99,
I f you could give me an exact mareh makom for the Pri Chadash, I would appreciate it. I only saw the PM"G quoting him (seems clear issur, not a chumra, so I'd kike to see the source).
The CHZ"I is referring to a mechallel Shabbos.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I was told that I am not allowed to eat my own cooking as a mechallel Shabbos.
The Wolf
Posted 5 months ago # -
I heard a psak once that you cannot serve non mevushal wine to someone who is not frum, because you are being machshil them in stam yaynam, so Wolf, your psak seems correct.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I was told that I am not allowed to eat my own cooking as a mechallel Shabbos.
And I was told that the tooth fairy will put a dollar under my pillow.
Posted 5 months ago # -
And I was told that the tooth fairy will put a dollar under my pillow.
A dollar? I only got a quarter.
Seriously, however, I heard mine as a p'sak halacha. You did not.
The Wolf
Posted 5 months ago # -
From a recognized posek or from an armchair posek-wannabe?
Posted 5 months ago # -
A dollar? I only got a quarter.
I guess I was a spoiled kid.
Seriously, however, I heard mine as a p'sak halacha. You did not.
What I'm saying is that just because someone told it to you, even as a psak halacha, doesn't mean that it's right.
Posted 5 months ago # -
First Time Caller: That's not true. It's not Stam Yeinam for themselves.
Posted 5 months ago # -
DY: The Pri Chadash is 112:2 and he writes ולענין פת של קראים יש להחמיר ולאסור פיתם דומיא דגוים שהרי הם גם כן אינם אוכלים פת שלנו
Posted 5 months ago # -
hello99,
Thanks. Do you think the term "יש להחמיר" means it just a chumra? I don't.
You also seem to limit the din to the term he uses, קראים. I don't.
I didn't make up my understanding of the PR"C; see PM"G (S"D).
Posted 5 months ago # -
DY: You are entitled to your opinion. However, it seems clear to me that there is a very significant difference between אסור and יש להחמיר.
Additionally, the Pri Megadim misquoted the Pri Chadash on two counts. He switched יש להחמיר with אסור, and he replaced the reason of “they don’t eat our bread either” (which I admittedly don’t understand) with because they are Mechalel Shabbos. The Chazon Ish apparently did not see the Pri Chadash inside and relied on the quote in Pri Megadim. From that quote, the extension from Kariates to any Mechalel Shabbos is logical. However, it IS adding to the words of the Pri Chadash; and the reason he really gave for a Kariate is presumably not relevant to a Mechalel Shabbos.
This is besides the point that most Mechalelei Shabbos are probably considered Tinok she’Nishba, and even the Chazon Ish would have agreed that there is no prohibition. They are not Mumar l’Chol HaTorah which is equivalent to a Goy.
Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, the Tiferes l’Moshe and numerous other Poskim disagree with the Pri Chadash altogether.Posted 5 months ago # -
DY: any comment?
Posted 5 months ago # -
I don't know how to relate to someone who thinks he knows how to learn a Pri Chodosh better than the PM"G. ;)
Posted 5 months ago # -
Hello99, in my original posting on this topic, the person involved is definitely NOT a tinok she'nishba, He grew up in a frum home, & went to very good yeshivos. He rejects everything. So would the Chazon Ish' still feel that there is no prohibition?
Posted 5 months ago # -
MeemaYehudis,
I think it's pretty clear that the Chazon Ish would consider it prohibited. As hello99 points out, though, there is another opinion on the matter.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Hello99,
I managed to find the Pri Chadash inside, and he says that the karaim are considered the same as mechalelei Shabbos because they are mechalel Yomim Tovim. He definitely seems to be toleh it on chillul Shabbos. I see no reason to think the Pri Megadim didn't see the same version of the Pri Chadash as we have (I don't know what to make of his statement that they don't eat our bread; it's probably a way to express that they don't have the status of Yidden).
Hello99, can I ask you a favor? Do you have a list of mareh m'komos to learn the inyan of muktzah?
Posted 5 months ago # -
MeemaYehudis: I stand by my original post."According to the majority of Poskim, an irrelegious Jew does NOT create Bishul Akum, because the Gezeira was to prevent intermarriage and there is no prohibition against marrying the daughter of a sinner. Sources: Tiferes l'Moshe, Pischei Teshuva, Yabia Omer, Halichos Olam, Tzitz Eliezer. There are grounds to be stringent based on the Pri Chadash, but even he only considers it a Chumra."
Posted 5 months ago # -
Hello99,
But wouldn't you agree, to answer her more recent question, that the CHZ"I would asser?
Posted 5 months ago # -
DY: Your are ignoring the very significant difference between אסור and יש להחמיר. The Prim Megadim changed the severity of the Pri Chadash and only quoted one of his two reasons.
I can send you nearly 150 pages of Mareh Mekomos. How should I get it to you?Posted 5 months ago # -
I found the term "יש להחמיר ולאסור" in
יורה דעה הלכות טרפות מ"ח
יורה דעה הלכות טרפות נ"ג
There are, I'm sure, many more. Are these cases merely a חומרא?
Posted 5 months ago # -
hello99- without trying to offend you, anyone who believes "yesh lehachmir" is just a chumra hasn't spent anytime learning halacha. If the poskim want to give you a "good idea to be machmir" type of psak, they say "baal nefesh yachmir", or something which tells you that me'ikar hadin theyre being meikel. "yesh lehachmir" means assur. It's the authors way of saying "I don't feel comfortable saying that you can me meikel here." Please do not misinterpet halachos as a basis for your opinion.
Posted 5 months ago # -
MoMoMB,
I basically agree with your understanding of the term, but not your comment that he hasn't spent any time learning halacha. He obviously has.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Hello99,
Could you post the basics (Gemaros, ikar Rishonim) here?
Posted 5 months ago # -
which sub-topic are you starting with? Muktza is vast!!!
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
RSS