Thought for the Day: It Always Pays to Clarify/Why Beer is Not Subject to the Restriction of Bishul Akum

I received this text message one evening: "gate of parking lot is tied up" (some poetic license; some names have been changed to protect the innocent). For most people, I presume that is a quite innocuous and informative message. For me, though, it launched a train of thought that brought me to this dead end: Does that mean the gate is tied into the up position -- and therefore the way is clear to park, or does it mean that the gate has been tied up so that it cannot be opened -- and therefore I need to seek a different venue for my car in the morning. More succinctly -- tied up (and out of the way), or tied up (and immovable)? So I replied: Tied up open or closed?

While not everyone applies this kind of critical analysis to all life situations, it is certainly valuable in analyzing and appreciating statements by our sages throughout history. Take, for example, Tosofos at the bottom of Avoda Zara 31b(dh v'tarveihu mishum chasunos) that discusses why beer -- שֵׁכָר --  is not subject to the restrictions of bishul akum. It should be noted that the term שֵׁכָר, when used by Chazal can mean either date or barley beer. Regarding bishul akum, only the barley beer would be a potential issue. That is because dates can be eaten raw. Even with barley beer, though, there might be no issue (as Tosofos says in their first answer), because beer is not served at royal/state dinners.

On the other hand, as Tosafos themselves note, there certainly are places where barley beer is a significant drink that indeed is served at state dinners. What sayest thou? Tosafos answers: the problem is that barley is a "sensitive" ingredient with respect to bishul akum. However, the barley is subordinate to the water, as evidenced by the fact that the bracha on beer is sh'ha'kol. Since the barley is subordinate to the water, it need not be considered as an ingredient regarding the issue of bishul akum.

Let's take a moment with that last answer. Tosafos is saying: if an ingredient is subordinate -- not nullified, but simply subordinate -- then we can ignore it as a kosher sensitive ingredient. So... if I roast my broccoli with lard instead of olive oil -- in which case the bracha is still ha'adama -- then the brocolli is kosher? That can't possibly be true. Moreover, we know that even the bracha on beer is sh'ha'kol, it still chameitz!

Therefore we are going to need a bit more work to understand Tosafos. Namely, this is a case where we need to look at the reason that Chazal instituted the prohibition of bishul akum in the first place. That is, certain foods -- those that cannot be eaten raw and have enough stature to be served at a state dinner -- will engender a feeling of closeness between people. Therefore, to prevent Jews and non-Jews from feeling too friendly with each other, Chazal banned us from eating those foods even if the only participation of the non-Jew was to prepare it. In that case, Tosafos is saying, since everyone thinks of beer as flavored water, it won't engender those feelings of friendliness; so no issue. On the other hand, lard roasted broccoli and the chameitz status of beer have nothing to do with what people think -- it has to do with how HaShem views the world. It therefore follows the usual rules of issur v'heter.

What about the gate? Fortunately that text was from a close friend who just chuckled -- since he knows how I think and could see that I was (nebbich) clearly confused. He knows that I don't ask questions unless I have an honest doubt. I got a text a few minutes later letting me know it was open. I have good and understanding friends; Chasdei HaShem!