Siman 113 — Food Cooked by Non-Jews (Bishul Akum): Kings' Tables, the Jew's Role, and Maachal Ben Drusai
The two conditions, the kings' table, chitui and maachal ben Drusai — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קי״ג
דִּינֵי בִּשּׁוּלֵי עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
The Sages forbade food cooked by a non-Jew (bishul akum) — out of fear of intermarriage (chatnut) — but only when it meets two conditions: it is not eaten raw AND it is fit for a kings' table (oleh al shulchan melachim). The Jew's participation in the cooking (lighting the fire, stirring the coals, placing, stirring) removes the prohibition; it is enough that the Jew brought it to maachal ben Drusai (a third of cooking); and salting, smoking and pickling do not count as "cooking" — Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 113 — 16 seifim.
Subject: The laws of food cooked by non-Jews (bishul akum) Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קי״ג
Editing: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The Mehaber's text: the 16 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why this siman follows 112 (the non-Jews' bread)
3.The key concepts: oleh al shulchan melachim, ikar, chitui, maachal ben Drusai…
4.The two conditions: the "forbidden / permitted" table
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
Siman 113 directly continues the decrees on אכילת עכו"ם (the foods of non-Jews). After Siman 112 (the bread of non-Jews / פת), the Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) deals here with cooking by a non-Jew (בישולי עכו"ם). The decree rests on two conditions and on a liberating principle: the Jew's participation. The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) for Ashkenazi practice — notably the leniency on roasted legumes and the help of lighting / chitui. Let us discover the seifim by groups.
Group A — The two conditions, the mixture, the fat (seifim 1-3)
A thing that is not eaten as it is, raw (eino ne'echal kemo shehu chai), and that also rises to the kings' table (oleh al shulchan melachim) to accompany bread or as a delicacy (parperet), which a non-Jew cooked — even in a Jew's vessel and in a Jew's house — is forbidden on account of bishul akum.
The central idea:two conditions are needed for the decree to apply. (a) The food must not be edible raw; what is eaten raw (a fruit, a vegetable) is never affected, even when cooked by a non-Jew. (b) It must be fit for a kings' table — a dish one would serve to distinguished guests. The decree targets intermarriage (chatnut): the fear that, by sharing the non-Jew's cooked dishes, one comes to bond — and that he ends up serving forbidden foods. That is why it applies even in a Jew's vessel and house.
One mixed a thing eaten raw with a thing not eaten raw and a non-Jew cooked them: if the essential part (ikar) is of the thing subject to bishul akum → forbidden; if not → permitted. Rama's gloss: it is permitted to eat roasted peas (afunim keluyim) of a non-Jew, and likewise the legumes called ervshin (chickpeas) roasted, since they do not rise to the kings' table; such is the lenient practice — except where it is customary to grease the pan with fat (chelev), where one is strict. And no concern for the non-Jews' vessels (assumed not "bnei yoman"). And any fruit eaten raw, even if the non-Jew cooked it and it melted into a dish, is permitted — hence one eats the povidla (plum jam) that non-Jews make.
The pivot of the seif: in a mixture, we follow the essential (ikar). If the food subject to the decree is dominant → forbidden; if secondary → permitted. The Rama draws two practical leniencies: roasted legumes (not "kings' table") and any fruit (edible raw, hence never bishul akum), even turned into jam.
A panada (stuffed pastry) cooked by a non-Jew is forbidden even for one who is lenient about non-Jews' bread, because fat is forbidden when it is in substance (be'ein) on account of bishul akum and soaks into the dough. Likewise, vegetables eaten raw cooked with meat are forbidden, because the meat's fat soaks into them.
שומן בעין — "fat in substance": animal fat (meat, poultry) that is not "melted and already cooked" but present as such counts as a food subject to the decree. Soaked into the dough (panada) or into vegetables, it is not nullified in the majority — it renders the whole forbidden.
Group B — The maidservants, the unintentional, the participation (seifim 4-6)
One opinion permits [the cooking] of our maidservants (shefachot shelanu), and one opinion forbids even be-diavad (after the fact). Rama's gloss: be-diavad, one relies on the lenient ones, and even lechatchila (a priori) the practice is lenient in a Jew's house, where maidservants and servants cook in the Jew's house — because it is impossible that one of the household will not stir a little (yechateh).
The basis of the Rama's leniency: in a Jewish home, the cooking is never purely "the non-Jew's." Someone in the family inevitably intervenes a little — he stirs the coals, he stirs the pot. And as we will see in seif 6, the slightest participation by the Jew suffices. That is why the practice is lenient even a priori.
Seif 5 — Without intent to cook (lo nitkaven le-vishul)
A non-Jew who cooked without intent to cook → permitted. How so? A non-Jew who lit a fire in a marsh to clear the grass, and locusts (chagavim) cooked in it → they are permitted, even where they rise to the kings' table; likewise if he singed a head to remove the hair, it is permitted to eat the ear-tips that roast during the singeing. But if he aimed at cooking — e.g. he heated the oven to bake in it and there was meat inside that roasted, even though he did not aim at that meat (he was unaware of it) → forbidden.
The decisive distinction: intent. The decree strikes only intended cooking. A wholly incidental cooking (the marsh fire, the singeing) creates no bonding. By contrast, once the non-Jew aimed to cook — even if not that specific food — the prohibition applies.
Seif 6 — Any participation by the Jew (bishulei yisrael me'at)
Whatever a Jew cooked a little, whether at the beginning or at the end, is permitted. Therefore, if a non-Jew placed meat or a pot on the fire and a Jew turned the meat or stirred the pot (hegis), or the Jew stirred and the non-Jew finished → it is permitted. Rama's gloss: and even if it would not have cooked without the non-Jew's help (afilu lo haya mitbashel belo siyua ha-ovedei kochavim).
Here is the great liberating principle of the siman: the Jew's cooking, however minimal, removes the prohibition. Turning the meat, stirring the pot, at the beginning or the end — a single gesture suffices. And the Rama adds (per the practice) that this holds even if the non-Jew's part was indispensable to the cooking: what matters is that the Jew took part in the act.
Group C — Lighting, stirring coals, removing-replacing, maachal ben Drusai (seifim 7-11)
The lighting of the oven (shegira) helps only for bread; but for other cooked foods, neither lighting the oven nor lighting the fire changes anything — only the placing (hanacha) [by the Jew] counts. Therefore, one who wishes to cook in a pan in a non-Jew's oven must have the Jew place the pan in the oven in a spot fit for cooking. Rama's gloss:some disagree: lighting the fire or stirring the coals (chitui) helps for cooking as for bread; such is the practice. And even a chitui without intent helps. And some say that even if the Jew neither stirred the coals nor threw in a chip, but the non-Jew lit his fire from a Jew's fire → permitted.
The siman's great dispute. For the Mehaber (Sephardic practice), lighting suffices only for bread; for a cooked dish, the Jew must place (hanacha) the food on the fire. For the Rama (Ashkenazi practice), lighting or stirring the coals (chitui) suffices — as for bread — even without intent, and even when the non-Jew lights his fire from the Jew's. It is the direct application of seif 6: participation, here via the fire, suffices.
If a Jew placed a pot on the fire and removed it, and a non-Jew came and put it back → forbidden, unless it had reached maachal ben Drusai (a third of its cooking) when he removed it.
The liberating threshold is maachal ben Drusai: once a food is cooked a third by the Jew, it is already edible ("at a pinch") and no longer under the decree — the non-Jew may put it back and finish it. Below that third, however, it is the non-Jew who truly "cooks" → forbidden.
Seif 9 — The non-Jew cooks to maachal ben Drusai and the Jew finishes
If a non-Jew cooked to maachal ben Drusai and a Jew finished → there is reason to forbid, unless it is Shabbat eve / Yom Tov eve or a case of great loss (hefsed merubeh). Rama's gloss:some permit in all cases — and such is the practice.
This is the inverse of seif 8: here, the non-Jew starts (up to a third) and the Jew finishes. The Mehaber is strict (leniency limited to pressing cases); the Rama, following the practice, permits in all cases, since the Jew's finishing is a true "Jew's cooking" (cf. seif 6).
A Jew placed [meat] on dying coals (gechalim omemot) unfit to cook to maachal ben Drusai, and a non-Jew came, turned it over and it cooked → forbidden.
The Jew's placing on coals unable to bring it to a third of cooking does not count as a real "Jew's cooking." The actual cooking is due to the non-Jew's turning on a fire that became effective again → the food is forbidden. The Jew's participation must be real, not symbolic.
A Jew placed [food] on the fire and left a non-Jew to watch it; the non-Jew turned it, and it is unknown whether he removed it before it reached maachal ben Drusai → permitted, because a doubt over a rabbinic law is resolved leniently (safek divreihem lehakel). And likewise any doubt of bishul akum and the like → permitted.
Bishul akum is a rabbinic prohibition (de-rabbanan). Therefore, as with any de-rabbanan, a doubt is resolved leniently (safek divreihem lehakel). We will meet this logic again in seif 16: the prohibition "has no root in the Torah."
Group D — Salting, smoking, pickling; egg, dates, vessels (seifim 12-16)
Seif 12 — Salted fish; edible raw "with difficulty"
Small fish salted by a Jew or a non-Jew are like partially cooked; if a non-Jew later roasted them → permitted. But large salted fish are edible only with difficulty (al yedei ha-dechak); if a non-Jew roasted them → forbidden; some permit. Rama's gloss: likewise, anything edible raw with difficulty that a non-Jew cooked = like large fish. And salted meat, which is not eaten raw at all → forbidden if cooked by a non-Jew.
Salting small fish makes them already "a bit cooked": the non-Jew's later cooking thus no longer creates the prohibition. But what is edible raw only with difficulty (large fish, salted meat) remains, in practice, "not edible raw" per seif 1 → if the non-Jew cooks it, it is forbidden (with a lenient opinion).
A fish salted by a non-Jew, and smoked fruits made edible → permitted, because salted is not like boiling (maliach eino kerote'ach) in this decree, and smoked is not like cooked (me'ushan eino kim'vushal). Rama's gloss: likewise, pickled (kavush) is not like cooked, for they forbade only cooking by fire (bishul al yedei ha-ur).
Three processes are NOT "cooking" for the decree:salting (melicha), smoking (ishun) and pickling (kavush, Rama). The decree targets only cooking by fire (bishul al yedei ha-ur). A food made edible by one of these three, even by a non-Jew, is permitted.
An egg, though it is fit to be swallowed raw, if a non-Jew cooked it → forbidden.
Why? Swallowing a raw egg is not true "eating": it is al yedei dochak (with difficulty / distaste). The egg is thus held to be not edible raw per seif 1; cooked by a non-Jew, it falls under the decree. The same reasoning applies to the bitter dates of the next seif.
Slightly bitter dates that are eaten only with difficulty (al yedei ha-dechak), if a non-Jew cooked them → forbidden.
A confirmation of the seif 1 criterion: what is eaten raw only with difficulty is held to be "not edible raw." Sweet dates (edible as is) would never be affected; but bitter dates — yes — fall under the decree if a non-Jew cooks them.
Vessels in which a non-Jew cooked before us things subject to bishul akum require koshering (hechsher); some say they do not require it; and per those who require it, if it is an earthenware vessel (keli cheres), three hag'alot suffice, since this prohibition has no root in the Torah. Rama's gloss: a non-Jew who cooked for a sick person on Shabbat → permitted after Shabbat even for a healthy person, and there is no bishul akum, because in such a case there is a heker (an evident distinguishing feature).
Two teachings. (a) Vessels that served the non-Jew in principle require koshering (hag'ala) — but since the prohibition is rabbinic, even earthenware (which the Torah would deem unkasherable) is content with three hag'alot. (b) Cooking for a sick person on Shabbat is not bishul akum: there is an obvious heker (one knows why this non-Jew cooked) — hence no fear of bonding.
2. Context — where this siman stands
Simanim 112 and 113 form a pair. Siman 112 dealt with the bread of non-Jews (pat akum); Siman 113 deals with their cooking (bishul akum). Both stem from a single decree of the Sages against intermarriage (chatnut) with the nations — the fear that, by sharing their table, one comes to friendship, up to marriages, and ends up consuming forbidden foods.
The siman's great questions
Question
Where?
Typical answer
The two conditions of the decree
Seif 1
Not edible raw AND fit for a kings' table
The mixture and the fat in substance
Seifim 2-3
Follow the essential (ikar); shuman be'ein is not nullified
The intent and the participation
Seifim 4-6
Incidental cooking permitted; any help by the Jew permits
Lighting / stirring coals; maachal ben Drusai
Seifim 7-11
chitui (Rama) or hanacha (Mehaber); a third of cooking
Salting, smoking, pickling; vessels
Seifim 12-16
Not "cooking"; rabbinic prohibition (hag'ala)
The cross-cutting idea: everything hinges on the decree's reason — chatnut. Where there is no real "non-Jew's dish served at the table" (not edible raw, kings' table, cooking by fire, without the Jew's hand), there is no prohibition. The moment one of these factors is missing, the food is permitted.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 113, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing what falls under the decree and what removes it.
בישולי עכו"ם — Cooking by non-Jews: a rabbinic prohibition on food cooked by a non-Jew, out of fear of chatnut (bonding). It applies only to foods meeting the two conditions of seif 1.
עולה על שלחן מלכים — "that rises to the kings' table": the second condition. The food must be noble enough to be served to distinguished guests. Ordinary fare (roasted legumes, etc.) is not affected.
עיקר — The essential: in a mixture of edible-raw and not-edible-raw (seif 2), we follow the dominant component. If the food subject to the decree is the essential → forbidden; if not → permitted.
בישולי ישראל מעט — The Jew's participation: the liberating principle (seif 6). The slightest cooking by the Jew — at the beginning or the end, stirring or stoking — removes the prohibition, even if the non-Jew did the bulk of the work.
חיתוי / הנחה — Stirring the coals / placing: the heart of the dispute (seif 7). For the Mehaber, only the placing (hanacha) by the Jew helps for a cooked dish; for the Rama, stirring the coals (chitui) or lighting the fire suffices, as for bread.
מאכל בן דרוסאי — Maachal ben Drusai: the threshold of one third of cooking (per several views), from which a food is held edible "at a pinch." If the Jew brought it there, the non-Jew may finish (seifim 8-11).
Two structuring principles:ספק דבריהם להקל — since bishul akum is a rabbinic prohibition, any doubt is resolved leniently (seif 11); and מליחה / עישון / כבוש ≠ בישול — salting, smoking and pickling are not "cooking," for they forbade only cooking by fire (seif 13).
4. The two conditions — the "forbidden / permitted" table
All of seif 1 sums up in a table. We cross is the food edible raw? with is it fit for a kings' table?, and check whether the decree applies.
Edible raw?
Kings' table?
Result (cooked by a non-Jew)
🟢 Yes (fruit, raw vegetable)
(irrelevant)
🟢 Permitted — no bishul akum
🔴 No
🟢 Yes
🔴 Forbidden — both conditions met
🔴 No
🔴 No (roasted legumes…)
🟢 Permitted — no kings' table
🟡 Raw "with difficulty" (large fish, egg, bitter dates)
🟢 Yes
🔴 Forbidden — held not edible raw
🔴 No — but salted / smoked / pickled
—
🟢 Permitted — not "cooking by fire"
The logic in one sentence: the decree strikes only a food meeting both conditions — not edible raw AND fit for a kings' table — and cooked by fire, by the non-Jew alone, intentionally. If even one of these factors is missing, the food is permitted.
The Rama's point (seif 2):roasted legumes and fruits (even as jam) remain permitted — the former because they do not rise to the kings' table, the latter because they are edible raw. It is the direct application of the two conditions.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aruch is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the reference nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berurah here, which comments only on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). It is the reference commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth.
The Taz (ט״ז) — abbreviation of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach.
The Taz explains the basis of the two conditions from the decree's reason: chatnut (bonding, up to marriage). A dish that does not rise to the kings' table is too ordinary for one to invite a friend over it — hence there is, through it, no closeness of minds (keruv ha-da'at). That is why the "kings' table" is a condition: without the dish's nobility, there is no conviviality, hence no decree.
The Shach raises a foundational question: is it required, in addition to the two conditions, that the food have been changed by fire (nishtanah al yedei ha-ur)? According to the Rambam and the Tur, it suffices that it be not edible raw and fit for a kings' table; according to other Rishonim (Rashi, Ran, Rif in one reading), a real change by fire is also required. The Shach further notes (s.k. 2) that organs like קרביים or כמהין ופטריות (mushrooms), held to be parperaot, fall under the decree.
We see the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they explain the mechanism (the chatnut reason, the "change by fire" condition) and delimit the cases. This is exactly what is deepened at the Lamdan level, with the Rishonim's dispute over the very definition of the forbidden "cooking."
6. The Rama's gloss (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses reflecting Ashkenazi practice and refining the application. Here are his most notable interventions in our siman.
On seif 2 — roasted legumes and jam
Rama's gloss: ומותר לאכול אפונים קלויים של עובד כוכבים… מפני שאינם עולים על שלחן מלכים — "it is permitted to eat roasted peas of a non-Jew… for they do not rise to the kings' table"; likewise any fruit (edible raw), hence the custom of eating the povidla (jam). The Rama thus draws from seif 1 concrete, everyday leniencies.
On seif 4 — the maidservants' cooking
Rama's gloss: ובדיעבד סומכין על המקילין, ואפילו לכתחילה נהגו להקל בבית ישראל… מפני שאי אפשר שלא יחתה אחד מבני הבית מעט — "be-diavad one relies on the lenient ones, and even lechatchila the practice is lenient in a Jew's house… for it is impossible that one of the household will not stir a little." The leniency thus rests on the effective participation (seif 6).
On seif 7 — chitui: stirring suffices (the practice)
Rama's gloss: ויש חולקין… דהדלקת האש או החיתוי בגחלים מועיל לבישול כמו לפת, וכן נוהגין; ואפילו חיתוי בלא כוונה מועיל — "some disagree: lighting the fire or stirring the coals helps for cooking as for bread, and such is the practice; and even a chitui without intent helps." This is the great practical Ashkenazi point, against the Mehaber's requirement of hanacha.
On seifim 9, 12-13, 16 — maachal ben Drusai, large fish, pickling, the sick
The Rama further specifies: one permits in all cases the Jew finishing after the non-Jew's maachal ben Drusai (seif 9, וכן נוהגין); whatever is edible raw with difficulty is like large fish, and salted meat is forbidden (seif 12); the pickled (kavush) is not "cooked" (seif 13); and cooking for a sick person on Shabbat is permitted afterward, since there is a heker (seif 16).
The Rama carefully distinguishes the basic law (the Mehaber — requiring hanacha) from Ashkenazi practice (chitui / lighting suffice, one permits finishing after maachal ben Drusai) — while keeping targeted points of stringency (the pan greased with fat, salted meat).
Everything rests on the nature of the Jew's act. Several gestures are at play, and the two schools weigh them differently:
hanacha (placing the food on the fire): suffices for all, Mehaber and Rama alike.
hagasa / hipuch (stirring, turning): suffices for all (seif 6), at the beginning or the end.
shegira / hadlaka (lighting the oven / fire): for the Mehaber, helps only for bread; for the Rama, also for a cooked dish.
chitui (stirring the coals): for the Rama, suffices — even without intent.
Jew's gesture
Mehaber (Sephardic)
Rama (Ashkenazi)
hanacha — placing on the fire
🟢 Suffices
🟢 Suffices
stirring / turning (seif 6)
🟢 Suffices
🟢 Suffices
shegira / hadlaka — lighting (for a dish)
🔴 Does not help
🟢 Suffices
chitui — stirring the coals
🔴 Does not help (alone)
🟢 Suffices, even without intent
The non-Jew lights from a Jew's fire
🔴 Does not suffice
🟡 Permitted (yesh omrim)
And seif 6 adds the concluding point: the Jew's participation holds even if it would not have cooked without the non-Jew's help. What matters is not that the Jew "did everything," but that he took part in the act of cooking — which suffices to dispel the decree's reason.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens and businesses today? Here are four common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — A certified restaurant where the mashgiach lights the fire
In a kosher restaurant, the cook may be a non-Jew. To remove bishul akum, the mashgiach (Jewish supervisor) intervenes — this is the direct modern application of seifim 6-7. Per Ashkenazi practice (Rama), it suffices that the mashgiach lights the fire or stirs the coals (chitui). Per Sephardic practice (Maran), one rather requires that the Jew place the food on the fire (hanacha) — or, per several, that he light it. For the practical halacha, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Industrial prepared meals and canned goods
A factory-prepared dish (cooked vegetables, fish, a stew) raises the question of seif 1: is the food edible raw and fit for a kings' table? Legumes or a canned fruit are hardly a problem (seif 2); a noble cooked dish is — hence the importance of Jewish intervention in the cooking within the certified chain. For the practical halacha, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — Cooked eggs, coffee and tea
An egg cooked by a non-Jew is forbidden (seif 14), even though it is "swallowable" raw. Coffee and tea are debated among the poskim: are they "kings' table"? Boiled water is often treated separately (water is drunk as is). These nuances belong to the contemporary decisors. For the practical halacha, consult your Rav.
Case 4 — Smoked fish, pickled salmon, salt-cured goods
A fish salted, smoked or pickled by a non-Jew is not under the decree (seif 13): these processes are not "cooking by fire." Smoked salmon or pickled herring therefore escape, in principle, bishul akum — subject, of course, to the kashrut of the product itself. For the practical halacha, consult your Rav.
The thread of the four cases: before ruling, ask yourself three questions — does the food meet the two conditions? did a Jew take part in the cooking (place/light/stir coals/stir)? is it truly "cooking by fire," or salting/smoking/pickling? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details and your community's practice.
9. Synthesis of Siman 113
The essence of Siman 113 in a few sentences:
The decree of bishul akum strikes only a food not edible raw AND fit for a kings' table (seif 1) — reason: chatnut.
In a mixture, we follow the essential (seif 2); fat in substance (shuman be'ein) is not nullified (seif 3).
Cooking without intent is permitted (seif 5); the slightest participation by the Jew removes the prohibition (seif 6).
For a dish, the Mehaber requires hanacha; the Rama permits via chitui / lighting (seif 7).
The liberating threshold is maachal ben Drusai (a third); a doubt of bishul akum is permitted (seifim 8-11).
Salting, smoking, pickling are not "cooking" (seif 13); but the egg and bitter dates are forbidden (seifim 14-15).
Vessels require koshering (earthenware: 3 hag'alot), since the prohibition is rabbinic; cooking for a sick person on Shabbat is permitted (heker) — seif 16.
Memory table
Situation
Status
Edible raw (fruit, vegetable) cooked by a non-Jew
🟢 Permitted (a condition is missing)
Not edible raw + kings' table, non-Jew alone
🔴 Forbidden (bishul akum)
The Jew placed / lit / stirred coals / stirred
🟢 Permitted (the Jew's participation)
Jew up to maachal ben Drusai, the non-Jew finishes
🟢 Permitted (a third suffices)
Egg / bitter dates cooked by a non-Jew
🔴 Forbidden (raw "with difficulty")
Fish salted / smoked / pickled by a non-Jew
🟢 Permitted (not "cooking by fire")
Doubt of bishul akum
🟢 Permitted (safek divreihem lehakel)
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What are the two conditions of seif 1? What is the reason for the decree?
In a mixture (seif 2), how does one rule? Why are אפונים קלויים permitted?
What is שומן בעין? Why is the פנאד"ה forbidden (seif 3)?
What is the rule of cooking without intent (seif 5)? Give the two examples.
Explain בישולי ישראל מעט (seif 6). What does the Rama's gloss change?
What is the dispute of seif 7? Distinguish הנחה (Mehaber) and חיתוי (Rama).
What is מאכל בן דרוסאי? Compare seifim 8 and 9.
Why is a doubt of bishul akum permitted (seif 11)?
Why are מליחה / עישון / כבוש not "cooking" (seif 13)? And the egg (seif 14)?
What do the Taz (s.k. 1, on chatnut) and the Shach (s.k. 1, on nishtanah al yedei ha-ur) say?
To go further
If you wish to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the chatnut reason and the "kings' table" condition, the yesod of hanacha vs chitui, the Rishonim's dispute on the "change by fire," anchored in the sugyot of Avoda Zara
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (two conditions, the Jew's participation Mehaber / Rama), the golden rules, and quick memorization of the 16 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halacha lema'asse: practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pitchei Teshuva) and Sephardic and Ashkenazi poskim on concrete cases
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: