Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is a Rabbinic law, based on the suspicion that a Nochri might try to feed him unkosher food.

Opinion#2: It is more understandable to explain that the reason for the decree is to prevent intermarriage, as Rashi explains in the Mishnah.

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Avraham ben Rabeinu David says that Bishul Akum is forbidden when the Nochri cooks in his house. However, if he is cooking in the house of a Jew there is neither suspicion of intermarriage, or that he will feed him unkosher things.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam did not agree with this leniency. Once the Nochri is cooking, the Chachamim did not differentiate between him being in the Jew's house or his own house. There is always suspicion in any event, as he might not be careful in the Jew's house as well, just as he is not careful when cooking in his house.

Explanation: These are things that are not eaten raw, and are not served at the table of kings.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that being that these (i.e. small fish) are the examples as opposed to honey and cheese that are served on the table of kings and are eaten raw, this implies that the Gemara is stating the latter in addition to the former in order to be lenient. In other words, even if the food is not eaten raw, if it is not served on the table of kings it does not have the prohibition of Bishul Akum.

Opinion (cont.): Rabeinu Tam therefore ruled that the law follows both of these versions (of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak in the name of Rav). If one of these conditions is present, meaning that it is either eaten raw or it is not served on the table of kings, the prohibition of Bishul Akum does not apply to it, as we always take the lenient opinion when it comes to a Rabbinic argument.

Proof: There is proof to this from the Gemara later (38b), as the Gemara says both regarding cooked oil and honey (39b), what should we suspect? If you think we should suspect Bishul Akum (this cannot be), it is eaten raw! This means that Bishul Akum does not apply because it is eaten raw, even though it is served on the table of kings!

Proof (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan later (59a) also permitted Turmus beans cooked by a Nochri to be eaten by a Jew, even though they were forbidden by Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish. Rebbi Yochanan told him, while you are still wearing your coat you should go back (to Batzra where you issued this errant ruling) and say that anything that is not served on the table of kings is not prohibited due to Bishul Akum. This is despite the fact that a Turmus bean is not eaten raw.

Explanation: The case is where a Nochri cooked them after they were salted by a Jew. They are permitted, being that even before they were cooked, they would have been eaten because they had been salted.

Text: Rav Yosef says that if they were roasted, one can rely on them for Eiruv Tavshilin. We do not have the text that his statement starts with the words, "Oved Kochavim," and we only have the text "Oved Kochavim" in the following text, "And if an Oved Kochavim makes them a Kasa d'Harsana," as explained by Rabeinu Chananel in his commentary (see Maharsha).

Text (cont.): This makes the following comment of Rebbi Yochanan, that a salted fish and roasted egg is forbidden, understandable. He is referring to a fish salted by a Nochri, as opposed to our Gemara which is discussing a fish salted (or roasted) by a Jew.

Explanation: The Gemara continues that small salted fish are eaten raw. Rabeinu Yehudah says that salted implies that unsalted fish are forbidden. Those must be referring to slightly large fish that are sometimes served at the table of kings.

Explanation (cont.): If you do not agree that this is so, you should ask a question on the Gemara's statement that the difference between them is small fish. In other words, according to the opinion that something eaten raw is still prohibited due to Bishul Akum, it is prohibited. According to the opinion that if it is not served on the table of kings it is not prohibited, it should be permitted. However, we know that the law is like both leniencies of these opinions. If so, why did Rav bother to say the fish were salted. Even if they were not salted it should be permitted! (It must be that the somewhat larger unsalted fish are sometimes served on the table of kings, and are forbidden.)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam used this as a source to permit Kenoish and Ovliesh (types of breadlike pastries) of Nochrim to those who do not abstain from Pas Akum.

Opinion (cont.): What should we suspect? We do not suspect blood from eggs, most of our eggs do not have blood. We do not suspect eggs from an unkosher bird, as they are uncommon. We do not suspect Bishul Akum, as the flour is the main part of these things, and it therefore is classified as bread (which is in the lenient category of Pas Akum). [See also Tosfos in Chulin 64a, DH "Simanin" and Tosfos in Beitzah 16b, DH "Ka Mashma Lan."]

Opinion: This implies that if he would know which grasshoppers were kosher, they would be permitted (right away, as they do not need to be slaughtered).

Proof#1: This Gemara is a proof that grasshoppers are permitted without (halachic) slaughter.

Proof#2: Another proof can be brought from the fact that the only reason that birds must be slaughtered is because they are listed between animals and fish (when the Torah discusses the kosher species). Therefore, it is impossible that they should not have to be slaughtered at all, as they are compared to animals. This indicates that if it were not for this reason (that they are stated next to animals) they are exempt because they are compared to fish.

Proof#2 (cont.): This is certainly so regarding grasshoppers who are mentioned after fish (that they should not require halachic slaughter). This is as stated in the Tosefta: "v'Chol Nefesh Chayah ha'Romeses ba'Mayim" refers to fish. "u'Lichol ha'Nefesh ha'Shoretzes Al ha'Aretz" refers to grasshoppers. This is also as the Tosefta states: A person can eat grasshoppers, whether they are alive or dead, and he does not have to worry.

Question: How is it permitted to eat live grasshoppers? Isn't there a prohibition of Bal Teshaktzu? We say in Shabbos (90b) that Rav saw Rav Kahana passing a grasshopper over his lips. Rav said to him, "Take that away, as people should not say that you ate a live grasshopper and thereby transgressed Bal Teshaktzu!"

Answer: When the Tosefta permits live grasshoppers, it means that if a person sliced off a limb of a grasshopper and washed it well, there is no transgression of Bal Teshaktzu on that limb. [See Tosfos in Chulin 66a, DH "b'Mai" and Tosfos in Shabbos 90b, DH "d'Lo."]

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says in Shabbos (74b) that someone who puts pegs into an oven on Shabbos is liable for cooking on Shabbos. (Rabeinu Chananel here explains that they used to put wooden pegs in ovens in order to make them able to be put into boats like nails. Why is this not considered cooking in our Gemara, but it is considered cooking in Shabbos?)

Answer: The Gemara in Shabbos (ibid.) is only regarding Shabbos. Even though he wants to harden the peg, he is still cooking somewhat, and intends that this slight cooking should be done. Regarding Shabbos, they were stringent to consider this cooking. However, regarding Bishul Akum, this is not considered cooking. It is only considered cooking if he intends to fully cook.

Observation: Our entire Gemara implies that the Jew must hasten the cooking (in order for it not to be considered Pas Akum).

Implied Question: There is a custom that is relied upon to throw a small twig into the fire. (How is this acceptable if it does not hasten the cooking?)

Answer: This custom relies upon one of the many differences between the people of Bavel and Eretz Yisrael (this listing can be found at the end of the Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kama). One difference stated is that the people of Bavel throw a twig into the oven, while the people of Eretz Yisrael say that doing this does nothing. We follow the people of Bavel and their Talmud.

Implied Question: One should not ask a question from this Beraisa on Chizkiyah and Bar Kapara who permit (a fish salted by a Nochri, or an egg roasted by a Nochri). (Why not?)

Answer: Bar Kapara and Chizkiyah are Tanaim, and were older than the Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi who is mentioned in this Beraisa.

Observation: The Gemara implies that this is the Halachah. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi also permitted oil. Even Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel who made a decree about oil hold this way, as I explained earlier (see Tosfos 36a, DH "Bishlama").

Implied Question: However, there is no proof from the Gemara later regarding honey that states that Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is permitted. (Why not?)

Answer: Honey is different, as unkosher meat is Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam in honey even when it is present. However, when oil is together with unkosher meat it develops a good taste, and even so in a case where the taste of the meat is Pagum, it is permitted.

Implied Question: There is also no proof from Rava who says later (68b) that the law is that Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is permitted. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because Rava is discussing a case where there is Pegam right away even when it is present, similar to the mouse in the beer discussed in that Gemara.

Answer (cont.): We also rule that vessels of Nochrim are presumed to be Aino Bnei Yoman (simply defined as not used for twenty four hours). This is apparent from the fact that we permit cooked oil and oil. We would also permit the Chiltis fruit if it would not be for the fact that its sharpness rehabilitates the unkosher taste absorbed in the knife.

Answer (cont.): Rashi, Rabeinu Tam, and the Ri say that the regular vessels of Nochrim are not considered a Ben Yomo. This is because there is a double Safek. It is unclear whether or not they were used today or tomorrow. Even if they were used today, perhaps they were used with something that caused the taste to become Pagum or with something that does not give any good taste. [See also Tosfos in Chulin 8b, DH "ha'Shochet."]