According to the ika de’amri, the prohibition of food cooked by a non-Jew was instituted because of concern regarding their daughters. Therefore, there was no reason for Bati—who was not careful regarding their daughters—to be careful about bishul akum.
According to the first version, however, the primary reason for the prohibition was to prevent excessive closeness, lest a Jew learn from their conduct. Therefore, the statement, “Remember what happened last night,” would not explain why Bati would fail to observe this prohibition.
Regarding the prohibition of food cooked by non-Jews, which is derived from our parshah—“You shall purchase food from me for money…and water,” teaching that just as water was not changed through fire, so too the food must not have been changed through fire—we find the following incident at the conclusion of Maseches Avodah Zarah.
Shapur Malka cut an esrog for Bati bar Tuvyah. He then thrust the knife into the ground and used it to cut an esrog for Rabbi Yehudah.
Bati asked the king, “Is that man not also a Jew?”
Shapur Malka answered, “Regarding the master, I know him well; regarding the master, I do not know him well.”
According to another version, he answered, “Remember what happened last night.” It was customary among the Persians to provide women for their guests, and Bati had accepted them.
Tosafos maintains that a servant who still requires a bill of emancipation, as was the case with Bati, is permitted to marry a non-Jewish woman. Rashi, however, holds that he is forbidden to do so.
According to Tosafos, it is difficult to understand why Shapur Malka mentioned, “Remember what happened last night,” since Bati was permitted to be with a non-Jewish woman.
There are also several other questions.
According to the first version, why did Shapur Malka say, “I do not know him well,” implying uncertainty as to whether Bati abstained from the prohibition? Why did he not say, as in the second version, “Remember what happened last night,” which referred to a definite event? Presumably, the two versions do not disagree about what actually occurred.
Why did Shapur Malka not thrust the knife into the ground before giving the esrog to Bati? He was going to do so for Rabbi Yehudah in any case.
According to the second version, there is another difficulty. The fact that Bati had violated one prohibition—a rabbinic prohibition, under severe temptation—would not justify giving him an additional prohibition, especially one of Torah origin.
It can be explained that the concern regarding the knife was not the prohibition of absorbed nonkosher food. It is unlikely that fruit in the king’s palace was cut with a knife that had previously been used to cut hot meat. Presumably, there was a knife designated specifically for fruit.
Rather, the concern involved bishul akum, since the knife had been used for cooked fruit.
According to the ika de’amri, the primary reason for the prohibition of bishul akum is concern regarding non-Jewish women. Therefore, there was no reason to assume that Bati, who was not careful regarding their daughters, would be careful about bishul akum.
According to the first version, however, the primary reason for the prohibition is excessive closeness, lest a Jew learn from the conduct of non-Jews. Consequently, what had occurred the previous night was not a reason to conclude that Bati would disregard this prohibition.
Shapur Malka was a king. A king must preserve his dignity and may not demean his royal honor. Had he thrust the knife into the ground for Bati, this would have been inconsistent with the honor of the king.
Rabbi Yehudah, however, was different. Shapur Malka “knew him well”: he knew that Rabbi Yehudah would under no circumstances eat the esrog and would be prepared to sacrifice himself rather than violate the prohibition. The king was therefore compelled to thrust the knife into the ground and set aside his own honor.
The lesson is that when a Jew stands firmly and resolutely in observing Torah and mitzvos, it becomes an honor for the king himself to assist him.