There are two basic exemptions from the rabbinic prohibition of bishul akum:[2] (1) when the food is edible uncooked, (2) when the food is “not fit to be served on the table of kings.” In order to be considered edible while still raw, it needs to be readily suitable for eating, not just under pressing circumstances. Thus, considering the state of pancake batter, the first exemption does not apply.
The second exemption is much harder to describe. Does it simply mean that a king must consider the food befitting to him, even if it is not particularly fancy? Alternatively, “the table of kings” may refer to a certain type of very distinguished social/culinary setting. According to the latter approach, the rationale of the exemption is as follows. The reason for the prohibition is to limit the opportunities for a Jew to accept a non-Jew’s invitation for a meal since the resulting social closeness between people/families could lead to intermarriage. When people invite each other for meals, they usually serve distinguished foods.[3] Thus, forbidding such foods is sufficient to maintain the necessary social distance.
The consensus of the American rabbinate is that only distinguished foods are a problem. While the practice in Israel, based on several poskim, is somewhat more stringent, it is by no means uniform, and people may continue with the lenient approach to which they are accustomed. Although pancakes are popular, one does not serve them at fancy affairs. Thus, one has the right to assume that bishul akum does not apply to pancakes.
According to some, there is another strong reason to be lenient regarding bishul akum for pancakes. The laws of bishul akum do not apply, for almost all intents and purposes, to bread that is commercially produced.[4] Some say that pancakes are bread-related and one makes HaMotzi on them when he eats a meal that is based upon them.[5] Thus, it is possible that pancakes have the laws of bread in this regard rather than those of cooked food.[6]
The fact that the event took place in an Israeli hotel, which is likely owned by a Jew, can make a difference in some cases. There is a minority opinion, that is not fully rejected, that holds that bishul akum is not forbidden when the cooking is done in the house of the Jew.[7] Rav Ovadya Yosef[8] posits that under the following circumstances, this factor may justify leniency. In general, in circumstances where bishul akum could be a problem, one can solve the problem by having the heat source, whether an oven, stove, griddle, or the like, be lit by a Jew.[9] For Sephardic Jews, this is insufficient. Rather, the Jew must either put the food on the fire, light the fire while the food is underneath, or stir the food while it is cooking. Regarding a case where the cooking is done on Jewish premises, however, Rav Yosef justifies even a Sephardic Jew to rely on the opinion of the Rama[10] that it is sufficient for a Jew to light the fire. This is based on his claim that in a case of sefek sefeika (double doubt), a Sephardic Jew can be lenient even if each case of individual doubt was forbidden by the Shulchan Aruch.
The laws of bishul akum are such that often a situation that one would have difficulty permitting, based only on one factor, can be permitted based on a combination of factors. Therefore, one can often gain by asking about specific cases that, on the surface, might certainly seem to be forbidden.