In
last week's essay, we outlined the range of opinions regarding the
observance of the rabbinic edict forbidding the consumption of Pat Akum
(bread baked by a Nochri). We cited four primary opinions in the
Rishonim and classic Poskim regarding this edict. Some rule that this
edict fully applies with no exceptions. Other Rishonim believe that
this edict was rescinded and does not apply if one obtains the bread
from a Palter (professional baker). Compromise opinions permit Pat
Palter if no Pat Yisrael is available. A lenient modification of this
approach permits eating Pat Palter of a Nochri even if Pat Yisrael is
available, if the Pat Palter is superior to the Pat Yisrael. This week
we shall review the application of the Pat Akum edict in the modern
context and the preference to avoid Pat Palter during the Aseret Yemei
Teshuva.
Application to the Modern
Era - Four Possible Leniencies for Factory Produced Bread
Rav Moshe Feinstein (ad. loc.) notes
(in 1962) that most observant Jews adopt the lenient approach of the
Rama. A defense of this practice beyond the classic leniency of Pat
Palter appears in a ruling of Rav Moshe that is cited by Rav Nata
Greenblatt and Rav Menachem Genack in Mesorah 1:94. Rav Moshe implies
(this seems not to be a full endorsement of this practice, rather a
possible avenue of leniency; see Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 4:48) that
even those who are strict regarding Pat Palter might be lenient
regarding factory produced bread. Concern for social interaction and
intermarriage is entirely irrelevant when purchasing factory produced
bread, as there is no contact between the baker and the purchaser.
There is room, by contrast, to be strict regarding the Palter discussed
in the classic sources, as there is contact between the purchaser and
the Palter, so there is some concern for intermarriage.
One might argue, however, that "Lo Plug Rabbanan," that rabbinic
decrees apply even when the reasons for their enactment do not. Rav
Moshe suggests that Chazal's edict never applied when the bread is
baked using industrial equipment that is not used in a home setting.
Chazal's enactment does not apply to industrial baking, since such
equipment is never used for baking in a context where there is contact
between the baker and purchaser (home or bakery). Interestingly, Rav
Eliezer Waldenburg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:15:1:4) presents a similar
lenient consideration in the context of the prohibition to use medicine
on Shabbat. However, Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi
6:108:6) clearly rejects Rav Moshe's line of reasoning, at least in the
context of Bishul Akum (the prohibition to consume food cooked by a
Nochri).
Safek (Possible) Pat Akum
One may suggest (based on Diyunei
Halacha page 582) two other approaches to further defend those who
adopt the lenient approach (although the author of that Sefer
encourages adopting the strict approach to this issue, especially
during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva). The first of these approaches is that
although the major accepted Kashrut organizations in this country adopt
the lenient position regarding this issue, some Mashgichim make the
effort to render the bread that they supervise as Pat Yisrael.
(However, Rav Menachem Genack, Rav Yaakov Luban of the OU, and Rav
Daniel Senter of the Kof-K informed me that only a minority of the
Mashgichim do this).
The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 112:9) rules in accordance with the Rambam
(ad. loc.) and Tosafot (Avoda Zara 38b s.v V'ata) that it is extremely
easy to render bread as Pat Yisrael. He rules that as long as a Jew
engaged in even the most minimal participation in the baking process,
such as adding a stick to the fire (see Chelkat Binyamin 112 pp.34-36
for a full discussion of whether this is only Bediavad or even
Lechatchilah), the bread is considered Pat Yisrael. Indeed, it is
related that Rav Yisrael Salanter would make every effort to throw a
toothpick into the oven used by the local Nochri baker from whom Jews
purchased bread, in order that the bread that the Jews of that locale
ate would not be Pat Akum. Interestingly, some major Kashrut agencies
have developed methods utilizing modern technology that are analogous
to the classic adding of a stick, thus rendering the bread as Pat
Yisrael. Moreover, Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz (of Elizabeth, N.J.) once
told me that the ovens in some bakeries are never intended to be
extinguished. Thus, once a Jew makes even a most minimal contribution
to the fire, any bread baked in such an oven might be considered Pat
Yisrael indefinitely (see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 112:10, Chelkat Binyamin
112:97, and his Tziyunim number 279).
Accordingly, even if the Kashrut agency does not certify the bread as
Pat Yisrael (because they cannot guarantee that it is Pat Yisrael, as
they only periodically inspect the factory), it is still possible that
the bread is Pat Yisrael. It is thus possible to be lenient, following
the rule of Safek Miderabbanan Lekula (one may be lenient in case of
doubt if only a rabbinic prohibition is involved), as noted by the
Shach (Y.D. 112:20, and see Darkei Teshuva 112:68). We should note that
this lenient possibility might be relevant only if there is a
considerably strong possibility that the bread is Pat Yisrael (see
Tosafot Ketubot 9a s.v. Ve'iba'it Eimah and Shach Y.D. 110 Kelalei
Sefeik Sefeika 33). The Kashrut agency that supervises the bread would
be able to make such a determination.
A prominent Rav told me, though, that in the context of Pat Akum even a
small chance might qualify as a Safek (see Darkei Teshuva ad. loc.
which might be interpreted in this manner; however, Rav Binyamin Cohen
told me that he is not aware of any of the Poskim who explicitly
articulate this idea). Perhaps it is appropriate to hope that the major
Kashrut agencies will evolve to the point where they will request that
their Mashgichim contribute to the fire in some meaningful manner. They
will thus render the products they certify as Pat Yisrael or even Safek
Pat Yisrael, which the Shach specifically permits even according to the
strict opinions regarding Pat Yisrael. Perhaps technology might be
developed that will allow the Mashgiach to remotely turn on a heating
element in the oven of a Kosher certified factory, even though it is
only visited for inspection on a monthly basis.
Indirect Baking (Koach
Sheini)
A third possible avenue of leniency
may be relevant regarding factory produced bread. In a factory, the
bread is produced entirely by industrial machinery, and the Nochri
workers have very minimal involvement in the actual baking of the
bread. Based on Chullin 16a, one could argue that only the very first
breads that are baked in such circumstances are considered Pat Akum.
The rest of the bread that is produced is considered bread produced by
an industrial machine (and not Pat Akum) because of the remote
connection between the baking of the rest of the bread and the Nochri
who set the process in motion (Ko'ach Sheini; see the Rabbinical
Council of America's Torah journal Hadarom (72-73:60-61), where I quote
a similar lenient approach from Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in the
context of Chalav Yisrael). One might be able to assume that the
factory-produced bread that one purchases is from the Rov (majority) of
breads that are not considered Pat Akum (based on the principle of Kol
Deparish Meiruba Parish, see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 110:3).
However, this lenient approach may be questionable, as even the classic
process of baking is accomplished by machine (the oven), with the baker
merely setting the baking process in motion. Thus, the action of baking
seems to be attributed to the one who started the process in motion,
even though his connection to the actual baking is only Ko'ach Sheini.
We may respond that in modern industrial machinery, the connection
between the baking of almost all of the bread and the one who sets the
baking process in motion is even more remote than it is in the classic
baking process. Therefore, the Halacha does not consider the bread to
have been baked by the one who started the industrial baking process.
A precedent for such an approach might be based on those Poskim who
disqualify machine-baked Matza because of the remote connection between
the one who sets the process in motion and the Matza-baking process
(see the Poskim cited in Teshuvot Yechave Da'at 1:14). Moreover, many
of the Poskim (Teshuvot Achiezer 3:69 and Chazon Ish Orach Chaim 6:10)
who accept machine Matza are lenient because they believe that in the
context of Matza baking, the Halacha only requires Lishmah (that the
Matza be baked for the purpose of the Mitzva of Matza). It does not,
however, require Ko'ach Adam (that the Matza be created by force of an
observant Jew). Thus, even though these authorities accept
machine-baked Matza for use at the Seder, they do not consider the
Matza to be baked by the observant Jew who set the baking process in
motion. Similarly, it is possible that bread that is baked in factories
using industrial equipment is not considered Pat Akum.
Bread Worthy for
Dignitaries (Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim)
A fourth lenient approach regarding
factory baked bread is the concept of "Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim." The
rabbinic edict that forbids eating food cooked by a Nochri (Bishul
Akum) applies only to food that is "fit for a king's table" (Oleh Al
Shulchan Melachim; Avoda Zara 38a and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 113:1). The
Acharonim debate (see a summary of the debate in Mesorah 1:86-89)
whether this term is defined as something worthy for a king to eat even
at an ordinary occasion, such as his breakfast, or whether it refers to
food that is worthy to be served at a state dinner. Rav Yosef Dov
Soloveitchik rules that the Bishul Akum prohibition applies only to
food that is worthy to be served at a state dinner. Rav Hershel
Schachter is quoted as ruling that the Bishul Akum prohibition applies
even if the food is worthy to be served at a Shabbat table.
It is possible that the Pat Akum edict does not apply to factory
produced bread since it is not Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim (according to
the lenient interpretation of this rule). However, this suggestion is
based on the assumption that the leniencies that apply to the Bishul
Akum edict apply to the Pat Akum edict as well. Indeed, we are much
stricter about Bishul Akum than about Pat Akum. For example, the Palter
leniency does not apply to Bishul Akum (see, for example, Shulchan
Aruch Y.D. 112:6). Thus, a leniency that applies to Bishul Akum should
apply to Pat Akum as well. Indeed, the Chelkat Binyamin (page 9, Biurim
s.v. Shemeikilim and page 26 Biurim s.v. Kichlich) applies a leniency
that appears only in the context of Bishul Akum to Pat Akum. Rav Genack
commented to me that the Rishonim (cited in the Encyclopedia Talmudit
4:657-658) who believe that the Pat Akum edict predated the Bishul Akum
edict would probably reject the idea of applying Bishul Akum leniencies
to Pat Akum. They believe that the Pat Akum edict fundamentally is not
characterized or controlled by the Bishul Akum edict, and therefore a
leniency that the Poskim articulate in the context of Bishul Akum does
not necessarily apply to Pat Akum.
Furthermore, many Poskim explicitly or implicitly state that the Eino
Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim leniency does not apply to Pat Akum (see
Chelkat Binyamin 112:12, Tziyunim 112:112:46, and Biurim 112 p. 5 s.v.
Vegam Eino). However, Teshuvot Avnei Neizer (Y.D. 1:92) is inclined to
rule that the Eino Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim leniency does apply to Pat
Akum as well. Thus, it is possible to use this argument as a lenient
consideration regarding a food that is essentially permitted.
Accordingly, there are four possible arguments that factory produced
bread is not considered Pat Akum, even if the Kashrut agency does not
certify the product as Pat Yisrael. Despite these four avenues of
leniency that might apply in the modern era, there may be more reason
to be strict about this issue in our times when intermarriage is
rampant (and the need to create social barriers between Jews and
non-Jews is great), and Pat Yisrael is relatively easy to obtain. One
could argue that Chazal and the Rishonim were lenient about Pat Akum
because of the great difficulty involved in observing this Halacha in
their time. Today, however, while it might not be easy to fully observe
this Halacha in many Jewish communities, it is unquestionably
considerably easier than it was in generations past. For example, Rav
Binyamin Taub (the Kashrut coordinator for the Rabbinical Council of
Bergen County) told me (on August 11, 2004) that all of the Jewish
owned bakeries in Bergen County are Pat Yisrael (another reason that it
is preferable to purchase bread at these establishments is the
preference to purchase products from a fellow Jew, Memkar La'amitecha;
see Rashi to Vayikra 25:14). One could question whether the tradition
to be lenient may be preserved when the original motivation for this
leniency is no longer relevant (generally speaking).
We should note that similar questions arise in the context of many
other areas where Ashkenazic Jews have traditionally adopted a lenient
approach, but the reasons for the leniencies are much less relevant.
Examples of this include relying on communal Eiruvin, consuming Chadash
in Chutz La'aretz and relying on Mechirat Chametz.
Aseret Yemei Teshuva
The Tur (O.C. 603) cites the
Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 3:3) that states that if one is not able
throughout the year to eat food that is Tahor according to the rules of
ritual purity, then one should strive to eat such food during the
Aseret Yemei Teshuva. The Tur then cites the Ra'avya (an important
Ashkenazic Rishon) who notes that the Ashkenazic practice is to follow
in the spirit of this passage, and therefore even those who adopt the
lenient approach to Pat Akum throughout the year adopt the strict view
during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva.
The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 603) rules in accordance with the Ra'avyah.
Accordingly, one should obtain Pat Yisrael during the Aseret Yemei
Teshuva. Moreover, the Chayei Adam 143 and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
130:2 write that one should adopt other Chumrot (stringencies) during
the Aseret Yemei Teshuva that one does not observe during the year. For
example, Rav Moshe Tendler once stated (in a Shiur at Yeshiva
University in 1986) that even one who practices the lenient approach to
the Chalav Yisrael issue should drink only Chalav Yisrael during the
Aseret Yemei Teshuva.
Nonetheless, one might wonder why so many otherwise carefully observant
people seem to neglect this Halacha. It is possible that they are
relying on the four lenient considerations outlined above that suggest
that any bread that we purchase might not, technically speaking, be
defined as Pat Akum. Additionally, later Acharonim (see Sha'ar Hatziyun
603:4, Aruch Hashulchan ad. loc., Chayei Adam ad. loc. and the Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch ad. loc.) clearly indicate that this is merely preferred
behavior and not, strictly speaking, a required observance. Thus, Rav
Neustadt (ad. loc.) writes that one should not rebuke those who do not
avoid Pat Akum even during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva. In addition, it
might be sufficient to follow the compromise view of the Rashba and the
Shach during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva, especially in regards to factory
produced bread.
Rav Zvi Soblofsky (a young Posek, who is a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva
University) offers an interesting explanation for the practice to avoid
Pat Palter during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva. Rav Soblofsky notes that it
is clear from the sources we have cited that the Pat Akum decree was
not completely rescinded. It was only rescinded in situations when it
was quite difficult for most Jews to implement. He suggests that just
as the Pat Akum decree was not rescinded regarding home baked bread of
a Nochri, so too it was not rescinded for the Aseret Yemei Teshuva,
since it is not an excessive burden for most people to adhere to the
Pat Akum decree only during these days.
Rav Sobolofsky similarly explains a puzzling ruling of Rav Saadia Gaon
(cited by the Rosh, Yoma 8:24), that men should recite a Beracha upon
immersing in a Mikva on Erev Yom Kippur (this opinion is not accepted
as normative). Rav Saadia Gaon's ruling is difficult as we do not,
generally speaking, recite a Beracha on a Minhag (custom) that emerged
after the Talmudic era. Rav Sobolofsky suggests that Rav Saadia Gaon
seems to believe that the edict of Ezra (in biblical times) that a
Ba'al Keri (a man who has experienced a seminal emission) must immerse
in a Mikva remains in effect for Erev Yom Kippur, even though it was
rescinded for the rest of the year. Chazal (Berachot 22a) rescinded
Ezra's edict because it was too difficult for most Jews to follow
(Rambam Hilchot Tefilla 4:5; but see Meiri, Berachot 22a). However, it
is not an excessive burden for most of the community to observe on Erev
Yom Kippur. Thus, Rav Saadia Gaon believes that a Beracha should be
recited on the Erev Yom Kippur immersion, since the original enactment
of Ezra remains in effect on that day.
Conclusion
The practice in our communities is to
follow the longstanding practice of Ashkenazic Jewry in adopting the
lenient approach regarding Pat Akum. However, it is proper to follow
the strict opinion during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva as well as Shabbat
and Yom Tov, since in most Jewish communities it is currently not very
difficult to do so. Moreover, it is worth considering the possibility
of "upgrading" one's practice regarding Pat Akum at least to the
compromise approach of the Shach, at least in regards to bakery bought
bread, provided that such a Chumra does not impinge on Shelom Bayit.
See the Rama Y.D. (112:15) who presents the extraordinary ruling (that
the Rama notes is unique to the issue of Pat Akum) that one who follows
the strict opinion regarding Pat Akum is permitted to follow the
lenient ruling if his host serves Pat Palter. Thus, one should follow
the lenient ruling if his parents or in-laws serve Pat Palter.
Nevertheless, it would seem that Sephardic Jews should make every
effort to follow at least the compromise view of the Rashba and Shach.
However, there appears to be more room to be lenient regarding factory
baked-bread as opposed to bakery-baked bread even for Sephardic Jews,
although the lenient approaches to factory-produced bread are each
somewhat debatable.
In our next issue, we will (B'ezrat Hashem and Beli Neder) discuss some
of the details regarding the Pat Akum edict, such as its application to
cakes, cookies, donuts and bagels, as well as its application to bread
baked by Nochrim who assist us in our homes.
0 comments Leave a Comment