Pat Akum: Part 2 - Varieties of its
Observance and its Application to
the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah by Rabbi Chaim Jachter
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Rishonim believe that this edict was rescinded and does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.
