Pat Akum: Part 1 - Varieties
of its Observance and its Application to
the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah by Rabbi Chaim Jachter
One of the
more fascinating areas of Halacha is the observance of
Chazal's edict forbidding Pat Akum. There are a wide
variety of approaches to this Halacha in the observant
community, ranging from the most
lenient to the most strict. While there are many other areas
where there is a similar range of practices, Pat Akum is still
unusual, as this range of observances seems to
have existed already during Talmudic times. We will discuss how
this situation evolved in this week's essay.
Talmudic Background The Mishna (Avoda
Zara 35b) records that Chazal forbade us to eat bread
baked by a Nochri. The Gemara (ibid) explains that the
reason for this enactment is to limit social interaction
with Nochrim, thereby reducing the risk of
intermarriage. The Gemara (Shabbat 17b) states that this
decree was one of the celebrated eighteen decrees issued
by Hillel and Shammai. In general, these decrees are
considered to be quite stringent and difficult, if not
impossible, to rescind (Avoda Zara 36a, but see the
second chapter of the Rambam's Hilchot Mamrim). The
aforementioned Mishna records that Chazal forbade
consuming the oil of Nochrim (Shemen Akum).
Interestingly, the Gemara (ibid) records that Rabi
Yehuda Hanassi rescinded this decree because it proved
to be too difficult for most of the community to abide
by. In the pre-modern world where Teflon-coated pans
were not available, oil was often essential for cooking
(food would burn otherwise), and it was therefore
exceedingly difficult to adhere to the Shemen Akum
decree. We should also clarify that the rescinding of
the Shemen Akum edict does not mean that we may purchase
oil even if it does not bear a proper Hashgacha. Rather,
it means that it is not necessary for the Mashgiach (if
Hashgacha is required for the particular oil) to
participate in the preparation of the oil as is
required, for example, with regard to kosher cheese.
Instead, periodic inspections suffice for the
supervision of such a product's production. The Rif
(Avoda Zara 14b) and Tosafot (Avoda Zara 35b s.v.
Michlal) record the Jerusalem Talmud (Avoda Zara 2:8)
that states that Chazal also rescinded the Pat Akum
decree because of the difficulty for most people to
abide by it, as bread is "Chayei Nefesh" (one's life
depends on it). We should clarify that in pre-modern
times and even today in many cultures, bread is the main
component of the meal (see Tehillim 104:15). Our
affluent North American society in which bread does not
serve such a function is an exception. Certainly, in the
time of the Gemara, bread was a centerpiece of a meal
(see Sukkah 27a regarding Agrippas'
assistant). Notably, the Jerusalem Talmud also cites
an opinion that the edict was rescinded only to permit
eating Pat Palter, bread purchased from a professional
Nochri baker in a commercial context, but not bread that
one obtains in a social context from a Nochri. Since the
rescinding of the Pat Akum edict was motivated by
concern for Chayei Nefesh, this opinion believes that
Chazal rescinded the edict only for situations when it
was necessary to do so. What is most fascinating,
though, is how the Babylonian Talmud (which we regard as
authoritative; see the Rambam's introduction to his
Mishna Torah) seems to be deliberately ambiguous about
this issue. First, the Gemara (Avoda Zara 35b) records
Rabi Yochanan's assertion that the Pat Akum decree has
not been rescinded. The Gemara remarks, though, that
Rabi Yochanan's need to make such an assertion implies
that someone had rescinded this decree. The Gemara then
cites some ambiguous episodes where it seemed that Rebbe
had rescinded the decree either completely or partially.
One possibility was that he permitted eating bread baked
by a professional Nochri baker (Pat Palter). This
passage concludes by recounting that Ibu (one of the
earlier Amoraic sages, the father of Rav; see Sanhedrin
5a) ate Pat Akum and that some prominent later Amoraim
refused to cite his Torah thoughts because of this
behavior (this might account for the fact that Ibu is
rarely cited in the Gemara). This indicates that a Rav's
stature depends on impeccable Halachic observance and
not only on his intellectual acumen (see Chagiga
15b). The Gemara (Avoda Zara 37a) subsequently cites
a remarkable anecdote about Rabi Yehuda Hanassi and his
assistant Rabi Simlai. The Gemara records that Rabi
Yehuda Hanassi remarked to Rabi Simlai that the latter
was absent from the Beit Midrash when the rabbis
rescinded the decree against Shemen Akum (this comment
implies that the rescinding of the Shemen Akum decree
was an extraordinary and rare event; indeed, Chazal
rarely rescinded enactments). Rabi Simlai responded by
asking that they should also rescind the decree of Pat
Akum. Rabi Yehuda Hanassi replied that then his group
would be referred to as the permissive Beit Din. This
seems to be the source of the assertion of Teshuvot
Chavatzelet Hasharon (2:25, regarding the permissibility
of stunning an animal before Shechita) that a Rav should
not issue a lenient ruling if he anticipates that Am
Yisrael will not be receptive to the ruling, even if the
Rav is thoroughly convinced of the cogency of the
leniency. This appears to be an application of the
Gemara's (Yevamot 65b) rule that just as there as a
Mitzva to say something that will be heard, so too there
is a Mitzva not to say something that will not be
heard. Accordingly, the Babylonian Talmud implies that there was a
basis to rescind the Pat Akum decree, but never explicitly states
that this was done. These anecdotes reveal that most Jews found
it too difficult to adhere to the Pat
Akum stricture. Thus, Rabi Yehuda Hanassi was willing in theory
to rescind this decree if not for his concern that
he was not the appropriate person to do this. The
Babylonian Talmud's ambiguity is the point of departure for
the variety of approaches that appear in the
Rishonim and Acharonim regarding this issue.
Rishonim - Rambam
and Tosafot The Rambam (Hilchot
Ma'achalot Assurot 17:9) believes that the Pat Akum
edict remains in full effect, as he records this
prohibition in the same context as the prohibition to
drink wine of Nochrim (Stam Yeinam) and food cooked by a
Nochri (Bishul Akum). However, the Rambam (ad. loc.
17:12) records that there are communities where they are
lenient and eat Pat Palter (as mentioned in the
Jerusalem Talmud and implied in the Babylonina Talmud)
when Jewish baked bread (Pat Yisrael) is not available.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 112) explains that the logic behind
the Pat Palter leniency is that the concern for
intermarriage is not relevant when the bread is
purchased from a professional Nochri baker, as it is a
commercial rather than a social interaction. Tosafot
(ad. loc.), however, adopt a very different approach
than the Rambam. They note that the common practice in
their time is to consume Pat Akum. They also note that
the Gemara clearly implies that there is a basis to
repeal the Pat Akum edict. Tosafot infer from the
behavior of the Jews in their area that a Beit Din at
sometime must have rescinded the Pat Akum prohibition,
even though this is never specifically recorded in the
Babylonian Talmud. They also cite in this context the
Jerusalem Talmud's assertion that the decree was
rescinded. For variations on Tosafot's approach to
support the lenient practice of Ashkenazic Jewry see the
Ran (14b in the pages of the Rif, s.v. Rabi Yehuda
Hanassi), the Rosh (Avoda Zara 2:27) and the Mordechai
(Avoda Zara 830). Tosafot, nonetheless, note that
there are those who are strict and do not rely on their
lenient approach. However, Tosafot explain how those who
follow the lenient approach and those who follow the
strict approach can co-exist and eat together at the
same table. We should note that Rav Yosef
Soloveitchik once remarked (in a Shiur at Yeshiva
University in 1984 and see Nora'ot HaRav 9:1-3) that not
every Jewish practice is recorded in the Gemara. For
example, the Rav assumed that Jews were reciting
Selichot even during the time of the Gemara even though
this practice is first recorded only by the Geonim. The
Rav argued that the Rambam's (Hilchot Teshuva 3:4)
observation that every Jewish community recites Selichot
during the Asseret Yemei Teshuva implies that this
practice originated in the time of the Gemara.
Otherwise, it would have been highly unlikely that such
a practice would have been universally accepted by Jews,
as in the era after the completion of the Babylonian
Talmud there was no authority or community whose customs
or rulings were binding upon all Jews (see the Rambam's
introduction to his Mishna Torah). Similarly, Tosafot
infers from his community's behavior what must have
occurred during the time of the Gemara, even though this
is not stated in the Gemara. This Tosafot is an
example of their approach to the practices of the Jews
of their community. Tosafot seem to regard the practice
of the people of his time to constitute the equivalent
of an explicit Talmudic source. Thus, Tosafot believe
that if the Jews of that time were eating Pat Akum,
there must have been a Beit Din in the time of the
Babylonian Talmudic era that rescinded this decree, even
though the Gemara never records such an occurrence. The
reason for his attitude stems from the profoundly high
spiritual level of the Jews in the era of Tosafot. For
example, Tosafot (Gittin 59b s.v. Aval) record that the
shuls in their time were as full on Mondays and
Thursdays as they were on the Yamim Tovim! We must
clarify that the lenient approach does not necessarily implies
that bread does not require proper Hashgacha to insure that it
is Kosher. Instead, the lenient approach implies that periodic
inspections by a Mashgiach suffice to insure the Kashrut
of the bread, but a Jew's participation in the
baking process is not required as it is, for
example, with respect to kosher cheese.
Shulchan Aruch -
Mechaber, Rama and the
Shach The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 112:1-2)
adopts the Rambam's approach as normative. Thus, Rav
Yosef Karo regards the Pat Akum decree to be in full
effect, but he notes that there are some places that
permit Pat Akum in a situation where Pat Yisrael is not
available. However, the Shulchan Aruch (ad. loc. 112:5)
notes that there are those (the Rashba) who rule that if
the available Pat Akum is of superior quality to the
available Pat Yisrael in a particular locale, then in
that locale it is considered that Pat Yisrael is not
available. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe
Y.D. 2:33) asserts that the fact that the Shulchan Aruch
does not cite the dissenting opinion (the Tur) to the
Rashba's leniency indicates that the Shulchan Aruch
accepts the Rashba's leniency as normative. We should
note that a young contemporary Posek from Flatbush, Rav
Binyamin Cohen (Chelkat Binyamin 112:46 and 51), rules
that the Rashba's leniency applies only if the Pat Akum
is superior to the Pat Yisrael in terms of its taste
and/or appearance. However, this leniency does not apply
if the superiority of the Pat Akum is only in terms of
its price and/or convenience. However, Rav Menachem
Genack questions this assertion. Parenthetically, I find
it interesting that this issue is addressed in print for
the first time (as far as I know) only at the very end
of the twentieth century. The Rama (ad.
loc. 112:2) notes that there is an opinion that permits Pat
Akum even when Pat Yisrael is readily available
in that locale. Rav Moshe (ad. loc.) asserts that since
the Rama does not cite a dissenting opinion, this
is the normative opinion according to the Rama.
The Shach (Y.D. 112:9) notes the common practice among Ashkenazic Jews to follow this approach. However, the
Shach adopts a compromise position and writes that
he believes that one should not follow the
lenient opinion unless the Pat Akum is superior in
quality to the available Pat Yisrael (in accordance with
the opinion of the Rashba).
Late Acharonim - the Chochmat Adam,
Aruch Hashulchan and Mishnah
Berurah This controversy continues to rage
among the later Acharonim. The Chochmat Adam (65:2)
records the common practice to follow the lenient ruling
of the Rama. However, he rules that it is proper for
every Baal Nefesh (pious individual) to follow the
somewhat stricter opinion of the Shach. The Aruch
Hashulchan (Y.D. 112:17) adopts a more strict approach.
He seems to say (see Chelkat Binyamin 112:96 in the
Tziyunim) that the practice in his locale (he does not
state whether this was the practice only in his
hometown, Navaradok, or the entire region in which he
resided) was to adopt the strict opinion of the Rambam
and Shulchan Aruch. They would avoid Pat Akum even if it
was superior in quality to the available Pat Yisrael. He
writes that "this is the proper approach and that one
should not deviate from it" (see, however, the Aruch
Hashulchan, Orach Chaim 603:2). The Mishna Berura
(242:6) writes that it is "proper" that on Shabbat and
Yom Tov one should only eat Pat Yisrael. The Mishna
Berura writes that this constitutes a fulfillment of
Kevod Shabbat and Yom Tov. The explicit source for this
ruling is the Magen Avraham (242:4) who seeks to present
a source for this preference in the Gemara and Rishonim.
We should note that this preference is different than
the preference for Pat Yisrael during the Asseret Yemei
Teshuva, as the latter preference is explicitly
articulated in the Rishonim. We should also note that both the Darkei
Teshuva 112:18 and the Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 112:56 cite
that the Ari z"l urges one to
scrupulously avoid Pat Akum, based on Kabbalistic considerations. This probably explains why Chassidim (who take
Kabbalistic matters into account very much) are particularly careful to avoid
Pat Akum.
Conclusion There are four primary opinions in the
Rishonim and classic Poskim regarding Pat Akum. Some
rule that the rabbinic edict forbidding Pat Akum 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 consuming Pat Palter if no
Pat Yisrael is available. A lenient modification of this
compromise permits Pat Palter even if Pat Yisrael is
available, if the Pat Palter is superior in quality to
the Pat Yisrael. Next week we shall, Im Yirtzeh
Hashem and Beli Neder, discuss the applications of the
Pat Akum edict in the modern context and the special
preference to avoid Pat Akum during the Asseret Yemei
Teshuva.
