Pat Akum Part Three - The
Parameters of the Edict by Rabbi Chaim Jachter
In the
previous two issues we reviewed the range of opinions
and practices regarding Pat Akum, Chazal's edict
prohibiting eating bread baked by a Nochri. Some
opinions in the Rishonim and classic Poskim believe that
this edict remains in full effect. Others believe that
this decree was rescinded and Pat Akum is permitted if
the bread is obtained from a professional baker (Pat
Palter). Compromise opinions permit Pat Palter only if
Pat Yisrael (bread baked by a Jew or had at least some
Jewish involvement in the baking process) is not
available or is of inferior quality relative to the Pat
Palter. We also noted that the
Shulchan Aruch records the Minhag to follow the
strict opinion regarding the Pat Akum edict during the Aseret
Yemei Teshuva. In addition, we saw that the Magen
Avraham and Mishnah Berura write that it is proper to eat
only Pat Yisrael on both Shabbat and Yom Tov. This week we
will explore some of the parameters of the
Pat Akum prohibition and its application to cake, cookies, crackers,
bagels, Dunkin Donuts, bread crumbs, and Cheerios.
Jewish-Owned Bread
Baked by a Nochri It is important to recall that even
the most lenient approach to Pat Yisrael does not
believe that this edict was completely rescinded. Even
according to the lenient opinion Pat Akum is permitted
only if it is Pat Palter. The reason that the edict was
partially relaxed was because it was too difficult for
most Jews to observe. However, the edict remains in
effect when it is readily observed. Accordingly, the
Shach (Y.D. 112:7) rules that the Pat Akum edict applies
even according to the most lenient approach to bread
that is owned by a Jew and baked by a Nochri. In such a
circumstance it is relatively easy for the Jewish owner
of the bread to at least participate in some minimal
fashion in the preparation of the bread. The Chochmat
Adam (65:6) and many other major Acharonim (cited in the
Chelkat Binyamin, 112: Tziyunim number 72) rule in
accordance with the Shach. Thus, one should be
careful regarding this Halacha if one hires a Nochri to
help at home. If the Nochri helper bakes bread then one
should be sure to participate at least minimally in the
baking process. If one did not participate in the baking
process the consumption of the bread might be
rabbinically forbidden. Rav Binyamin Cohen (Chelkat
Binyamin 112: p. 9 Biurim s.v. Sh'mei'kilim) suggests a
possibility that in such a case the bread might be
permitted Bidieved (after the fact), based on the Rama's
ruling (Y.D. 113:4) that the Bishul Akum (food cooked by
a Nochri) prohibition does not apply Bidieved if one's
Nochri servant cooked food. The reasoning is that Chazal
prohibited Bishul Akum (and Pat Akum) because of concern
for social interaction that might lead to intermarriage
and this concern might not be particularly relevant
regarding one's servant. This lenient approach is
questionable because of two considerations. First, Rav
Cohen (ad. loc. 113:35) writes that it is questionable
whether the Rama's leniency applies only to servants or
even to hired help. Moreover, we discussed in our
previous issue that it is not clear if the leniencies
that pertain to Bishul Akum apply to Pat Akum. Rav Cohen,
on the other hand, told me that although many Poskim rule
that the Eino Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim leniency does not apply
to Pat Akum, as we discussed last week,
this does not necessarily imply that every other leniency that
applies to Bishul Akum does not apply to Pat Akum.
Nonetheless, one should make every effort to avoid this problem
and one should consult his Rav should this issue
arise for a decision as to whether it
is permissible to consume the bread.
A Jewish-Owned Bakery It would appear, accordingly, that
bread baked in a Jewish owned bakery should be required
to be Pat Yisrael even according to the most lenient
opinions. Indeed, Rav Binyamin Cohen (Chelkat Binyamin
112: p. 9 Biurim s.v. Sh'meikilim) notes that under such
circumstances it is relatively easy for the store's
Jewish owners to ensure that the bread is Pat Yisrael by
ensuring that there is at least minimal Jewish
involvement in the baking of the bread. As we saw in
last week's essay, this is relatively easy to
accomplish. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot
Igrot Moshe 1:45) rules that one may be lenient in such
a situation if it is difficult to ensure that the bread
is Pat Yisrael. Rav Moshe argues that the Shach is
strict only in a situation where it is very easy for a
Jew to participate in the baking. However, in case of
difficulty one may be lenient as is the generally
accepted practice regarding Pat Akum that we discussed
last week. Rav Moshe writes that one may certainly be
lenient if the bread bakers are non-observant Jews, as
Rav Moshe explains that he is inclined to rule that the
Pat Akum edict does not apply to non-observant Jews (see
Chelkat Binyamin, 112: pp. 1-2 Biurim s.v. Am'mim for a
discussion of the debate regarding this issue and for
Rav Cohen's ruling that one may be lenient regarding a
non-observant Jew who is classified as a Tinok
Shenishba). One might suggest that the resolution of
this dispute depends on how difficult it is for the
Jewish owner to arrange for the bread to be Pat Yisrael.
If the owner
is involved with the daily operations of a relatively small bakery,
it seems difficult to be lenient. One the other
hand, if the Jewish owner is merely a "silent
partner" and is not involved with the daily operation
of the bakery, then it seems that we may
rely on Rav Moshe's lenient approach.
Cakes,
Cookies and Crackers Thus
far we have discussed the applicability of the Pat Akum
edict to bread. However, cakes, cookies and crackers
might also be included in this edict. In fact, it is
very important to know which edict applies to these
items, Pat Akum or Bishul Akum, as there are
"advantages" and "disadvantages" to being classified as
either Pat Akum or Bishul Akum. The leniency of Eino
Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim (that the food must be worthy
of serving at a formal meal in order to be forbidden as
Bishul Akum) applies to Bishul Akum and does not apply
to Pat Akum according to many Poskim, as we discussed
last week. On the other hand, the leniency of Pat Palter
does not apply to Bishul Akum according to almost all
Poskim (see Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 3:26 and Mesorah
1:93-94). Thus, it is crucial to determine whether cake
and cookies are subject to the rules of Pat Akum or
Bishul Akum. Tosafot (Beitzah 16b s.v. Ka Mashma Lan)
cites a difference of opinion about this matter. The
first opinion in Tosafot believes that the Pat Akum
edict applies only to bread upon which one always
recites the Bracha of Hamotzi Lechem Min Haaretz.
According to this opinion, cakes, cookies and crackers
are subject to the rules of Bishul Akum. On the other
hand, Tosafot cites Rabbeinu Yechiel who rules that
cakes, cookies and crackers are subject to the rules of
Pat Akum. Tosafot presents two reasons for Rabbeinu
Yechiel. One opinion is that these items are "baked in a
manner that is similar to bread". The other opinion is
that since one potentially recites Hamotzi on these
items, they are defined as bread. Some background on
the topic of Pat Habaah Bikisnin is necessary to
comprehend Rabbeinu Yechiel's second reason. The
Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 168:7) rules that one
recites Hamotzi on cake, cookies and crackers (Pat
Habaah Bikisnin) if one establishes a meal (Koveiah
Seudah) on them. I recall hearing that Rav Yosef Dov
Soloveitchik explained this rule as follows.
Fundamentally, explained the Rav, Hamotzi is a Bracha on
a meal and not specifically on bread. The Bracha is
recited on bread since it is traditionally the
centerpiece of a meal. The Rav also explains that
fundamentally Pat Habaah Bikisnin is also defined as
bread. However, when one eats Pat Habaah Bikisnin and is
not Koveiah Seudah one does not recite Hamotzi since one
is not eating a meal. However, if one is Koveah Seudah
on Pat Habaah Bikisnin then the Bracha of Hamotzi should
be recited (and one should perform Nitilat Yadayim), as
this Bracha is recited only on "meal based
bread". Accordingly, it is quite logical that Pat
Habaah Bikisnin should be subject to the rules of Pat
Akum as, fundamentally, it is bread. Indeed, the Rama
(Y.D. 112:6) rules in accordance with the view of
Rabbeinu Yechiel. However, the Shach (Y.D.112:18) limits
this ruling to Pat Habaah Bikisnin that is baked with a
thick batter (Belilah Avah, such as most cookies). Pat
Habaah Bikisnin that is baked with a thin batter (Belila
Rakah, such as most cakes), rules the Shach, is subject
to the rules of Bishul Akum. The
Shach's ruling seems to hinge on the two reasons that
Tosafot offers for Rabbeinu Yechiel's ruling. If one
follows the first reason, one might argue that only
Belilah Avah is similar to bread. However, according to
the second reason there seems to be no distinction
between a Belila Avah and a Belilah Rakah, since one
recites Hamotzi even on a Belilah Rakah if he is Koveiah
Seudah. Although the
Chochmat Adam (65:7) rules in accordance with the Shach,
Rav Binyamin Cohen (Chelkat Binyamin 112:64) notes that
many Acharonim reject the Shach's distinction (see ad.
loc. Tziyunim number 202) and rule that Pat Habaah
Bikisinin is always subject to the rules of the Pat Akum
edict, even if it is a Belilah Rakah. Rav Cohen rules in
accordance with the opinions of these Acharonim. Thus,
all Pat Habaah Bikisinin are subject to the rules of Pat
Akum. Rav Zvi Sobolofsky, in a Shiur he delivered in
Teaneck on this subject, agreed with this
ruling.
Bagels Bagels are made by first boiling
them in water and then baking them. One might think that
since they are boiled they should be subject to the
rules of Bishul Akum. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot
Igrot Moshe Y.D. 2:33), however, writes that since the
boiling does not render the bagels even minimally
edible, the bagels are not considered to have been
cooked. Therefore, bagels are subject to the rules of
Pat Akum, just as one recites Hamotzi on bagels
(Shulchan Aruch O.C. 168:14). Rav Cohen (Chelkat
Binyamin 112: p. 26 Biurim s.v. Kichlach) adds that even
if the bagels were rendered minimally edible by the
boiling, the subsequent baking might subject the bagels
to the rules of Pat Akum (as the Aruch Hashulchan, Y.D.
112:31, seems to indicate). The Rama (Y.D. 113:9;
regarding Bishul Akum) permits
food that a Nochri cooked to the point that
it is minimally edible and a Jew subsequently finished cooking. Rav
Cohen suggests (as does the Teshuvot Avnei Neizer Y.D. 1:100) that
this Halacha might also apply regarding Pat Akum (Shulchan
Aruch 112:12 seems to clearly support this suggestion). Rav Moshe,
however, seems not to subscribe to this leniency. Perhaps it is
because he believes that one cannot apply the leniencies that
apply to Bishul Akum to the Halachot of Pat
Akum.
Dunkin Donuts
and Sufganiot I have been told that Dunkin Donuts
and Israeli style Sufganiot are made from a Belilah Avah
that is deep fried in oil. The Rishonim debate whether
one recites Hamotzi and separate Challah on such items
(see Tosafot Brachot 37b s.v. Lechem). Rav Cohen (ad.
loc. 112:64) rules that such items are subject to the
Halachot regarding Bishul Akum since our practice (Rama
O.C. 168:13) is to recite Borei Mini Mezonot on Dunkin
Donuts or Sufganiot even if one is Koveiah Seudah on
them (unlike the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that is cited
in the aforementioned Tosafot). Similarly, the Halacha
(Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 329:3) essentially rules that
Challah is not separated on such items. Rav
Sobolofsky noted that even though the Shach (Y.D. 329:4)
rules that one should separate Challah without a Bracha
on such items in deference to the opinion of Rabbeinu
Tam, the general practice outside Eretz Yisrael (where
the obligation to separate Challah is only rabbinic in
nature) is not to separate Challah on these items. Thus,
Dunkin Donuts and Sufganiot are subject to the Halachot of Bishul
Akum, unlike Rabbeinu Tam who would rule that they
are subject to the rules of Pat Akum. Accordingly, Rav Elazar
Meyer Teitz (who supervises the Dunkin Donuts in Elizabeth and Teaneck)
arranges that the Mashgiach turns on the fire in
the ovens of the Dunkin Donuts that he supervises. In
addition, it seems that Dunkin Donuts might be excused from the
Bishul Akum prohibition as they are not Oleh Al Shulchan
Melachim (one would not serve them at a formal
meal).
Cheerios Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited
in Vizot Habracha p.219 in the 5761 edition) rules that
cereals whose raw batter rises like bread dough, such as
Cheerios, Grape Nuts, and Wheat Chex have the status of
Pat Habaah Bikisinin. Thus, these cereals are subject to
the rules of Pat Akum and the fact that they are not
served at a formal meal is irrelevant according to many
Poskim. Accordingly, Rav Daniel Neustadt (The Weekly
Halachah Discussion p. 539) writes that those who do not
rely on the Pat Palter leniency throughout the year and
everyone during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva should avoid
these cereals. However, Rav Binyamin Cohen told me
that the common practice is not to treat these cereals
as Pat Habaah Bikisinin. For example, people do not
recite Hamotzi if they are eating two bowls of Cheerios
together with milk and a piece of cake. Thus, Rav Cohen
said to me that it seems to him that the common practice
is to follow the ruling of Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg who
rules (see Vizot HaBracha ad. loc.) that these cereals
are not Pat Habaah Bikisinin. Indeed, Andrew Malca of Teaneck told
me that Rav Hershel Schachter told him that Cheerios are not
Pat Habaah Bikisinin. Thus, these cereals are subject to
the rules of Bishul Akum and are permitted since they
are not Oleh Al Shulchan Melachim. Accordingly, they may be eaten
during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva and throughout the year by
those who do not rely on the Pat Palter
leniency.
Bread Crumbs Rav Neustadt (ad. loc. p. 540)
writes that during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva one should
avoid ice cream sprinkled with Pat Palter cookie crumbs.
Even though Tosafot (ad. loc.) and the Shulchan Aruch
(Y.D. 112:6) rule that the primary ingredient of the
product (the Ikar) determines its status regarding
Bishul Akum and Pat Akum, nevertheless the cookie crumbs
cannot be disregarded since they are noticeable and not
dissolved into the ice cream (Rama ad. loc. and Taz Y.D.
112:10). Rav Neustadt rules that the same applies to
bread crumbs on chicken or fish cutlets. This, however,
is debatable since the bread crumbs were cooked by a Jew
in the preparation of the cutlets. The cooking might
cancel the bread crumbs' Pat Palter status and render it
as a new entity (Panim Chadashot Baooh Likan). Teshuvot
Avnei Neizer (Y.D. 1:100) explores applying the Rama who
rules (Y.D. 113:9; as we mentioned in our discussion of
bagels) that food is not prohibited as Bishul Akum if
the Nochri cooked the food to a minimally edible state
and a Jew subsequently finished the cooking. The
Avnei Neizer suggests that the same could be said if the
Pat Akum is cooked even after it has been baked. He
argues that the Yereim (cited in the Shulchan Aruch O.C.
318:5) who believes (in the context of Hilchot Shabbat)
that "Yesh Bishul Achar Afiyah" (an item may be cooked
after it is baked; which is why we should not put
Challah pieces into very hot soup on Shabbat) would
subscribe to this leniency. Moreover, the Avnei Neizer
suggests that everyone would agree that bread that was
cooked loses its status as bread (see Brachot 38b) and
if it is subsequently baked then Panim Chadashot Baooh
Likan (a new entity has been created). Similarly, since
in the process of preparing cutlets the bread crumbs are
rendered inedible by immersing it in raw egg batter, the
subsequent cooking of the bread crumbs might redefine
the cutlets as a new entity. However, Rav Cohen
(Chelkat Binyamin 112:p. 46 s.v. Yesh Takana) notes that
the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 112:12) cites the possibility
of a Jew "correcting" bread classified as Pat Akum by
the Jew returning the bread to the oven and enhancing
the taste of the bread ("Mitztameik Viyafeh Lo"), since
he thereby participates in the baking process. However,
notes Rav Cohen, the Shulchan Aruch implies that once
the baking process is completely finished and it is not
possible to further enhance the quality of the bread,
there is no further remedy for the breads' status as Pat
Akum. Furthermore, Rav Cohen cites (Tziyunim 112:324)
many Poskim who seem to disagree with the Avnei Neizer's
leniency.
Accordingly, bread crumbs that are Pat Palter should be avoided during
the Aseret Yemei Teshuva. However, it seems that one
would be permitted, Bidieved (after the fact), to eat cutlets
breaded with bread crumbs that are Pat Palter based on the
opinion of the Avnei Neizer and the lenient considerations we
outlined last week regarding bread that is prepared in
factories.
Conclusion We see from our discussion of Pat
Akum that there is a firm basis for those who follow the
lenient approach to this issue. Nevertheless, there is
also a basis for those who wish to be strict regarding Pat Akum.
The Halacha, however, has insured that those who
are lenient and those who are strict are
able to co-exist and avoid strife. Nonetheless, the issue
of Pat Akum should not escape our attention, especially
during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva.
