Notes on Pat Akum (Part 2)

The Halachic issue of inter-marriage is something that the sages of blessed memory had to deal with, and they enacted stringencies to help us deal with the issue of integration and assimilation which, unfortunately, led to inter-marriage. My own notes are are titled “note” before the text.

According to the Rosh: In regards to Pat Akum, there is no difference between the Pat of a Palter (baker) or a Ba’al Ha-Bayit (homeowner). Thus, the Rosh is stringent with Pat Akum.
However, other Poskim disagree. Pat Ba’al Ha-Bayit is always forbidden unless it’s in a dangerous place where there is no other way to survive.

Yerushalami: Pat Palter is forbidden unless it’s the only Pat available.
Rashba: Pat Palter is allowed even if Pat Yisrael is available if that person thinks that the Pat Palter is tastier to him.
Note: This is subjective to the preference of the individual.
However, none of the aforementioned opinions allow Pat Ba’al Ha-Baiyt.

The Beit Yosef did not find the Psak of the Rosh. The Tur does not have the same opinion as Rashba, but the Beit Yosef said that the Tur did not see the entirety of the Psak of the Rashba.

Tur: Pat Ba’al Ha-Bayit is always forbidden even if the Ba’al Ha-Bayit sold it to a Palter Akum [and] even if that Palter Akum [then] sold it to a Yisrael because the original issur still exists.
However, on the contrary, the Tur allows for the reversal to be true. The Tur says that Pat Palter is permitted even if it was bought by an Akum that’s a Ba’al Ha-Bayit.

Tur: Pat Akum has a leniency that Bishul Akum does not have: The Gezerah (decree) did not spread to the entire Nation of Israel. They did not accept the Gezerah. Thus, these communities are lenient. However, the issur of Pat Akum is stricter than Bishul Akum.

Note: When a Jew assists an Akum in cooking or baking, it is allowed during Bishul Akum, but when it comes to the concept of Pat Akum, we are stricter because the issur is on the Pat itself. It is on the item and not the action.

Tur: Pat Yisrael, that’s baked by an Akum, is permitted if a Jew contributes to at least one of the three actions in its preparation: Igniting or maintaining the flame, stirring the coals, and the baking itself. If a Yisrael does just one of these, it does not cause the Pat to become Assur if it does not become Bishul Akum.

Rosh: Not sure if tossing wood into the oven counts as lighting the oven.

Note: Or maintaining the flame.
There was a book that discussed the differences between the Minhag of Babel and Eretz Yisrael, and it said that the Jews in Babel tossed wood into the [Akum’s] oven, but the Jews in Eretz Yisrael did not.

Note: They thought that tossing was insignificant to baking/cooking it. It does not affect the process of the cooking because it does not increase the temperature enough to make a difference in the cooking process. However, the Rosh did not want to challenge the minhag of tossing it, but if you have no access to food for three days, then it is permitted because your life would be in danger.

The Rambam has the most lenient opinion.
Rambam: Even if a Jew tosses in just a single piece of wood, the Pat is still permitted because the important thing is that we are showing that Pat Akum is assur and therefor appear to be involved with the baking process to show that that this specific loaf is not assur because of the fact that an involvement of a Jew can change the status of the Pat.

The Tur does not agree with the Rambam on this leniency.

Note: When the Pat Akum was kneaded with eggs, even if the eggs are inside of it, it is secondary to the Pat because it is merely enhancing the Pat. A different source mentions a case where there is the eggs are cooked separately from the mixture which does create an issue in regards to Bishul Akum.

Reish-Yud: The Geonim wrote that the Kutaḥ of an Akum is permitted without a doubt. This particular delicacy includes a mixture of things including Pat which is not the primary thing in the mixture. When there is something that we’re not sure about because of the fact that it is a mixture, it is better to be lenient.

Note: What about croutons? The Palter Akum would have to acquire Pat Yisrael and then use those for his salad. However, this would only be Halachically possible if the Palter himself was under a Yisrael.

Shakh: Pat Komrim is forbidden even though they don’t have kids. Perhaps, it could lead to integration into the society of the Notzrim and to deal intermarriage with Notzrim who are not Komrim. When the sages forbade Pat Akum, they did not differentiate between the Pat of those that have kids and the Pat of those that have not.

Pitchei Teshuvah: Alef

Mumar – a Jew with the Din of an Akum

Pat Mumar is permitted even though he has the Din of an Akum, but since he is a Jew, the Gezerah against Pat Akum doesn’t apply to him since the Gezerah was established to prevent intermarriage. Thus, in regards to the Gezerah, Pat Mumar is not an issue.

Note: Now, when it comes to the danger of not being influenced by Kofrim, minimizing friendships with them is very important. Thus, one should avoid Pat Mumar unless it creates an issue with Kibbud Av ve’Eim.