16,374
edits
Pat Akum: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Background: The Gezairah
(→Links) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Background: The Gezairah== | ==Background: The Gezairah== | ||
# The Chachomim enacted a gezairah forbidding bread that was baked by a non-Jew<ref>Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:6. It's clear from the Gemara Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b that this prohibition is mi'derabanan. This prohibition is independent from that of bishul akum; see Ramban Avodah Zarah 35b "ve'hapas" regarding which gezairah was made first. Ramban ibid. also notes that there are more leniencies for pas akum than for bishul akum, because everyone needs bread to live. The Aruch Hashulchan 113:2 suggests that since bishul akum was also prohibited because of the possibility of the non-Jew mixing in non-kosher besides for the fear of intermarriage, we are more strict regarding bishul akum than pas akum.</ref> so as to avoid intermingling with them too much, which could lead to intermarriage<ref>cf. Rashi Avodah Zarah 35b "shelakos" and Rambam Peirush Hamishnah Avodah Zarah 2:6. However, from the Gemara on daf 17b and 36b it seems like the real concern was actually idolatry, cf. Chelkas Binyamin Biurim on page 4. Ramban Avodah Zarah 35b, Rabbeinu Yonah ad. loc., and Shach Y.D. 112:3 note that there is no reason to be concerned for other issues of kashrus. It should be pointed out though that today one still cannot buy bread without a hechsher, see Iggros Moshe Y.D. 2:33</ref>. However, the bread of a non-Jew is prohibited even if there's no possibility of intermarriage,<ref>Such as if the non-Jewish baker was a priest who wouldn't have any daughters. Rama Y.D. 112:1 quoting the Rashba.</ref> and doesn't depend on whether or not the non-Jew is an idolater<ref>Pri Megadim Sifsei Daas 112:2 | # The Chachomim enacted a gezairah forbidding bread that was baked by a non-Jew<ref>Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:6. It's clear from the Gemara Meseches Avodah Zarah 35b that this prohibition is mi'derabanan. This prohibition is independent from that of bishul akum; see Ramban Avodah Zarah 35b "ve'hapas" regarding which gezairah was made first. Ramban ibid. also notes that there are more leniencies for pas akum than for bishul akum, because everyone needs bread to live. The Aruch Hashulchan 113:2 suggests that since bishul akum was also prohibited because of the possibility of the non-Jew mixing in non-kosher besides for the fear of intermarriage, we are more strict regarding bishul akum than pas akum.</ref> so as to avoid intermingling with them too much, which could lead to intermarriage<ref>cf. Rashi Avodah Zarah 35b "shelakos" and Rambam Peirush Hamishnah Avodah Zarah 2:6. However, from the Gemara on daf 17b and 36b it seems like the real concern was actually idolatry, cf. Chelkas Binyamin Biurim on page 4. Ramban Avodah Zarah 35b, Rabbeinu Yonah ad. loc., and Shach Y.D. 112:3 note that there is no reason to be concerned for other issues of kashrus. It should be pointed out though that today one still cannot buy bread without a hechsher, see Iggros Moshe Y.D. 2:33</ref>. However, the bread of a non-Jew is prohibited even if there's no possibility of intermarriage,<ref>Such as if the non-Jewish baker was a priest who wouldn't have any daughters. Rama Y.D. 112:1 quoting the Rashba.</ref> and doesn't depend on whether or not the non-Jew is an idolater.<ref>Pri Megadim Sifsei Daas 112:2 writes that obviously bread of a Muslim is forbidden just like bread of a Christian because of the concern of intermarriage. Darchei Teshuva 112:4, Pri Tohar 112:3, and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Halichot Olam v. 7 p. 91 agree. See Mateh Yonatan 112:1 who is lenient.</ref> | ||
# It is permitted to derive benefit from bread baked by a non-Jew without eating it.<ref>Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:3-6</ref> | # It is permitted to derive benefit from bread baked by a non-Jew without eating it.<ref>Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:3-6</ref> | ||
# While the Bavli's conclusion is somewhat ambiguous, most Rishonim understand that the prohibition of eating pas akum was revoked to some degree.<ref>Ritva Avodah Zarah 35b quotes from R. Meir Halevi who believed that the prohibition was not revoked at all, but the Ritva himself, his teachers, Tosfos, Rash miShantz, Rabbeinu Yonah, Ramban, Ra"ah, Rashba, Ran, Nimukei Yosef, and the Rosh in their comments to the aforementioned Gemara all beleive that the decree was limited by later Chachamim. See below regarding the opinion of the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.</ref> According to some<ref>Ritva Avodah Zarah 35b. Such a position is also implied by Tosafos 35b "michlal", as well as by the Rosh's opinion recorded in Tur 112 and the Mordechai according to Shach 112:8</ref>, the prohibition was revoked by the sages entirely. Another opinion, which is followed by Ashkenazim, is that the rabbis allowed bread baked only by a non-Jewish baker ("''pas paltar''", as opposed to "''pas baal habayis''"),<ref>Yerushalami Avodah Zarah 2:8, Rama YD 112:2 based on Tosafot Avoda Zara 35b "michlal", Mordechai, and Issur VeHeter Klal 44, Chochmat Adam 65:2. This also appears to be the position of Rashba and Ran. See below regarding the definition of a 'baker' for this halakha.</ref> whether or not there is bread baked by a Jew available.<ref>Bach to Tur Y.D. 112, Rama in Sefer Toras Chatas 75, Gra Y.D. 112:7-8, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:1. According to the second opinion, which is that of the Rama, in a case where no Jewish-baked bread is available, even "pas baal habayis" is permitted (Rama Y.D. 112:8, see also Rashba Avodah Zarah 35b in his explanation of the Rif).</ref> The third, and most stringent opinion, is that bread of a baker was permitted only in cases where bread baked by a Jew is not available.<ref>Rambam Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 17:12, Ramban, Ran and Rashba to Avodah Zarah 35b</ref> This appears to be the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch.<ref>Cf. Y.D. 112:2 and 112:8.</ref> Some Sephardic poskim accept Shulchan Aruch, while others are lenient even if there is a Jewish baker.<ref> Ben Ish Chai II Chukas 2 who follows the lenient opinion and says that the minhag Baghdad was to buy pat palter even though there was a Jewish baker. [Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com http://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?PageIndex=&ClipID=303] is also lenient for pat palter. However, Kaf Hachaim 112:30 is strict unless there isn't a Jewish baker or there isn't enough bread from the Jewish baker to meet the demands of the Jews. Also, Yalkut Yosef 112:4 is strict unless there isn't a Jewish baker. He cites Halichot Olam v. 7 p. 90.</ref> | # While the Bavli's conclusion is somewhat ambiguous, most Rishonim understand that the prohibition of eating pas akum was revoked to some degree.<ref>Ritva Avodah Zarah 35b quotes from R. Meir Halevi who believed that the prohibition was not revoked at all, but the Ritva himself, his teachers, Tosfos, Rash miShantz, Rabbeinu Yonah, Ramban, Ra"ah, Rashba, Ran, Nimukei Yosef, and the Rosh in their comments to the aforementioned Gemara all beleive that the decree was limited by later Chachamim. See below regarding the opinion of the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.</ref> According to some<ref>Ritva Avodah Zarah 35b. Such a position is also implied by Tosafos 35b "michlal", as well as by the Rosh's opinion recorded in Tur 112 and the Mordechai according to Shach 112:8</ref>, the prohibition was revoked by the sages entirely. Another opinion, which is followed by Ashkenazim, is that the rabbis allowed bread baked only by a non-Jewish baker ("''pas paltar''", as opposed to "''pas baal habayis''"),<ref>Yerushalami Avodah Zarah 2:8, Rama YD 112:2 based on Tosafot Avoda Zara 35b "michlal", Mordechai, and Issur VeHeter Klal 44, Chochmat Adam 65:2. This also appears to be the position of Rashba and Ran. See below regarding the definition of a 'baker' for this halakha.</ref> whether or not there is bread baked by a Jew available.<ref>Bach to Tur Y.D. 112, Rama in Sefer Toras Chatas 75, Gra Y.D. 112:7-8, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:1. According to the second opinion, which is that of the Rama, in a case where no Jewish-baked bread is available, even "pas baal habayis" is permitted (Rama Y.D. 112:8, see also Rashba Avodah Zarah 35b in his explanation of the Rif).</ref> The third, and most stringent opinion, is that bread of a baker was permitted only in cases where bread baked by a Jew is not available.<ref>Rambam Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 17:12, Ramban, Ran and Rashba to Avodah Zarah 35b</ref> This appears to be the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch.<ref>Cf. Y.D. 112:2 and 112:8.</ref> Some Sephardic poskim accept Shulchan Aruch, while others are lenient even if there is a Jewish baker.<ref> Ben Ish Chai II Chukas 2 who follows the lenient opinion and says that the minhag Baghdad was to buy pat palter even though there was a Jewish baker. [Rabbi Mansour on dailyhalacha.com http://www.dailyhalacha.com/Display.asp?PageIndex=&ClipID=303] is also lenient for pat palter. However, Kaf Hachaim 112:30 is strict unless there isn't a Jewish baker or there isn't enough bread from the Jewish baker to meet the demands of the Jews. Also, Yalkut Yosef 112:4 is strict unless there isn't a Jewish baker. He cites Halichot Olam v. 7 p. 90.</ref> | ||
