Diving into the Laws of Bread Baked by Non-Jews
If you spend enough time at Rabbi E’s weekly lunch mishmor or mishmeret, someone — usually a freshman — inevitably will offer Rabbi E to scoop him some ice cream or grab him an oreo. Politely, Rabbi E explains that despite the OU logo on the carton, he cannot eat it; he holds by something called chalav yisrael (lit. Jewish milk), but the student should go ahead. What is going on? Rabbi E certainly would not (and does not) feed his students non-kosher ice cream.
The rabbis of the Mishnah, as recorded in Maseches Avodah Zara 35b, forbid certain categories of foods — even if they contain entirely kosher ingredients — if they were prepared by non-Jews. One of these categories is chalav yisrael, or milk and dairy products, which we will delve into next issue; this article will focus on pas yisrael, which refers to bread baked by a Jew. Nowadays, various leniencies (and stringencies) apply to the rabbis’ blanket restrictions on eating foods produced by non-Jews, including with regards to bread.
As always, nothing contained in this article should be understood as halachic guidance of any sort; I am a high school student and exceedingly unqualified to render any sort of ruling whatsoever. I only intend to try to explain some potentially unfamiliar terms. For reference, all sources come from the author’s Yoreh Deah section unless otherwise noted or not applicable.
“The rabbis of the Mishnah, as recorded in Maseches Avodah Zara 35b, forbid certain categories of foods — even if they contain entirely kosher ingredients — if they were prepared by non-Jews.”
The most direct place to start with pas yisrael is the aforementioned mishnah on Avodah Zara 35b, which prohibits eating bread baked by a non-Jew, called pas akum. The gemara on the same page (and confirmed by Rashi) pins the reasoning of the decree to intermarriage: Specifically, if Jews “broke bread” with non-Jews, their fraternization might lead to marriage, an outcome the rabbis sought to avoid.
The halachic authorities are pretty much in consensus that the decree against pas akum stems from a desire to avoid intermarriage, chief among them the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:9). The Ran (Avodah Zara 13b) cites other authorities (such as the Raavad) who relate pas akum to kashrus concerns as well and argue, for example, that the non-Jew’s cooking instruments might have come in contact with a non-kosher food; nevertheless, the Ran also rules like the Rambam and the plain reading of the gemara.
Possible Leniencies
What if Marriage Does Not Pose a Concern?
As mentioned, the decree against eating pas akum is based on a concern about marriage. Therefore, an astute reader might wonder if the bread of a non-Jew would be permitted if marriage isn’t a possibility — for example, the Shach (112:4) suggests the bread of a priest, whose vows forbid them to marry or have children who could marry, would fall into this category. Nevertheless, the Rema (112:1) and Shach (112:4) maintain that the rabbis forbid pas akum even if we are not concerned about marriage in the specific case.
Pas Palter
Although the lack of possibility for marriage in the previous example didn’t generate any leniency, other (potential) exceptions to the prohibition of pas akum do exist. The gemara (Avodah Zara 35b) creates a distinction between regular pas akum — or more precisely, pas baal habayis, indicating bread baked by a private individual for his family (Rema in 112:2) — and pas palter, which is bread baked by a non-Jewish baker in his professional capacity. The Tur (112) explains conceptually that, according to those who would want to create a distinction and allow pas palter, a baker and a customer will not result in marriage.
Looking inside the gemara (Avodah Zara 35b), Rabbi Yochanan comments that the Beis Din (Rabbinic Court) did not permit pas akum; the gemara extracts from his statement that some opinions would argue that the Beis Din did, in fact, permit pas akum. The gemara explains that this opinion came from a supposed misunderstanding of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who first asks why the rabbis prohibited pas akum and then asks for a baker to provide bread to the students in the Beis Midrash. According to the conclusion of the gemara, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi was trying to discern a reason — not cast doubt on — the prohibition of pas akum, and he was actually asking for a Jewish baker (not a non-Jewish one); the Jewish baker’s bread would clearly have pas yisrael status.
“Specifically, if Jews ‘broke bread’ with non-Jews, their fraternization might lead to marriage, an outcome the rabbis sought to avoid.”
In the next line of the gemara, Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Yochanan each provide limits on pas palter. They argue that even those who permit pas palter only do so in the absence of a Jewish baker — perhaps implicitly validating a leniency when it comes to pas palter.
The Ritva (Avodah Zara 35b) comments in the name of the Maharam m’Rutenberg and his teachers that the misunderstanding about Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s opinion is just that — a misunderstanding. Per the Ritva, when Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Yochanan acknowledged the existence and difference of pas palter as compared to other forms of pas akum, they were only explaining what the minority view held, not espousing it.
On the other hand, the Ritva admits that the majority of the Geonim and Tosfos (Avodah Zara 35b), as well as the Rif (Avodah Zara 14b), understand the gemara differently. They think that the limitations of Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Yochanan confirm the general allowance for pas palter even within the original decree.
The Shulchan Aruch (112:2) rules like this second opinion, allowing pas palter if a location lacks a Jewish baker since the essence of the decree was against marriage. The Rema (112:2) adds that some allow pas palter even in a place with a Jewish baker. Both the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema are clear that the rabbinic enactment prohibits pas baal habayis.
Did the Decree Ever Even Take Effect in the First Place?
The gemara later in Avodah Zara (36a) states that the rabbis only institute a decree if the majority of the Jewish people can abide by it. The medieval authorities tell of the difficulty in obtaining pas yisrael in many of their communities or other outlying communities; based on this, Tosfos (Avodah Zara 35b) argues that the decree against pas akum was never truly and comprehensively accepted by the Jewish people. As such, according to Tosfos, a later Beis Din can (and did, in the later times of the gemara) revoke the previous decree against pas akum.
“The Shulchan Aruch (112:2) rules like this second opinion, allowing pas palter if a location lacks a Jewish baker since the essence of the decree was against marriage.”
Other commentators and authorities take a similar track, although even within this path, a dispute arises. The Rosh (Avodah Zara 2:27) rules that while the decree as a whole took effect, that was only in places where one can easily find pas yisrael; where pas yisrael is too difficult to obtain, the Beis Din allowed people to rely on pas palter since the nation never really could accept the decree against pas akum in the first place.
The Tur (112) took the same approach as his father, the Rosh. He also explains that the Rosh did not differentiate between pas palter and pas baal habayis in places where pas yisrael is too difficult to find, since the entire decree itself never applied. The Shach (112:8) writes the same in the name of the Mordechai.
The Shach also brings that some poskim hold that the decree against pas akum did originally take effect, but Beis Din later realized it was too difficult for people to reasonably comply with and allowed the consumption of non-pas yisrael bread. The Ritva (Avodah Zara 35b), who earlier took the stringent approach in applying the gemara without an exception for pas palter, allows for a leniency on similar grounds. A source from the Talmud Yerushalmi says that since the people in remote areas were unable to find pas yisrael, the Beis Din allowed them to eat pas palter for human need. While we normally wouldn’t rule with a Yerushalmi, the Ritva grants it as an acceptable leniency in a case of great difficulty.
The Aruch HaShulchan (112:17) recounts and summarizes these opinions and concludes that if one can avoid it, he should not eat pas baal habayis and instead eat pas palter when possible. He adds that if one can access a Jewish baker, pas yisrael represents the preferred option.
Special Occasions
Whether one generally holds to the higher standard of pas yisrael or not, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 603) writes that one should act with care not to eat pas akum — both pas palter and, of course, pas baal habayis — during the aseres yemei teshuva between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The Mishnah Berurah (242:6) holds that one should try harder on Shabbos and Yom Tov to only eat pas yisrael in honor of the day. The Tur (112) takes the opposite approach, saying that one should make sure they have any type of bread, including pas palter, to celebrate Shabbos, even if one normally would not eat pas palter.
The Bottom Line
Everyone agrees that if pas yisrael is impossible to obtain, eating (kosher-certified) pas palter is permissible. The two practical differences are: whether one can eat pas palter in a place with a Jewish bakery and pas yisrael available, and whether one can eat pas baal habayis in a place where they customarily eat pas palter because it is too difficult to find pas yisrael. The former appears to be a disagreement between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, with the Shulchan Aruch (112:2) taking the stricter approach and the Rema (112:2) granting leniency, although other Ashkenazic poskim are more strict. The latter would depend on if pas palter was later allowed by the Beis Din only in places where finding pas yisrael is impossible, or whether the decree against pas akum was never really accepted and enacted with full force (so the decree against pas baal habayis would not have been either).
Rav Moshe Feinstein (as told by his son Rav Reuven Feinstein and quoted in Rivevos Efraim 5:596) added one factor with regards to the limits and applications of pas palter today. He held that the entire decree against pas palter never applied with regards to factory-baked bread, and as such, eating it would be permissible according to all opinions, even for those who would otherwise act stringently. Rabbi Avi Zakutinsky of the Orthodox Union writes that OU Kosher does not rely on Rav Moshe’s leniency regarding machine-baked pas palter by itself, but will if there are other questionable circumstances.
Make sure to check back next time for an explanation of chalav yisrael. While it might sound similar — they both have the word “yisrael” in the name, they come from the same mishnah (Avodah Zara 2:6), and their inverses are described as akum — the halachic factors that come into play are wildly different.
Be First to Comment