The Prohibition of Bread
איסור פת
The decree prohibiting gentiles’ bread and the prohibition of gentiles’ cooking share a single purpose – to prevent assimilation – but halakhically there are differences between them. On the one hand, we are more stringent with bread, since even if it is of an inferior kind, it is forbidden because of its importance. However, in most of the laws, because of the great need a person has for bread, we are more lenient with bread. Therefore, in pressing circumstances, in a place where there are no Jewish bakers, we are lenient to buy pat palter from gentile bakers (as explained in the next section).
The forbidden bread is bread baked by a gentile, whether he baked it at home for his family or baked it in a bakery in order to sell it to the public. Even inferior bread of the poor, which is never served at a respectable meal, as long as it is made from the five species of grain, has the importance of bread, which is a person’s staple food, and the prohibition of pat akum applies to it (SA YD 112:1). But breads made from types of kitniyot, such as corn and rice, have the law of a gentile’s cooked dish; therefore, if they are fit to be served at a respectable meal, they are forbidden because of bishulei akum, and if not, they are not subject to the prohibition of bishulei akum.
Baked goods over which one usually recites “mezonot,” such as cakes and crackers, since they are defined as bread for the mitzva of separating ḥalla, have the law of bread and are forbidden to eat even when they are not usually served at a respectable meal (above 11:10-12).
If a Jew participated in baking the bread, the bread is not considered pat akum and one may eat it. Therefore, if a Jew kindled the oven, or put the dough into it, or stirred the coals, or even just added a small wood chip to the oven, or even lowered and raised the flame of a gas or electric oven – the bread is kosher. For the main thing is that Jews know that gentiles’ bread is forbidden to them, and as long as they are careful that a Jew participates in some way in baking the bread, there is already a marker for Jews that they must preserve their uniqueness, and the bread is permitted (Avoda Zara 38b; Rambam; SA YD 112:9; Levush).¹
Notes (1)
- We learned in Avoda Zara 38b that whenever a Jew performed one of the three tasks of baking bread – kindling the oven, putting the dough into it, or stirring the coals – the bread is kosher. According to Ramban, Rabbeinu Yona, and Rosh, stirring the coals renders the bread kosher because its benefit is noticeable in the bread, but if a Jew stirred in some minimal way whose benefit is not noticeable, the bread is forbidden. On the other hand, according to Rashba, even throwing a small wood chip into the oven is effective, even though its benefit is not noticeable; so writes Pri Ḥadash and many other Aḥaronim. Similarly, Rambam writes (Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 17:13): “Even if he only threw a piece of wood into the oven, he has permitted all the bread in it, for the matter is only to serve as a marker that their bread is forbidden.” Beit Yosef 112:9 writes that this is the halakha, since Rambam and Rashba agree, and Rambam gave a reasonable rationale, “and the custom of Israel, which is Torah, supports them”; and so he rules in SA 112:9. Darkhei Moshe adds that so ruled the great Ashkenazic authorities: Mordekhai, Mahari [Isserlein], Issur Ve-heter He-arukh, and Agur in the name of Mahari Molin. (Ran is stringent and maintains that bread belonging to a gentile is forbidden in any case, and when the bread belongs to a Jew, if a Jew performed one of the three baking actions, the bread is permitted. Most Rishonim and all the Aḥaronim were not concerned for his stringency.)
As long as the bread can still be improved, if the Jew participates in the heating, even by lowering and raising the flame, he renders the bread kosher (SA YD 112:12). According to many, even if a Jew turns on the oven by means of a Shabbat timer, it is considered as having been lit by a Jew; so writes Minḥat Yitzḥak 4:27 (R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv was stringent). Likewise, lighting by remote control is effective. It seems that lighting by a young child is also effective, since it constitutes a marker that a Jew participated. Admittedly, some maintain that only intentional lighting is effective, and not merely throwing a wood chip into the oven (Shakh 113:10), and then perhaps a minor lacks intention (Bein Yisrael La-amim 4:14). However, Rema 113:7 writes that intention is not required. In addition, it seems that a minor’s intention can be effective.