Difference between revisions of "Pat Akum"
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Corrected Kaf Hachaim's opinion in footnote.)
m (Corrected Kaf Hachaim's opinion in footnote.)
Latest revision as of 21:27, 19 January 2020
Background: The Gezairah
- The Chachomim enacted a gezairah forbidding bread that was baked by a non-Jew so as to avoid intermingling with them too much, which could lead to intermarriage. However, the bread of a non-Jew is prohibited even if there's no possibility of intermarriage, and doesn't depend on whether or not the non-Jew is an idolater.
- It is permitted to derive benefit from bread baked by a non-Jew without eating it.
- While the Bavli's conclusion is somewhat ambiguous, most Rishonim understand that the prohibition of eating pas akum was revoked to some degree. According to some, the prohibition was revoked by the sages entirely.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"), whether or not there is bread baked by a Jew available. 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. This appears to be the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch. Some Sephardic poskim accept Shulchan Aruch, while others are lenient even if there is a Jewish baker.
- Although Ashkenazi practice is to usually follow the Rama, several poskim indicate that it is still proper to be stringent in this manner and not eat pas paltar where pas yisroel is available. Others are not concerned with this for most of the year. Someone whose practice was to be careful not to eat pas paltar and wants to change this practice must be mattir neder.
- The Tur writes that even those who are not careful about pas paltar during the year are careful to only eat pas yisrael during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah. Several reasons are given for this custom. Some say that this is true of Shabbos and Yom Tov as well, as part of kavod shabbos.
Who Baked the Bread
- A "non-Jewish baker" (paltar) in this context is anyone who baked bread with the intent to sell it, and not someone who happens to sell bread for a living. Thus, if a baker invited a Jew to partake of his bread, it wouldn't be considered "pas paltar" and would be prohibited. Bread that was baked with the intention to give to guests is like bread that was meant to be sold, and has the status of "pas paltar".
- As mentioned above, all non-Jews are included in this prohibition.
- It is a machlokes haposkim as to whether or not bread baked by an irreligious Jew would be prohibited. The minhag is to be lenient.
- Some poskim have thought that because one would never recognize who baked his bread that was baked industrially in a factory, all commercially sold factory-made bread would not be categorized as "pas akum". However, in practice few poskim would rely on this on its own.
- The Shulchan Aruch paskens that the prohibition depends on who baked the bread, and not on who sold the bread. Therefore, a baal habayis who sells bread baked by a baker has the status of pas paltar, and vice versa.
- If a Jew owned the dough, then most poskim assume that in such a case the bread would fall under the category of Bishul Akum instead of pas paltar. However, some are lenient especially for a large factory that is owned by a Jew.
- When there is no pas yisroel available, the Shulchan Aruch quotes two opinions as to whether or not one would be allowed to eat only pas paltar or even pas ba'al habayis. The Rama writes that the custom is to follow the lenient opinion. Thus, the following rules in determining "lack of availability" permits either pas paltar according to the Shulchan Aruch, but pas baal habayis according to the Rama.
- Pas paltar according to the Shulchan Aruch and pas ba'al habayis according to the Rama is permitted only as long as there is no Jewish baker, and then becomes prohibited until the Jewish baker runs out of bread. If someone already bought the pas paltar or pas baal habayis while it was permitted, and then a Jewish baker came to town, there's a machlokes as to whether the bread already bought becomes prohibited, but most poskim are lenient.
- Even if there is pas yisroel bread, but it is a different kind of bread or a lower quality than the pas paltar, then one is allowed to consider it as if there is no pas yisroel available if he wants the other type of bread.
- If the pat yisrael is significantly more expensive than the pat palter some say that it is permitted to buy pat palter, while others disagree. Some say that this is not true during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah
- The availability of pas yisroel depends on whether or not it is obtainable in one's own city, and so even if there's a place to get pas yisroel just outside the city, one is not required to do so.
- Someone who is on the road without pas yisroel would have to travel a distance as far as four mil before he would be allowed to eat pas paltar (according to the Shulchan Aruch), and one does not have to travel in the opposite direction in order to get to pas yisroel.
What Breads and Foods are Included
- Only bread made from "The Five Grains" is included in the laws of pas akum; anything else falls under the category of Bishul Akum.
- When a food is a combination of bread and something else, such as egg, then we follow the ikkar, but if the egg is still visible as a separate entity, such as in the case of French Toast, then the food as a whole will be subject to the rule of Bishul Akum as well.
- Regarding a food that contains only a little bit of bread mixed into it, such as Babylonian "kutach" or borscht, the bit of bread is considered nullified.
- Included in foods that are bread for the purpose of bishul akum is anything that would have the bracha of Hamotzi if eaten as a meal. However, some say that this is true only if the dough used was thick like bread dough, instead of like cake batter, and the food looks like bread. Based on this, cakes, wafers, and crackers are subject to Pas Akum. The same would be true of foods such as pancakes and waffles.
- A dough-food that was deep fried is, according to some poskim, included in pas akum instead of Bishul Akum but others reject this opinion. The proper bracha on doughnuts is itself a matter of dispute.
- Bagels are included in pas akum and not in Bishul Akum because even though they are boiled before being baked, they are not made edible by the boiling.
- Breakfast cereals which are Mezonos would be subject to Pas Akum only if they have tzuras hapas, because otherwise one would never make Hamotzi on them. Some poskim think that cereals such as Cheerios should be considered to have tzuras hapas while others disagree.
- Pretzels should be considered pas, because they are generally made from bread-dough and have the same general form of bread. However, thin, hard pretzels might lack tzuras hapas and therefore not be prohibited under pas akum.
- Although there is a leniency applicable to Bishul Akum, that if the food is "not fit for a king's table" it would be permissible, most poskim believe that this is not applicable to bread, and so even low-quality breads are included in the prohibition. 
Involvement of a Jew in the Baking
- The Gemara states that as long as the Jew lit the fire or performed the actual baking, the bread is considered pas yisroel.
- The Geonim allowed bread baked by a non-Jew even if the Jew merely added to the fire by throwing in extra kindling and the custom is in accordance with this opinion.
- Poskim disagree about modern cooking appliances, such as glow plugs and pilot lights or light bulbs.
- Bread baked by a non-Jew can become Pas Yisrael if a Jew improves it by cooking. Based upon this, many poskim allow one who does not eat Pas Akum to toast bread or bagels which were baked by a non-Jew, because toasting improves its taste.
- Shiur Series by Rabbi Dovid Cohen of the CRC
- Articles on 1 2 and 3 by Rabbi Chaim Jachter
- Halachically Speaking Volume 5 Issue 15 and Volume 5 Issue 16: "Pas Akum, Pas Paltur, & Pas Yisroel" Parts I & II
- What Makes Bread Jewish?
- The Contemporary Kosher Bakery and Its Halachic Issues
- 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.
- 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
- Such as if the non-Jewish baker was a priest who wouldn't have any daughters. Rama Y.D. 112:1 quoting the Rashba.
- 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.
- Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:3-6
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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).
- Rambam Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 17:12, Ramban, Ran and Rashba to Avodah Zarah 35b
- Cf. Y.D. 112:2 and 112:8.
- 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. Kaf Hachaim 112:30 explains that the custom of Baghdad was based on the leniency of Maharimat (cited in Knesset Hagedolah Yoreh Deah Hagahot Beit Yosef 10; he uses it to explain the custom in Istanbul), that if there isn't enough bread from the Jewish baker to properly meet the demands of the entire city, it has the same status as if there is no Jewish baker. However, Yalkut Yosef 112:4 and Patbag Hamelech 1:15 are strict unless there actually isn't a Jewish baker.
- Shach 112:8, Aruch Hashulchan 112:9, 112:17, Chochmas Adam 65:2 and Chelkes Binyomin 112:23.
- Bach to Tur Y.D. 112, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:1. The Orthodox Union, as do most Kashrus organizations, certify pas paltar foods as kosher.
- Darchei Teshuva 112:94
- Raavyah Rosh Hashana siman 529, Rosh to Rosh Hashanah 4:14, Tur Orach Chaim 603, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 603:1 and Mishnah Berurah there, Shach Y.D. 112:9. However, the Tashbetz quoted by the Beis Yosef there O.C. 603 doesn't approve of changing one's practice during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah.
- The Chayei Adam 143:1 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 130:2 write that because God is more merciful than 'necessary' during this time period, we should respond by keeping stringencies which we wouldn't normally consider to be necessary. Levush O.C. 603:1 writes that extra stringencies will remind us to be in a state of teshuvah. Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank suggested, based on Ramban, that being careful about pas yisrael was a custom of talmidei chachamim, and so we want to act like talmidei chachamim at this time. Rabbi Sobolofsky offered another possibility that because the decree was rescinded only because it would be impossible to keep all year long, it is not unreasonable to adhere to it for only ten days of the year.
- Magen Avraham O.C. 242:4, Mishna Brurah 242:6. From the Rama it appears as though this only matters for the bread that one is actually using for the bracha to begin the meals, but the Shaar Tziyun 242:18 writes that even throughout the meal, because of the honor of Shabbos or Yom Tov, one should be careful about pas yisroel
- This is the opinion of the Rama 112:2 based on the Beis Yosef and Rashba (see Gra 112:9), although the Tur's language suggests that he might believe that it depends upon whether or not the non-Jew is baking the bread en masse or not. Shach 112:11 writes that even the bread that a professional commercial baker baked for himself would be included in the prohibition.
- Rama 112:3 quoting Ra"ah in Bedek HaBayis. However, the Shach 112:12 points out that the Rashba disagrees, and if the Shulchan Aruch is consistent in believing that the prohibition depends on the status of the bread when it was baked, and not when it is sold, then this case should be permitted. Nekudos HaKesef, however, points out that perhaps even if normally the prohibition depends on the time when the bread was baked, this case is too similar to the case of a non-Jew baking the bread for himself.
- Kaf Hachayim 112:46
- Rama Y.D. 112:1 quoting the Rashba, Pri Megadim Sifsei Daas 112:2, Pri Tohar on Shulchan Aruch 112:3, Darchei Teshuva 112:4. See Rav Chaim Kanievsky's commentary to Maseches Geirim 1:5, that according to Rabbi Akiva, even a convert cannot eat his own bread that he baked before converting.
- Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 112:1 quoting Tiferes LeMoshe is lenient because one would be allowed to marry his daughter as is Iggeros Moshe Y.D. 1:45, but the Pri Chodosh 112:2, Pri Megadim, and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:2 all write that a Jew who does not keep Shabbos is considered like a non-Jew in this regard. See Maharam Shik O.C. 281, Darchei Teshuva 112:5, Avnei Nezer Y.D. 92 (who suggests that it might be prohibited to marry someone not-religious), Shut Yehudah Yaaleh 12, Minchas Yitzchak 3:72, Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 112:11, Mishneh Halachos 11:111, Shut M’Bais Levi 8:page 23:footnote 2, Titz Eliezer 9:41, Yabia Omer Y.D. 5:10, and Chelkes Binyomin 112:4. Also refer to Bishul Yisroel pages 412-413.
- Rav Shternbach in Halachos Ve'Hanhagos 1:470 writes that even though one must be stringent, in a sha'as hadechak one can eat the bread of someone who is merely a tinok shenishbah, which he applies to anyone who was raised in a non-religious environment. Rav Schachter in OU document A-133 and Rav Asher Weiss in Minchas Asher Devarim no. 5 write that the custom has always been to be lenient. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Halichot Olam v. 7 p. 92 is lenient.
- Mesorah Journal vol. 1 pg. 95 and Rivevos Ephraim 5:596 both quote such a position in the name of R. Moshe Feinstein z"l
- Mesorah Journal vol. 1, Rivevos Ephraim 5:596, Minchas Yitzchak 3:26:6 and 3:26:10, Yabea Omer Y.D. 5:9:5, and Shevet Halevi 6:108:6 quotes that the Chazon Ish refused to accept such a possibility at all. See also Chelkes Binyamin 113:4
- This is a dispute between the Rashba and Ra'ah in Toras Habayis and Bedek Habayis 3:7, quoted by the Beis Yosef Y.D. 112, and the Shulchan Aruch 112:7 paskens like the Rashba, cf. Shach 112:12.
- Tur 112, Perishah Yoreh De'ah 112:10, Shach Y.D. 112:7 quoting Issur Ve'Heter and Toras Chatas, Taz 112:7.
- Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 112:10 and 112:29. However, the Aruch Hashulchan derives his opinion from Shach 112:1, which is very difficult considering what the Shach says in 112:7
- See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:45. Rav Moshe explains that the Tur must mean that because the prohibiton of Bishul is not applicable for any bread that would otherwise be pas paltar or pas baal habayis, bread owned by a Jew falls into neither or these categories and is therefore Bishul Akum. Rav Moshe argues that this is only the case because making dough that is owned by a Jew into bishul Yisroel is very easy, but when doing so would involve significant difficulty, such as in a factory, this stringency does not apply. This may depend on the dispute between the Ramban (Avodah Zarah 35b) and Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer Hayasher 392) as to which decree was made first. Rav Moshe does not clarify whether such bread should be considered pas paltar or pas yisrael.
- It would appear that even according to the Rambam and Rashba who don't believe that merely adding to the fire suffices to avoid Bishul Akum, it would suffice for bread owned by a Jew, because doing so is a melachah chashuvah b'pas, as indicated by the Rashba to Avodah Zarah 38b, Ran, Ritva ad loc., and Bedek Habayis 3:7, even if the Rashba argues in Mishmeres Habayis that raising the fire is sufficient for bread only because bread is more necessary for day-to-day sustenance. Thus, according to most of the Rishonim, raising the fire would suffice for bread owned by a Jew according to the Tur, but according to the Mishmeres Habayis, the bread would still be prohibited unless the Jew assisted in the actual baking.
- Yoreh De'ah 112:2 and 112:8
- The second opinion is that of the Ra"ah. Because the Shulchan Aruch does not seem to hold like his opinion through the rest of the siman, and because of a general rule to follow the first opinion quoted by the Shulchan Aruch instead of an opinion which he prefaces by "there are those who say", those who follow the Shulchan Aruch should be stringent in this regard, unless there is a very serious need, such as in a case where a person hasn't had bread for three days. Kaf Hachayim 112:49-50 and Yalkut Yosef Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 112:3-4.
- Y.D. 112:8, Shach 112:8 and Matteh Yonasan there. This is also clearly the opinion of the Rosh as quoted by the Tur, see above
- This is clear from Shu"t Rama 132:8, cf. Chelkas Binyamin Biurim pg. 58
- Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 112:4
- Between the Rashba Toras Ha-Bayis and Ra"ah in Bedek Habayis, page 185
- Shach 112:13 and Chelkas Binhyamin 112:40, as long as the bread was bought while it was permitted
- Shulchan Aruch 112:5 quoting the Rashba in Toras Habayis and Shach 112:9.
- Based on the language of the Bach and Shulchan Aruch, Chelkas Binyamin 112:51 and 112:18 says that if the pas yisroel is merely more expensive but is the same quality, it would not be permissible to buy the pas paltar. Footnote 2 on the Meiri to Avodah Zarah 35b "mah she-hutar" leaves the question open. Yirchon Haotzer 14 p. 253 quotes Bishul Yisrael p. 17 who cites Rav Elyashiv that even if the pat yisrael is more expensive that isn't sufficient reason to buy pat palter. However, Pitchei Halacha Kashrut p. 57 is lenient.
- Sefer Bishul Yisroel, footnote on pg. 18
- Meiri 35b "ve'hinei". Chelkas Binyamin 112:18 indicates that if one lives in a big city and would have to travel four mil or more to obtain pas yisrael he might not have to travel that far. Yirchon Haotzer p. 254 quotes the Shevet Hakehati that if there is pat yisrael in the town irrelevant of how far away it is one shouldn't buy pat palter.
- See Chelkas Binyamin Biurim pg. 59 who discusses whether this is measured by distance or by travel time, and see Aruch Hashulchan 112:18, who writes ד' מילין הוא אם צריך לילך לשם אבל כשאין לו דרך לשם או שצריך לחזור לאחוריו אין כאן שיעור ד' מילין [פר"ח סקכ"ח] ומיהו שיעור מיל צריך להמתין [חכ"א] ואין חילוק בכל זה בין דרך טובה לדרך רעועה ובין נוסע בעגלה או רוכב על הסוס או הולך רגלי דחכמים השוו מדותיהם
- Shulchan Aruch 112:16 and Mishnah Berurah Orach Chayim 603:1
- Pri Chadash 112:28, Darchei Teshuva 112:95
- As implied by Brachos 37a. Rosh (Teshuvos) 19:21, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 112:1
- Tosafos and Rashba to Avodah Zarah 35b, Avnei Nezer 94:1-2, R' Belsky in OU Document A-65
- Rama 112:6 and Aruch Hashulchan 112:21, though see Pri Megadim there who implies that only if the egg is mixed in afterwords would there be a problem of Bishul Akum, and not if they were cooked together. Regarding French toast in particular, Rav Belsky paskened in OU Document A-63 that the eggs are certainly separate enough to be considered "be'en", even though the OU is lenient regarding white bread, which has an egg-glaze, because the glaze is so thin that it is barely recognizable at all.
- Rashba Toras Habayis 3:7 and Tur 112 quoted in the Shulchan Aruch 112:14. The Rama there writes that this is is true even if there's solid being mixed into a liquid, and the Shach 112:23 adds that even if the bread would normally be considered a "davar chashuv". All this is as long as someone didn't mix the bread into a food specifically in order to permit it (Rama).
- Rabbi Yechiel of Paris as quoted in Tosfos Beitza 16b and Darkei Moshe Y.D. 112 (against the Shaarei Dura 69, who believes that as long as the food is cooked and not baked it shouldn't be considered bread), Pri Chadash and Beis Meir to Rama 112:6, Avnei Nezer 93:3, Divrei Dovid 3:9, and Halichot Olam v. 7 p. 110. See Pat Haba Bikisnin. See Amah Dvar 1:183 quoting Rav Mordechai Eliyahu as holding biscuits are subject to bishul akum and Divrei Dovid disagrees.
- Shach 112:18, though see Chelkas Binyamin 112:64 that most poskim seem to disagree. There appears to be a contradiction in the Toras Chatas regarding this issue between 69:4 and 75:12. See next halacha, however, that this is only true of baked products.
- Shulchan Aruch O.C. 168:8, see Pat Haba Bikisnin
- Assuming that pancakes are the terisin discussed in Shulchan Aruch O.C. 168:15, then there is a machlokes between the Shulchan Aruch and the Magen Avraham 168:41 as to whether or not one would make Hamotzi on such foods if one were to eat them as a meal. There also appears to be contradiction in the Mishnah Berurah between 168:38 where he paskens like the Shulchan Aruch, and 168:90 where he says that we should be stringent and try to avoid eating too much of these foods at a time. Thus, based on Rama Y.D. 113:11 who says that we can follow the lenient opinion when it comes to disagreements, Rabbi Genack suggested in OU Document A-63 that we can consider these foods to be bread instead of Bishul Akum. However, very thin waffles as described by Shaar HaTziyun 168:36 are not bread at all, and would be subject to the rules of Bishul Akum.
- Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 112:31 based upon Tashbetz 3:11 and Rivash 28, although they all say that 'sufganin', which are also kept thin and deep fried, are Shehakol and not pas.
- OU Document A-105 shows that the Aruch Hashulchan's sources rely on the rejected opinion of Rabbeinu Tam quoted in Tosafos Pesachim 37b who holds that fried dough is subject to Challah, which is not how we pasken in Shulchan Aruch O.C. 168:13 and Y.D. 329. Therefore, OU policy (OU Document A-105 and M-7) is to consider doughnuts as if they are not bread, and consider small doughnuts made of yeast to be "fit for a king's table" and require bishul yisrael, though most doughnuts do not.
- See Shulchan Aruch O.C. 168:13, Aruch Hashulchan 168:42, Mishnah Berurah 168:67-73 and 168:85, Sefer V'Zos HaBeracha pg. 496 footnote 3
- Aruch Hashulchan 112:31, Iggerot Moshe YD 2:33 and see the letter from Rav Moshe Feinstein that was published in Sefer Yigal Yaakov.
- Rama O.C. 168:13, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 168:15, Mishnah Berurah 168:3
- Rav Scheinberg zt"l, as quoted in Vezos Ha’beracha page 192
- R. Schachter, R. Belsky, and R. Genack in OU Document A-94 all assume that cereals such as Cheerios and Corn Flakes are permitted to be eaten when made by a non-Jew, because they lack tzuras hapas and are also not fit for a king's table, and this is the OU's policy.
- This is the opinion of R. Schachter as quoted in OU Document M-7, footnote 97, where he also notes that there's no prohibition of Bishul Akum either because hard pretzels are not served to kings.
- with the exception of Avnei Nezer YD 1:92
- Pri Megadim Mishbetzos Zahav 112:3 and see the sources quoted by Chelkas Binyamin 112:12 in the biurim
- Avodah Zarah 38b. The opinion of the Ran and Rashba there, that all of these actions are required only if the Jew doesn't actually own the bread, is rejected by the Shulchan Aruch and Rama; see Rambam Maachalos Asuros 17:13 and Shach 112:1. In fact, as noted above, the Shach in 112:7 is more stringent for bread owned by a Jew than for bread owned by a non-Jew, saying that the former has the status of Bishul Akum if baked by a non-Jew.
- Sefer Minhagim She-Bein Bavel V'Eretz Yisrael pg. 60, quoted by Tosfos Avodah Zarah 38b and Rosh Avodah Zarah 2:33. This can be explained based on the Rambam Maachalos Asuros 17:13 who writes that really all one needs to do is some perfunctory act to show that pas akum is generally prohibited.
- Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 112:9, Chochmas Adom 65:5, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 38:2, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 112:26. The Rama Y.D. 113:7, Taz 113:8, and Shach 113:10 say that the Jew doesn't need to have intent to raise the fire in order to have a Jew be involved in the baking, but the Kaf HaChayim Y.D. 112:52 disagrees.
- Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, and thus the Star-K, considers this device to add significant heat to the ovens, and therefore if a Jew were to turn on a glow plug that runs through the ovens, the food would be permitted (Star-K Kashrus Kurrents 36:2, Spring 2014). However, many poskim do not agree with this assessment, and the OU does not make use of glow plugs.
- Refer to OU Document A-54
- Shulchan Aruch YD 112:12
- Rav Moshe Shternbach Teshuvos V’hanhagos I: 444, Rav Belsky as quoted in the OU Halacha Yomis, available at https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ under "If I bought bread that is not Pas Yisroel, is there a way to make it Pas Yisroel?" However, it is noted there that warming up cold bread is not a sufficient form of an improvement as to permit bread that was Pas Akum.