SEIF 1
WHAT CONSTITUTES PAS AKAM

The Ron and Tur say there are two separate types of bread of a Goy. If the Goy owns the dough and kneads it and makes it into a loaf, this is Pas Akum and is prohibited, even if a Jew bakes it. It’s prohibited so we shouldn’t get close to them to marry them. If it’s the Jews flour, then as long as the Jew had something to do with the baking, like throwing in a splinter into the fire, it’s permitted. If the Goy bakes it completely it’s prohibited, not because of Pas Akum, which never has anyway to permit it, but because of Bishul Akum like anything else the Goy cooks.

The Rambam and Rashba doesn’t differentiate between the breads, and both cases are linked to Pas Akum and both have the Heter of being involved with baking. The Shulchon Orech Paskins like the Rambam. The Darchai Moshe gives the reason since we are lenient by rabbinical prohibitions.

Even when there is no concern that you’ll marry his daughter, like if he’s a Catholic priest that swears an oath of celibacy, their bread is still prohibited. The Rabanan never made differentiations in their decrees and prohibited it across the board.

If the Goy is not an idol worshipper (a Noahide) the Mateh Yahonason says the status of his bread depends on the interpretation of the following Gemarah. The Gemarah says in Shabbos that they decreed their bread because of their wines and their wines because of their daughters and their daughters because of idol worshipper. For those who learn it is all one decree, that the daughters are only prohibited because it will come to idol worshipping, thus we must be referring to the seclusion with them. It couldn’t mean the marrying of their daughters, since that is forbidden in itself. Thus the whole decree of bread is because it will eventually lead to idol worshipping, if the Goy doesn’t worship idols, it’s not a problem.

If you learn that it’s two decrees. The bread and the wine is forbidden since it might lead to the daughters i.e. marrying them. Plus they prohibited their daughters i.e. to be secluded with them, since it would lead to idol worship. Thus the decree of bread is because of the concern of intermarriage, which would apply to Noahides as well.

PT brings the Tiferes L’Moshe that bread baked by an irreligious Jew is permitted. Since he’s a Jew, it’s permitted to marry his daughter. The Shach points out that there is no problem in Pas Akum for Kashrus, that maybe he baked it on non Kosher utensils, since any given utensil of a Goy we assume wasn’t used in 24 hours and gives unfavorable taste.

Only the bread of the 5 grains are prohibited because of Pas Akum. Rice or legume breads are not in that category, since they are not classified as bread. As long as they are not fit to be served at the table of a king, it’s permitted like all Bishul Akum. (The Shach brings a Bach that says that these breads are definitely not fit for a king. You only need to be concerned about if it was cooked, then they could be fit for a king.

SEIF 2
THE HETERIM FOR PAS AKUM

The original decree of Pas Akum was not kept intact. The Gemarah says, since it was a decree that most of the people couldn’t keep, so they altered it. The Gemarah in Avodah Zarah 35b says that they permitted bread from a bakery. R’ Chelbo says they only permit it when they didn’t have a Jewish bakery around. R’ Yochanan says they only permit it in the fields (which was out of the city) but in the city proper it’s not permitted. The Ron has three ways of learning this. 1) They are arguing 2) they agree to each other and it is permitted only if both no Jewish bakeries and he’s out in the fields 3) they both agree to each other’s leniency, and permit where there is no Jewish bakery, even in the city. Also, if someone’s in the field it’s permitted even if there is a Jewish bakery around. The Rashba Paskins the third way and so does the Shulchon Orech that Goyishe bakery bread is permitted if there is no Jewish bakery in town.

The Shach explains that this is different than Bishul Akum, where there is no Heter like this, since bread is a basic staple of life and they can't survive without it. Similar to the Shita of the Shulchon Orech that we only allow the Heter of throwing a splinter into the fire by Pas Akum and not for Bishul Akum for that reason. (note, the Rama says that Heter applies to both)

The Shach also explains that this is only a Heter for Pas Akum, where the bread is the Goy’s. But if the bread is a Jew’s, but a Goy baked it, they never permitted it. Since the reason why they permitted, since they don’t have much of a choice, but by the Jew’s bread, he could have baked it himself.

The Mordichai brings a Yerushalmi that the original decree never took on in certain places. In those places it did not take affect. Thus if a place has a Minhag to permit Pas Akum, so it’s from those places that the decree was never took on. The Rama agrees to this and permits even if there is a Jewish bakery in town. The Shach says, according to this reasoning, bread from a Baal Habayis should be permitted, since there is no decree in this place. But he brings from the Issur V’Heter and L’vush that it’s only permitted bakery bread. This fits in that the Rama doesn’t argue with the next line of Shulchon Orech that bread from a Bal HaBas is always forbidden. The Mateh Yohonason gives the rational that the Rama didn’t want to rely solely on the Mordichai. He only wanted to permit with the addition of the Shitos that say that they never decreed on bakery bread. Therefore he only permits when both Shitos are satisfied, which is only by bakery bread. The Shach ends off that it’s better to not rely on the Mordichai and only eat it when there is no Jewish bakery.

If a baker bakes bread for his family or a regular Goy decides to bake to sell. The product is permitted only if it was made for the sake of selling and it is not dependent on the person’s profession. Since the reason why bakery bread is less of a problem to lead to intermarriage, since it’s more of a business relationship. Thus if you take someone’s personal bread it’s more personal and has more of a chance to get friendly that would lead to intermarriage.
SEIF 2
THE HETERIM FOR PAS AKUM

The original decree of Pas Akum was not kept intact. The Gemarah says, since it was a decree that most of the people couldn’t keep, so they altered it. The Gemarah in Avodah Zarah 35b says that they permitted bread from a bakery. R’ Chelbo says they only permit it when they didn’t have a Jewish bakery around. R’ Yochanan says they only permit it in the fields (which was out of the city) but in the city proper it’s not permitted. The Ron has three ways of learning this. 1) They are arguing 2) they agree to each other and it is permitted only if both no Jewish bakeries and he’s out in the fields 3) they both agree to each other’s leniency, and permit where there is no Jewish bakery, even in the city. Also, if someone’s in the field it’s permitted even if there is a Jewish bakery around. The Rashba Paskins the third way and so does the Shulchon Orech that Goyishe bakery bread is permitted if there is no Jewish bakery in town.

The Shach explains that this is different than Bishul Akum, where there is no Heter like this, since bread is a basic staple of life and they can't survive without it. Similar to the Shita of the Shulchon Orech that we only allow the Heter of throwing a splinter into the fire by Pas Akum and not for Bishul Akum for that reason. (note, the Rama says that Heter applies to both)

The Shach also explains that this is only a Heter for Pas Akum, where the bread is the Goy’s. But if the bread is a Jew’s, but a Goy baked it, they never permitted it. Since the reason why they permitted, since they don’t have much of a choice, but by the Jew’s bread, he could have baked it himself.

The Mordichai brings a Yerushalmi that the original decree never took on in certain places. In those places it did not take affect. Thus if a place has a Minhag to permit Pas Akum, so it’s from those places that the decree was never took on. The Rama agrees to this and permits even if there is a Jewish bakery in town. The Shach says, according to this reasoning, bread from a Baal Habayis should be permitted, since there is no decree in this place. But he brings from the Issur V’Heter and L’vush that it’s only permitted bakery bread. This fits in that the Rama doesn’t argue with the next line of Shulchon Orech that bread from a Bal HaBas is always forbidden. The Mateh Yohonason gives the rational that the Rama didn’t want to rely solely on the Mordichai. He only wanted to permit with the addition of the Shitos that say that they never decreed on bakery bread. Therefore he only permits when both Shitos are satisfied, which is only by bakery bread. The Shach ends off that it’s better to not rely on the Mordichai and only eat it when there is no Jewish bakery.

If a baker bakes bread for his family or a regular Goy decides to bake to sell. The product is permitted only if it was made for the sake of selling and it is not dependent on the person’s profession. Since the reason why bakery bread is less of a problem to lead to intermarriage, since it’s more of a business relationship. Thus if you take someone’s personal bread it’s more personal and has more of a chance to get friendly that would lead to intermarriage.

B"H

Rav Chaim,

Pardon my ignorance. Since most of my adult life as an orthodox Jew, I have not lived within the U.S.A., could you please tell us what is the status of ordinary bread which one finds in the supermarkets there? (e.g. Rainbow Bread, Wonder Bread, etc.) Can these be eaten by Jews? Are they Kosher? I would think they would come under the category of Pas Palter (Baker's Bread), which under ordinary circumstances, the Sages did not forbid our eating of this bread.

David

Dear R' Avraham,

You're right they're all Pas Paltr. But nowadays, since the recipe for bread gets very complicated (and not the "old" recipe of flour and water) one needs to look for a good Hechsher on these breads, because there could be a lot of garbage (including preservatives, in it which could be Treif.

Correction: I meant R' David (or R' Ben Avraham) I must have been tired when i wrote that

SEIF 3
BEING INVITED TO THE BAKER’S HOUSE

The OC in the name of the Ra’ah says that you’re not allowed to eat the bread of a baker’s when you’re invited over to his house. The Shulchon Orech in Seif 3 says “There are those that say that if a baker invites a Jew to his house, his bread is the status of a Ba’al Habayis.”

The Shach asks on this. That later on in Seif 7 we’ll have a Machlokes between the Ra’ah, that says the status of the bread is dependant what it is now. Thus if you’re eating bakery bread that’s given to you by a Bal Habayis, it’s prohibited. If the bread was originally baked by a Bal Habayis, but now is being sold in the bakery (as home style baked bread) it’s permitted. The Rashba says the status depends how it was originally baked. If the baker bakes the bread, even though it’s now in the house of a Bal Habayis, it’s permitted. But if it was baked by a Bal Habayis, even though now it’s being sold by a bakery, it still remains prohibited.

So how can the Shulchon Orech over here Paskin like the Ra’ah, that even though it was baked in the bakery, but since now it’s a personal loaf, it’s prohibited. But in Seif 7 he Paskins like the Rashba that it all depends how it got baked? He answers that’s why he starts with the terminology “There are those that say” but others argue, and we Paskin like those that argue. Alternatively, that if the baker invites you, that makes it worse than just eating it by his house.

The Nikudos HaKesef answers (and explained at length in the Mateh Yohonason) that we already said in Seif 2 that if the baker made it for his own use, then it’s considered baked by a Bal Habayis. So how do we know why it was baked for? So we must see what eventually happens to it. If it gets sold, then we can assume that it was originally baked to be sold. But if was eventually kept for himself, it’s revealed that his original intention for this loaf was to keep it.

SEIF 4
IF A JEWISH BAKER STOPS BY TOWN

The Ra’ah says that when Jews rely on a Goy’s baker’s bread because there is no Jewish bakery around (like the Shulchon Orech in Seif 2, but the Rama there permits even when there is Jewish bread around, see there). If a Jewish baker stops by the town to sell his wares, then the Goy’s bread is prohibited until the Jew sells all his wares or moves on. Since at the time the Jew’s in town, it’s not considered as Jewish bread is hard to come by and therefore the Goy’s bread is prohibited.

The Shach says the implication of the Ra’ah that only the bread of the Goy is prohibited, i.e. that which is still in the hand of the Goy when the Jew came to town. The bread that was bought beforehand remains permitted as before.

SEIF 5
GOY’S BREAD IS BETTER

If the Goy’s bread is better than the Jew’s bread the Rashba permits it. The Tur asks on this that the Yerushalmi only permits it because the Jew is desperate for bread, but over here there is plenty of bread, so why permit it. The Bais Yosef answers that the Rashba meant that if you don’t have the bread that you like, it’s considered as you’re desperate for bread.

SEIF 6
A GOY’S EGG CHALLAH

Tosfos and Rosh say that if a Goy makes bread that is mixed with egg it’s permitted. You don’t need to worry about blood spots, since the majority eggs don’t have any. You don’t need to worry about maybe they’re from a non-kosher bird, since they’re not really common these days. You’ll need not worry about Bishul Akum, since the eggs are in the mixture of flour. Since the main ingredient was the flour, so it’s a bread and not a cooked food. It then has a Halacha of Pas Akum, which is permitted in those places.

If the eggs not mixed into the flour, but is baked in the middle, like a pie, then it’s prohibited. Since the eggs are an entity to themselves, they are prohibited because of Bishul Akum. Once they are prohibited, they now seep into the bread and make it also prohibited, since they receive the taste from the prohibited eggs.

The Shulchon Orech says that even eggs that are glazed on the surface of the bread is considered a part of the bread and doesn’t become prohibited. The Rama disagrees and says that since it stands alone on the surface of the bread, it gets cooked alone, and though it afterwards gets absorbed in the bread, it’s after it became prohibitted. The gra explains the Shulchon Orech’s Shita that since the glaze is only put there for the looks, we Paskin that things that are only there for looks (like dyes) are considered non existing.

CAKES

The Rama says that cakes also have a Halacha of Pas. The Taz says the reason is that if they eat a meal out of it they would need to say Birchas Hamazon. The Gra adds that it’s also baked and not cooked. The Shach says it must be from a thick dough and has the form of bread. The Bais Meir disagrees and says that even a soft dough (liquid) is Pas, like in Orech Chaim 168 we Paskin that you make Hamoitzie on it.

SEIF 7
WHEN DOES THE BREAD BECOME BAKERY BREAD AND WHEN IS IT THE BA’AL HABAYIS

Before, in Seif 4 we brought down the Machlokes between the Ra’ah, that says the status of the bread is dependant what it is now. Thus if you’re eating bakery bread that’s given to you by a Bal Habayis, it’s prohibited. If the bread was originally baked by a Bal Habayis, but now is being sold in the bakery (as home style baked bread) it’s permitted. The Rashba says the status depends how it was originally baked. If the baker bakes the bread, even though it’s now in the house of a Bal Habayis, it’s permitted. But if it was baked by a Bal Habayis, even though now it’s being sold by a bakery, it still remains prohibited.

The Rashba brings a proof to his Shita from Avodah Zarah 65b. There where wheat that Yayin Nesech on it, you’re allowed to grind it and bake it and sell it to a Goy not in front of another Jew. There is no reason to suspect that it would be sold to another Jew, since they wouldn’t buy bread from a Goy, since they’ll assume that the Goy baked it. But not if front of another Jew, since the Jew sees that it’s originally a Jew’s, he’ll come to buy it. If it’s considered Pas Akum like the Ra’ah, that the status is according to who have it now, then even if the Jew saw the Goy buying it from a Jew he wouldn’t but it himself. Since, when it comes to the hands of the Goy, it becomes Pas Akum, it would become prohibited. This is a proof that it only has the status of what it was at the baking and not to who hands they are now in.

B"H
Rav Chaim, Shalom!

You have read, I'm sure, about how that oil taken from the Gentiles was originally one of the prohibitions made by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, but because the people at large couldn't stand by its rigidity (especially since a man's sustenance was sometimes dependent upon oil obtained from non-Jews), this prohibition was cancelled.

In the same way, there have been orthodox Jewish communities (particularly, in Yemen) that have exercised leniency with regard to Pas Akum (פת עכו"ם), since the people's livelihood often depended upon it. Rabbi Amram Qorah writes in his book, "Sa'arath Teman" the following:

"In the days of the Sages of the Mishnah, they decreed against [making use of] bread belonging to the Gentiles. Yet, throughout all of the districts of Yemen, this prohibition was not heard, even after the Mishnah was copied down in all of the far reaches of Yemen. And even unto this day, they practice leniency by permitting the bread of [non-Jewish] home-owners [to be eaten], just as in their former custom, and even without extenuating circumstances. Likewise, in most of Israel's communities, this prohibition was not wide-spread. See: Tosefos on Tractate Avodah-Zarah 35, s.v., מכלל, as well as Rabbeinu Asher there." END

המקור: בימי חכמי המשנה גזרו על פת של גוים, ובכל ארצות תימן לא נשמע איסורו, וגם לאחר שנעתקה המשנה לגלילות תימן. ועד היום נוהגים היתר בפת של בעלי בתים, כמנהגם מקדם, ואפילו בלי דוחק. וכן ברוב קהלות ישראל לא פשט איסורו, עיין תוספות מס' ע"ז דף ל"ה ד"ה מכלל והרא"ש שם

Likewise, the Talmud says:

"They cannot make a public enactment unless the majority of the public is able to bear it."
(Baba Basra 60b)

אין גוזרין גזירה על הצבור אלא אם כן רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בה
(בבא בתרא ס', ב)

It would seem that the widespread practice in Yemen was a rare exception to this rule in Jewry concerning Pas Akum, and which same rule has generally been accepted by all frum communities today.


P.S.- In Yemen, non-Jewish householders who baked bread did so in clay ovens used strictly for bread alone. The dough, after flattening, was stuck to the inside wall of the oven in a perpendicular fashion, where it was allowed to bake by the heat emitted by the coals in the center of the oven's floor. All bread that was baked by them had no other ingredient, except for flour and water.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

SEIF 8
IF JEWISH BREAD IS NOT AVAILABLE AT ALL

The Rashba says that the Yerushalmi only permits bakery bread. From a Bal Habayis its prohibited as long as its not life threatening. So its permitted if someone didn’t eat for a long time because of the lack of bread. The Maharam says that he must have fasted for three days to permit it.

The Ramban says that the Geonim allowed eating a Goy’s bread on Shabbos if there is no other bread around, since its prohibited to fast on Shabbos. The Ramban deduces that it’s referring to even bread from a bal Habayis, since bakery bread is permitted anyhow.

The Mordichai bring R’ Shmarya that permits bread from a Bal Habayis if there is no other to be found. He compares it to D’Mai (produce of an Am HA’aretz that the Rabanan decreed you should tithe again, lest the owner didn’t take it off himself.) There we Paskin in cases of need, like to feed the poor and the troops, you can feed then D’Mai. So the prohibition of a Goy’s bread, which is also rabinic, may also be permited in time of great need. The Ra’ah also Paskins like this and is also paskined like this in Shulchon orech

SEIF 9
THE THREE MALACHOS TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION OF PAS AKUM

There are three types of Malachos in the baking of the bread, if a jew does one of them, the bread is permitted, even though the Goy does the rest. If the Jew lit the fire or put the bread in the oven or stroked the coals, then the bread is Pas Yisrael.

THROWING A TOOTH PICK INTO THE FIRE

The Rosh holds that it doesn't help just throwing a toothpick into the fire, since it doesn't do anything to help in the baking. The Ramban agrees that only if the stroking of the fire would make the baking go faster, but a toothpick added doesn't help the baking. The Heter of throwing in the toothpick was only for those that didn't keep Pas Akum, but threw a toothpick just to cover that base, but it doesn't really work for those that do keep Pas Akum.

The Rambam, however, permits it, since all that is needed to take it out of Pas Akim is just some show that there is a difference here, but doesn't need to make a real difference in the baking. The Rashba also permits it, since it's impossible that it didn't help the baking in the most minute much.

The Rama permits if the jew blew on the fire to liven the coals. The Gra brings a proof that blowing is considered doing an action in the coals, though there is no physical contact. The Gemara in Bava Kama18a states that a chicken that stick his face in a glass bottle and clucks into it and brakes it. The Gemarah compares this to a chicken kicking a rock into the glass and brakes it.

The Halacha is that you can rely on throwing a toothpick into the fire

SEIF 10
AN OVEN THAT IS CONSTANTLY USED

The Mordichai says that if you fix an oven by throwing a toothpick in three times, but forget to do so for the fourth time, the bread is still permitted. Since the oven still retains the heat from the first three fires to help in the baking for the fourth time.

The Aruch, and brought in the Rama, takes this a step further, that even after one time that he threw a toothpick in would help for all subsequential fires, as long as the oven wasn't idle from fire for 24 hours. (At that time, the oven walls would have cooled down completely). The Gra says the rational to this, that the heat from previous burnings help in the present baking more than throwing in a toothpick. Since we're lenient by a toothpick, of course we should be lenient here too.

We see the concept that the heat from previous burnings help for the baking now is from Beitzah 22b. It says there reasons why we can't learn that regular Matzos could be as thick as the Matzos of the Lechem Hapanim (a Tefach.) One of the reasons is that the oven by the Mikdash was running constantly and thus cannot be compared to our ovens that are run sporadically and are not as hot.

SEIF 11

SELLING PAS AKUM TO A GOY

The Mordichai in the name of the Maharam from Rutenburg says, that if someone had a Goy bake his bread (to those that hold that if the bread belongs to a Jew, there is no Heter of Pas Akum and is forbidden like all other foods that a Goy cooks for a Jew (Bishul Akum)-Taz) which forbids it, he cannot sell it to a Goy. The problem is, that another Jew, unaware that it's prohibited and thinks it's a regular Pas Akum, might come to buy it off the Goy. Therefore, your selling it to a goy could lead to another Jew doing a prohibition. His proof is from the following Gemarah in Pesachim 40b and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf:

l) A ship carrying wheat capsized in a river [before
Pesach]; Rava permitted to sell the wheat to Nochrim.
(m) Question (Rabah bar Livai - Beraisa): If Sha'atnez was
lost in a garment, one may not make it into a saddle
[lest he remove it and sew it into another garment] or
sell it to a Nochri, but it may be used for shrouds (one
may not benefit from shrouds).
1. He may not sell it to a Nochri lest the Nochri
resell it to a Yisrael [since the Isur is not
evident - similarly, we should be concerned lest the
Nochri resell the wheat to a Yisrael, since the
Chimutz is not evident. Normally, Yisraelim may buy
wheat from Nochrim to use for Pesach - presumably,
Nochrim are careful to keep it dry, lest it spoil!]
(n) Rava retracted and commanded to sell it to Yisraelim, a
bit to each buyer, in order that it would be finished before Pesach.

The Pischai T'Shuva asks a question on the Mordichai. Maybe there they were more stringent, since the Jew may come to transgress a Torah commandment of eating Chametz on Pesach, but by an Issur from the Rabannan, like Bishul Akum, they wouldn't have been as worried to prohibit. Really, he should have brought a proof from Avodah Zara 65b that brings the same case by Yayin Nesech (which is referring to even Stam Yaynum, which is only prohibited by the Rabanan)

(g) Yayin Nesech fell on wheat; Rava permitted to sell the wheat to Nochrim.

(h) Question (Rabah bar Livai - Beraisa): If a thread of (linen in a wool garment (or vice-versa), which makes it) Kilayim was lost in a garment, the garment may not be sold to a Nochri, nor used to make a saddle;

1. One may use it for shrouds for a Mes.

2. Question: Why may it not be sold to a Nochri?

3. Answer: Perhaps he will sell it to a Yisrael;

i. For the same reason, we should not sell wheat that absorbed Yayin Nesech to a Nochri!

(i) Rava retracted; he permitted to make bread from the wheat and sell it to Nochrim, not in the presence of a Yisrael (bread of a Nochri is forbidden, a Yisrael would not buy it unless he knew that the Nochri bough it from a Yisrael).

But if the Jew breaks the bread before he sells it to a Goy it's permitted. Since the Jew would see that it's broken, so he will suspect something might be wrong with it than the regular Pas Akum. So the Rama concludes that you cannot buy pieces of bread from the Goy. The proof to this Halacha is from Chulin 64a

1. (Beraisa): We may not sell eggs of a Treifah to a Nochri, unless they are beaten in a bowl; therefore, we may not buy beaten eggs from a Nochri (lest they are Treifah.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
The Halacha is that you can rely on throwing a toothpick into the fire

I'd just like to point out that while this is completely true regarding "pas akum", however regarding "bishul akum" there is a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Rema. Bishul applies to cooked foods and even to a baked item that also contains a non-dough part, for example pizza or a blintz/bourekas. On such items the Mechaber holds that one may not rely on a toothpick. This creates a huge problem for Sefardim, as almost all Kashrus organizations rely on the Rema's toothpick, when there may be non-Jews working in the kitchen or factory. According to the Mechaber a Jew must both light the fire and also place the raw food item on the flame.
A Sefardi should ask his Rabbi how to deal with the issue of relying on Ashkenazi hashgacha for cooked items.

Quote "I'd just like to point out that while this is completely true regarding "pas akum", however regarding "bishul akum" there is a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Rema."

Bishul Akum will be the next topic IY"H. Stay tune

(See the end of "Tvelas Keilim" for a discussion on the laws of Tvelas Kelim, my first topic)

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Peretz Moncharsh:

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
The Halacha is that you can rely on throwing a toothpick into the fire

I'd just like to point out that while this is completely true regarding "pas akum", however regarding "bishul akum" there is a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Rema. Bishul applies to cooked foods and even to a baked item that also contains a non-dough part, for example pizza or a blintz/bourekas. On such items the Mechaber holds that one may not rely on a toothpick. This creates a huge problem for Sefardim, as almost all Kashrus organizations rely on the Rema's toothpick, when there may be non-Jews working in the kitchen or factory. According to the Mechaber a Jew must both light the fire and also place the raw food item on the flame.
A Sefardi should ask his Rabbi how to deal with the issue of relying on Ashkenazi hashgacha for cooked items.

There is a Teshuva of Rav Ovadia Yosef in Yechaveh Da'as Vol. 5 No. 54. I will quote the question and the conclusion:

שו"ת יחווה דעת חלק ה סימן נד

שאלה: בתי מלון ומסעדות שבהם יש משגיח על הכשרות מטעם הרבנות הראשית המקומית, ויש להם תעודת כשרות, ברם הטבח שמבשל את התבשילים במקומות אלו הוא ערבי, אלא שהסקת האש של תנורי הבישול והאפיה נעשית על ידי ישראל, שהוא המשגיח על הכשרות, האם מותר לאכול מתבשילים אלו, ללא חשש איסור בישולי גוים?.


בסיכום: גם הספרדים ובני עדות המזרח יש להם על מה שיסמוכו להתארח ולאכול בבתי מלון ובמסעדות הכשרים על ידי השגחת הרבנות המקומית, אף על פי שהטבח שמבשל התבשילים הוא גוי, כיון שישראל הוא המשגיח על הכשרות מדליק בעצמו את האש של תנורי הבישול והאפיה. (ואם כיבו את האש, צריך להזהר שישראל יחזור וידליקנה). והמחמיר על עצמו תבוא עליו ברכה.

He permits Sefardim to eat in Ashkenazi restaurants and hotels, although not as the ideal.

There also remains the problem of the meat. Glatt doesn't mean the same thing to Sefardim as it does to Ashkenazim and Glatt Kosher meat from an Ashkenazi butcher may not be Chalak Beis Yosef. I confirmed this with a frum Kosher caterer in London who is under supervision of Kedassiah (the chareidi supervision in London). Although he serves Glatt Kosher meat he told me that it wasn't Glatt as far as sefardim are concerned. This does, however, I think only apply to actual meat rather than fowl meat.

Some Sefardi poskim, however, such as Rav Tufik here in Beitar, absolutely forbid restaurants and hotels.
It's true that meat is also an issue, but I thought it was too far removed from pas akum to bring up at this point.

SEIF 12

AT WHAT POINT IN THE BAKING DOES IT BECOME PAS AKUM THAT A JEW'S ACTION CANNOT CORRECT IT.

By Bishul Akum, the rule is that after the food is cooked by a Jew to the point that its edible, which is called K'Machul Ben Dursai, which is a Machlokes if its a third or half cooked, then it cannot become Bishul Akum. Even if its removed from the fire and then put upon the fire again by a Goy and completed its cooking without any help from a Jew, it cannot become prohibited. Once it becomes edible, that is considered "cooked" and can no longer be cooked by a Goy.

There are those Rishonim that want to say the converse is the same. If a Goy cooks it to the point of Machul Ben Dursai, then its considered cooked by a Goy and becomes prohibited even if a Jew puts effort into finishing the cooking process. Others disagree and say that Machul Ben Dursai is only considered cooked to be lenient by this rabbinic prohibition to say that it was cooked by a Jew. But to be stringent and say that a Jew helps to cook it after that point doesn't constitute cooking and it remains forbidden isn't correct, thus as long as the cooking improves the food, its permitted. We Paskin leniently like the second view by an Issur D'Rabanan.

The point, by bread, that's considered edible like Machul Ben Dursai by food, is when it develops a crust. Thus, even if a Goy bakes it and develops a crust, if a Jew helps in the baking while it still can use more baking, its permitted.

quote:

Thus, even if a Goy bakes it and develops a crust, if a Jew helps in the baking while it still can use more baking, its permitted.

For one who wishes to eat toast, is completed toast by a Jew from prohibited bread permitted?