The Kashering of Swirls and Sweets

MISHNA: And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited:...their bread... GEMARA: And bread . Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Unlike oil, bread was not permitted by a court. From the fact can it be inferred that there is a different opinion that claims that a court did permit it? Yes, as when Rav Dimi came, he said: Once Rebbe went out to the field, and a gentile brought before him a se’a of bread baked in a large baker’s oven [purnei]. Rebbe said: How exquisite is this loaf of bread! What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? What did the Sages see: Due to the concern of inter-marriage!? No, What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit bread even in the field, (without this conern. Then the people thought that Rebbe permitted the bread of gentiles. But that is not so; Rebbe did not actually permit such bread. However, Rav Yosef, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, says: The incident did not occur in this manner. Rather, they said: Once Rebbe went to a certain place and saw that bread was scarce for the students. Rebbe said: Is there no baker [palter] here? The people thought to say that he was referring to a gentile baker, However, Rebbe was only in reference to a Jewish baker. Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Even according to the one who thought to say it was a gentile baker, while we said it is only where there is no Jewish baker, but in a place where

דאקראי בעלמא הוא

ב) אלא פת של חמשת כו'. שזהו דבר חשוב ומביא לידי קירוב דעת:

אלא משום דהוו קרו ליה ב"ד שריא ואחריו באו בית דין אחר שהתירוהו, ועוד דאמרי בירושלמי דפרקין ובפ"ק דשבת פת עמדו עליו והתירוה. ומי שנזהר מפת של עובדי כוכבים מותר לאכול עם מי שאינו נזהר בקערה אחת אע"ף שטעם פת עובד כוכבים מתערב בפת ישראל דאין להחמיר לאסור ע"י תערובת כדאמר בפ"ק דחולין (דף ו.) דלא גזרו על תערובת דמאי וכה"ג במנא דעובדי כוכבים שרי דליתיה לפת בעיניה דלא גזרו אלא היכא דאיתא בעיניה:

(1) The sages forbade eating the bread of idol worshippers because of the concern of intermarriage. Rema: and even in a situation where there is no concern of intermarriage, it is [nonetheless] forbidden. (Rashb"a §248) However, they only forbade bread made from the Five Grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye, spelt), but bread made from legumes or from rice or millet is not in the category of "regular bread" which they forbade. Rema: It is also not forbidden on account of [being] "Idolaters' Cooking," if it would not be served at kings' tables (Tur and Beit Yosef in the name of the Rosh's responsa).

(2) There are places that are lenient about this, [where] they buy bread from an idolater's bakery in a situation where there is no Jewish bakery, since this is considered a "time of pressing need." Rem"a: And some say that even in a place where "Jews' bread" can be found, it is permitted (Beit Yosef following the Mordechai; Sefer Mitzvot Hakatan; Hagaot Ashri; Mahar"i; Issur VeHeter §44). But regarding personal bread, no-one rules leniently, since the essence of the decree is because of the concern of intermarriage, and if one eats the bread of [idolatrous] home-owners, he will come to dine by them. Rem"a: However, it is not called "personal bread" unless he made it for the people of his own household, but if he made it to sell, it is called commercial bread, even if he doesn't normally [sell bread]; conversely, a baker who made [bread] for himself, it is considered "personal [bread]."

(3) There are those who say that if a baker invites a Jew, his bread is like the bread of a householder [private individual].

The difference between Bishul Akum and Pas Akum...

ומתחלה גזרו עליה מטעם חתנות ועל הפת לא גזרו משום דלא שייך ביה חתנות כל כך עד שבאו שמאי והלל וגזרו בי"ח דבר גם על הפת [תוס׳ שם] וכשהתירו את הפת לא התירו את השלקות דתרי מילי נינהו [שם] ורק פת שאינו מה' מיני דגן דלא נחשב בכלל פת ישנן בכלל גזירת שלקות כמ"ש בסי׳ הקודם סעיף י"ד ע"ש [והר"ן כתב דמקודם גזרו על הפת משום דשכיחא מילתא ואח"כ גזרו על השלקות ע"ש]:

Chazal wanted to prevent socializing with non-Jews, which might lead to intermarriage.

We are concerned that the non-Jew will mix in a non-kosher item into the food

Rashi's commentary: The rabbis decreed because of the concern lest they eat impure things. And more [than this concern] it seems that the reason [for this decree] is because of [the concern] of intermarriages [between Jews and non-Jews]. And thus [in] Chapter 5 of the Mishnah, the great Rabbi Abraham son of Rabbi David said certainly lashes [are given because] the sages forbade a non-Jew from cooking in his house [for a Jew], but if he [i.e. the non-Jew] cooks in the house of a Jew, there is no suspicion of either intermarriage or of eating impure things. But Rabbeinu Tam did not agree with him, that certainly when it comes to a non-Jew cooking, the sages did not divide the general principle [of forbidding food cooked by a non-Jew] between the domain of the Jew and the domain of the non-Jew, because there is always a suspicion lest one is not careful also in the home of the Jew in the same manner that one is careful in the home of the non-Jew.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Any item that is eaten as it is, i.e., raw, is not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles. The Gemara remarks: In the study hall in Sura, they taught it this way. In Pumbedita, they taught it like this: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Any item that is not eaten together with bread on the table of kings is not subject to the prohibition of cooking of gentiles.

(1) A food that is not eaten when it is raw and is served at a kings table, to spread on bread or as a dessert, which was cooked by a non-Jew, even in the pots of Jews and in the house of a Jew, it is forbidden because it was cooked by a non-Jew

A food that can be eaten raw may be cooked by a non-Jew because the cooking does not really improve the food as it can be eaten raw (and not considered cooked)

A food that can be eaten raw may be cooked by a non-Jew because food which is edible raw is not an important food and one would not invite someone to his home to eat such foods.

(1) A forbidden item that was soaked with a cold permissible item for 24 hours, as in pickling, behold this is like it has been cooked and it is forbidden in its entirety. But less than [24 hours], rinsing is enough [to then eat the permissible item]. NOTE: And wherever we say “pickled is like cooked”, even what was outside of the pickling is forbidden, for on account of the pickling below it wells up above, as with cooking. And there are those who are lenient on what was outside. And possible pickling, this is forbidden, except for meat with milk that we go with a leniency, since from the Torah it is only forbidden with actual cooking. And if it were pickled in a brine or in vinegar, if it sat long enough that if it was on a fire it would boil and begin to be cooked, behold this is like it is cooked; and with less than this length, it is only forbidden through the thickness of a "peel" [which is the minimum thickness of the meat that can be removed in one continuous peel].

ולא הזכיר כבוש משום דאין זה מפורש בש"ס דמליח מפורש בגמ׳ [ל"ח.] ומעושן יש בירושלמי נדרים [רפ"ו] וכבוש אינו מפורש ומ"מ חד דינא אית להו דלא גזרו רק על בישול ומ"מ נ"ל דטיגון הוי בכלל בישול לענין זה משום דגם בשבת הוה טיגון כבישול ממש וסייג מצאתי לזה מהירושלמי שם ע"ש [ובזה מדוקדק לשון הרמ"א בסעיף י"ג ודו"ק]:

It was stated: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether the gentile placed the meat on the fire and the Jew turned it over, or whether the Jew placed it and the gentile turned it over, the meat is permitted, and it is not prohibited unless its cooking from beginning to end was performed by the hand of a gentile. Ravina says: The halakha is that this bread baked in an oven that a gentile lit and a Jew baked, or, alternatively, if a Jew lit the oven and a gentile baked, or, alternatively, even if a gentile lit, and a gentile baked, and a Jew came and stoked the coals to heat the fire, it is permitted.

וכ"כ הרמב"ם שאפי' לא זרק הישראל אלא עץ אחת לתוך התנור התיר כל הפת שבו שאין הדבר אלא להיות היכר שפת של עו"ג אסורה עד כאן ויראה שאינו מחלק בין של עו"ג לשל ישראל שאפאה עו"ג וכאשר כתבתי כן נראה עיקר

ואפי' לא זרק אלא עץ אחד לתוך התנור התיר כל הפת שבו שאין הדבר אלא להיות היכר שהפת שלהן אסורה. (ואם נפח באש הוי כחיתוי) (עוד סימן קי"ג ובאגור בשם ר"י מולין והוא בתשובת מהרי"ל רכ"א):

What makes an item Hamotzi, Mezonos and all points in between.

וי"מ שהוא פת בין מתובלת בין שאינה מתובלת שעושים אותם כעבים יבשים וכוססין אותם והם הנקראים בישקוני"ש והלכה כדברי כלם שלכל אלו הדברים נותנים להם דינים שאמרנו בפת הבאה בכסנין:

(ח) לחמניו' אותן שבלילתן עבה שקורי' אובליא"ש לחם גמור הוא ומברך עליו המוציא וברכת המזון ואותן שבלילתן רכה ודקין מאוד שקורין ניבלא"ש מברך עליהם בורא מיני מזונות וברכה אחת מעין שלש ואם קבע סעודתו עליהם מברך המוציא וברכת המזון ואי אכיל להו בתוך הסעודה שלא מחמת הסעודה טעונים ברכה לפניהם ולא לאחריהם אבל אותם רקיקי' דקי' שנותנים מרקחת עליהם הם טפילים לגבי המרקחת וברכת המרקחת פוטרתן:

Rema: Cooked items that are Mezonos do not require Hamotzi and bentching even when they are eaten as a meal.

Even though crêpes may be cooked through heat, the thinness of the batter and how it was kneaded may impact this halachah greatly.

Indeed, many hold that blintzes, and likely crêpes, are always mezonos even if one is kovei’a seudah on them

The classic "non-bread shul Kiddush"

ובוודאי כד' ביצים אוכלים. ורק מעט מהיריאים נזהרים בישבם על שלחן כזה לבלי לאכול הרבה, או שנוטלים ידיהם ומברכים 'המוציא' על פת סתם, אבל רוב המון ישראל אין שומרים עצמם מזה. על כן בוודאי חלילה לעשות כן, אך אין בידינו למחות כידוע. (וכדי ללמד קצת זכות נראה לעניות דעתי קולא מלשון הרי"ף בעניין זה, שכתב בזה הלשון: "מסקנא: היכא דאכל לה בתורת כיסנין מברך 'בורא מיני מזונות' וכו', והיכא דאכל לה בתורת קביעותא - מברך עליה 'המוציא' וג' ברכות" עכ"ל. ומשמע מלשונו דאינו תלוי בשיעור קביעת הסעודה אלא באופן האכילה, בין ההכנה לאכילת עראי ובין ההכנה לאכילת קבע. וזה ידוע שבאכילת סעודה גמורה פושטין הבגדים העליונים ויושבים סביב השלחן, אבל באכילות אלו חוטפין ואוכלין כמה שהן בלי הכנה, ויש אוכלין מעומד ומהלך כידוע וסוברים דזה לא מקרי קביעת סעודה. וזה שאמרו בגמרא: "כל שאחרים קובעין וכו'” צריך לדחוק לפירוש זה גם כן באופן שכתבנו, וכל ירא אלקים ירחק את עצמו מזה, והוא רחום יכפר עון).

(11) He who touches the corpse of any human being shall be unclean for seven days...(14) This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days

(1) The LORD said to Moses: Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin, (2) except for the relatives that are closest to him: his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother; (3) also for a virgin sister, close to him because she has not married, for her he may defile himself.

(7) [An object] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high conveys uncleanness and blocks uncleanness. How does it [block uncleanness]? In the case of a covered drain beneath a house, if it has a space a handbreadth wide and its outlet was a handbreadth wide, and there is uncleanness inside it, the house remains clean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drain] remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. If it had a space one handbreadth wide but its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness in it, the house becomes unclean; But when there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within it remains clean, for the manner of the uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. If it did not have a space one handbreadth wide and its outlet was not one handbreadth wide, when there is uncleanness within it, the house becomes unclean; And when there is uncleanness in the house, it [also] becomes unclean. It makes no difference if the cavity was carved out by water or by a sheretz or if it had been eaten out by salt. And similarly [if it is in] a row of stones or a pile of beams. Rabbi Judah says: any "tent" not made by a person is not considered a tent’. But he agrees that crevices and crags [can be considered as ‘tents’].