- This topic has 142 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If you start allowing technological advances to change halachah, ein l’dvar sof.
I’m just pointing out that to insist that you have to do inspections that were impossible in the times of Chazal and that if you don’t you are eating non-kosher bugs you are saying that Chazal ate non-kosher bugs chas v’shalom!
A tad ironic coming from someone who thinks that social “advances” should change halacha, and that chazal were a bunch of bigots seeking to oppress women and other groups.
Just sayin
“I didn’t bring up the possibility of a microscope. But there is no fundamental difference between a microscope and a simple magnifying glass — both are simply ground glass lenses. Neither were available to Chazal. And neither were light tables. If you start allowing technological advances to change halachah, ein l’dvar sof.”
No one is referring to items that are not ???? ?????. And That is to the naked eye. However, does that mean we should not use implements that make it easier to check quicker and in greater volumes? Is that your position? Because we are not talking about using science or technological advanced to change ???? in these cases, no matter how much you would like to assert that.
And your comments are ironic, to say the least, considering how you have in the past posted positions that are very much the opposite in regards to science and existing ????.
I do not know what you base your assumptions on that ???? did not check for ??????. My father has often told me about him remembering his father and mother painstakingly checking vegetables and flour for infestation. And my father in law ??? continued his father’s ????? of not eating unpeeled vegetables. And these are not recent changes. These are practices they grew up with in their houses in Europe.
Do you think they did not filter their water? They used filter all of it just to make it drinkable. These claims about people not checking in past generations is untrue about those who kept ????. It’s just a specious argument.
In shul, there are bar mitzvas every so often. I often see the father give the bar mitzvah boy a kiss after he finishes leining. When a little kid comes in towards the end of davening to be with a parent, the parent often gives the kid a kiss. Kissing a child in shul during davening is not allowed.
I agree with DaMoshe on this one (although I haven’t seen it).
nishtdayngesheft and others; the debate is not whether bugs of any kind are ossur.Of course,they are. Also, no one denies that vegetables and fruits should be checked. Of course, you check whatever you buy. What we are discussing is the limits of this checking and whether anything that is not seen by the naked eye can be declared as ossur. Washing with soap is,to my mind, ridiculous. Using a magnifying glass of any kind is not what halacha requires. (see Aruch Hashulchan who absolutely refuses to include a microscope as a checking tool). There are living creatures on anything. I submit that to go to the lenghts described by some posters (smashing the strawberries to see little things scurrying, declare that white dots on raspberries are bugs…)is not required. Anyone who has ever seen worms on vegetables knows that they are quite visible. Tiny dots on raspberries that cannot be identified as living things are not what is ossur.
The posters are allowed to do whatever they want for themselves but don’t pretend that it is normative halacha.
Did you try smashing it on a black garbage bag and watching the buggies squirm out, as GAW recommends?
FYI In the older days they actually didnt drink water much in Europe
They either drank Beer or Wine depending on the country. I think they had some idea it wasnt safe
It is a double-edged sword though. If you find a bug that is not visible and recognizable as a bug to the naked eye but is with a magnifying glass/bug light, then throwing out the vegetable is an Issur D’oraisa of Bal Tashchis.
For those who think any infestation must have been around hundreds of years ago, here’s the Pri Chodosh (84, 22) saying that it constantly changes.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24532&st=&pgnum=330&hilite=
I just ate a yogurt with strawberries that had an OU-D on it. And it was organic too.
Maybe there are more bugs now because of global warming. After all, the earth is warmer than it has ever been. So it makes sense there is more infestation.
Kissing a child in shul during davening is not allowed.
Back in the days when my oldest child was quite young, I had her with me in shule on a Friday night. Someone came over and told me that kissing a child wasn’t allowed, which was fine – I didn’t know that, and I learned something. It also allowed me to tell the person, a notorious talker during davening, that talking during davening was also not allowed. Unfortunately, his reaction was quite unlike mine – he got very angry, mumbled something under his breath, and walked away.
Popa, ever hear of ????? ?????? ????? ????????
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ou-kashrus-is-not-reliable#post-384209
What the OP fails to address is whether anyone ever kept these halachos. Just because something is written in shulchan aruch as halacha and we don’t keep it doesn’t mean that we are doing less than previous generations.
Additionally, it’s easy to imagine that all of the answers are written in black and white in the Shulchan Aruch or on the OU website, but that is simply not true. Taking Popa’s example of bugs – we have the term ‘Nira l’einayim’ (apparently – I didn’t look into the halacha) but what does that mean? Does it mean with a magnifying glass? With a microscope? Okay, it’s become accepted that it refers to the naked eye. But does it refer to the naked eye when nobody ever used a microscope to figure out what to look for with the naked eye, or must you examine with a microscope or magnifying glass and then re-check to see if you can see the now-identified creature with the naked eye?
Furthermore, does it refer to creatures that are visible to the naked eye after someone happened to notice it while sitting near a luncheon with a magnifying glass, or does it even refer to bugs visible to the trained naked eye in an age when there is a cadre who sit all day with magnifying glasses hoping to find visible bugs in things so they can “save the public from an issur d’oraysoh?”
Also, does it refer to someone with perfect eyesight, average eyesight, median eyesight, or something else.
Actually, there were magnifying glasses in Talmudic times.
yitay, you like my parsley story?
‘A tad ironic coming from someone who thinks that social “advances” should change halacha, and that chazal were a bunch of bigots seeking to oppress women and other groups.’
I have said nothing of the kind and I do not believe either of the things you claim.
popa, gevaldig 😀
I found, a bit further, where the Pri Chodosh, who lived over three hundred years ago, discusses the need to check for (even) tiny bugs, and even without merely looking at it: 84-34. I think it’s a pretty strong source for light boxes and use of magnifying glasses.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38070&st=&pgnum=147
(last four lines, starting with the words, “????? ???”).
He mentions a type of infestation in which the bugs can only be seen by holding the leaves against the sun, and that sometimes, even in sunlight, they are so small that they cannot be seen even that way, so you need to feel for them with your hands. He then mentions a type of infestation in which the bugs are so small that they cannot be found with any method, so the food may not be eaten.
I know that this seems to contradict the halachically accepted notion that bugs which are not “nireh l’einaim” are muttar, but I don’t think it necessarily does. Veltz alluded to one possible solution, that if it’s visible but not identifiable without a visual aid, it is nevertheless assur once we do identify it. Popa had alluded to another possible solution, as did Gavra, I believe, that the bug is visible when it moves, but we cannot see it when it’s stationary.
Either way, it’s there in black and white that bugs which are “dakim b’tachlis” are assur and asser the produce.
DaasYochid; If you have followed some of my postings here, you will know that I recognize truth when it appears. I did not see yet the Pri Chodosh you mention but on the same page that you brought downe in an earlier posting, you will see from The “Pri Toar” (not sure if it is the Pri Chodosh himself) in se’if koton 15, that he essentially echoes what you you just wrote. He is very adamant about tiny bugs that are present, even if you cannot see them with normal eyesight, that they are “ossur”. So,at least you have some earlier Possek to rely upon about exhaustive bedikah.
The quandary you will have with such an approach is “where do you top?” . A magnifying glass? a small microscope? Half an hour waiting to see that a tiny speck walks? a hard brush to scrape every strawberry? That is why this subject is so fraught with uncertainty if you look for extremes.
ROB, they’re not the same person.
I tip my hat to you for being modeh al ha’emes.
I agree that’s it’s hard to know where to draw the line, and I echoed a couple of ideas mentioned by other posters, which I believe are in fact suggested by contemporary poskim.
Looking for extremes ?!
We have a definite halachic issue. We have some who feel, perfectly logically, a lack of clarity as to the issue being resolved with typical cleaning. Thus they resort to stronger measures.
Extremists ? I’d prefer to go with “yerei shamayim”.
Logician:you are perfectly right. I have said consistently that any individual can be “machmir” to any extent. It is the assumption that the tsibbur must also abide by these same chumros that I question. This thread started with the question of eiruvim. The real tsaddikim will be “machmir” upon themselves but “pasken” “lekuloh” for the tsibbur. The same with the present discussion,. The tsibbur should be responsible for reasonable checking. To use outlandish means should not be imposed upon the tsibbur.
DaasYochid: I thank you for the “mareh mekomos” great research!
1. If you refer to these methods as “outlandish”, I have a hard time believing you truly validate the machmirim.
2. “Where do you draw the line”. Ok, valid question, but whats the answer ? An exhaustive check just can’t be mandatory, because its too outlandish? This is not a question of chumra, but of being certain of the validity of the checking method. We are not talking about being machmir on certain shitos, but about being sure, to the extent halacha requires, that you’ve avoided the problem. “Extremism” in this case might be the responsibility of all.
logician: “machmirim” can also employ outlandish methods that the tsibbur does not have to follow. Example; it was known that the Brisker Rov zz’l literally “burned” his matzos, until they were scarcely edible. Yet, because he felt that he wanted to avoid even a ‘shemetz” (particle) of “chometz”, he used this quite extreme method. So, should the tsibbur follow? Or,another example. I don’t know whether you know that but some chassidim (maybe also perushim) avoid any beef because they do not know whether all the “chelev” (certain fats) have been cut out from the carcass. Hence, they avoid beef altogether. Should the tsibbur follow?
Certain chumros were accepted (for example, the hindquarters of a cow in chutz lo’oretz) and many chumros were not accepted. Nothing to do with one shittah or another.
I have no problem with anyone who washes strawberries in detergent. “gezunterheit”! But I submit this is an outlandish chumro, not required by halacha. You are welcome to it but don’t make the tsibbur abide by these chumros!
You do what is sensible and the rest, you are exempt by HKBH. Illustration: on pessach, the gemoro says that you are “bodek'(Cheeck) a hole in the wall for chometz “ad shejodo maga’as” -till the hand reaches in. Chazal did not requite you to dismantle the wall or even to use any tools to dig further. I can quote you many other examples on this. One does what the Torah requires and for the rest, “shomer Pe’soim Hashem”
Gut shabbos.
ROB, with all due respect, you are completely wrong about the strawberries. I have spoken to numerous people in the kashrus industry, a few who specialize in tolaim, and nobody says it’s muttar to eat them when washed in plain water.
Some say they shouldn’t be eaten unless peeled or blended, and some say cutting off the tops, then washing them well in soapy water is sufficient. The thrips which infest them stick well to the skin and the soap is needed to loosen them.
As a seeker of truth, I ask you to contact the kashrus agencies to confirm what I said, and, l’hosir michshol, report back your findings. Thank you.
I wouldn’t nitpick on an example, but it exactly illustrates my earlier point:
Halacha clearly defines which chametz you must get rid of. You must only check until the place the hand reaches. Further in would therefore be pointless – it is not considered a place where you ordinarily use, and so there is no chiyuv. It has nothing to do with Chazal exempting you from exerting yourself beyond the sensible. But until that spot, you might need to do “outlandish” methods of ensuring it is chometz free.
Your other example of the matzah is much better. Yes, that is a means which you are not required to do. But not because it is outlandish – simply because we have clearly understood definitions in halachah which you can satisfy without it.
And so in this particular issue, you will need to illustrate that you can be confident that you got rid of the bugs to the extent that you are clearly not required to clean further, in order to label these methods as outlandish. And as DY is trying to tell you, speak to an expert in the field and you will see that this is not the case.
Gut Voch.
From the Star-K website:
“Strawberries
Checking Instructions
Please note the following regarding all Star-K insect checking instructions: When applicable, guidelines apply to produce grown and purchased in the United States. Checking procedures in other countries may be different.
Fresh:
Fill basin with water and mild soap or special veggie wash (such as Tsunami 100).
Note: When using soap, use only a food grade cleanser that meets all federal, state, and local regulations. The water should have enough soap to make it feel slippery.
Soak strawberries while agitating the water.
Rinse strawberries under a stream of water.
It is preferable to cut off the top together with a small amount of the flesh.
Strawberries may now be used.”
From Kof K:
STRAWBERRIES Often infested with thrips and aphids. (The strawberry aphid is pink in color and thus may be camouflaged.) Slice off and discard green leaf with thin sliver of berry (without exposing center hole). Then employ process B. Mexican strawberries are extremely infested and, thus, should be avoided.
DaasYochid and others:you will have to tell me why this custom of washing with soap and other extreme methods (peel a strawberry?) Only originated in very recent years. No one said this in europe for many decades nor do we find this in Poskim. Neither do I remember this being required in the fifties and sixties. Has there been an extra infestation of pests in the last two decades? However, to respect your points I will check strawberries with a magnifying glass and I will oireport on my efforts.
ROB, I don’t understand. I asked you to kindly check with the kashrus agencies, but you only offered to look at a strawberry with a magnifying glass. There’s a reason I didn’t ask you to merely look at a strawberry with a magnifying glass; your findings won’t prove anything either way. How can you compare looking at one solitary berry, or even box of berries, to the findings of the kashrus agencies whose mashgichim have literally checked thousands upon thousands of large batches of strawberries? I don’t even think a layman looking at a strawberry with a magnifying glass will know what to look for, or be able to find the thrips hiding between the skin and the seeds. Gavra asked me to break open a batch of berries on a black garbage can, even after washing it with the recommended method, and I’ll see all the white bugs which the washing with detergent didn’t get. I’ll tell you why I haven’t done it yet (although I still might, out of curiosity); because my solitary experiment can’t prove anything. So instead, I confirmed with a vegetable expert in the kashrus field that this indeed might happen. His experience, together with that of all the mashgiachim who have worked under him, is a worth a lot more than my lone experiment would.
Des the level of infestation after this cleansing remain a miut hamotzui? Apparently bit, according to at least three national hechsherim (see below).
So if you want to call people who are choshesh for a miut hamotzui outlandish, I and maybe even Gavra will proudly wear that label.
Here’s from the OK:
Strawberries: Please note: Strawberries with holes should not be used! 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cut off green stems. Wash, soak and rub each strawberry in soap or veggie wash solution for 3 minutes. (Maximum 25 strawberries at a time). Dump out the water, rinse the strawberries. Wash, soak and rub the strawberries once more for 3 minutes. Rinse the strawberries. Check 3 samples.
DaasYochid: You make my point. When buying any vegetable, it is incumbent upon the person to check for whatever foreign substance can be found. If a person is diligent,checks the vegetables and makes reasonable adjustments (I consider cutting off the top reasonable)and then sees nothing ontowards, why ssume there is anything there? Maybe the times that the mashgichim found unusual infestation was a special year? (You wanted to rely uopn the Pri Chodosh for such a chumro). An earlier poster maintained that Mexican strawberries are particularly infested. How about california ones? or New jersey ones? Your way disqualifies a whole species in a way that may not be real at all.
and makes reasonable adjustments (I consider cutting off the top reasonable)
Well, the experts don’t. I don’t know why your assumption based completely on speculation should carry any weight whatsoever.
DY,
I think the earlier comment “Perhaps you consider being informed a chumra. And a chumra that you are not willing to accept.” would be an appropriate answer to ROB.
Nishtdayngesheft, I try to make my points in a more respectful and subtle manner (although I’m not always successful). I don’t think anyone’s going to hear my arguments any better if I insult people.
Yes DY, but then you end up going in circles in endless posts.
Such as: “I consider cutting off the top reasonable” – after this whole thread, this is we are holding.
Yes DY, but then you end up going in circles in endless posts.
You think this is my halacha seder? It’s my mussar seder!
Excellent! I love it. I guess I just have to go work on my savlanus and the such…
DaasYochid (and Nisht..): you are absolutely correct in saying that I do not accept these chumros and therefore, we are at opposite sides of the argument. This post started with the assertion of the “kula-ization’ of yiddishkeit, to which I replied that is has become a “chumro-ization” of yiddishkeit, based, by the way, on a number of different events to which no on replied. It devolved into an argument about chekcing for worms and other microbes on fruits and vegetables. So, you are welcome to follow what I consider extreme chumros. I will follow what I think are reasonable efforts. You do not have to eat my strawberries.
I agree on one count – that the trend towards chumros has had very sad results. In this case – to force you to refuse to align yourself with the machmirim, to the extent that you would rather develop your own theories of reasonable halacha, to the exclusion of the sometimes inherently difficult aspects of halachah, even in cases where these “outlandish methods” are actually required.
You earlier stated that you are seeking the truth, yet when faced with the findings of experts, you choose to go with your own assumptions, and limited experience, of reality. Well.
Not eating toloim is not a chumrah. Closing your eyes to the fact that there are toloim doesn’t make them muttar.
DY: Isn’t “If I can’t see it, it’s not illegal”, the most famous B’feirush Simpsons ever?
Sam, b”H, I have no idea.
In the days of heavy use of DDT and other pesticides, there really was not such an inyan of tolaim, as most could not survive in plants. So those who do not recall their parents checking through the fruits and veggies, may well have lived at a time when it was truly not as necessary as it is in recent decades, when the use of these pesticides has been discontinued.
Oomis, that’s correct. As to the period before that, the poskim warned that there was tremendous infestation.
DY -“Not eating toloim is not a chumrah. Closing your eyes to the fact that there are toloim doesn’t make them muttar.”
While I personally would use one of the the methods mentioned above, I don’t think you’re being Dan ROB L’caf Zechus.
ROB holds that you don’t need to be Bodek because it’s Eino Motzay.
Health, I do think that that’s what he believes, unfortunately, that’s not a z’chus.
When the experts all maintain that they must be washed in soap, because they are matzuy, there’s no such thing as an amateur “holding” that they’re not matzuy and that you don’t need to. That’s not a legitimate shittah, that’s self delusion.
ROB, I apologize for my strong tone, but I feel that your posting of this outlandish “kula” in a public forum is a michshol d’rabbim.
DaasYochid: First, I do thank you for the civil tone of the discussion- regardless of your criticism. Secondly, I took out a magnifying glass this morning and very carefully looked at strawberries. I could not see anything onv the actual body of the strawberry (I just don’t beliive that they are pink, otherwise,nothing will help)..).Under the leaves and on the white part ,there were some black strands- I believe it is part of the strawberry but, for precaution’s sake, you cut the top off, which is what I do.
I don’t particularly care about the so-called “experts”. They are not in my house, checking the strawberries. In modern agriculture, the pesticides are effective (they still use pesticides, just not DDT).
You may want to follow the chumros-fine with me. BWe will have to disagree on the amount of checking needed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.