Worms In Fish

I don’t know of American poskim who say there’s a problem.

koma – “In Rav Vai’s book, there are full color pics of what to look for. And there are very visible parasites.”

Do you think Rav Belsky doesn’t know about these in full color parasites? Do you think none of our g’dolim and poskim, past and present, needed to read this book in order to know what to look for?

Do you think Rav Belsky doesn’t know about these in full color parasites? Do you think none of our g’dolim and poskim, past and present, needed to read this book in order to know what to look for?

I know when I asked Rav Sheinberg he referred me to Rav Vai. This was years ago when Rav Sheinberg was holding in all of shas and poskim. Rav Revach who is as well an expert clearly says the same. These are the psakim of Rav Elyashiv as well. The shayla is not only halachic, it’s a matter of professional expertise.

A Response to the OU Response on Worms in Fish

International News

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

on Sunday, May 16, 2010

Rabbi Mordechai Kuber, the OU representative in Eretz Yisroel,

recently penned a response to the ruling issued by Maran HaRav Elyashiv Shlita, Rav Karelitz, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Gestetner, Rav Shternbuch and Rav Shmuel Auerbach. Below is a response to Rabbi

Ferocious debate has erupted recently concerning contemporary worms found in the flesh of fish. [Ferocious? The term seems a bit

extreme.]

Shulchan Aruch (YD 84:16) explicitly rules that fish-flesh worms are permitted, because they originate within the flesh, whereas stomach worms are prohibited, because they enter the fish from the outside.

the host fish.

[No one has claimed that the ruling is limited to ancient worms. There are still many worms today, that are clearly permitted. This is

either because they entered the fish through the skin, or because they first became visible in the flesh. The debate revolves only about one

with Shulchan Aruch to forbid this worm, as the Shulchan Aruch writes that worms that come from the stomach are forbidden.]

This list of respected Poskim and Gedolei Hador base their ruling on scientific papers, and on evidence presented and interpreted by Rav

Shneur Zalman Revach, an Israeli Rav with more piscatorial experience than many fishmongers, that indicate that contemporary fish-flesh

worms migrate to the flesh from the stomachs.

The Rabbanim who steadfastly cling to their position that even contemporary fish-flesh worms are permitted argue that Shulchan

[This is an extreme statement, especially in light of the fact that the Gedolei haPoskim have stated that the Shulchan Aruch is not

We often find Achronim qualifying and explaining the words of the Shulchan Aruch, and there is no difference here.]

Rather, the blanket ruling proves that migration is impossible.

[Rabbi Kuber is making a categorical statement that there is a blanket ruling issued here by the Mechaber, and then states that this proves

that migration is impossible. Except for our own eyes can witness this migration.]

[Who exactly invoked Chazal versus scientists here? This is a plain case of a simple reading of Shulchan Aruch. Did the author of the

Shulchan Aruch mean to permit worms in the flesh when we see them come out of the stomach, o not? This issue has nothing at all to do with

Chazal versus science.]

entertains the possibility that some Rishonim, in contrast to Shulchan Aruch, do not interpret the Gemara as granting blanket approval to

fish-flesh worms, but rather only to a specific worm. Thus, even Talmudic law prohibits contemporary fish-flesh worms, for they are of

a different species. Rav Wosner acknowledges that Shulchan Aruch does not follow this view (Sheivet Haleivi 4:83 and 7:123).

[A careful reading of the Shaivet HaLevi 4:83, a letter to Reb Shmuel Shmelke Friedman, will show the reader that this is not a correct

referring to a general assumption that can be made with most worms, but he clearly never states that the Shulchan Aruch does not follow

However, his conclusion at the end as well is that the Shulchan Aruch was not referring to the worm that comes from elsewhere. To read this

Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp, a distinguished neighborhood Rav in Kiryat Sefer who has championed this cause, suggests that many Rishonim and

Poskim, and perhaps even Shulchan Aruch, do not issue a blanket ruling. Rather, they permit flesh worms only if we are certain that

they do not originate outside the fish. However, they are prohibited if reasonable doubt exists concerning their origin. Thus, migratory

worms of yore that were comparable to contemporary worms, which are purportedly migratory, were prohibited even in Talmudic days, and the

Poskim who prohibit contemporary fish-flesh worms, but unlike the aforementioned Poskim, acknowledge the difficulty presented by

absence of contrary evidence.

[This is correct.]

Thus, Shulchan Aruch rules that one need not be concerned about the possibility that fish-flesh worms have migrated from the stomach, for

such an occurrence is rare enough to permit ignoring its then infrequent, or non-existent, incidence.

[At times it is infrequent, and at times it is more frequent. Now, clearly, it is frequent.]

But if we are faced with evidence that a certain worm has migratory powers, we cannot ignore it. We are forced to say that this worm has

developed, or enhanced, its migratory powers since the codifying of the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch. Second, modern-day catching and

delivery methods allow fish to remain ungutted for much longer than in centuries, or even in decades, gone by.

[We must also be aware that, according to those who visited the actual fishing boats, much of the problem comes from partially gutted fish.

In other words, the migration happens when after gutting the fish is neither examined well nor frozen immediately. This situation did not

necessarily exist earlier. Generally speaking the gutting was done at home because more of the fish was used back then. When the fish is

completely whole, the worms generally do not migrate.]

Therefore, although Shulchan Aruch rules that we may presume that freshly caught fish could not have migratory worms in its flesh, we

post-catch migration of stomach worms into adjacent flesh.

The permitting Rabbanim argue that the force of tradition supports their position: since the codifying of the Talmud, no one has

that such tandem infestation was never reached throughout the millennia.

permitted. There have been too many changes in the methods of commerce and production to rely on a tradition in an ever-changing

reality.]

Rather, there were certainly many incidences of such infestation, yet none of our sages of years gone by felt that the presence of nearby

stomach worms negatively affected the permissibility of the flesh worms.

The opposing camp dismisses this argument, and confidently proposes that this is an entirely new situation. They postulate that

continuing contamination of the waters and environment has created levels of infestation previously unknown. They buttress their

position by citing testimony of two fisheries that the level of flesh-worm infestation has risen dramatically over the last decades.

[This information comes from the British health agencies, as well as the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.]

On behalf of the permitting Rabbanim, we have an obligation to scrutinize the relevance and reliability of this miniscule fishery

survey. How many fisheries were contacted, and did they all agree? Could the reported higher infestation levels result from more

never previously realized (see Koheles 7:10)? Decades ago, when infestation levels were lower, were stomachs similarly infested in

tandem with the flesh? If yes, and so it seems from all available literature, this condition is not new at all!

[The issues are changes in processing, commercial production, and rising infestation levels. All of these are quite verifiable]

are prohibited. Most also seem to agree that in a head-to-head match, the word of Shulchan Aruch and Chazal discredits the word of

dissenting scientists. The only point of disagreement is whether the scope of this particular ruling of Shulchan Aruch is broad enough to

directly contradict the claim that there are contemporary, migratory worms, whose incidence is frequent enough to require that fish flesh be inspected for their presence. In addition, it behooves us to

evaluate independently the integrity and legitimacy of the presented migratory evidence, even without invoking the against-Chazal

disqualifier.

There seems to be a peripheral issue, unrelated to the above discussion, of whether Gedolei Hador could be misled by

misinformation, and whether a non-Gadol is entitled to challenge their halachic arguments.

migration that was and can be seen, and by the scientific opinion, and yet in a few paragraphs, Rabbi Kuber will argue that the scientists cannot be trusted for anything. The last line here about a non-Gadol

challenging the halachic arguments of a Gadol are also somewhat disturbing. There is no question that Talmidei Chachomim are permitted to plummet the depths of halacha and may come to halachic opinions of their own (See Hakdama to Igros Moshe Orech Chaim Vol. I), however, mainstream Klal Yisroel does follow the psakim of Gedolei

Yisroel.]

A discussion of that issue is beyond the scope of this article. For ease of presentation, this article presumes that Gedolei Hador would recant their position if they discovered that they had been misled, and that even non-Gedolim may debate an issue about which Gedolim have already issued their ruling. Obviously, in the final analysis, we follow the rulings of our Poskim and Gedolim.

[Good.]

Scientists and Halachah – Suggesting that nature has changed since the days of the Talmud is not novel; Magen Avraham (173:6) and Maharshal (Chulin 7:15) suggest the same.

However, granting credence to scientists as arbiters of post-Talmudic change is quite a departure from the halachic norm of old.

But once again, that is not the issue here. Our case is discussing the issue of whether or not the Shulchan Aruch was also discussing a case where it can readily be observed that the worm migrated from the stomach.]

In theory, although the laws of our holy Torah do not bind scientists,

they are sworn to veracity by their adherence to Scientific Method,

their immutable and secularly sacred code of ethics and verification.

Regrettably, the reality is to the contrary.

The shelves of research libraries are lined with scientific papers

full of selective reporting, tweaking, distortions, presumptuous

hypotheses, misleading conclusions, and outright lying.

[It is curious why Rabbi Kuber finds it necessary to attack the

methodologies of the scientific method here in a halachic discussion

that deals with a verifiable metzius that can be readily observed and

is backed up by scientists. While it is true that scientists often

err, Torah thought never advocated a Luddite approach to medicine or

science. The fact is that the OU itself often relies on food chemists

for issues and matters far beyond what Rav Revach utilized them for.

He merely cites them to back up the metzius that can be readily

observed.]

oaths as false, he did not mean to exclude scientists.

We require no greater evidence than the blind adherence of the

scientific elite to evolutionary theory as proof that scientists

violate every axiom of their Method in support of their prejudiced

conclusions. Instead of testing their hypotheses and arriving at

considered theories, they often work backwards from preconceived

notions, discarding and distorting contrary information along the way.

Although there are certainly reliable papers and meticulous

scientists, it is unwise to presume that their word is unwavering

truth.

Clearly, we must know that the author of a study is trustworthy,

before giving credence to his conclusions. Whereas Chasam Sofer (YD

101) embraces the veracity of Rambam to rule that the health concern

of jointly cooked meat and fish had vanished in the centuries since

the days of the Talmud, he dismisses the word of doctors who claimed

that it had since returned in the centuries since the days of Rambam.

Changing nature is possible, but the word of the scientists in

establishing that change is of dubious worth.

change in frequency. And we find from the above Rishonim that change

has often been observed. The change referred to here is one of

frequency.]

We therefore must applaud the boldness of Harav Hagaon Asher Anshel

Ekstein, the Belzer Dayan, who courageously states that scientists

could certainly not be trusted in this case. He notes that scientists

do not believe that worms could form within fish flesh on their own

(Presentation to AKO Conference, Shevat 5770).

[The parameters of the issue according to most Poskim is a halachic

definition. Was it identifiable to the naked eye of an observer

before it entered the flesh of the fish and or did it enter through

quote of Rav Ekstein is disingenuous because it is not explaining the

accept.]

Therefore, he correctly concludes that scientists cannot be objective

regarding fish-flesh worms. Since they believe that they must migrate

to the flesh from the stomach, they will perforce misconstrue and

ignore all contrary evidence, or rush to their preconceived migratory

conclusions without convincing evidence of such. Thus, the

conclusions of the scientific papers presented should be judged as

presumptuous at best, and fraudulent, at worst.

this argument falls away entirely. Rabbi Kuber is dismissing out of

hand, all observation.]

Although most Poskim openly reject the authority of scientists to

discredit Talmudic tradition, they are less bold when evaluating the

conclusions on the conclusion of the scientists, or has adopted

equally conjectural methods. It would seem that a Rav who is the

mouthpiece for scientists, or who reaches conclusions in the same

manner, is no more reliable than they.

Rav Ekstein ignores an equally important point, perhaps because of his

love of his fellow Yidden, which faults not scientists, but those who

have used their conclusions as fuel in this firefight. As best as

this author could determine, there seem to be no more than a handful

of papers, upon which the arguments of the prohibiting camp are based.

These few reports are all that has been disseminated as evidence of

migratory worms, and seem to be all that is available in the public

domain. This paltry evidence of nature-change seems as mismatched

ruling as is an untrained featherweight against a champion heavyweight

fighter.

[Included with the papers are the observations of the mashgichim of

the Machon who entered the boats.]

We also note that even the scientists are quite unclear about the

source of the flesh worms. The CDC (Center for Disease Control)

states unequivocally that intestinal worms migrate to the flesh only

after the host fish dies. They are not discussing migration after the

catch, but migration when fish die in the open waters and wait a while

before being ingested by a larger fish. Thus, the scientists admit

that contemporary worms cannot pierce the intestinal wall during a

explain the presence of flesh worms that clearly did not migrate there

in the short time between catch and gutting. Thus, scientific theory

actually points away from migration!

Rav Revach has presented his own evidence of migration, although he

claims that it is all post-mortem. Nevertheless, he has yet to

present a well-documented paper, and his conclusions must therefore be

carefully reviewed.

Rabbanim and Spontaneous Generation – We introduce this section with a

disclaimer. It is well known that spontaneous generation has been

scientifically discredited by experimentation for the last 150 years.

Nevertheless, many teachings of Chazal hinge on a mechanism similar to

spontaneous generation. In our particular discussion, if spontaneous

generation of flesh worms is not a considered explanation, we are

forced to theorize about other possible sources of these worms. The

most prevalent explanation of internally generating worms that

substitutes for spontaneous generation is that microscopic larvae

develop within the flesh to visible proportions, and it appears as if

they have spontaneously generated. The problem with this hypothesis

is that it concedes migration of the microscopic larvae into the

flesh. This is contradictory to the most essential element of the

theory that permits flesh worms – that worms cannot migrate to the

flesh from the stomach.

Therefore, instead, we embrace spontaneous generation in this

presentation, for it is the only way to explain the words of Chazal,

without saying that they erred. We mean not to dismiss experimental

evidence, but just to acknowledge that some mechanisms are hidden. We

are not certain how fish flesh seems to develop into worms. We know

that it cannot be because of migrating larvae, but experimentation has

also discredited flesh transforming to worms on its own. But, we are

mindful that there is much that we do not know, and that Chazal were

well versed in nature, beyond their experimental abilities. Hence, we

the fish flesh transforms to worms, even though we are not certain

what that mechanism is.

We acknowledge that many Rabbanim seem duty bound to bend and twist in

order to allow Shulchan Aruch and the words of Chazal to conform to

accepted scientific notion. (The theory of evolution is a notable

exception, and does not evoke such contortions.) In this and other

embrace of spontaneous generation. They therefore reinterpret

Talmudic spontaneous generation as the development of microscopic

eggs, spores, and organisms that have migrated or been deposited from

elsewhere. Thus, the invisible becomes visible, and appears to have

self-generated. In this case, these Rabbanim propose that microscopic

larvae are ingested by crustaceans, which are subsequently ingested by

the host fish; the still-microscopic larvae then migrate from the

stomach to the flesh, where they develop and appear to have

spontaneously generated.

Unfortunately, this less-than-literal, and perhaps equally

less-than-exact, contortion leaves considerable turbulence in its

wake. First, these Rabbanim have thereby adopted the argument of the

prohibiting camp: there is migration from the stomach to the flesh!

Hence, these Rabbanim must be presumptuous, and somewhat fanciful, in

order to validate their position. They are forced to postulate that

flesh worms develop from microscopic (and hence permitted), migrating

larvae, while simultaneously claiming that the more fully developed

and much stronger larvae that reside in the stomach cannot likewise

pierce the abdominal wall. This is nothing but fantastic and

presumptuous, and it is as unbelievable as it sounds.

has been rumored to rule that the size of migrating larvae is

irrelevant. Even if larva would be microscopic at the time of

migration, the visible, grown larva is prohibited, since it developed

from a migratory source. In addition, the scientists are also not

satisfied, for they claim that the larvae have grown to visible size

by the time that they and their host are ingested by the next-level-up

host fish.

One respected Rav, who apparently realized the extent to which this

argument is untenable, unfoundedly postulated that larger, already

visible larvae migrate from the stomachs to the flesh, but that these

flesh. The scientists are satisfied, but the Poskim are not. On

halachic grounds, this hypothesis is even more presumptuous and

tenuous than the biologically untenable argument of microscopic

migration, which it was meant to positively replace.

the ingested larvae are not microscopic, without feebly suggesting

that they become permitted within the flesh. Instead, we would first

need to say that developing larvae are kosher even within a non-kosher

fish. Although some have ruled that they are prohibited, there is no

explicit ruling concerning this, and the law seems to be disputed. In

addition, we would need to say that the transfer of the larva from the

crustacean to the host fish is not considered as if the worm left its

growth environment, for then it would be prohibited. We would need to

distinguish between these worms and a worm that develops within

post-harvest fruit and crawls out, directly into another picked fruit.

In the latter case, we rule stringently, even though the worm never

was exposed to the outside. In this case, we would have to say that

the host fish is also considered a growing environment, for the larva

continues to develop there.

would propose that the larvae that enter through the nostrils are too

small to penetrate the abdominal walls, but the ingested larvae within

the crustaceans are larger, and they could penetrate. Besides the

problem that we are suggesting the opposite of what the Rav said, we

would still need to contend that the worms that invade through the

nostrils would never develop to penetration size. And we also rely on

two contested and unproven hypotheses: a) worms are kosher even when

they develop within non-kosher fish, and b) the transfer of the worm

from the crustacean to the host fish does not prohibit the worm.

In summary, the case of the changing-nature, migratory camp is granted

credibility by the reluctance and refusal of the opposing Rabbanim to

take Chazal at their spontaneous-generation word. Although there is

nothing wrong with attempting to align scientific observations with

Vayikra 16:8, at the end) castigation of those who adhere too

too educated in natural (science). They follow the Greek (Aristotle),

who denied all that he could not detect, and he and his students

arrogantly thought that anything that he could not understand per his

discredited the classic understanding of spontaneous generation, yet

we are also mindful that the words of Chazal must stand without

logic-bending contortions. We must embrace non-invasive generation,

as Chazal seemingly did, even if we are unaware of the mechanism by

which it might take place. Once we do this, we will be properly

poised to appreciate the timeless nature of this ruling of Shulchan

Aruch, and soundly reject the evidence presented in favor of the

changing migratory nature of fish worms.

[Regardless of the position one takes on the spontaneous generation

issue is still a problem since it could very well be that the Shulchan

Aruch did not refer to the worms that migrate.]

The position of the Gedolei haPoskim has been made clear. While Rabbi

Kuber is entitled to disagree with their conclusions and the

conclusions of Rabbi Revach who has carefully documented and

researched the underlying issues with leading scientists, there does

remain one additional issue. There were many Rabbis and Poskim of the

previous generation that held that animal gelatin was permitted to be

eaten. Rabbis of the Conservative movement today are of the opinion

for various reasons, it would have been wrong for a Kashrus agency to

remain with a policy that gelatin is to be considered permitted. The

issue of the anisakis worm in fish is no different. It is an issue

that is rectifiable for the most part. If our Gedolei HaPoskim have

ruled that the anisakis is a forbidden worm, and this is clearly the

remove it from our food first and take the issue up with the Gedolei

HaPoskim later?

next section will follow in a few days. The author can be reached at

[email protected].

cherrybim: “I don’t know of American poskim who say there’s a problem”

Rav Bess from LA and Rav Reissman from Far Rokoway do.

Did Hashem not put these parasites IN the fish, and did HE not give us guidelines for what constitutes fish kashrus?

oomis: I don’t understand your point. Hashem also says we may eat lettuce, but the the bugs on them. Eat Norwegian Salmon and you’re safe.

cherrybim: Not at all. I think Rav Belsky’s reasoning is much more logically sound than Rav Kuber’s. However many Gedolei HaPoskim rule it is assur miDeoraisa, and if you want to be safe there is a simple solution to buy Norwegian.

“and if you want to be safe there is a simple solution to buy Norwegian.”

Again, when I hear it from Rav Belsky; then I’ll want to be safe.

“oomis: I don’t understand your point. Hashem also says we may eat lettuce, but the the bugs on them. Eat Norwegian Salmon and you’re safe. “

Let me clarify. Bugs on produce go onto the produce themselves. Bugs walk onto the lettuce, and lay eggs, etc. Fish, may ingest these worms as part of their food chain. Do we check poultry and meat flesh for these worms, as well (if so, then of course, it should be checked in fish)? If it is known that the worms are in the fish’s intestines, the intestines should be discarded. But if Hashem gave us fish to eat, the presumably He knew that fish ingest worms and they might be hard, if not impossible to remove from them. Yet, He did not say, eat the fish with fins and scales, but not if they have worms. Anyway, this topic is for discussion by rabbonim, which I am not, and I go by what my poskim tell me is muttar or assur. So far, I am having salmon and blintzes (not mixed together) for dinner tonight, BE”H. And cheesecake.

oomis:”Do we check poultry and meat flesh for these worms, as well”

No, they are not infested.

“But if Hashem gave us fish to eat, the presumably He knew that fish ingest worms and they might be hard, if not impossible to remove from them. Yet, He did not say, eat the fish with fins and scales, but not if they have worms”

Hashem also gave us lettuce to eat knowing that bugs lay their eggs there and it might be hard if not impossible to check. Yet hHe did not say “eat only lettuce if it does not have worms”

What is the difference???

Thanks for posting!

If Rav Belsky is willing to “take the risk” on an issur d’oraisa; count me in too.

hello99 – “The majority of Gedolei HaPoskim have forbidden these worms”

You still haven’t listed the Gedolei Haposkim of America who forbade the fish.

From the OU web site:

http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/whats_going_on_with_the_bugs_in_the_fish1/

hello99,

Actually, halachah IS regional and has been for thousands of years; different parts of the world follow their own rabbis. You can see this in the gemara where rabbis from Eretz Yisrael would differ from rabbis in Bavel. And that remains the case today. For example, Italian Jews eat swordfish and have for generations; who am I as an outsider to tell them that generations of their rabbis were wrong? Yemenite Jews eat locusts; do you have a problem with that?

I follow the rabbis of my community. I buy all my fish from the same kosher fish store that is certified by the local Vaad. There is absolutely no reason to question my local Vaad, which is very well respected.

No, hello99, you are avoiding my point. Are you saying that one cannot rely on Rav Belsky?

And actually, halacha is regional, as in “minhag hamakom”.

cherrybim: You are still avoiding my point. I made my position VERY clear that I very much respect Rav Belsky for what he is, ONE OF the Gedolei Haposkim but not the only one.

Cherry and charlie: You have a peculiar perception of the process of Halacha. Halacha is NOT regional! A worm is either assur or muttar, as a swordfish is either a dag tamei or tahor, neither can be kosher some places but not others. Would you say that anisakis is assur in EY, Manhattan, Queens and NJ (Rav Forscheimer does not permit their consumption, mi’safek) but kosher in Brooklyn. What IS regional is minhagim, but here there is clearly NO pre-existing minhag. BTW today swordfish is universally accepted to be non-kosher and I don’t believe any Posek would allow an Italian Yid to eat them based on the supposed tradition you mention. Additionally eating OU does NOT automatically make Rav Belsky ones personal Rav any more then it obligates one to say Hallel on Yom Ha’Atzmaut as Rav Schachter and Rav Genack do.

I do concede that if Rav Belsky is your personal Rav and you follow all of his psakim l’chumra and l’kula you MAY rely on him for this too. But otherwise I think it would be irresponsible to be lenient at the time being.

I don’t know where Hallel on Yom Ha’Atzmaut came in here, was that just to try to besmirch the OU and their Poskim?

Just trying to illustrate that most of us do NOT consider Rav Shachter and Rav Genack to be our Rabbonim in general, even though we rely on them to eat OU.

Also, someone should have told all the great Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim who were at the wonderful Kiddush that I was at on Shabbos, that they should not to eat the herring and other fish they seemed to be enjoying. It seems that they do rely on Rav Belsky.

hello99,

Regarding swordfish, a lot of prominent authorities have permitted it including Rabbi Eliezer Silver z’tz’l and Rabbi Isser Unterman z’tz’l. The OU had a nice presentation on the issues a few years ago that includes actual photographs of kosher swordfish in Italy taken very recently. You can view the entire presentation at ouradio.org by searching on “OU Kosher Swordfish” and scrolling down to “The Three Fishes Part II: Swordfish”.

Could be she doesn’t eat tuna not because it isn’t kosher, but rather because her “minhug” (for whatever reason you explained) was to not eat tuna.