☕ DaasYochid ☕

popa bar abba:

Your point was made by Rabbi Kuber and refuted by Rabbi Scher. In short, the fact that there are far more worms in the viscera (what you call “stomach”) than in the flesh, and there are far more in the parts of the flesh that are near the viscera, is considered ????? ???? that they came ?????.

(Revised) Worms In Fish: Problem Or Not?

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=59040

hello,

“For those who permit the worms even knowing they come from outside as I am proposing and quoting numerous Poskim who agree, the new discoveries are irrelevant and there is no reason in the world to change their mind.”

In theory, I agree. I am questioning, however, whether any of these poskim would have been ???? based on R’ Revach’s evidence. The poskim you bring were quoted by R’ Vaye, who does not accept R’ Falk’s ????. It’s reasonable to assume that they were ???? based on lack of evidence that they come from the outside, especially since most of those ?????? who were asked recently are now ????.

“Tosafos only writes this relating to worms that are ???? ?? ???? and not ones that come from outside.”

100%, correct, and yes, I meant that ??????. I should have explained that I’m making a (very) small leap here; if worms that are ???? ?? ???? are part of the ???, then worms which move from ??? to ????? (become visible) in the ??? should, as well. After all, as I understand this ????, they are halachically equivalent.

Do you accept my ???-? from the ??”?? I have another one as well, from a ??”? I saw quoted (I don’t remember where) that worms from cheese are milchig. You can say your ????? in these cases as well, but as I’ve said, I think they are the same, and if you don’t believe in SG, you must either accept that becoming ???? in the ??? is equivalent, or throw out all of these ?????.

To address point #1 from earlier (microscopic), aside from the fact that the evidence is far from convincing (I know someone whose research indicates otherwise, and R’ Belsky’s retraction on this point seems to be based on this as well), it is quite likely that we could not rely on this evidence ?????, since it is only brought by the ??????, not observable to us. See ??? ???? on this point, as well as R’ Belsky’s statement, which I freely admit to using out of context, “??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????.”

BTW, nowhere does it say in ??”? or ?????? that some worms which are ????? are ????!

I hope you have received R’ Falk’s teshuva by now, Moderator 42 informed me that he was kind enough (my words!) to send it to you.

cherrybim,

Your original post read “The vast majority of local Vaad Hakashrus agencies in the United States follow the OU standards as stated in their by-laws. Anyone know about other countries?”.

I am not giving any psak halocho; I was just trying to be helpful and answer your question!

Cherrybim,

In a shiur given by Rabbi Shmuel Marcus, “Worms in Fish: When Torah and Science Collide?”, given on Sunday May 23, 2010

he says he spoke to the head of the COR which frequently consults with Rav Miller, who assurs, and the COR is currently investigating the prevalence of anisakis. I have posted a link to this shiur on page 2 of this thread.

hello,

I started going through R’ Vaye’s recent release to YW, and I find it to be consistant with what R’ Hoffman wrote. His main reason for ???? is that we are unconvinced that they came ?????. He presents R’ Falk’s heter (as an ????) in an oversimplified manner (skipping the part about the krill, thereby avoiding the problems of ???? and ????)and merely writes that all of the ?????? you mentioned, plus others (most of whom now assur!) were ????. There is no reason to believe that based on the new information, all of the ??????, who then said ????, would now say ????, just as R’ Elyashiv and several others have.

hello,

I have not seen Rav Vaye’s writings. Rabbi Yair Hoffman reports on Rav Vaye’s recent drosho in the Five Towns. “Rav Vaya also stated that if one did observe an anisakis worm go from the stomach to the flesh than that worm is forbidden to be consumed. He further explained that his position and those of many Gedolim that he spoke to is that one does not have to be concerned for this.”

According to the ???? we have discussed, even if it was observed going from the stomach to the flesh, it would be ????.

Hello, a Gut Voch to you too.

1) Microscopic eggs or larvae are swallowed by krill. To assume ????, we would have to postulate that they are never (or almost never) swallowed when at a visible size.

3) When the krill is digested, and the anisakis remains in the ?? ????, it is not considered a ????. Although we are ????? on ???? ???? ????, we are somehow being ???? (the ??? ???? directly addresses this point).

Hi, cherrybim,

What’s new is that R’ Elyashiv has confirmed the psak of R’ Karp that despite the relatively high level of infestation of herring (which you had suspected) it’s still ???? to eat processed herring (pickled, shmaltz, matjes, etc.).

Mosherose:

hello99 is correct that if it was a ????? it would be easier to say ???? because ??? ????? ?????.

This is in no way a ????? to ??”? because ?? ???? ??? ????.

Please read my post to him (if you haven’t already) where I wrote with a little more detail.

Estherh:

“It is time to lay this matter to rest,together with sheitlech etc.”

I agree, but for a different reason. Just like we don’t hear too much about the sheitlach any more, because no sheitel macher will use Indian hair, so too, the stores should only sell the fish which have no problem.

My local supermarket is makpid, but the display is still full with many types of delicious varieties of fish.

V’yochli anuvim v’yisbui.

I’ve read R’ Belsky’s ?????, (the original) and I don’t understand all of it (I would probably need a few weeks to learn the ?????? well enough to begin to understand) but I think I see his overall approach – that he finds it hard to accept that the ??? of the ??”? is not referring to the anisakis worm which is prevalent today. Based on this, he seems to reject every ????? in the ?????, who learn ????? ???? means it actualy originated in the flesh (whether originate is to be meant as spontaneous generation is a side point), and goes with ??”?, according to his understanding.

R’ Falk begins his ????? with this approach, that the ??? of the ??”? must apply today.

I feel that by insisting on this, they are forced to learn the ???? and ??????? in a way which is very much at odds with the normal way one would learn.

R’ Chatzkel Roth, I am told (I haven’t seen or heard of a ?????), also has this approach, but I don’t know if he even has presented a way of explaining the ????.

What we have here, in essence, is not so much a ?????? in the ???? and ??????, but in how literally to treat the words of the ??”?. The ?????? in the ???? and ?????? is merely a by-product.

In addition, he is arguing on the ??”? and the ??”? as ???? ??? brings.

See also ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?”? that only the ???? ?? ???? is ???? because of ??????. The ?”? might agree that the reason is ?????? but hold the same for every ????.

Concerning the different terms used in Chullin and Shabbos, it’s likely that since in Shabbos the gemoro is dealing with netilas “neshomoh”, the term poro v’rovo is used, because it refers to a higher “life” form. The gemoro in Chullin might be more concerned with where the tolaas came from (i.e. not “mei’almo”) because only certain types of sh’rotzim are ossur.

Hello99,

I have not changed my opinion, I’ve been busy. You’re right about the Chavos Daas, but it’s a stretch to rely on it against most poskim.(Whether he was matir even mid’rabbonon was a side point, but you’re right.)

I’ve been going through R’ Falk’s teshuva, and I am trying to get a copy of R’ Belsky’s, which is not publicly available, since I hear that it’s different than what I heard on the 17-18 min. audio.

You’re correct that R’ Falk goes with the m’halach attributed to R’ Dessler, although I find it strange, as I have already said, because since we’re seeing anisakis in the viscera, in the flesh, and in between, according to our perception (not just science), there is no SG going on. R’ Falk is basing his heter on the assumption that what we have today is no different than in the times of the gemoro and S.A.(I think you assumed otherwise, but this is how I read his teshuvoh). I have more to say, but shabbos is coming (lots to do); we’ll iy”H continue later.I assume you’ve logged out by now in EY, so I’ll wish you a gut voch.

hello99,

I was not insinuating, I was asking (not about R’ Dessler, about you), because some people misunderstand R’ Dessler.

If we assume that chaza’l knew the metzius, but described it differently, according to perception, then, I repeat, the comparison of anisakis to lice does not work. Lice appear to generate spontaneously, anisakis do not. Since I already made this point, which you have not answered, if was fair for me to try to clarify if we’re on the same page on this.

(Rav Falk’s heter and Rav Belsky’s heter both do not assume that chaza’l described the halacha according to perception, but rather that minei gavli does not mean spontaneous generation at all, but the larvae reaching the halachic status of existence in the flesh.)

If you would accept that whereas chaza’l knew the metzius; the rishonim, however, did not know the metzius, (but the scientists do), would it not follow logically that we should not be meikil according to those rishonim, but rather machmir like other rishonim (i.e. the Ramba’m) who asser flesh worms in the flesh)?

To justify this, one would have to postulate that we are bound to the gemoro because the gemoro knew the metzius (but described it differently), and the S.A. did not know the metzius, but we are bound to it for some other reason. I do not believe this to be logical or compelling.

What is more logical and compelling, however, is to treat both the gemoro and the rishonim literally, and treat any case which doesn’t appear the same as an exception, not covered in the S.A. and therfore up to the chachomim of the dor that sees this to pasken the shailoh on its own merit. This is what the gedolei haposkim have done.

Some poskim treat lice the same way and asser today’s lice, assuming they must be different than the ones in chazal’s time, and others feel with certainty that kinim are kinim, and we follow chaza’l and disbelieve the scientists. There is no need to do that in the case of anisakis. They do not act as the gemoro and rishonim describe those worms.

hello99,

I haven’t re-answered point #1.

1)”The only reason they would become assur is because of “ha’yotzei min ha’tamei”, and the Chavos Daas 82:2 says this does not apply to separate bria.”

Incorrect -the reason is because it has the status of its host. The reason worms become ossur in animals, Rashi says, is because of Ever Min Hachai. Worms from cheese are milchig. By the way, the Chavos daas is not matir, he makes it an issur d’rabonon.

hello99,

Good morning (evening here).

The sevoro attributed to R’ Dessler is that chaza’l described the metzius in terms of perception, not science. Hence, lice may be killed on Shabbos despite the fact that we now “know” that they are not actually spontaneously generated. (As an aside, my rosh hayeshiva, zt’l, told me that a higher level of emunoh is to believe in chazal’s words literally.) The perception in the case of the lice would overrule the reality. In the case of the anisakis, the perception and reality (according to science) point to migration, not spontaneous generation. The psak of the Shulchan Aruch was never to be matir worms which seem to originate from the outside. The heter of the S.A. is not blanket, rather, a “stomo”.

You explained that you did not mean to say that this approach is radical (I still believe it is) but you did not answer my question; Do you think the anisakis worm is the worm (or at least included in the class of worms) which the Shulchan Aruch discusses, or is the heter based on a sevoro not reflecting the case of the S.A., but yet a compelling sevoro?

popa_bar_abba:

You make a good point.

However, the Mechaber is m’chalek, and says the ones in the viscera are osser.

This would lead us to believe that what we’re seeing (in the flesh) today is not the same as what the mechaber is referring to, which is why the gedolim have assered.

I’m not sure if you were hinting at this point.

hello99,

1) On the 18 minute audio which was (and probably is still) available on the OU website, Rabbi Belsky clearly says it’s considered part of the fish. This sevara was also referred to in the ou’s press released, which HIE quoted earlier in the coffee room.

2) It is not safe to assume it was below the microscopic level. It is beyond my expertise (above my pay grade) to delve into this, but I have hesrd that many poskim have rejected the microscopic heter based on the facts. We can hardly call a heter based on uncertain facts “compelling”.

3) I still don’t understand how the sevara attributed to R’ Dessler would have any bearing on anisakis. Lice appear to spontaneously generate. These worms do not, since they are found in abundance in the viscera and appear to migrate from there to the flesh.

4) I am sorry if I misunderstood the intent of your quote. Please explain; do you think the predation approach is the same as the heter of the S.A. or not?

I am in the US – east coast.

As an aside, I have one more point to add; the reason for herring being on the muttor list (cherrybim, are you still here?) is, I have heard, apparently a combination of many factors, including the level of infestation, and the inability to do a proper bedika and removal. This psak l’heter was issued by Rav Karp, and he plans on confirming with R’ Elyashiv.

1)”The only reason they would become assur is because of “ha’yotzei min ha’tamei”, and the Chavos Daas 82:2 says this does not apply to separate bria.”

I respond with the statement of R’ Belsky as quoted earlier in the CR: “the parasite grows in the fish and becomes permitted as part of the fish” (not considered its own briah)

2)”I(t) seems that the scientists believe that anisakis cannot live without a host beyond this stage of development. While they may be wrong, I don’t think that possibility creates a safek d’Oraisa.”

I respond with:”Rav Vaye personally is concerned that the larva may be of a size significant in Halacha before being ingested by krill, as scientist’s definition of “microscopic” he considers too large.”

3)”Rav Dessler points out that the reason mentioned in the Gemara for the ruling of the Chachamim is not necessarily the only possible reason. The Chachamim gave the reason that was most obvious in their day”.

I have to research this, but even if accurate, does this affect psak halocho, especially to be meikil on a d’oraiso? And even when there is a simpler way of learning the gemoro? I doubt it.

4)”While I admit it may seem radical to render the entire sugya of Gemara and Rishonim irrelevant,”

I agree. It is radical. Your original point was that this is the more logical approach. B”H you now seem to realize that it’s radical.

Based on the timing of your post, I’m guessing you are not in the same time zone as I am.

Moderator80:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

I’m just curious, are you referring to the esrog analogy, or being machmir misofeik?

moderator:

I don’t think the size of blemishes on an esrog has anything to do with “nireh loeinayim”, but rather, “hodor”. In other words, blemishes which are invisible at arm’s length are not considered to diminish the esrog’s beauty.

If I’m not mistaken, the reason that Wolf’s observation is not inconsistent with Rav Carmell as quoted here, is that when the eggs are laid, they are micrscopic. It then grows, and gives parnossoh to nit checkers.

Rescue37.

Yes, Rav Vaye says it is muttar. To deny that it is an issue seems strange, as the gedolei haposkim have assured.

I’ve heard that corn on the cob is more infested in EY than in America, so I’d like to know if he is now saying that it’s a problem in the USA.

hello99,

If they enter the fish in a krill, we have to deal with the issue of why they don’t obtain the status of the krill (as part of its flesh) and should be assur.

We can find a way around this (such as postulating that they never exist in krill at a visible size, and that dogim t’meim never swallow worms and have them reach visible size in them), but this seems far-fetched. It is also unclear why, if we find them in the large fish (i.e salmon) at a visible size, we don’t assume that they were swallowed directly as a free swimming creature. None of this is impossible, but I fail to see why this would seem a more compelling argument than that of the gedolim.