Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
” “BTW, R’ Belsky’s 1-2mm was the length, (it is thinner than that) which is why what he’s saying is not ridiculous”
We’re talking about length, so what’s the ?????? “
It’s ? ????? he discredits reports of up to 5mm (although I don’t think that’s what you meant.)
The issue here is whether they are visible at a smaller size then 30-50 microns when the length is much bigger (as is even 1-2mm).
Can you see the tiny fibers protruding from a cloth? They are thinner than a human hair.
hello,
Sorry, I forgot to say gut voch.
Do you know anyone who argues on the ??”? by cheese?
BTW, the reason I didn’t use the ?”? in ??”? is that they were different in two prints of ??”?.
I’m still looking… Ez filter does 25-30. Not muchroch, but it makes sense for them to go with the most chomur.
http://israel613.com/books/TOLAIM_WATER_NY.pdf
BTW, my rov told me 30 is best, and I personally am sure that this is the shito l’chumro, I’m just trying to find you a source you’ll be happy with. Let me know when you’re satisfied.
I found the OU saying 50 microns for water, which is consistent with my assertion that it is mainstream. Wher does R’ Vaye say 300?
hello,
The ????? of ????”? is only acc. to ???”?, which is, I think, not like ????? ?? ???????. Also, it only applies if it’s a ????, which I am contending that it is not. The ???”? could agree by ????.
As I’ve said, Rav Feivel is ????? on 30, but it’s a ?????.
“Is the term “limit of resolution” equivalent to ???? ?????????”
I have no idea, but it seems the ?????? use this ?????. So my guess is, yes.
“Why do you assume that a long thin line is more visible then a circle of the same surface area???”
I think experimentation has been done, but I don’t remember the source, so I gave you the example of human hair to show you that it’s intuitively correct.
“Also, why do assume we follow the ???? ????? over the ???? ??????????”
What’s the ???? ?????????? We have no established starting point.
BTW, R’ Belsky’s 1-2mm was the length, (it is thinner than that) which is why what he’s saying is not ridiculous ?”?, just puzzling to me. Reports, though, say up to 5mm.
Cherrybim,
As I’ve said before, I’m not personally into numbers. If you want to know if my rov is lenient, and yet I continue to babble on about why I understand better the psak of issur, the answer is no.
hello,
Nice to hear from you again (I thought I gave myself a longer vacation from you by sending you that teshuva, but you must be a speed reader! 🙂 )
Thanks for your candor (expected by now).
I do hear your ????? between ?? ???… but if you deny the existance in ??”? of spontaneous generation, then you are forced to say that in these cases (you didn’t address ??????) the worms achieve the status of the host despite the fact that there is only a ????? ?? ???. Or else reject these ???’? of the ??”? and ??????’s understanding of the ????, which I doubt you would be willing to do. It would be quite interesting to find a ???? who is ???? the worms and therefore is now ???? selling ???? ????? to a ?”?! And is now ???? eating meat after wormy cheese! (Alternatively, requiring ????? ?’ ???? even with the worms removed)!
In other words, wheras I would not have such a problem making the ?????, one who says that SG is “a concept alien to ??”?” would be caught in a ??? ????.
You might be right about my decimal point, (I often write these posts way past my bedtime), but here’s a place to check:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_all.htm
When I put in 0.03mm, I get: 0.03 millimeter = 30 micron
From wikipedia references (under Orders of magnitude (length) )
I think 100 microns is the average. (It says there 90.) BTW, it says over there that 45 microns is “close to the limit of resolution for the human eye”. I’m not sure how close, and anyway it’s not an extremely precise number.
“If the eggs of anisakis are borderline on this ?????, it is logical to assume that the immature larva immediately upon hatching are SMALLER, not larger as you wrote, because they must fit inside the egg. Even if the krill do not swallow them immediately on hatching, it is doubtful if they grow significantly before they have any source of nourishment as they cannot eat without a host.”
I think you are correct; now we’re even on the candor. 🙂 However, after they hatch, they uncoil and become longer and thinner, which makes them more visible.
“Furthermore, I have not seen any indication if the scientists know whether the anisakis are swallowed by krill after they hatch or while they are still inside their eggs.”
I have. From CDC:
“The eggs become embryonated in water, and first-stage larvae are formed in the eggs. The larvae molt, becoming second-stage larvae , and after the larvae hatch from the eggs, they become free-swimming . Larvae released from the eggs are ingested by crustaceans “
http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/anisakiasis.htm
I therefore do not believe that the only information available leans to the side of ????, ?????. Besides, I don’t think we would say ?? ??????? ??????; I think the rules of ???? would have us assume that since when we see it in the fish it was visible, it was visible in the water (???? ?????). I’m looking forward to your response; have a good ???! And enjoy your herring!
Yes, as do I. The definition of “My Rov” to allow one to follow his psak l’kuloh is spoken about in that Chazon Ish I mentioned earlier. It’s worth taking a look; not every Rav-talmid relationship qualifies.
I would like to add that the policy adopted by a kashrus agency does not constitute a psak. A psak is a halachic decision issued by a competent authority based on his thorough research in the topic, both halachic and practical (metsius).
Anything less is merely a decision on which psak to follow.
Cherrybim,
5. “And actually, halacha is regional, as in “minhag hamakom”.
6. “When in doubt, check with the Poskim and Rabbonim of your dor and local.”
Cherrybim,
You say I’m wrong again. Did you look up the sources? Do you know of sources which disagree with mine? I’m definitely open to see information I have not seen before.
I’m also puzzled by your assertion that the determination of majority is based on “local”. Do you have a source? And if I live in NJ, are NY poskim local? LA poskim? Canadian? Where do we draw the line? I ask you please not to answer with your own personal opinion, please back it up with an acceptable source.
cherrybim,
Halachah is not a free-for-all. There are very specific halachos about which psak one must follow.
See gemara Avodah Zara 7a “B’shel Torah” etc.
On a D’oraiso we follow the stringent view, on a D’rabonon we follow the lenient view.
See also Chazon Ish Y.D. 150 (beginning) for when one follows his own rav even when he is more lenient.
“Don’t take this the wrong way”, I am not paskening for you, but I am trying to make you aware that the only thing in this area which one can choose is who to accept as his rav, (also within limits) but not which psak he finds more convenient “if his regular rav/posek does not assir.”
cherrybim,
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/photos.php?albumid=5475594950756791761&photoid=5475594969937922690
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/photos.php?albumid=5475594950756791761&photoid=5475595006180290770
This from refdoc.fr; I’ll give the link,but I don’t know if the moderator will post it.):
cherrybim,
hello,
The ??? of ????? which we discussed is actually a ?”? as explained by the ?????? ??? in ??”? ?”?, ? (on ??”?).
Not a ??”?. Sorry for the error.
cherrybim,
What I mean is, do you also question R’ Karp’s facts, which indicate that these worms come from the outside? If you are merely quoting this questioner but don’t agree with him, then you are being consistent with the article which you posted earlier.
cherrybim,
About a week ago, you posted an article “From Science and Nature – Natural History of Anisakids:”.
Now, you posted a quote of someone questioning Rav Karp’s knowledge of how anisakis works. I don’t get your point.
cherrybim,
The issue is not since when are there anisakis, but rather when did they start entering fish from the outside en masse.
Hello,
How do you know what their ???? was based on?
Since the worms are longer, the ????? of thinness would be smaller. Imagine a very thin human hair. Do you think it would be invisible? I do not think so. A very thin human hair is merely 17 microns!
cherrybim,
Firstly, it’s not an issue of misleading anyone, most people knows there’s an issue here, and rely on their own rov; and even if someone relies on the OU as their rov, if Rabbi Genack does change OU policy, it’s to be “shoveh l’chol nefesh”, not because he feels R’ Belsky’s ???? is unreliable. If he felt so, then, yes, he would publicize it.
Secondly, I hope we are all smart enough to not rely on anything we see on the web, especially in th CR. “Heard it somewhere” certainly does not cut it in halocho, as you so correctly say, but it does tempt me do do further research.
cherrybim,
You make a lot of sense, but two things make me hesitate. Firstly, although ordinarily, the OU might publicize a policy change, in this case they may feel it would be a bizoyon to an odom godol. Secondly, I’m sure hello99 heard it from somewhere, which is why I asked him for his source, which he may or may not be able to post.
Hello,
More on ???? ??????.
From Animal Diversity Web:
“Anisakis simplex juveniles range in size from less than 5 mm as second stage juveniles to more than 30 mm in their fourth stage. (Barnes, 1987; Brusca and Brusca, 2003; Roberts and Janovy, 2000; Smith, 1983)”.
I believe approximately .04mm is considered ???? ??????.
Even according to smaller estimates, it is longer than Milvan, (which we know is visible) but narrower. An additional factor to consider is that according to some reports, they are swallowed when they are free-swimming. Their movement makes them more ???? ??????.
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 ?????.
cherrybim,
Do you have anything more recent than three months ago?
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.
hello99,
I’m interested to know your source that the OU is machmir (by now I hope you realize that I’m not challenging you, just genuinely curious).
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!
hello,
“Also they may not be sold to a[n ???”?] even if they develop in dead meat, clearly not because they obtained the status of their host.”
Where does it say this? It says just the opposite in ??”?.
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,
In Rav Vaye’s letter which was sent to YWN, it says that Rav Falk’s original ????? was in “????? ?????? ??????”.
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 forgot that I have the recent release by R’ Vaye. I will iy”H check to see if it’s consistent with what Rabbi Hoffman reported. I will also bl”n get back to you on the other aspects of your last post.
I have created a new email account for the sole purpose of sending you R’ Falk’s teshuvoh. You can contact me (anonymously, if you wish), and I will bl”n send it.
EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED BY MODERATOR
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 ????.
Cherrybim,
I’m under the impression that in Toronto, the COR follows R’ Shlomo Miller.
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, hello,
I don’t understand, then, your point when you wrote “Even according to the Kreisi u’Pleisi and Pri Chadash it is likely that worms would be mutar as they are also mius.”
The issue here, primarily, is that according to the ??????, these anisakis are ??? ????. Just like ???????. Who knows? Maybe they are ??????? which now infest the ???.
I want to go back to my point about ???? ????? being a ??? of the ????, and by extension, so would ???? ?????? of ???? ?????. There is no ??? of ???? for an ???? ?????, yet many ?????? forbid selling wormy meat to an ???? ?????. The ????? is not ???? ?? ????, but, rather, that it is part of the animal (and remains ??? ?? ??? even after ????? because it has its own ????).
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.).
Moderator 80,
Thanks for the ???? ????. I always wondered about this ????.
A link to (Be’er Moshe 8:36): http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=890&st=&pgnum=420
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.
hello9;
Sorry; you’re correct, it was a typo; I meant ????.
Worms aren’t ????? enough to be ?????; otherwise ??????? and ???? ????? would be ????!
I have to think about your point about ???; and we both know that ??? ????? ?????. Please remember though that the ?????? are asuuming it’s ??? ????; the point of ???? is just a problem ??????of the ??????.
We started this discussion, if I recall correctly, with your assumption that either R’ Belsky’s ???? or R’ Falk’s ???? are more ????? than the ?????. So if I’m not mistaken, we should now continue our discussion of R’ Falk’s ?????. Have you seen it? I have, and while I’ll admit to not having read all of it, I think I’ve gotten the main points down, and I hope to continue our dialogue on it soon. I’ll just make one point now; if ????? ???? is based on perception (please let me know if this is what you think R’ Falk means) then the whole lifecycle/predation sevoro should be moot, because in the times of Chaza’l it wasn’t perceived that way.
“Do you have a problem with that? “
I don’t know if I have a “problem” with that approach, but it definitely puts a different perspective on this, and I think it’s much harder to be ???? on instinct rather than on how to learn the ?????.
Nice to hear from you again.
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.
HIE,
Firstly, thank you for starting a thread which has become more and more interesting.
To address your point, about what “minei gavli” means, nothing was proven, just speculated upon, and, I believe, erroneously. Please see Rashi in Chullin (58a) who says that the loshon of “godlo” specifically refers to an entire growth process,”kol giduleho”, not just a partial one. You can look it up here; I’ll give you a link.
http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=31&daf=58&format=pdf
See also Maggid Mishna, who uses the same term “gadli” as Rashi, yet also uses the term “mis’havim mimenu”, the same exact term which Rav Belsky Shlit”a uses in his teshuva to describe spontaneous generation!
http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=101106&rid=4593
Have you seen R’ Falk Shlit”a” teshuva? He learns Rashi as I do.
See also Ramba”m in Sefer Hamitzvos who uses terminology describing spontaneous generation.
and explains the misconception that denies it.
see also Rashb”a at the end of the sugya in Chullin 67b.
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.
hello,
I do not want to address R’ Belsky’s ????? until I finish reading it (soon, ??”?), but from what I’ve seen so far, you’re right on the mark. Please explain, though, what you think the good reasons to be meikil are.
Regarding my last post and your response, I think you’ll need to go through the sugya to see what I mean. In short, the two ways of learning the ???? of ???? are 1)It’s not a ???? at all (and that’s the meaning of the word ?????).This is the??? of the ???”?.
2)It is so ????? that it is not considered a food (and THAT’S the meaning of the word ?????). This is the ???”?’s ???, and all of the ??????? I mentioned learn this way.
Whether or not ??? ?? ??? is unique is a productof this ??????, and if you learn like the second ???, there is no difference between ??? ?? ??? and other ???????. The ????? of ???? ????? must then be because they are considered part of the animal.
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 ????.
hello,
The point I was addressing:”However for the worms in the flesh of meat and fish the Gemara uses a different term minei gavli and would require a different explanation.” If you mean that they are different because the science is different, we’ve come back to our old discussion of literal chaza’l vs. science. I thought you were bringing a proof that they are different in the gemoro from the change in terminology, and I suggested an alternative reason for the change of terms.
I’ll address the C.D. soon, bl’n.
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.
hello,
What I meant by “against most poskim” was not our contemporary poskim, I know we’re in agreement halochoh l’maaseh. I meant that the Chavos Daas is learning the sugya of shilia in a novel way, to answer some kushyos. There is definitely basis for the sevoro that worms have the status of their host, in fact, it’s the simple pshat in the gemoro (Chullin 67b, our sugya) regarding worms in an animal being ever min hachai.
More later, iy”H.
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.