Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I heard that Rav Vaye is coming out with something new any day. Curious to see what he has new to say.
1) Rav Heineman and Rav Bess both say that Rav Feinstein tells people not to eat the infested fish, so he certainly belongs on the DO NOT EAT list.
2) With pleasure, you are still very outnumbered
3) Also from Star-K website “Rabbi Heinemann recommends that consumers follow the same policy”. So it’s not just the reputation of the hechsher, he really holds you shouldn’t eat it.
HIE:”now i just have to prove that Rav Heinemen DOESN’T hold it’s assur”
OK, go ahead and prove it. In my opinion writing on your website not to eat something is equivalent to assering, but if you can prove he really holds the opposite of what he wrote, I’m all ears.
Would it make you happier if I rephrased that the near unanimous opinion of Gedolei HaPoskim is that one SHOULD NOT EAT fish infested with Anisakis.
In the US Muttar:Rav Belsky
In the US DON’T EAT: Rav Bess, Rav Miller, Rav Forscheimer, Rav Reisman, Rav Feinstein, Rav Cohen, Rav Heinemann
In EY muttar: Rav Vaye, Rav Kuber
In EY DON’T EAT: Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vozner, Rav Korelitz, Rav Karp, Rav Klein, Rav Gestetner, Rav Revach, Rav Gross, Rav Shternbuch, Rav Kanievsky
HIE: calm down and take a deep breath. I don’t know why you think I should believe you about Rav Heineman if you don’t even know which hechsher is his, but clearly you are the one who doesn’t have the facts straight. Check the Star-K website or any of many news sources that reported on the Star-K’s policy decision to be machmir. This is a quote from their website “Rabbi Moshe Heinemann has instructed Star-K establishments and mashgichim that only the non-problematic fish be used”.
They also write there
So it seems Rav Heineman and Rav Bess think that Rav Feinstein is machmir, I don’t know why you think otherwise.
HIE: so set me straight. Rav Bess claims that Rav Feinstein says not to eat the fish, I trust him. Rav Roth was matir 18 years ago as were many other Poskim who today asser. Do you know what Rav Roth holds today? If there are “many more” I would very much like to hear about them. I have been asking for names for weeks now and no one has been able to supply any. If you have been following my conversation with Daas Yochid, my personal opinion is that they should be mutar, but I have not found that the Gedolei HaPoskim agree. If you or someone else can prove otherwise it would be wonderful.
Daas: Thank you for posting Rav Padwa’s teshuva. I don’t have time to analyze it point by point, but I was not impressed. He even goes beyond what you said, assuming as a davar pashut that worms are orlah without any source.
“heard his opinion from his talmidim at the time the NYC bugs-in-water “crises” erupted”
OK. if you heard it from a reliable source then I accept that he said it. But I still think it is an extreme chumra, and I would not be machmir more then Rav Vaye.
“I think even the thinnest human hair is visible, as well as a fine (or even superfine) merino wool fiber”
This is an assumption.
Have a good summer, we’ll miss you.
HIE: “and btw, its not a “nearly unanimous” opinion either, so i advise you get your sources straight”
OK. Lets go through the names together.
In the US Muttar:Rav Belsky
In the US assur: Rav Bess, Rav Miller, Rav Forscheimer, Rav Reisman, Rav Feinstein, Rav Cohen, Rav Heinemann
In EY muttar: Rav Vaye, Rav Kuber
In EY assur: Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vozner, Rav Korelitz, Rav Karp, Rav Klein, Rav Gestetner, Rav Revach, Rav Gross
Reb Moshe Feinstein was opposed to Dor Yesharim, he felt that one who broke off a shiduch based on a possibility of passing on a genetic disease was lacking in his faith in Hashem. He reluctantly acquiesced exclusively for Tay Sachs that has a 100% mortality rate and only before the shidduch progressed
HIE: “its not a unamimous opinion”
True, that’s why I wrote “Nearly unanimous opinion”.
Also, Rav Bess quotes Reb Dovid Feinstein as saying one may not eat the wormy fish. With all due respect, I trust Rav Bess more then an anonymous 10th grader.
cherry: No, anyone who thinks that any local Rabbi can argue on the Gedolei HaPoskim’s near unanimous opinion is “m’vazeh Talmedei Chachomim and G’dolim of our dor”
Daas: “Rav Feivel Cohen was ???? that we should be ????? on 30 microns” I asked you “Is this psak from Rav Feivel written somewhere?” and you posted numerous links, the only one that quoted Rav Cohen was regarding the size of the filters. You still maintain “30 is his shiur of N”L”.
Is this based on the above link or a different source?
“I’ve maintained that since these are longer, they are visible”
But the’re still only a twelfth the size of a mite which is borderline, why do you think they are N”L?
“after they hatch, they uncoil and become longer and thinner, which makes them more visible”
Actually if you think about it a square 100 microns by 100 would be N”L, but a line 10000 microns by 1 micron would certainly not. So long and thin is LESS visible that square.
“Have you found anyone who disagrees?”
Off the cuff, the ???? ??? ????? ????? require 6 hours after wormy cheese because the cheese itself is ???? ??? and don’t require eating the worms.
“Secondly, (I’m working backwards here) they would only be ???? (I wouldn’t use the word “pareve” here) if they were ???? ??.”
But if they were ???? ?? and became assur, would they lose the host’s status of being milchig that they had before they were ????, in your opinion?
“Anyhow, the ???? in ???? to which you refer is not listing possible ?????, just the definite ones, otherwise ??? ?? ???, ?? ?????, ???”? should have been added”
??”? is not an ????? ????, and ?? ????? in this application is only ?????, and ??? ??? ??? is not relevant in any case where the ????? ??? applies according to the ????”?.
daas: “If you don’t mind checking the ?”? again, he says either aged 6 months or wormy require 6 hrs”
I don’t mind at all, it’s been 8 years since I last learned ??? ????. Actually, I was correct. If you read the Taz carefully, he starts quoting the ????? ????? ????? who says that either aged or wormy requires waiting 6 hours. The Taz himself proceeds to explain that aged cheese is an issue of becoming hard and leaving remnants ??? ???????, which the Taz concludes is exclusive to meat and does NOT apply to cheese. He then writes that wormy cheese is ???? ??? ???? which DOES apply to cheese like meat. So the ????? of the Taz is that aged without worms does not require waiting but worms do. On this the ??”? writes that even with wormy cheese one must eat the worms. Most Poskim follow the ?”? ???? ??? that aged alone is sufficient reason to require waiting, but NOONE agrees with the ??”? that with wormy cheese one must eat the worms.
So in conclusion, there is NO proof that ANY Posek (except the ??”? according to you understanding that one need eat only the worms without any actual cheese) considers the worms milchig.
Israeli cheese is not strong at all. Rav Vozner is basing his issur on the 6 month opinion, and he is concerned that the time spent sitting on the supermarket shelf is included in the 6 months. Muenster, mozzarella and cheddar would ?”? need to wait.
daas: Recommending a 30 micron filter dos not mean that that is the ????? of ???? ??????. In fact one of the links you posted maintains that the standard for a 30 micron rated filter would remove 85% of particles over 30 microns and leave in 15% of the bugs. If this is your only source it only proves that Rav Cohen holds the size is much larger than 30 microns. In any event the 14 micron wide anisakis are even smaller then the size you attributed to Rav Cohen.
“In any case that the worms have the ??? of a ???, they will not have the ??? of ???”
I see I underestimated your creative abilities. First you invented a new ??? without need of any source or proof. Now you have invented a unique qualification that the parasite only obtains the host’s status until it achieves its own ????? ???. So now according to your understanding of the ??”? ?”? the worms are only milchig until they leave the cheese completely and become assur, then they become pareve. I’m impressed.
cherrybim: ever heard the cliches about the pot calling the kettle black and people who live in glass houses. You haven’t exactly been quoting chapter and verse for your claims about the “vast majority of Poskim” either.
Daas: The ???? ????? ???’, ??? ???”? you repeatedly refer to are all discussing the same specific case of a worm ???? in a live animal that is ??? ??? ???. This does not create a ?”? ???.You have acknowledged that ?????? there are grounds to say ???? is different, and you have never explained any reason or proof that this rule mentioned specifically by ??? ??? ??? should apply to other halachos as well.
” The point is that you ALSO need to wait six hours after wormy cheese”
You’re making a mistake, the ??”? holds that you ONLY wait 6 hours if you eat the worms.
The ??”? ???? ?”? is based on the words of the Taz that only wormy cheese needs 6 hours. As I have already explained, the ??”? surprisingly understands that even when wormy the cheese itself does not become ???? ??? and one must eat the worms. You understand the ??”? means one ONLY needs to eat worms even without cheese and therefore it must be that the worms become milchig, however it could just as well mean that one must ALSO eat the worms in addition to the cheese and the worms do NOT become milchig. So even according to the ??”? it is not ???? that the worms get the din of their host. Even if he would mean the way you understood, there is no ???? to say such a ????? unless you hold like the Taz that worms are necessary and also understand like the ??”? that it is not enough to eat just the wormy cheese. The Poskim I mentioned, and we can add to the list the ???? ????? ????? ???, all hold that we must wait after cheese even if it is not wormy or even if we don’t eat the worms. According to them there is no ???? to say the ??”?’s ????? at all, whatever it is. So this ??”? is certainly NO proof to a general rule of acquiring the host’s status.
Re ???? ???????: I asked you for sources that 30 or 50 microns is considered ???? ???????, you posted a number of links. None of the links you posted mentioned any such psak, the closest thing I saw there was that the OU approves of a filter rated 50 microns, meaning it catches 85% of particle 50 microns or larger. If that is their standard they apparently are not concerned about copepods even somewhat larger than 50 microns. However a number of the articles mentioned that the size range of the copepods in NY water ranges between 100 and 1400 microns, the smaller ones were described as being certainly NOT ???? ??????? and the large ones were the subject of a ?????? ???????. I don’t see any consensus to consider even 50 microns ???? ???????.
In any event, the anisakis when they hatch are only 14 microns wide, and at a length of 200-300 microns it seems straightforward that they are certainly NOT ???? ??????? and that we certainly DO have a ???? ??????? ?????.
While there very well MAY be even Ashkenazi Poskim who do not pasken like the Rema to permit all worms in ???? ?????? ????, I am not aware of any other then the ???? ?????. The?”? ??”? ???”? agree with the Rema, so it would be difficult to say that one who eats a fish infested with anisakis is ???? ?? ????? ????????. After all ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??”?.
” Simple. When it is ????, it is a ??? ????? ?? ????. As far as the anisakis, ??”?. If it’s a ????, it’s ???? as a ??? ????. If not, it’s still a crustacean (in ???.)”
Huh?
“Rotifers are common, but they are extremely small (~0.1mm) and are generally considered microscopic”
That’s 100 microns
“In general, the size of copepods starts at ~0.1mm length for the larvae”
them too
daas: “The primary species is Diacyclops thomasi, a very common type of copepod. It begins life measuring about 90 microns (.09 mm) and grows up to about 0.8 mm (males) and 1.4 mm (females) in about five weeks time.”
From a site you provided. It seems the copepods are much bigger then 30 microns, however the anisakis are swallowed by krill at 1/12 the size of a mite which even Rav Vaye considers not visible.
Daas: I know the Pri Chadash is machmir, Rav Falk addresses that too. However the ??? in halacha is that if something is ???? ????? ???? ????? it means that it is ???? ????? ????. The Rema is certainly enough to rely on for an Ashkenazi, especially combined with all the other factor he mentions.
“many ?????? will be ?????”
it’s fine to be machmir, but it’s not assur then.
“Correct. Because when it’s a ???, it’s not ???? ??? ??????. And when it’s part of the grape, it’s not a ???”
Why? According to your ????? it obtained the status of the host grape when it was living inside the grape and maintains it even when leaving, just like you claim the anisakis becomes a sheretz from the shrimp and remains one when it enters the salmon. What is the difference??? ??? ??? ??? is only relevant if the worm developed in a live animal, and according to the ????”? it would not have the standard 5 issurim of sheretz.
“And it’s not a ????? ???. It is, as I’ve said, ???? ??? in the ????”
I have still seen NO evidence of a blanket rule that a parasite obtains the hosts status ??? ????? ????!!!
“??”? in two places, one if them cheese, on which I don’t know of any ??????”
Off hand, the Shach in ?”? writes that all 6 month old cheese is considered hard and needs 6 hours, even without eating any worms. Additionally the ??? ???? writes that any cheese that is ???? ???? needs 6 hours, again even without worms. Rav Vozner and Rav Eliyashiv both require 6 hours for what we call in EY “yellow cheese”, regular solid cheese used among other things for pizza, even though it is not wormy. Do you need more?
Rav Vaye in the 8 page letter published on YW quotes John Smith, M. Joie and B. Berland (presumably a scientific research paper) as saying in my translation back to English “The worm hatches from its egg on the floor of the sea and exits the egg at a microscopic size and it is impossible to see without a microscope. The worm when it hatches from its egg and is swallowed by the shrimp is 200-300 microns (.3mm) long and 14 microns wide, by way of illustration if one would cut a mite into 12 pieces would it be possible to see a single piece?
Rav Falk’s main reason to be matir seems to be to be:
???? ?????”? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????. ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? “??? ????” ?? “??? ????” ?? “??? ????” ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????. ??? ??? ??”? ? “? ??’ ?”? ??”? “?????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??”? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ????, ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????.
In other words, the Rema permits ????? ???? ????? all worms that grow in meat, fish and cheese, since they don’t grow from the ground they are not considered ???? ?? ????. According to this, the Sefardi Poskim should be more ?????.
He uses this as a ????? with two other considerations:
????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????. ?’ ???? ??? ?”?. [?] ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????, ?’ ???? ??? ?”?.
It’s surprising that no one quotes this ???? from Rav Falk, as this ????? is clearly not new. It is addressed to Rav Tuvia Weiss as a Rav in Antwerp, and he has already been the Gavad of the Eidah HaChareidis in Yerushalaim for a number of years. Actually at the end of the teshuva it is dated ???”? with a current addition.
He also writes:
????? ??? ??’ ?’ ??? ?”? ????? ??’ ?”? ?”? ?’???? ????? ???”? ???? ???? ?????, ???’ ??”? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????.
Regardless of the issue of ????, you are claiming a blanket rule that a worm gets the host’s status without bringing any proof outside of ??? ??? ???. How do you know this is not specific. When the ???? lists the issurim involved in eating a bug it does not mention ???? ??? ?????? which would apply to a worm from grapes.
“As I’ve said, Rav Feivel is ????? on 30”
I still find it hard to believe that Rav Feivel’s ????? is 1/10 of Rav Vaye’s. Is this psak from Rav Feivel written somewhere?
“I gave you the example of human hair to show you that it’s intuitively correct”
The proof from hair would only be relevant if we knew that a 17 micron hair was visible at 53 microns in length, because then it would have the same surface area of a 30 micron square. I don’t think this is likely.
“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 ??????
“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 ??? ????.”
The bottom line is you are admitting there is NO ???? ?????? to your ????? ???.
Who are the real racists? The Chareidim who send to a school that is 31% Sefardi, but does not accept girls who’s fathers smoke on Shabbos, or the Supreme Court of Israel itself where out of 60 justices since its founding has contained a mere 3 Sefardim???
Daas: You didn’t address my ????? of ??? ??? ??? which I already used to answer your ???? from ???’.
“It would be quite interesting to find a ????…requiring ????? ?’ ???? even with the worms removed!”
Actually I doubt if any Posek would rely on the ????? of the ??”? against ????? ?? ???????.
You’re right that 30 microns IS .03 mm, but that seems like much too small of a ?????. Even Rav Vaye is not that machmir, and it would render all food and water in the world ???? ???? ?????, because most amoeba and many protozoa are larger then that. Also, regarding the copepods it would not be relevant since they are 10 to 20 times larger than this size.
“45 microns is close to the limit of resolution for the human eye”
Is the term “limit of resolution” equivalent to ???? ?????????
“after they hatch, they uncoil and become longer and thinner, which makes them more visible”
Why do you assume that a long thin line is more visible then a circle of the same surface area???
Also, why do assume we follow the ???? ????? over the ???? ??????????
Liberally copied from today’s Daf HaKashrus of the OU.
It seems my source was not accurate.
The Chareidi school in Emmanual is 31% Sefardi, the Supreme Court of Israel is historically only 6% Sefardi.
Who are the racists???
Daas: “A very thin human hair is merely 17 microns”
Actually its closer to 100 microns.
Daas: I enjoy hearing your ??????, however I’m afraid I cannot agree with them.
The ??”? ?”? ?”? ?”? ?”? (usually the ??”? is referred to by ???? ???) writes, as you quoted, that the worms that were ???? in a live animal are ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? and may not be sold to a ???. You extrapolate from this a general rule that all worms receive the halachic status of their host. This is too big of a leap to make without proof. First of all we see no proof that a worm that comes from outside acquires any status from its host. While you make a good point that since the worm becomes ???? ??????? inside the host it should be similar to being ????, however we would need to understand the underlying reason why the worm that grows in the animal becomes ??? ??? ???. If it is a technical ????? ?????, then it is reasonable to say that the worm was ???? in the shrimp because that is where it technically comes into existence, as you proposed. However if it is because the worm is a ????? ?? ??? and the source of its ????? is ??? ??? ??? then we have no proof. I am not aware of any ??? that explains this halacha.
Secondly, we only see from this ??”? a halacha of ??? ??? ??? but no indication that it would apply to any other sugya in the Torah.
Then you brought another ??”? in ???? ?”? that you would like to use to answer my second problem. This is the ??”? I mentioned in my previous post. The Rema there writes that the minhag is to wait 6 hours after hard cheese. The Taz explains that it must leave a strong taste in the mouth and be wormy. The simple explanation of the Taz would be that when cheese is wormy the cheese itself leaves a strong, lingering taste in the mouth and the worms are a ???? ?????. However, the ??”?, for some reason, writes that one must eat the worms to need to wait 6 hours. Apparently he understands that even when old and wormy the cheese itself does not have a sufficiently strong flavor to require waiting, but the worms do have the required flavor.
You understood the ??”? to be saying that one only need eat the worms without any of the actual cheese itself to need to wait, and deduced from there a general rule that the worms acquire the host status for all halachos. While I cannot disprove this understanding, I do not see that it is ???? and in any event I do not see other Poskim agreeing with the ??”? nor do I have any idea where he would have found a ???? for this assumption. An alternative explanation of the ??”? would be, as I mentioned previously, that one must eat the cheese and worms together and the combination of the two leaves a strong residual cheesy flavor in the mouth. So, while I could not say your understanding of the ??”? is wrong, it certainly is NOT strong enough to invent a new ??? in ????.
Regarding the ????? of ???? ???????. I have a feeling you are off by a decimal point. According to my research the copepods in NYC water are up to 1mm in size and I suspect the ??????? you meant to write were .3mm and .5mm not .03 and .05. Otherwise the discrepancy between the different ????? is too big, as you mentioned. Rav Vaye in his “bug book” writes that the smallest pests that are ???? ??????? are mites which he equates with the ?????? of the ??????? and he writes that they are .2-.3mm. Rav Vaye is known for having the most machmir size for ???? ???????.
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. 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.
You mention that we should not rely on the very limited knowledge of the scientists in this case and say ??? ???????? ??????, but on the other hand if the only information we do have indicates that they are ???? we should apply the rule of ?? ??????? ??????.
cherrybim: you don’t deserve a response because you don’t validate you own claims. However let me say that I personally witnessed a local proprietor directed to remove any fish not on Rav Bess’s approved list.
Daas: “It’s reasonable to assume that they were ???? based on lack of evidence that they come from the outside”
Again NO. They were aware the worms came from outside and were matir because they were inside the shrimp.
“Do you accept my ???-? from the ??”?”
I don’t know were to find it, could you please provide a specific location. In any event what I wrote regarding Tosafos would likely apply to the Pri Megadim.
“I have another one as well, from a ??”? I saw quoted (I don’t remember where) that worms from cheese are milchig”
I’ve never seen such a ??”?, but it would answer an old question of mine why the ??”? writes that one only need wait 6 hours after hard cheese if it is wormy with sharp tasting worms and one eats the worms. If one would spread ????? on cheese it would not require 6 hours so why are the worms different? According to this the worms do not make the cheese sharp, they are themselves the cheese. However your ?????? aside, how could there be a new halacha of “acquiring the host’s status” with absolutely no explicit mention in Gemara, Rishonim or Achronim.
“I believe approximately .04mm is considered ???? ??????.”
Rav Belsky is quoted saying that 1-2 mm is NOT ???? ??????.
Thank you, yes I did get Rav Falk’s teshuva. Now I need to find time to read all 35 pages of it.
cherrybim: I don’t know what you see there, that isn’t even the link to the Kashrus department of the OU.
cherrybim: Rabbi Luban. But I don’t know from where you get the chutzpa to challenge me to name my sources, when you have still not provided a single name of the “vast majority of American Poskim” who permit, despite my repeated requests.
Also, while Rav Belsky personally is mattir it is NOT OU policy. Rav Genack who has the final word on policy has decided to be machmir.
Daas: “According to the ???? we have discussed, even if it was observed going from the stomach to the flesh, it would be ????.”
100% true. While Rav Vaye quotes and explains Rav Falk’s heter, he personally does not agree, as I have mentioned in the past.
“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”
No, the new evidence presented by Rav Revach proves that anisakis originate outside the flesh of the fish. This is only relevant to those who were previously matir based on the assumption that Chazal permitted flesh-worms because they do NOT come from outside. 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 Rav Vaye’s letter which was sent to YWN, it says that Rav Falk’s original ????? was in “????? ?????? ??????”.”
I know and said so, but I don’t have access to that sefer or any newer teshuva of his. Mod42 has still not forwarded your pdf and they deleted your email address.
I assume you are referring to ?? ??: ?”? ?????. However Tosafos only writes this relating to worms that are ???? ?? ???? and not ones that come from outside.
cherrybim: I personally know of a specific local Vaad HaKashrus headed by a leading member of the OU that does not permit infested fish.
Daas: “The ???? of ??? ????? should apply to any ?????”
But I already clearly demonstrated that it does NOT.
Again NO. They are independent ???? ???? and therefore not permitted by the shechita, Also they may not be sold to a goy even if they develop in dead meat, clearly not because they obtained the status of their host.
This is what we have been discussing the past week, and as I have repeatedly mentioned Rav Vaye quotes this heter from Rav Falk’s sefer on ????? ??????. BTW there is no teshuva from Rav Falk on the topic in Machaze Eliyahu, and Mod42 has not responded to my request to forward the teshuva you sent. Your hesitations are accurate, we have already discussed most of them. #1 I have demonstrated that this is very likely if not certain, #2 I have explained previously and in this post that there is no such thing as becoming “part of the krill” other than ????, which certainly does not apply according to the ???”? and probably according to the ??”? and ??”? as well. Even if it did it would only be like??? ?????. Three Rav Vaye addresses this and disagrees with Rav Vozner. He differentiates between travelling parallel from one fruit to another and when a large fish ingests a small fish with a worm in its stomach. I think this ????? is logical, but admittedly it is the weakest link.
Again Rav Vaye writes that Rav SZ Auerbach Rav Fischer and Rav Abba Shaul were ???? based on exactly this ????.
Gut voch Daas: “I don’t understand, your point about mius. The issue here, is that according to the ??????, these anisakis are ??? ????.”
Let me try to clear up your confusion. To refresh your memory, I posited a potential heter based on predation and you countered that the worms should obtain the halacha of the shrimp host and become assur as ???? ?? ????. I responded with the ???? ??? permitting ???? and you replied that the ??”? ???”? explain the heter of ???? as ?????. I stated that the same ????? they use to permit ???? could apply to worms, and my heter of predation could be ???”?. Now is it clear?
I’m not sure what you want from ??? ?? ???, it doesn’t apply to fish.
Very true, which is why I am uncomfortable with the heterim based on minei gavli. However if these worms were never ???? ?? ???? they are mutar based on other, easily understood seifim in S.A. and it is not necessary to resolve the understanding of darna and YD 84:16.
Daas: “Worms aren’t ????? enough to be ?????; otherwise ??????? and ???? ????? would be ????!”
Sorry but that isn’t true. Pirsha is only a heter from the issur of yotzei min hatamei, which is not the problem with kukiani which are independantly assur as sheretz hamayim. See Shulchan Aruch YD 104:3 that a sheretz retains it’s issur no matter how mius it may be, though it will not asser a ta’aruves because of NTLP. Additionally the Rema 103:1 writes that a sheretz may lose its status as a bria if it is mius, but it clearly retains the issur.
I have not seen Rav Falk’s teshuva, only what Rav Vaye quotes from him. Is it printed in Machaze Eliyahu? Rav Vaye quotes him as being mattir based on predation and writes that Rav Fischer, Rav SZ Auerbach, Rav Bentzion Abba Shaul and other Gedolei HaPoskim agreed.
“I’ll just make one point now; if ????? ???? is based on perception then the whole lifecycle/predation sevoro should be moot, because in the times of Chaza’l it wasn’t perceived that way”
I didn’t understand that he was explaining the words minei gavli as much as stating that the Halachaca is muttar, but again I did not see the original source.
“I think it’s much harder to be ???? on instinct rather than on how to learn the ?????.”
I wouldn’t call this being mattir on “instinct”. The responsibility of a Posek has always been to creatively use his knowledge of the entire realm of Halacha from every possible angle to determine whether an issue is muttar or assur. He is not limited to explaining a single sugya.
SJSinNYC: “Naomi Ragen”
Let me delicately suggest that her works may not qualify as “frum” novels. This is an understatement.
Daas: I’m familiar with the sugya but don’t understand your comment “only the ???? ?? ???? is ???? because of ??????.” Shulchan Aruch clearly states that the shilia of a chamor is MUTAR and noone argues regarding a chamor. Maybe you wrote a typo and that is what threw me off?
“Please explain, though, what you think the good reasons to be meikil are”
As we have discussed at length the past week, I think that predation is a strong sevara to be matir.
Even according to the Kreisi u’Pleisi and Pri Chadash it is likely that worms would be mutar as they are also mius. Even if not, they would certainly not be worse than tzir dagim teme’im which is only dRabbanan as Tosafos Chullin 98 and the Rosh Avoda Zara write because there is no derasha for yotzei min dagim teme’im. Once the issue here has been reduced to asheila on a dRabbanan it is MUCH easier to rely on the meikilim.
I agree that Rav Belsky’s understanding of minei gavli, with all due respect, is “problematic”.
“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.”
Do you have a problem with that?
Kasha: Thank you VERY much. I read the teshuva and was very disappointed.
While I respect Rav Belsky very much and think there are good reasons to potentially be meikil, I felt that the teshuva did not do justice to the meikilim and relied too much on attacking the ossrim rather than laying out a clear line of reasoning to be matir.
The bottom line is he writes it is ridiculous to think the anisakis is any different than the worms permitted by the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch, however he never clearly explains why the Gemara and SA would logically permit these worms based on the metzius as we now know it to be. Also some of the reasons he gives for dismissing the ossrim are not at all compelling.
Daas: Huh?!?!?!? Shulchan Aruch says the shilia of a chamor is MUTAR, NOT miyus and NOT yotzei.
hereorthere: “It will just bring out the flaws and endlesly analyse them without accomplishing anything”
So, do you oppose mussar and cheshbon hanefesh
Daas: I’m not sure your point in the second post. I was addressing the mod’s quote from Rav Miller that lice engage only in asexual reproduction. Anisakis reproduce sexually to the bet of my knowledge.
Hi Daas.
“I meant that the Chavos Daas is learning the sugya of shilia in a novel way”
Does anyone disagree with the Chavos Daas? I haven’t found anyone.
“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 regarding worms in an animal being ever min hachai”
See the Chavos Daas again where he explains that eiver min hachai is an exception.
Daas Yochid: Great hearing back from you. I’ve enjoyed this discussion and was afraid you had left the CR.
“You’re right about the Chavos Daas, but it’s a stretch to rely on it against most poskim”
I agree, I have said repeatedly I would not permit the fish l’maaseh against the vast majority of Poskim. Not because the Chavos Daas in not reliable, I’m not aware of anyone who disagrees, but for other factors.
“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”
So I gather. If you get a hold of it I’d be interested in seeing it.
“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”
No, I agree that he is assuming things are the same and that Spontaneous Generation NEVER existed, and that Chazal were aware of this. However the ossrim ARE assuming that things changed, that the Gemara is describing Spontaneous Generation that once existed, but not in our Anisakis today.
oomis: chill out. He was being tounge-in-cheek, sarcastic.
That would make sense for lice which the Gamara describes as not Pareh v’Raveh, and science has discovered that they reproduce through parthenogenesis. 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.
Daas Yochid: So is it resolved that the heter of predation is both logical and compelling, though not enough to be lenient on an issur dOraisa against the vast majority of the Gedolei HaPoskim?