NYC Local News

Catskills Local News

Monsey Local News

Photos

Photos



YWN Coffee Room » Kashruth

Copepods in Boston tap water

(89 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by coffee addict
  • Latest reply from twisted

Tags:

No tags yet.

  1. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    I saw a report on foxnews.com that there are copepods in Boston's tap water. I'm wondering a few things

    1) is this a fact (I spoke to someone and they said it's not, iwant a second opinion)

    2) if this is true why haven't i heard of a mass buying of filters in Boston (please don't tell me they hold of R. Belsky, who i feel is an adam gadol but there are gadolim that argue anyway)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    New York, Boston, Seattle, Tacoma, and San Francisco have unfiltered tap water (unlike almost every other city in the country.) Any unfiltered water system will have copepods.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. Ben Torah
    Joseph

  4. 2qwerty
    Member

    Dont soda and juice manufacturer use tap water? Did anyone check it for copepods?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    Ben torah,

    I know the web sites, you haven't answered my questions though

    2qwerty
    they use filtered water (dont use regular tap water)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    mbachur, the answer I gave to your question (1), was yes there are copepods in the Boston tap water.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    Ben Torah
    Member
    Any unfiltered water system will have copepods.

    Am I to understand that every body of fresh water in the world is treif? Every river and stream? If that is the case, how fortunate we are to be living in this modern age where we can filter our water, not like the Tannaim and Ammoraim (and Moshe Rabbeinu) who never drank a kosher drop of water in their lives.

    EDITED

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. Mayan_Dvash
    Member

    yes...yes...they all have cocoa puffs and croatians.....
    Did anyone check the water in the last few years since it was on top of the news?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    Hi squeak. Sorry you got edited. I'll ask a mod if you had any super vital info that didn't make it.

    From http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/copepoda/index.html

    "Copepods are probably the most common and abundant holoplanktonic organisms worldwide, occurring in all oceans, seas, estuaries, rivers and lakes."

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copepod (first sentence)

    "Copepods are a group of small crustaceans found in the sea and nearly every freshwater habitat."

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    ....and they're assur to consume?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    I never addressed that point. Rav Belsky says they're muttir. Other Gedolim disagree. But you first comment implicating they are not so widespread was wrong.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. 2qwerty
    Member

    Would cooking with unfiltered water that might contain copepods treif up our pots?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    "I never addressed that point"

    Let's try to see the big picture.

    You can't pretend that these are disjointed facts. On the one hand, you have most RW Orthodox Rabbonim saying that it is assur to drink water with these creatures. On the other hand you have the statement that these creatures are present in all potable water sources. Do the math.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    One is a matter of nature -- whether they are present in various bodies of water, and the other is a religious matter -- whether they render the water unkosher. The first issue I answered above. It is a simple observable fact. The second issue is a religious dispute, with the majority of Chareidi authorities ruling it unkosher, and others saying the water is kosher.

    You are conflating the two issues by insisting that since the majority of those authorities render it unkosher, the first observable fact can't be accepted. I don't follow your logic on that.

    As far as the historical nature of the water, all we know for a fact is they exist in the bodies of water today. Perhaps we can speculate they arrived at a later time than the Tannaim, etc. But whether that is the case or not, I don't see how it effects the first two facts.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. charliehall
    Member

    The copepods have been there since Noach. However, they were not really identifiable until the invention of the microscope during the time of the early acharonim. Chazal and Rishonim could not have identified them, so those who are matir have many legs to stand on. (Aplogies for the pun.)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. charliehall
    Member

    Many of the northern suburbs of NY also have unfiltered water, as they tap directly off the NYC aquaducts.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    charliehall, do you agree with my above comments regarding the prevalence of copepods (in almost all bodies of water), and that they will appear in Boston's tap water -- as well as the other few municipal tap water systems that are still authorized by the EPA to remain unfiltered?

    Also, not to necessarily dispute the assertion, but how are we aware they have been in all the same bodies of water since Noach?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    You're dancing around the issue.

    Unless you believe that the copepods were spotted immediately (i.e. they were not present prior to 2005), you are forced to choose from these conclusions:

    1- Between the time copepods appeared in fresh water and 2005, all Jews ate shratzim
    2- It is not assur to drink unfiltered fresh water, despite the copepods
    3- B'derech nes no copepods ever made its way into the water consumed by a Jew

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    squeak, why am I anymore forced to choose those options than are you? Are you disputing, or questioning, the two factual points I made?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    I am equally forced to choose.

    Are you happy now?

    P.S. not your fault, but I edited to add a third choice after you posted, to preempt your usual nitpicking

    P.P.S. Either you have great difficulty with reading comprehension, or you did not read what I wrote. If you had, you would notice that I made my post assuming both your points are factual.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    Would you care to respond whether you disagree or question the basis of the factual point I made -- specifically, regarding the prevalence of copepods?

    ==================

    EDIT: That's the second time you edited an old post after I responded.

    In any event, I don't see us disagreeing on any points now that you withdrew from your first posts implication regarding the prevalence of copepods.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    Well then, since #3 was a ridiculous choice, and I know that you hold #2 is wrong, that leaves us with #1 for you. In which case, all your heilige zeides and bubbes, as well as the author of every sefer on the planet, suffered from massive timtum halev from eating shrimp on a daily basis. Nice of you to broadcast this information.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    squeak, you continue to make unfounded assumptions in this thread. Additionally, I am not forced to choose from your multiple choice questionnaire.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the two most sandy ectoplasmic beings on Earth (not to mention the Man on the Moon).

    1. Please give an example of another choice available to you, given your facts.

    2. Please describe what assumptions I have made in this thread. I claim that I have made none; I only stated the logical direction of the assumptions that you gave.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    squeak, What is your response to the question you pose to me?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    squeak, the question you asked regarding the Tannaim, you can ask regarding Rav Moshe - who lived in NYC where we know the water supply has these creatures. I believe Rav Dovid said that question is a non-issue.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. 2qwerty
    Member

    Can you please explain why its not an issue?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    squeak-

    There is a simple difference between us and the previous generations, without getting involved in speculation about what the metzi'us was in those days.

    A sheretz that grows inside the water is mutar to consume, I don't have the SA offhand but its in the end of the third perek in Chullin and no one disagrees. However this only applies to such a sheretz that never left the water. The whole question only begins in our system of running water, where there are certain points where the water is filtered in ways that make it questionable as to whether it is considered the sheretz never left the water. I never dug very deeply into the shailah and I don't know all the details - that is probably obvious, but I know that the question has a lot to do with this, and thus your problem about previous generations is resolved. If I didn't live in New Jersey maybe I'd know more...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    This blog deals with that question a little differently:

    http://kosherwater.blogspot.com/

    See from the sentence "How can the Almighty allow righteous people to unknowingly sin?" and further.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    Ben Torah,

    doesn't it seem strange to you though that Hashem allowed earlier generations to eat something unkosher. I don't think Hashem would put it in the teva of the world that people would unknowingly eat tarfus even if it's not classified tarfus unless you know it is.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  31. Ben Torah
    Joseph

    mbachur, your point was brought up in the teshuvas of the mattirim on this issue.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  32. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    yitayningwut,

    is your source a Gemara or a shulchan aruch, there are numerous gemaras where there is no machlokes (at least none that i know of) yet it's not paskined

    Posted 3 years ago #
  33. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    mbachur-

    I am positive that this is paskened in th SA though I don't have the source offhand, but I'll look it up when I get a chance unless someone else here knows what I'm talking about and gets it first.

    Agav, I disagree with you; if there is a halacha in the gemara that no one argues with, even if the SA doesn't mention it, as a general rule every single rishon and acharon will tell you that it is the halacha and no one will argue on it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  34. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    Agav, I disagree with you; if there is a halacha in the gemara that no one argues with, even if the SA doesn't mention it, as a general rule every single rishon and acharon will tell you that it is the halacha and no one will argue on it.

    so your saying you know it's a halacha b/c every single rishon or acharon says it's halacha.
    Its only b/c the rishon or acharon says not b/c a tanna or amora said, it doesn't need to be in the SA

    Posted 3 years ago #
  35. SJSinNYC
    always pleasant

    Catfish.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  36. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    mbachur-

    It's halacha because the gemara says it. All I said is that in general no rishon or acharon would have the pleitzus to argue on anything that is mefurash in the gemara without a machlokes, so one can assume that such a thing is halacha because the gemara says so, regardless of whether or not the SA mentions it. And it happens to be the SA does bring down this halacha, I just didn't have a chance to look it up yet.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  37. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    It's halacha because the gemara says it

    I'm sorry we don't follow halacha based on what the gemara says we follow it based on halacha (Rambam, SA, Tur, MB)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  38. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    mbachur-

    Ok, that's what you hold. I disagree, and have my rebbi and rav to back me up. Just wondering, what exactly is your basis for saying the Rambam, SA etc. define the halacha? Obviously for someone who is ignorant these are worthy poskim to rely on, but I'd like to know what basis you have for assuming that they actually determine the halacha and not the gemara.

    Oh, and the SA brings this halacha in YD 84:1. Though the real source of the halacha is Chullin 67a...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  39. Kasha
    Hard to answer - Joseph

    yitayningwut - I addressed that issue with you in June. I posted then:

    The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim "kim li" against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your "Rebbi", where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let's say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no "halachah lmoshe misinai" that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.

    You responded then that your rav/rebbe "disagree", but never explained on what authority they so disagree.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  40. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    You assume that the gedolim accepted it in the manner of the gemara, and you are coming from a Shach. One can argue on the Shach. Besides, the Shach and many poskim in various places disagree with the mechaber's psak, something which is extremely rare with the rishonim in regard to the gemara, so clearly it hasn't been accepted with the same authority. If I remember correctly I made these points last time as well. If you wish to say it is completely binding than the burden of proof is upon you - to say klal yisroel is bound by something they weren't previously bound by. And you have not provided a satisfactory proof in my opinion.

    Either way, that was not really my point here. I was saying to mbachur that in places where the SA mentions nothing about a particular case, and the case is mefurash in the gemara with no one arguing, that one may assume the halacha is like that gemara. I don't think you will disagree with that as vigorously as with my earlier argument.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  41. Kasha
    Hard to answer - Joseph

    One can argue on the Shach.

    One can argue on a Shach. But you or I are not the one who can argue on a Shach. The Shach says you can't claim a Kim Li against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. Who disagrees (with maare makom) with the Shach?

    I don't take exception to your point towards mbachur.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  42. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    Now you are saying I can't argue on a Shach. Why not? Can my rebbi or rav argue on a Shach? From what I was taught, ein l'dayan ladun ela ma she'einav ro'os technically applies even against the Shulchan Aruch. And even if I don't have a source, still, you are the one who has to prove it, not me, and that includes proving your assumtion that I have to agree with the Shach. I have a chazaka d'me'ikara on my side, and al hamachmir le'havi r'aya.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  43. SJSinNYC - care to elucidate? catfish?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  44. Kasha
    Hard to answer - Joseph

    What's your proof you can't argue on a Gemorah?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  45. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    No proof. However, all the rishonim were nearly always afraid to, though there are certainly rare exceptions. I do not think that 'klal yisroel accepted it and therefore it is authoritative'. I simply think it is unwise, very unwise, being that the amoraim knew a lot more than us, whether with regard to obscure braisos, or kabalos from their rabbeim since Moshe. Ma sh'ein kein the mechaber, as big of a giant as he was, had in front of him the same sugya of gemara with rishonim that I do, and a bar hachi has every right to utilize the claim of ein l'dayan... and all we can say is yiftach b'doro k'shmuel b'doro... The only time we cannot even theoretically argue is against a psak made by the beis din hagadol, because that doesn't just clarify the halacha, it defines it. And therefore only on that is there a parsha of lo sasur and zakein mamrei, as is explicit in the rishonim.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  46. Kasha
    Hard to answer - Joseph

    IOW, your logic to argue against the Shulchan Aruch works to allow you to argue against the Mishna and Gemorah.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  47. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    Theoretically, yes. Though I wouldn't do it, as I explained.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  48. Kasha
    Hard to answer - Joseph

    Running along the same lines, for the same reasons you wouldn't do it, you shouldn't against the Shulchan Aruch. Even working within your thinking here.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  49. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    You responded then that your rav/rebbe "disagree", but never explained on what authority they so disagree.

    thank you Kasha i was going to ask that when i got a chance

    Obviously for someone who is ignorant these are worthy poskim to rely on, but I'd like to know what basis you have for assuming that they actually determine the halacha and not the gemara.

    are you saying that you are on the level of these poskim and that you know the gemara just as well if not better than these poskim?
    it seems like it from all your posts.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  50. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    I already explained the difference between the gemara and the SA. The SA is working with exactly the same thing we have, i.e. the gemara and the rishonim. Anyone who knows the sugya has the right to be machri'a one way or the other. I don't need a source for this, you need to prove otherwise if you want to be mechadesh a new Torah that didn't exist up until 500 years ago. If one doesn't know the sugya well enough he would have to be foolish and reckless to do so. If you want to know if you are a person who can learn through a sugya properly, find someone who knows shas and poskim and ask him if he thinks you are capable.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.