Copepods in Boston tap water

Home Coffeeroom Kashruth Copepods in Boston tap water

Viewing 89 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #592366

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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)

  • #1094306

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094307

    Ben Torah
    Participant
  • #1094308

    2qwerty
    Participant

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

  • #1094309

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Ben torah,

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

    2qwerty

    they use filtered water (dont use regular tap water)

  • #1094310

    Ben Torah
    Participant

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

  • #1094311

    squeak
    Participant

    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

  • #1094312

    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?

  • #1094313

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.”

  • #1094314

    squeak
    Participant

    ….and they’re assur to consume?

  • #1094315

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094316

    2qwerty
    Participant

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

  • #1094317

    squeak
    Participant

    “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.

  • #1094318

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094319

    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.)

  • #1094320

    charliehall
    Member

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

  • #1094321

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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?

  • #1094322

    squeak
    Participant

    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

  • #1094323

    Ben Torah
    Participant

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

  • #1094324

    squeak
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094325

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094326

    squeak
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094327

    Ben Torah
    Participant

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

  • #1094328

    squeak
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094329

    Ben Torah
    Participant

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

  • #1094330

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094331

    2qwerty
    Participant

    Can you please explain why its not an issue?

  • #1094332

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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…

  • #1094333

    Ben Torah
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094334

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094335

    Ben Torah
    Participant

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

  • #1094336

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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

  • #1094337

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094338

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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

  • #1094339

    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Catfish.

  • #1094340

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094341

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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)

  • #1094342

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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…

  • #1094343

    Kasha
    Member

    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.

  • #1094344

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094345

    Kasha
    Member

    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.

  • #1094346

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094347

    emoticon613
    Member

    SJSinNYC – care to elucidate? catfish?

  • #1094348

    Kasha
    Member

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

  • #1094349

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094350

    Kasha
    Member

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

  • #1094351

    yitayningwut
    Participant

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

  • #1094352

    Kasha
    Member

    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.

  • #1094353

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094354

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    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.

  • #1094355

    Kasha
    Member

    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.

    And what did the Gemorah have that we do not?

    (Just as you explained why you wouldn’t argue against the Gemorah [although you astonishingly maintain you can argue against the Mishna and Gemorah!!] saying “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.”, the mechaber too knew a lot more than us, a better understanding of the mishna and gemorahs, and including a closer line of kabolos from rebbeim through Moshe Rabbeinu. — This point, again, being made running along your stated line of thinking.)

  • #1094356

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Braisas, rabbeim with a kabbalah all the way from Moshe rabbeinu, etc., and a whole different system. My point is the SA and everyone figuring out the halacha after the gemara is using the same gemara to figure out the halacha, so technically speaking anyone’s svara is the same, as long as you’re dealing with the same information. The mechaber doesn’t claim to know anything from a kabbalah, he supports everything he says with gemaros and rishonim.

  • #1094357

    coffee addict
    Participant

    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.

    and who says you know the sugya well enough

    Ayin Panim L’Torah. maybe, just maybe your learning wrong pshat (i’m sorry but I don’t think you know shas just from 1 sugya and therefore can’t paskin until you know shas at least (there can be someone that is choleik somewhere else)

  • #1094358

    volvie
    Member

    yitayningwut –

    Regarding your claims (i.e. it is permissible for you (!) or your rebbeim to argue with a Tanna or Amora)… Surely you are aware that each generation (i.e. Tannaim, Amoroim, Rishonim, Achonim) could not argue with an earlier generation category (i.e. an Achron can’t argue on a Rishon)! This is a basic fundamental point. Otherwise why the whole idea of diffenret generational categories?? I don’t see how you can make the claims you are asserting earlier in the thread. Even an Amora cannot argue on a Tanna. And you claim YOU [or even your rebbeim] can!?

    The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from a Mishnah, Beraisa, or Tosefta. If no other Tana is known to share the opinion of the Amora, the Gemara will either explain the statement of either the Tana or Amora in such a way that they are not contradictory, or it will conclude that the opinion of the Amora has been disproved.

    One of the rules upon which Talmudic discussion is based is that the words of the amora’im must always be in agreement with the teachings of the tanna’im. Thus, one of the most common questions found in the Gemara is “meisivei” – which brings a tanna’itic source like a Mishnah, baraisa or tosefta that seems to contradict the words of the amora. In his defense, the amora will have to explain how the statement of the tanna can be understood as being in agreement with his own, or else show that there is another tanna with whom the amora agrees. If the amora cannot reconcile his statement with the teaching of the tanna’im, the Gemara will conclude “teyuvta” – the statement is disproved.

    The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes:

    Amorim can’t dispute Tannaim, and later generations can’t dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim.

    The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn’t argue with them.

    In Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, there is a lengthy discussion concerning to’eh bid’var mishna. While the general thrust of the halacha concerns dayanim and situations where their piskey din can be overturned, it does shed light on our issue as well, since the assumption about a d’var mishna is that it is something than we (at whatever generation the reader find himself) may not argue against.

    Mishna and gemara are accepted by all to be d’var mishna – meaning explicit piskey din in these texts ( dinim hamefurashim ). The Mechaber adds divrey haposkim. The Nos’ey Keylim have differing views as to what constitutes “haposkim”. The Mechaber, for obvious reasons, did not include himself; however, later authorities do include him. For B’ney Ashkenaz, the Rama is included. Later authorities add the Shach and S’ma.

    What we see from all of this, and the nos’ey keylim as well, is that there are many areas where we do not accept disagreement, and if someone does disagree, that position is rejected.

    However, we also see, that in areas where there is no clear consensus, one has latitude to disagree.

    One last point: There is a discussion in the Rama about an unresolved machlokes and how to decide. Rama says that one may not choose to follow the “katan” against the “gadol”, rather follow the one who is “gadol b’chochma u-b’minyan”, with minyan defined as the one who has the most followers ( see S’ma 18 ).

    And of course do not forget what Rav Zera says in the name of Rava bar Zimona in Shabbos 112b.

  • #1094359

    charliehall
    Member

    “And what did the Gemorah have that we do not?”

    Modern scientific methods. That is in fact the reason this thread was started — Chazal and Rishonim would never have asured tap water. It is a machloket whether modern science may be used to overturn a decision of previous generations.

    “Surely you are aware that each generation (i.e. Tannaim, Amoroim, Rishonim, Achonim) could not argue with an earlier generation category (i.e. an Achron can’t argue on a Rishon)! This is a basic fundamental point.”

    No, it isn’t fundamental at all; in fact it isn’t true! Among the Ashkenazic Acharonim who have argued on Rishonim were the Magen Avraham, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal HaTanya.

    And Rambam argued on everyone.

  • #1094360

    coffee addict
    Participant

    No, it isn’t fundamental at all; in fact it isn’t true! Among the Ashkenazic Acharonim who have argued on Rishonim were the Magen Avraham, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal HaTanya.

    I don’t believe this to be true, do you have a source where they are arguing (also if it is, it’s possible that they are holding like a different rishon (as we see where an amora argues with a mefurash mishna and we say he’s going like this braisa etc.)

    And Rambam argued on everyone

    are you saying he argued with tannaim or amoraim that I for sure don’t agree with you on (my rosh hayeshiva is very big into the rambam and can explain to you every time you think that’s the case)Rishonim he can argue on b/c HE IS A RISHON

  • #1094361

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Allow me to quote from R’ Ovadia Yosef, in his introduction to his Sefer Halichos Olam.

    ????”? ???”? ????????? ???”? ??? ?????? (??’ ?) ???”?: ???”? ????? ????? ?? ??”? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ????, ?”? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??”? (?”? ??:) ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????. ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???”? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??????. ??”? ??? ????? ??? ???? (?”? ????? ?”?) ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????. ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???. ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????. ?”?. ??”? ????”? ????’? ???”? ???? ?? (???”? ??’ ??), ???? ??”? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????, ????? ????? ????, ????? ????, ???? ???? ???? ????. ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? (??’ ???) ??? ??”?: ???”? ??????”? ?????”? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????????, ?”? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???. ?”?. ????”? ???? ?????? ??? (???”? ??’ ??) ?”? ???, ???, ??? ?????’ ??? ???? ??? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ????. ?”?. ??’ ???”? ??? ????? ?????? (??’ ??) ??’, ??”? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????’, ????? ?? ????? ???, ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ???, ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????, ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ???. ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????, ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????, ????? ?????????? ???? ?? ??? ???. ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????, ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????, ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????. ???”?.

  • #1094362

    coffee addict
    Participant

    ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????

    are you saying your a dayan?

    R’ Ovadia probably knows all of shas bal peh including rishonim and acharonim (i’ve heard he has photographic memory) therefore with all the knowledge he has he can pasken and he usually paskens like the SA or the Ben Ish Chai (he doesn’t say his own pshat)

  • #1094364

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    IOW First of all there’s a lot more there than that one statement which I already quoted at least three times. And second of all according to your previous statements even R’ Ovadia wouldn’t be any different than me regarding this point, so if you are willing to concede that he is different, then just admit that I am right in principle instead of making this about how much I know.

  • #1094365

    myfriend
    Member

    How are you right? You can disagree with a Tanna – while an Amora cannot, as was shown above?

  • #1094366

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    An amora can, as was shown above. Unless you didn’t read my post.

    ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????, ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????

  • #1094367

    myfriend
    Member

    How do you answer the points about meisivei in the gemorah, Rav Yosef Karo in Kesef Mishna, the Maharal, the Chazon Ish, and the point about dvar mishna/divrei haposkim?

  • #1094368

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    myfriend-

    There is a lot that needs to be said to explain those points, and I apologize but I don’t have the time right now. Maybe later. But for now, I think R’ Ovadia’s words should be enough to convince you that things aren’t as clear-cut as you think.

  • #1094369

    coffee addict
    Participant

    The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes:

    Amorim can’t dispute Tannaim, and later generations can’t dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim.

    The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn’t argue with them.

    It seems like R. Ovadia argues with this

    we can say 1 of 3 things

    1)You don’t understand R. Ovadia correctly

    2) R. Ovadia doesn’t hold like this and therefore each is somech on who they hold like, but to say that the people who follow poskim are ignorant is wrong.

    3)we dont understand the mechaber correctly

    I personally would go like #1 or #2

  • #1094370

    coffee addict
    Participant

    I’m reposting this for yossi z

  • #1094371

    yossi z.
    Member

    Thank you. I found it very edifiying (well now that it is after the joseph escapade this entire thread’s outlook now changes) but it still doesn’t answer anything.

    There are (at least) two questions remaining

    1) Are copepods everywhere (I didn’t open the links (yet) as I am not on a computer and it would be too complicated to do so)

    2) If they are then why is only new york water filtered and not other places

    I happened to have been informed that nassau/suffolk county and far rockaway do not have bugs and therefore do not need filtering. Presuming from this I would say, being that we don’t have conclusive proof as to whether boston has bugs or not we should be able to safely assume that they don’t being there aren’t any filters in use (though the main water sources are filtered before they are sent out but that isn’t due to bugs-let’s not go there it is quite nauseating)

  • #1094372

    coffee addict
    Participant

    did u read the fox site

  • #1094373

    yossi z.
    Member

    No but can you post a link? (Not that I trust fox news, I just want to see for myself if it is a legitimate find by fox this time or yet another typical fox-trap that won’t close)

  • #1094374

    coffee addict
    Participant

    the link is on the first page, with a bunch of other links

  • #1094375

    MDG
    Participant

    It was mentioned before that NYC, Boston, and Seattle are the large cities that don’t filter their water. When I visited Seattle about 6 years ago, I asked Rabbi Kletenik, head of the Seattle Vaad, about the copepods (“little lobsters” as I call them). He told me then that the water was tested and they found no bugs. I recently heard in the name of Rabbi Hillel David that one does not need to filter the tap water in Seattle, but one who wants to be extra careful (I forgot the exact lashon, maybe I heard “baal Nefesh” or “yirai shamayim”…) should filter.

  • #1094376

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    I happened to have been informed that nassau/suffolk county and far rockaway do not have bugs

    Nassau and Suffolk are not part of NYC; Far Rockaway is, and uses NYC water.

  • #1094377

    yossi z.
    Member

    You are right about Far Rockaway. Sorry

  • #1094378

    oomis
    Member

    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. “

    They did not spontaneously generate. They were always here, but not readily visible to the naked eye. It is on that basis that many hold that the water is ok to drink. If it were assur to eat EVERY thing that had creatures swarming over it, but which we could not readily see, there would be NO food kosher to eat. There are living bacteria, germs, dust mites, etc.,etc., on virtually everything. If you would see what is sitting on your EYELIDS, it would make you throw up. But you can’t, because they are too tiny to be viewed without the help of a microscope. And thus it is with much of what we are finding in the water. They are seen with a microscope. If you can readily see them with the naked eye, then they are large enough for the water to require filtering.

  • #1094379

    abcd2
    Participant

    to the above poster concerned whether to filter or not:

    When the whole issue of tap water filtering came out i was NOT among the first to jump on the band wagon to filter,as I felt filtering was a mishegas. (eventually my Rav who is involved in Kashrus said one should filter)

    Anyway,once I started filtering, I couldn’t believe the garbage (chemical residue,dirt, brown spots from nearby construction, sediment etc…)that I found in my EZ Filter. I knew that this came from outside piping not from the pipes inside my house. I could not believe what I had been drinking prior to filtering my water. As when I poured out a cup from the tap it looked completley clear. Then I had learned that New York and other places had relied more on chemicals then a proper filtration process to cleanse its water.

    If you say that in Boston you have the same ancient water delivery and filtration issues as NYC then forget about Kashrus issues, you will not believe what you are drinking.I have done a complete reversal in my thinking that filtering is a mishegas. For example during spring NYC water is filthy due to snow runoff into reservoirs, between Purim and Pesach I change the inner filter of the Ez filter twice a week as opposed to once per week/week and half as otherwise it gets clogged.(the first year this happened EZ filter was puzzled as to why customers were suddenly complaining that their filters were clogging faster and they investigated the issue)

    If you dont want the clumsiness of a Brita get an EZ filter or have a plumber install a whole house or under sink filter. If you dont want to do the whole house try an EZ filter on one sink to start you wont believe what you’ll find. it’ll cost you (including a bag of inserts) around twenty bucks.

    Just FYI a water project that might help filtering in NYC slated for completion 2012 you will not believe what you were drinking

    http://www.water-technology.net/projects/crotonfiltration/

  • #1094380

    MDG
    Participant

    I just want to mention that many of these little lobsters in the water are big enough to see. When grown they are “about 0.8 mm (males) and 1.4 mm (females)”.

    http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single_print/2346

  • #1094381

    yossi z.
    Member

    Boston does rely on filtering the water systems primarily due to the constant building and construction going on (whether new or improvements) but they filter the main water sources not the private houses (in other words they filter the water before it gets into the piping system)

  • #1094382

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    Abcd2, we use the EZ filter, although I have never seen a single copepod.

    BTW if you run out of inserts, a cotton ball works just as well. (We have the larger EZ filter.) Note that the filter is actually the metal part underneath. The insert only serves to prevent the metal filter fromm clogging.

  • #1094383

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    If you can readily see them with the naked eye, then they are large enough for the water to require filtering.

    They’re large enough. I’ve seen them.

  • #1094384

    cherrybim
    Participant

    If Rav Belsky says it’s ok; it’s ok and end of story.

  • #1094385

    charliehall
    Member

    “They were always here, but not readily visible to the naked eye.”

    They’ve been in the New York City water since at least the opening of the Old Croton Aqueduct in 1842. All the gedolim drank the water, presumably with the copepods.

  • #1094386

    oomis
    Member

    B”H I have never seen them in my tap water. BUT — after this entire issue came to light, I was so grossed out that I can no longer drinl regular tap water. I buy bottled water for regular drinking purposes. has anyone heard the notion that boiling the water (such as for coffee or tea) “melts” the copepods that might be present?

  • #1094387

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    If Rav Belsky says it’s ok; it’s ok and end of story.

    Many very big poskim disagree (R’ Dovid Feinstein, R Feivel Cohen, and R’ Elyashiv agreed with them).Why is it “end of story” that it’s muttar?

  • #1094388

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    They’ve been in the New York City water since at least the opening of the Old Croton Aqueduct in 1842. All the gedolim drank the water, presumably with the copepods.

    Whether or not this should be a reason to permit the water is part of the machlokes.

  • #1094389

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    has anyone heard the notion that boiling the water (such as for coffee or tea) “melts” the copepods that might be present?

    No, I’ve heard it doesn’t. On the other hand, I’ve heard that an urn is okay because the copepods sink to the bottom and don’t exit the spout.

    Also, I’ve heard that in other cooked items, such as soup, there are bitul considerations which leaves more room for leniency.

  • #1094390

    yitayningwut
    Participant

    If Rav Belsky says it’s ok; it’s ok and end of story.

    If he’s your rav, then yes.

  • #1094391

    cherrybim
    Participant

    Rav Belsky is not my Rav and my shul and home are filtered for hachnosas orchim purposes.

  • #1094392

    rabbiofberlin
    Participant

    I have only come to this thread late but I rememmber the keffavel about this some years ago. I think that oomis1105 has if right: if you start using microscopes to analyze anything-you cannot eat anything. The Almighty gave us eyes and ,as long as you cannot see it, it can never become treif. Microscopes are becoming more and more powerful and soon you can see microbes,bacteria and the like…as long as you cannot see it to the naked eye, it is muttor.

  • #1094393

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    as long as you cannot see it to the naked eye, it is muttor.

    True, but these are visible without a microscope.

  • #1094394

    twisted
    Member

    as in a previous copepod post, here is my two cents: My first exposure to the little critters were tiny white flecks in a bowl of water. With a 10x loupe, the parts were recognizable as crustacean. The whole live specimen is plainly visible (and it swims), but you will not have a whole or live organism in the pressurized, and chlorinated water, and the parts should be trapped in the faucet filter screen, as well as white flecks that can come from the disintegration of the plastic dip tube in a gas water heater. Therefor, there is no “berria problem, and not likely a “nosein taam” problem. The yuck factor is actually a good thing, praised in Bava Metzia 62b, and I made a nice living selling filters prior to my aliya. Here, I don’t think it is on the radar, and in the north, they do, or did drink from the Kinneret.

    For those that are machmir with microscopic issurim, if you visit the beach, be wary of the sea water, The top 2cm contains plankton, some of which is zooplankton.

  • #1094395

    coffee addict
    Participant

    and you think we have it bad

    Little worms are found in Texas town’s drinking water

    By Jenn Gidman

    Published July 31, 2015

    theres more to the article i just didnt post it

Viewing 89 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to RSS Feed For This Article