The Volover Rov has released the following Kashrus alert in regards to the recent controversy with worms found in sardines. This story was first brought to light in an article published by YWN on February 9th. The following is the English portion of the latest statement from the Volover Rov: URGENT NOTICE Due to the many inquires regarding insect infestation in the stomach (not in the flesh) of the various “gefen” fish its important to again advise the following: A. Sardines from “Portugal”, weather in oil or water, must first be opened and the inside cleaned out thoroughly. If one is not sure how to clean it, do not eat them. B. The “skinless & boneless” sardines are OK. C. The “bristling” sardines from Scotland, whether in water or oil, cannot be cleaned and may not be eaten. D. The kippered snacks from Canada are OK. E. All tuna is OK. (Signed on February 16, 2011.) [CLICK ON LETTER TO ENLARGE] (YWN Desk – NYC)

By the time you read this article, much time has passed since the tumult regarding the anisakis worm erupted. Many Rabbonim Shlita from Eretz Yisrael1 signed on a kol koreh to prohibit fish with the anisakis worm. On the other hand many Rabbobnim in America and other locales hold that this is not an issue. According to the stringent opinion, many fish are prohibited, such as wild salmon. Indeed some kashrus organizations do not permit those fish in their establishments. It is noteworthy that the anisakis worm is not the only worm that affects fish. There are tens of thousands of worms in the sea4 which are eaten by different kinds of kosher fish, many of which are eaten by the kosher consumer. It is important to realize that the issue of worms in fish is not new. This article will present the halachos of worms in fish, and explain the opinions for permitting and forbidding fish which are infested with the anisakis worm. We will discuss the sugya of worms in fish and then deal with the specific worm at hand. This article is intended for limud haTorah purposes and is not to be relied upon halacha l’maseh. One should not draw any conclusions after reading this article without first consulting with his Rav. This article in no way expresses the opinion of the KOF-K. Click HERE to read the article compiled by Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits. (YWN Desk – NYC)

Rav Moshe Vaye shlita, the world renowned expert in the field of hilchos tolaim and bedikas hamazon for over forty years, has been investigating and bringing the bug situation in all foods to the attention of the gedolim to have them pasken on them. He has written three authoritative seforim on all issues of bugs in all different types of foods called bedikas mazon khalocho. R’ Vaye has a machon in Eretz Yisroel, that all of the gedolim – and the entire eretz yisroel recognizes as the leading kashrus agency regarding bugs. Attached is a brief article that Rav Vaye has prepared discussing the topic.  The following letter was submitted to YWN: DearYWN Editor   I have a working relationship with Rav Moshe Vaye shlita, and I am sending you a copy of a brief article written by R’ Moshe Vaye shlita regarding anisakis in fish. (This was sent yesterday to all the major kashrus organizations). It is clear from Rav Vaye’s article that he has been aware of anisakis for well over twenty years and discussed it personally with R’ Moshe Feinstein ztl and other gedolim. Please post this. An English translation may be available in the near future if there is interest. However, please post the article in its original form. If you wish to translate the article into English you are welcome to do so as well.   This is not a new sheilah, and there were many gedolei yisroel that Rav Vaie personally discussed the very same issue with. Many gedolim that Rav Vaie was personally in contact with held that anisakis is permissible. If after you post this article any questions arise, they may be submitted to me and Rav Vaie will respond to each one. Name withheld upon request. Click HERE to read the Teshuva. (YWN Desk – NYC)

Two weeks ago, YWN posted an article by Rabbi Mordechai Kuber regarding the current issue of ‘worms found in fish’. Rabbi Kuber states that there the worms are permissible to be eaten according to Halacha. We now present the following article written by Rabbi Chaim Scher, who is a “Boki in the Sugya”, which refutes Rabbi Kuber’s article: Amidst all the turmoil about the fish worms, one point has become resoundingly clear: the view of the great Poskim has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented. If the article demonstrates anything, it is that the subtle and nuanced opinion of the prohibiting Poskim has eluded even some Rabbanim and Torah scholars. It is necessary, therefore, to restate their position accurately and clearly. In clarifying their position, we rely on a careful reading of Shevet Halevi 4:83, the letters of Rav Nissim Karelitz, and discussions with Rav Elyashiv that have been related to me. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 84) based on Chulin 67b states that worms found in the flesh of fish is permitted, while worms found in the viscera are prohibited. Rabbi Kuber, as well as many others, offers two options in understanding the Shulchan Aruch: 1: The Shulchan Aruch refers only to a specific worm known to Chazal to originate in the fish 2: The Shulchan Aruch offers a “blanket heter” that covers all worms. Rabbi Kuber quotes Shevet Halevi as taking the first position; the heter only applies to a specific worm, and claims that while Shevet Halevi acknowledges that this position is at odds with Shulchan Aruch, he nevertheless adopts it. If true, this would be an important milestone for Rav Vosner. After years of tireless study of Shulchan Aruch and after hundreds of responsa where Shevet Halevi bases Halachic decisions on Shulchan Aruch, Rav Vosner has graduated from deferring to Shulchan Aruch and has broken free from its iron grasp. Why has he done so? The article has a ready answer. Rav Vosner places a premium on the opinions of scientists, not realizing that scientists are fallible and often lie. Furthermore, he has been misled to believe that this science is not based on science’s dismissal of spontaneous generation. Rabbi Kuber asserts that it is. A careful reading of Shevet Halevi reveals that Rabbi Kuber has carefully selected excerpts from the Tshuvah. When the Tshuvah is read in its entirety, one finds that Rav Vosner, after suggesting that the Halachah permitting worms in flesh may apply only to specific worms and then proving that this is the opinion of Meiri, rejects this position because he interprets Shulchan Aruch to give a “blanket” heter. Rav Vosner then proceeds to state his final position, his maskana; all worms in the flesh of fish are, under normal circumstances, assumed to originate in the fish. However, Shulchan Aruch’s “blanket heter“ does not cover a case where there is contrary evidence that the worm originated outside. The heter of Shulchan Aruch is no more than a vadai, a certainty, based on assumption, and not a biological impossibility. It is not misleading for Shulchan Aruch to permit fish worms without caveat; all worms are covered by the heter. However, where there is evidence to the contrary, it should be obvious that the reasoning of the Gemara doesn’t apply.[1] Do we, then, prohibit all worms that scientists believe

By Mordechai Kuber; Rav, Beis Medrash Nachlas Tzvi Ohel Avraham (Telzstone, Israel) Synopsis: Shulchan Aruch permits fish flesh worms because they form in the permitted fish flesh, yet scientific research has discredited spontaneous generation.  For the past 150 years, many Poskim resolved this conflict by saying that these flesh worms appear to form in the flesh, but that they actually originate in microscopic form outside the fish, but develop to visible, halachically relevant form only within the flesh.  Scientists have now demonstrated that at least one common flesh worm, anisakis, is of visible size before ingestion, thereby refuting this approach.  Some conclude that these worms are therefore prohibited, but they ignore the impossible extrapolation of their reasoning that all flesh worms would therefore be prohibited, unless we are certain of any that are smaller than visible dimensions before they are ingested, and we are not.  They also ignore the opinions of Rishonim that worms are not migratory to fish flesh, and ignore both scientific and halachic evidence proving the same.  They present scientific opinions of migration, without recognizing that these positions are all predicated on, and fatally influenced by, a rejection of internal generation.  They also present anecdotal evidence of migration, which does not pass the rigor of scientific research and reporting.  This article proposes that Halachah rejects migration to the flesh, even when identical intestinal worms are present.  Rather, we presume that flesh worms are internally generated, even if we are uncertain of the biological mechanism by which this occurs.  This approach simply resolves all difficulties but one – that scientists say that non-invasive worm generation is impossible.  In this matter, we reject the evidence of experimentation in favor of the word of Chazal, whose tradition-based biological knowledge exceeded human experimental abilities. Background – Ferocious debate has erupted recently concerning contemporary worms found in the flesh of fish.  Shulchan Aruch (YD 84:16) explicitly rules that fish-flesh worms are permitted, because they originate within the flesh, whereas stomach worms are prohibited, because they enter the fish from the outside.  Many claim that Shulchan Aruch’s ruling is limited to ancient worms that did not migrate from fishes’ stomachs after they were ingested by the host fish.  This list of respected Poskim and Gedolei Hador base their ruling on scientific papers, and on evidence presented and interpreted by Rav Shneur Zalman Revach, an Israeli Rav with more piscatorial experience than many fishmongers, that indicate that contemporary fish-flesh worms migrate to the flesh from the stomachs.  The Rabbanim who steadfastly cling to their position that even contemporary fish-flesh worms are permitted argue that Shulchan Aruch’s ruling is not limited to a specific type of worm.  Therefore, if the possibility exists that other worms, possessing migratory capabilities, are prohibited, the Shulchan Aruch’s blanket permissive ruling is unconscionably and irresponsibly misleading.  Rather, the blanket ruling proves that migration is impossible.  Therefore, the word of Chazal is pitted against the word of the scientists, and the Chazal’s word prevails.  Most Poskim who prohibit contemporary fish-flesh worms acknowledge this difficulty, but some contest it.  HaRav Hagaon Rav Wosner Shlit”a entertains the possibility that some Rishonim, in contrast to Shulchan Aruch, do not interpret the Gemara as granting blanket approval to fish-flesh worms, but rather only to a specific worm.  Thus, even Talmudic law prohibits contemporary fish-flesh worms,

[Rabbi Yair Hoffman – 5 Towns Jewish Times] In a series of meetings with Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Karp and  others, both on Tuesday and today, Thursday, Rav Elyashiv Shlita issued two rulings:  He firmly reaffirmed the prohibition of consuming all fish species that have the Anisakis water nematode (worm) and he also ruled, however, that herring are permitted lechatchila. According to both Rabbi Karp and others present, Rav Elyashiv stressed that the Anisakis is forbidden because of the clear evidence that it’s origin is clearly from outside of the flesh of the fish and are thus considered Sheretz HaMayim.  Other worms that develop inside the flesh of the fish are permitted, however, and fall under the rubric of the Talmudic dispensation of “Minei Gavli” (See tractate Chullin 67b). The permissive ruling on the herring, according to Rabbi Karp was based up, at least, two factors: The first factor, among others, is that the Anisakis nematode is almost impossible to find and identify after the herring has been marinated.  Herring are significantly different than wild salmon and other fish that are infested with Anisakis in this regard.  Indeed, according to Rabbi Pappenheim of Beit Shemesh, formerly the editor of the Eida, the Eida Chareidis of Jerusalem conducted examinations yesterday with Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Karp present and could not identify any Anisakis nematodes. A secondary factor that Rav Elyashiv took into account was something considered as a snif- an additional factor, that generally might not stand by itself.  The snif he utilized in his ruling was the fact that upon each piece of herring, the presence of a forbidden Anisakis nematode constitutes a “Miut sheaino matzui” – a minority that is relatively rare.”  Although Rav Elyashiv noted that with the use of dissolving chemicals in a complete herring the anisakis nematode is commonly found, the fact that it is not found without the chemical is a significant factor in permitting them.  Generally speaking, this factor cannot stand alone by itself and was only relied upon in combination with other factors. Rav Elyashiv permitted marinated (i.e. pickled) herring lechatchilah – ideally without reservation.  Rav Elyyashiv’s position on other types of fish is that they are forbidden to be consumed unless inspected and any anisakis worms must be removed.  This information was confirmed later by Rabbi Karp with Rav Elyashiv’s grandson as well. Most herring is processed It is still unclear to this author what Rav Elyashiv’s position is on general herring that has not been pickled or marinated. NOTE: For aditional articles on the “fish crisis”, please visit the YWN Kashrus Korner. (Source: 5TJT)