May 26, 2010 5:29 am at 5:29 am #771174
You can add Rav Feivel Cohen to the ossrim. Also see new news article that ALL Vaadei HaKashrus want to learn how to check for worms.
So who are you majority of even American Poskim???May 26, 2010 6:07 am at 6:07 am #771175
From aforementioned news article:
By posting this list, I do not mean to suggest that those on this list hold the fishworms to be assur, but they do apparently have at least some concern.May 26, 2010 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm #771177
hello99 – Watch what your implying; your comments are reminiscent of when PETA filmed the shchita process at the Rubashkin plant. After the film was shown, the amharatzim were crying that shchita is tzar bal chai, cruelty to animals, and that shchita should be banned.
All the great poskim and g’dolim of thousands of years had no problem with the shchita process or with these fish worms (which are delicious in gefilta fish and herring).
So be careful.May 26, 2010 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm #771179philosopherMember
Daas Yochid, you’re right. My Rov holds that anasaki worms are ossur, but he’s not concerned about them in fresh fish.May 26, 2010 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #771180
Please explain how hello99 implied anything about shechita, or how it compares to tzaar balei chayim.
I understood hello99’s point to be regarding how many poskim are concerned about the worms, because they ARE NOT THE SAME as the ones we have been eating for thousands of years [is gefilte fish so old? :)].May 26, 2010 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm #771181
Any of you experts know why the worms in herring or whiting are more kosher than the worms in cod which is the fish shown in the film?
How do you know? Have you interviewed these worms? When were they ok and when/why did they change? Do you have any proof to what you claim or are you only speculating?May 26, 2010 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm #771182
The reason herring and whiting are mutor, I believe, is because the amount of worms found are minimal, so there is no miut hamotzui. The worms are assur, but we don’t need to check for them.
No, I did not interview the worms, nor do I plan on it.
I “speculate” that these are not the same as the ones in Shulchan Aruch because these seem to migrate from the viscera into the flesh, while the heter of the gemora/S.A. is that they are “mino gavli”. This is not my own reasoning, it is that of the gedolim.
No, I don’t think Rav Belsky chas v’cholilo “wants to sway the masses to eat treif “. Do you think that R’ Elyashiv and the other osrim have an interest in assuring something for no reason? Maybe you think they bought stock in a company which manufactures ultraviolet light boxes? It is surely a machlokes like any other.
Do we blind ourselves to the reality of who our biggest gedolim are just for fear of being called juvenile by some anonymous blogger in the YWN CR? And even if we were to assume that everyone’s opinion is equal (even if it contradicts the rishonim’s pshat in the sugya), do we automatically always pasken l’kulo in any machlokes just because it’s more convenient?
Kol TuvMay 26, 2010 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #771183Be HappyParticipant
Don’t even consider it! – We have no new monkeys, no new giraffes, no new elephants, and NO NEW WORMS! Everything was created at shashis yemei bereishis.The Torah knew of this worm and says its Kosher.May 26, 2010 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #771184
Even if we do not have new worms, the ones we are finding today, which may have existed from sheishes y’mei b’reishis, were not common enough to require bedikah until recently.May 26, 2010 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm #771186
Daas Yochid – “The reason herring and whiting are mutor, I believe, is because the amount of worms found are minimal, so there is no miut hamotzui.”
Daas Yochid – “while the heter of the gemora/S.A. is that they are “mino gavli”.
Have you read the details of Rav Belsky’s psak or heard him explain his psak? If you did, it would answer your question concerning “mino gavli”.May 26, 2010 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #771187
cherrybim: If the “vast majority of American Poskim” permit the worms can you give some names other than Rav Belsky??? I have listed 6 respected US Poskim who forbid, you should be able to double or triple that from your “vast majority”.
I’ll help you get started with Rav Roth from BP and i’ll even let you count Rav Miller even though he his in Canada. I’m waiting for another 10 names or so.May 26, 2010 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #771188
estherh: it seems your rumor from yesterday was unfounded. Rav Vozner and Rav Karelitz stil forbid the worms.
HIE: If anything the consensus in the US seems to be swinging to asser.May 27, 2010 2:54 am at 2:54 am #771189
hello99 – Please list the names of the American Rabbonim who you claim to vadai paskin the fish to be treif.May 27, 2010 3:34 am at 3:34 am #771190
Hi again, Cherrybim.
I don’t imagine the halochos of miut hamotzui follow he FAO’s definition of “often” (I’m not sure why you’re so caught up on herring).
My point about not being the same worms is not to reject any other explanation as illogical, but rather to explain why Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vosner, Rav Karelitz, etc. are not swayed by the argument that the worms must be mutor, since everything is still the same. I would like to hear Rav Belsky’s pshat in “mino gavli”. Please explain, I’m open to listen.
By the way, the psak to assur the fishworms could even be misofeik. Since they are nikor, they are not botel, and we are dealing with an issur d’oraiso.May 27, 2010 3:36 am at 3:36 am #771191HIEParticipant
HIE: If anything the consensus in the US seems to be swinging to asser.
100% wrongMay 27, 2010 3:41 am at 3:41 am #771192
Not so fast on Rav Shlomo Miller; he retracted. Here’s my evidence: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/745156/Rabbi_Shmuel_Marcus/Worms_in_Fish:_When_Torah_and_Science_Collide?May 27, 2010 3:58 am at 3:58 am #771194
Not that I personally think it’s a numbers game, but hell099 has so far listed Rabbis Reisman, Forscheimer, Heineman, Feinstein, Bess, and Cohen, Shlit”a. As I mentioned, I hear Rav Shlomo Miller now assurs as well.May 27, 2010 4:06 am at 4:06 am #771195
Daas Yochid – So you are having everyone believe that these Rabbonim that you just listed do paskin that the fish are treif? And are we to believe that everything you’ve stated is as true as this claim of yours?May 27, 2010 4:07 am at 4:07 am #771196
You simply write “100% wrong”. Any evidence?
The appearance of representatives of (almost?) every kashrus agency at the deworming demonstration would certainly seem to indicate that hello99 is correct. If you will contend that they merely want to conform to the higher standard, I might agree, but on a practical level, this still means that the tendency is still moving toward the assur side.May 27, 2010 4:15 am at 4:15 am #771198
Daas Yochid – “but on a practical level, this still means that the tendency is still moving toward the assur side.”
100% wrong.May 27, 2010 4:15 am at 4:15 am #771199
Here we go with “100% wrong” again. Can’t anyone express a coherent thought which works on its own merit?!
Read my post. I merely restated the rabbonim previously listed by hello99. The addition of Rav Miller was backed up. I haven’t heard directly from him, but it was brought out in a public shiur bt Rabbi Shmuel Marcus, and I did hear it third hand from another source as well.
My personal integrity is really not the issue here. I have no problem if you or anybody else do not believe a word I say (I wouldn’t recommend anyone believe anything seen from an anonymous source such as the YNW CR) but I only ask that you consider my thoughts on their own merit.May 27, 2010 4:26 am at 4:26 am #771201
Daas Yochid – “I wouldn’t recommend anyone believe anything seen from an anonymous source such as the YNW CR”
Apply this rule of yours to yourself. Why list these Rabbis and the claims when you have no first or second hand knowledge of how they paskin?May 27, 2010 5:34 am at 5:34 am #771202
Cherrybim, you still didn’t read my post so I’ll copy it onto this one:
Not that I personally think it’s a numbers game, but hello99 has so far listed Rabbis Reisman, Forscheimer, Heineman, Feinstein, Bess, and Cohen, Shlit”a. As I mentioned, I hear Rav Shlomo Miller now assurs as well.
As far as Rav Vaye’s article, you can take a look at my comment there.May 27, 2010 5:47 am at 5:47 am #771203
By the way, I did not see Rav Belsky’s teshuva, I only heard the audio, in which he denies spontaneous generation, and claims minoh gavli means it was microscopic when it entered the fish. The simple pshat in the sugya is not this way, nor do the rishonim agree with this. I really do mean that I’m open to see his teshuvo, maybe I’ll understand where he’s coming from better if I see it in different words than I heard on the audio. By the way, I am a wise guy, but I didn’t mean it that way in this case.May 27, 2010 6:15 am at 6:15 am #771204
cherrybim: you sure have an attitude. Just cough up you list of the “vast majority” of US Poskim who matir. So far you haven’t come up with a single name.May 27, 2010 10:04 am at 10:04 am #771205
Your list is misleading and sheker.May 27, 2010 11:15 am at 11:15 am #771206
Daas Yochid: It is a big sugya in Hilchos Shabbos regarding killing lice. The Pachad Yitzchok, not Rav Hutner, explains that while Chazal were aware that there is NO spontaneous generation they described things the way they appear to the naked eye and he says the Halacha follows the appearance. Therefore even though we know today that lice DO come from eggs, they are still mutar to kill on Shabbos because the microscopic eggs are Halachically insignificant. Rav Belsky is clearly following this derech and therefore he is NOT contradicting the Rishonim at all. Additionally based on the life cycle of the anisakis worm, they never exist independently after they are visible, they are in shrimp then smaller fisha nd then larger ones, and there are grounds to say that they are never shoretz al ha’aretz from when they are Halachically significant. Rav Falk uses this sevara in his heter, and Rav Vozner dismisses it in his teshuva, all written well over a decade ago.
I personally think Rav Belsky and Rav Falk’s logic is more compelling, and while I agree with much of what you have written, I must strongly object to any derogatory statements about Rav Belsky.
My issue is that the Gedolei HaPoskim do NOT consider the heter, however logical it seems to me, to be reliable enough to be matir an issur d’Oraisa. I defer to their judgement.May 27, 2010 11:29 am at 11:29 am #771207
cherrybim: your attitude is obnoxious.
All 6 Rabbonim I mentioned have ruled that one may not consume anisakis, some vadai some safek, but agree it may not be eaten. You have still not produced a single name who permits.May 27, 2010 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm #771208
First of all, I do not intend any comments to be derogatory toward Rabbi Belsky, Shlit”a, chas v’sholom. I only mean to show why I find his approach less compelling. He is a tremendous talmid chochom, and I hope I have not said anything which can be construed as a personal attack.
The Pachad Yitzchok does not take the approach you ascribe to him. He suggests that we be machmir, and assume, l’chumra, the possibility that chaza”l erred. His approach was rejected by his rebbe, who said we believe chaza”l with certainty against the scientists even l’kulo. Please don’t take my word for this, look it up.
I have seen an approach that you describe, that chaza”l described perception as reality. This does not seem appropriate for this case, since the migration to the flesh from the viscera is evident even without scientific theory or microscopes. I am m’katzer here, if you wish,I can elaborate later.
Again, if I came across as negative towards R’ Belsky personally, I forcefully retract any such statements or connotations, and ask mechiloh. I mean only to debate the sugya, and how one shoul “fir zich” l’halochoh.May 27, 2010 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #771209
hello99 – “All 6 Rabbonim I mentioned have ruled that one may not consume anisakis, some vadai some safek, but agree it may not be eaten.”
You may not infer, or hear third hand, or assume a Rav’s psak din and state it as fact.May 27, 2010 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #771210
Some of these rabbonim have publicly stated their opinions. Rabbis Reisman and Bess have been quoted in newspaper articles or ads. Rabbi Heineman’s recommendation is on the Star K website.
BTW why did you merely ask YW for confirmation of estherh’s assertion, yet actually challenge hello99’s?May 27, 2010 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm #771212
HIE: I think continuing this conversation with cherrybim is clearly futile, but maybe YOU can enlighten us to the identities of the “vast majority” of American Poskim who are matir.May 27, 2010 10:04 pm at 10:04 pm #771213
Daas Yochid: I stand corrected, the opinion I quoted is the Michtav Me’Eliahu vol 4 pg 355 footnote 4 who disagrees with the Pachad Yitzchok as you accurately quoted.
“This does not seem appropriate for this case, since the migration to the flesh from the viscera is evident even without scientific theory or microscopes”
I am referring to the earlier stage of development of the anisakis larva where they are ingested by krill when still microscopic. After the develop to a visible size they never leave a host organism, merely transferring from one host to another as the host is ingested. This is not considered shoretz al ha’aretz according to Rav Falk, and while Rav Vaye personally prefers a sevara similar to Rav Kuber’s he lists a number of Gedolim who agreed with Rav Falk.May 28, 2010 5:29 am at 5:29 am #771214
If they enter the fish in a krill, we have to deal with the issue of why they don’t obtain the status of the krill (as part of its flesh) and should be assur.
We can find a way around this (such as postulating that they never exist in krill at a visible size, and that dogim t’meim never swallow worms and have them reach visible size in them), but this seems far-fetched. It is also unclear why, if we find them in the large fish (i.e salmon) at a visible size, we don’t assume that they were swallowed directly as a free swimming creature. None of this is impossible, but I fail to see why this would seem a more compelling argument than that of the gedolim.May 28, 2010 11:19 am at 11:19 am #771215
Daas Yochid: It is a pleasure to carry on a polite and intelligent discussion of the issue.
“we have to deal with the issue of why they don’t obtain the status of the krill (as part of its flesh) and should be assur.”
An interesting idea. Why would we look at the worm as the same as the fish? The heter say with a worm in n apple is a gezeiras hakasuv of shoretz al ha’aretz, and not that the worm gets the din of an apple. If one needed to eat an apple worm for sakana reasons would he say borei pri ha’etz on the worm? Would someone eating this worm that was poresh from an apple receive malkos for tevel and orlah in addition to the multiple malkos for sheratzim?
“It is also unclear why, if we find them in the large fish (i.e salmon) at a visible size, we don’t assume that they were swallowed directly as a free swimming creature.”
The scientists who research parasitology claim that the life cycle of the anisakis composes of 3 larval stages in at least three different species of fish, Since it doesn’t contradict Chazal, I see no reason to disbelieve it. Presumably a fish the size of a salmon would not bother eating tiny krill.May 28, 2010 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm #771216
I agree that an intelligent conversation would be wonderful, I just don’t know if I can live up to that, but I’ll try!
I didn’t make up that the worm should be considered part of the krill, I got it from Rav Belsky’s statement that the heter of mino gavli is that the worm becomes mutor as part of the fish.
If it is poresh, it would presumably now have its own status.
As far as your second point, I don’t see how the existance of various stages precludes the possibility that it might have swallowed a worm in the free swimming stage. Chazal were definitely concerned that this could happen, which is why the Shulchan Aruch does not permit worms fould in the b’nei meiayim.
In your previous post, you discuss the heter which is based on predation (that the anisakis are continually tranferred from creature to creature). If indeed, we were to know for a fact that they are swallowed when microscopic, I could easily hear a sevoro to be matir. However, the most compelling part of the argument of the matirim is lost; that we can assume that what we see today is the same as what was seen in the times of the S.A. and gemoro.
The gemoro, and S.A. with meforshim, clearly deal with the issue of whether the worms come “meialmo” or are “mino gavli”. A worm found in the flesh is “mino gavli”, and one in the viscera is “meialmo”. This argument, however assumes that even worms which came form the outside are mutor! This would only make sense if we now are seeing a different species than is described in the gemoro!May 28, 2010 1:49 pm at 1:49 pm #771217rescue37Participant
on another news site it was reported the Rav Vaya from E”Y who is considered the foremost expert in bugs said in a nutshell that the fish a muttar and that it is not an issue.
On another note, he also said that we shouldn’t be eating raisans and corn on the cobMay 28, 2010 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #771218
I don’t know about raisins.
Corn on the cob has a different matziv in E”Y than it does in America.May 28, 2010 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #771219
Yes, Rav Vaye says it is muttar. To deny that it is an issue seems strange, as the gedolei haposkim have assured.
I’ve heard that corn on the cob is more infested in EY than in America, so I’d like to know if he is now saying that it’s a problem in the USA.May 28, 2010 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #771220
I just checked that other site. According to that article, and I quote, “Rav Vaya did explain that ideally, all anisakis worms should be removed from fish.” Obviously, not a non issue.May 28, 2010 2:35 pm at 2:35 pm #771221WolfishMusingsParticipant
they described things the way they appear to the naked eye and he says the Halacha follows the appearance. Therefore even though we know today that lice DO come from eggs, they are still mutar to kill on Shabbos because the microscopic eggs are Halachically insignificant
I’m fairly certain that if you talk to any head-checker in a girls’ yeshiva, they will tell you that lice eggs are NOT microscopic. Small, yes — but not microscopic and they can be seen with the naked eye.
The WolfMay 28, 2010 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #771222
“RAV ARYEH CARMELL cites his mentor, RAV ELIYAHU DESSLER zt’l in a footnote to MICHTAV ME’ELIYAHU (volume 4, p. 355), who teaches that the law does not change even though the reason for the law is difficult for us to understand. We must accept the rulings of the Chachamim, whether they are lenient or stringent. Rav Dessler points out that the reason mentioned in the Gemara for the ruling of the Chachamim is not necessarily the only possible reason. The Chachamim gave the reason that was most obvious in their day, which, in this case, was the universally accepted biological fact that lice spontaneously generate. There are other reasons for their rulings (see also RAMBAN to 12a, DH v’Ha Pligi, in the name of the Yerushalmi), and thus we may not conduct ourselves differently. Rav Dessler suggests, in the case of lice, the following explanation. It is a known principle that Halachah considers only factors that the senses can detect. Accordingly, since the egg of a louse is so small that it cannot be detected by the eye (at a normal distance), the Halachah does not consider it at all, and thus the louse is given the status as a lower degree of life-form, for which there is no prohibition to kill.
RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt’l rules that the Halachah does not change, despite a change in our understanding of the natural world (see IGROS MOSHE, CM 2:73:4). He reasons that even if nature, or our understanding of nature, has changed, the Halachah does not, because the Halachah depends solely on the situation at the time of the original ruling of the Chachamim. (See also CHAVAS DA’AS 98:3, and CHAZON ISH YD 5:3.)”
I added the italicized words. Generally, as in the minimum size of blemishes in an esrog, this is defined when viewing it at about 1-2 feet which is how it is normally seen, although of course many view it, when checking, much closer and even use a magnifying glass.May 28, 2010 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm #771223
I don’t think the size of blemishes on an esrog has anything to do with “nireh loeinayim”, but rather, “hodor”. In other words, blemishes which are invisible at arm’s length are not considered to diminish the esrog’s beauty.
If I’m not mistaken, the reason that Wolf’s observation is not inconsistent with Rav Carmell as quoted here, is that when the eggs are laid, they are micrscopic. It then grows, and gives parnossoh to nit checkers.May 28, 2010 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #771224rescue37Participant
You can’t say ideally and then say it’s muttar. Either you can eat it or not. Bottom line is that if you don’t remove the bugs you can still eat it, therefore the ideally removing is a seperate issue. It would be similar to blood in the yolk of an egg that was never fertilized. It is muttar to eat the egg, would you eat it without removing it? It is muttar to eat the fish. Period. Therefore anaskis is not an issue.
Ideally one whould remove it, seperate issue, but the reason for removing it is not because there is a safek if the anaskis in the fish is an issue.May 28, 2010 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm #771225
Throughout the generations, poskim have very often advocated being machmir even when something is mutor meikor hadin. Halochoh is not black and white.May 28, 2010 5:59 pm at 5:59 pm #771226
Thank you Daas, I believe you are correct.May 28, 2010 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #771227May 28, 2010 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm #771228
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
I’m just curious, are you referring to the esrog analogy, or being machmir misofeik?May 28, 2010 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #771229
the esrog analogyMay 28, 2010 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #771230popa_bar_abbaParticipant
so I just got up to this sif today.
It seems to me that if you combine the din of the mechaber that worms in in the flesh are assumed to have never been “romes al ha’aretz” and muttar; together with the assumption people are making that any worms which are the same species have a similar source, you can permit even the worms in the stomach since they must have come from the flesh.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.