- This topic has 369 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I would also like to note that if worms are found in the flesh of a mammal, they are not permitted unless they appeared in the animal after it was already dead. This is because while the animal is alive, the worms are considered part of the animal and require shechita. The shechita on the animal does not help for the worms (unlike a fetus) and it is not possible to shecht a worm. After the animal is dead, any worms which appear are muttar. (machlokes, but that is how we hold)
Moderator-80:
Thanks.
To all:
Have a good shabbos!
Daas Yochid: “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.”
The only reason they would become assur is because of “ha’yotzei min ha’tamei”, and the Chavos Daas 82:2 says this does not apply to separate bria.
“If indeed, we were to know for a fact that they are swallowed when microscopic, I could easily hear a sevoro to be matir”
I seems that the scientists believe that anisakis cannot live without a host beyond this stage of development. While they may be wrong, I don’t think that possibility creates a safek d’Oraisa.
“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!”
True, however “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”. Therefore it may be that the heter of the worms is not really minei gavli but because of “predation”. According to this anisakis worms found in the gut would also be mutar and this explains the words of the Beer Heitiv and Pri Megadim that even these worms are only assur mi’safek. The safek would be if they are anisakis which is mutar even in the gut or a different species which may have been swallowed free-swimming.
While I admit it may seem radical to render the entire sugya of Gemara and Rishonim irrelevant, the bottom line is if the anisakis is never shoretz al ha’aretz even when it originates outside the fish how could it possibly be assur.
Additionally I didn’t make this up, Rav Vaye quotes this sevara from Rav Falk and writes that Rav Fisher, Rav S.Z. Auerbach, Rav Greiniman and other Gedolei HePoskim agreed wit it (I don’t have the sefer in front of me so I am listing the names from memory). Rav Vaye personally is concerned that the larva may be of a size significant in Halacha before being ingested by krill, as scientist’s definition of “microscopic” he considers too large. Additionally he quotes Rav Elyashiv as considering a sheretz “shoretz al ha’aretz” even if it was shoretz only at a truly microscopic size.
BTW, I have heard that Rabbi Genack of the OU wants to asser anisakis, and Rav Belsky’s position may not be followed even by the OU!!!
1)”The only reason they would become assur is because of “ha’yotzei min ha’tamei”, and the Chavos Daas 82:2 says this does not apply to separate bria.”
I respond with the statement of R’ Belsky as quoted earlier in the CR: “the parasite grows in the fish and becomes permitted as part of the fish” (not considered its own briah)
2)”I(t) seems that the scientists believe that anisakis cannot live without a host beyond this stage of development. While they may be wrong, I don’t think that possibility creates a safek d’Oraisa.”
I respond with:”Rav Vaye personally is concerned that the larva may be of a size significant in Halacha before being ingested by krill, as scientist’s definition of “microscopic” he considers too large.”
3)”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”.
I have to research this, but even if accurate, does this affect psak halocho, especially to be meikil on a d’oraiso? And even when there is a simpler way of learning the gemoro? I doubt it.
4)”While I admit it may seem radical to render the entire sugya of Gemara and Rishonim irrelevant,”
I agree. It is radical. Your original point was that this is the more logical approach. B”H you now seem to realize that it’s radical.
Based on the timing of your post, I’m guessing you are not in the same time zone as I am.
Hello, hello99,
Sorry, I forgot to address my previous post to you (although certainly eveyone is invited to listen and join in!)
I just wanted to add that lost in all of the tumult surrounding Rabbi Kuber’s article, he did a pretty decent job of refuting the heter of Rav Belsky, as well as the heter of Rav Falk. Rabbi Scher did an even better job on Rabbi Kuber’s heter (the careful follower of this issue has noticed that Rav Belsky, Rav Falk, and Rabbi Kuber have different heterim). What remains standing is the opinion of the gedolim.
A Gut Voch!
As an aside, I have one more point to add; the reason for herring being on the muttor list (cherrybim, are you still here?) is, I have heard, apparently a combination of many factors, including the level of infestation, and the inability to do a proper bedika and removal. This psak l’heter was issued by Rav Karp, and he plans on confirming with R’ Elyashiv.
It had been maintained (by some Rabbonim) that herring was a clean fish. The Eida Cheraidis checked fresh, pickled and shmaltz and were all found to be infested. (My husband was there)
Estherh: I am led to understand that herring is mutor (according to R’ Karp) because, although there is infestation, it remains a miut. Although under different circumstances a miut would require bediko, bediko is not possible and the inability to do a bediko where there is only a miut does not leave the herring ossur, rather MUTTAR. I personally am considering abstaining from herring until I can either get a psak from my own rov, or, better yet, if R’ Elyashiv paskens on herring.
Daas Yochid: #1 I haven’t seen that quote in any of Rav Belsky’s statements on the issue, but it would only be relevant to his opinion that minei gavli applies even to a visible worm that grew larger in the fish. In any event look up the Chavos Daas and you will see from his examples of a bria (eg. the shilia of a donkey) that it would CERTAINLY apply in our case.
#2 Based on the size of the krill ingesting the worms and the size of the worms when the enter the salmon, I think it is safe to assume that the anisakis larva are minuscule. So did Rav Fisher, Rav S. Z. Auerbach etc.
#3 Look up the Michtav MeEliahu, where he uses this sevara to permit killing lice on Shabbos, which is “chayav” for paroshim according to the Gemara.
#4 I am disappointed to see that you too are stooping to partial quotes out of context.
I am in EY, don’t know where you are.
“until I can either get a psak from my own rov, or, better yet, if R’ Elyashiv paskens on herring.”
Daas Yochid: This I don’t understand. Why are you relying on anything other than YOUR own Rov’s psak? Rav Elyashiv, by your own statement, is not your Rov. Should you not be relying on YOUR ROV rather than on ANYONE OTHER than YOUR ROV? And what’s so hard about geting a psak from your own Rov, that you have to wait “until I can” do so??
“#3 Look up the Michtav MeEliahu, where he uses this sevara to permit killing lice on Shabbos, which is “chayav” for paroshim according to the Gemara.”
hello99: Doesn’t the Gemorah specifically and directly permit killing lice on Shabbos. Therefore, how this direct permission for lice by the Gemorah, extend as a sevara to anything else?
hello99,
1) On the 18 minute audio which was (and probably is still) available on the OU website, Rabbi Belsky clearly says it’s considered part of the fish. This sevara was also referred to in the ou’s press released, which HIE quoted earlier in the coffee room.
2) It is not safe to assume it was below the microscopic level. It is beyond my expertise (above my pay grade) to delve into this, but I have hesrd that many poskim have rejected the microscopic heter based on the facts. We can hardly call a heter based on uncertain facts “compelling”.
3) I still don’t understand how the sevara attributed to R’ Dessler would have any bearing on anisakis. Lice appear to spontaneously generate. These worms do not, since they are found in abundance in the viscera and appear to migrate from there to the flesh.
4) I am sorry if I misunderstood the intent of your quote. Please explain; do you think the predation approach is the same as the heter of the S.A. or not?
I am in the US – east coast.
Kasha:
I was by a kiddush on Shabbos, and I asked a talmid chochom sitting next to me why herring is mutor. He explained the heter which I tried to relate here. Had my rov been sitting there, and there wasn’t enough cholent, maybe I would have asked him!
By the way, this is all based on the fact that I’m not going l’kulo. If my rov would be machmir, I would not have the right to choose the psak of anyone else to be meikil.
popa_bar_abba:
You make a good point.
However, the Mechaber is m’chalek, and says the ones in the viscera are osser.
This would lead us to believe that what we’re seeing (in the flesh) today is not the same as what the mechaber is referring to, which is why the gedolim have assered.
I’m not sure if you were hinting at this point.
No, No, No, the worms are the same from Brias Hoilom. Monkeys are the same, elephants are the same and the worms are the same!
estherh:
No one is claiming that these worms did not exist from Brias Ho’olom, just that the Shulchan Aruch was not referring to a case in which worms appear to be migrating from the viscera to the flesh.
#1 Again I repeat, see the Chavos Daas.
#2 From what I have seen the worms entering the flesh of salmon are approximately 1-2mm, borderline nireh l’einaim. When they enter the krill 2 developmental stages earlier they are clearly much smaller then that. The only Posek I have seen concerned about the size at this stage is Rav Vaye, and he explicitly writes that he is NOT basing his concern on specific information, just on lack of trust in the scientists to define nireh l’einaim.
#3 I’m not sure what you don’t understand. Both Rav Kuber’s heter for anisakis as well as the ossrim are based on the literal understanding of the words minei gavli in the Gemara as spontaneous generation. They primarily differ on whether we concern ourselves with observations that seem to point to alternative sources for the worms. According to Rav Dessler we need not understand the Gemara is basing it’s heter on spontaneous generation at all and we can follow the psak of the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch to permit worms found in the flesh of fish even if they certainly originated outside the fish.
#4 I wrote that this derech may SEEM radical, but in truth it is logically compelling and also accepted by many Gedolim.
hello99,
Good morning (evening here).
The sevoro attributed to R’ Dessler is that chaza’l described the metzius in terms of perception, not science. Hence, lice may be killed on Shabbos despite the fact that we now “know” that they are not actually spontaneously generated. (As an aside, my rosh hayeshiva, zt’l, told me that a higher level of emunoh is to believe in chazal’s words literally.) The perception in the case of the lice would overrule the reality. In the case of the anisakis, the perception and reality (according to science) point to migration, not spontaneous generation. The psak of the Shulchan Aruch was never to be matir worms which seem to originate from the outside. The heter of the S.A. is not blanket, rather, a “stomo”.
You explained that you did not mean to say that this approach is radical (I still believe it is) but you did not answer my question; Do you think the anisakis worm is the worm (or at least included in the class of worms) which the Shulchan Aruch discusses, or is the heter based on a sevoro not reflecting the case of the S.A., but yet a compelling sevoro?
hello99,
I haven’t re-answered point #1.
1)”The only reason they would become assur is because of “ha’yotzei min ha’tamei”, and the Chavos Daas 82:2 says this does not apply to separate bria.”
Incorrect -the reason is because it has the status of its host. The reason worms become ossur in animals, Rashi says, is because of Ever Min Hachai. Worms from cheese are milchig. By the way, the Chavos daas is not matir, he makes it an issur d’rabonon.
Daas Yochid: #1 the Chavos Daas is explaining the words in Shulchan Aruch 81:4 that the shilia of a donkey is MUTTAR, not assur miD’Rabannan. He also explicitly differentiates between the halacha of hayotzei min hatamei which does NOT apply to a bria and eiver min hachai which does. If you want to invent a new halacha of “the status of its host” you need to bring a source.
I’m not sure what you want from the previous post. The Gemara that basis the heter of flesh-worms on minei gavli is describing a perception that they originated in the flesh, according to Rav Dessler this is not necessarily dependant on the reality. I am not certain according to Rav Dessler if his rule that Chazal knew the true reason even when they described a non-scientific explanation applies to the Rishonim as well, it would seem not. In our case it would appear that the the Rishonim took minei gavli to literally refer to spontaneous generation. Therefore to answer your question “Do you think the anisakis worm is the worm which the Shulchan Aruch discusses, or is the heter based on a sevoro not reflecting the case of the S.A., but yet a compelling sevoro?” I would answer that it is certainly the same worm, but the true reason to be matir MAY NOT be the one Shulchan Aruch refers to.
hello99:
Bottom line is, do you think chaza’l and the S.A. made a mistake? If so, the discussion ends here.
Of course not. If you have nothing left to say on tachlis other than insinuating such accusations against myself and Rav Dessler, indeed the discussion has ended.
hello99,
I was not insinuating, I was asking (not about R’ Dessler, about you), because some people misunderstand R’ Dessler.
If we assume that chaza’l knew the metzius, but described it differently, according to perception, then, I repeat, the comparison of anisakis to lice does not work. Lice appear to generate spontaneously, anisakis do not. Since I already made this point, which you have not answered, if was fair for me to try to clarify if we’re on the same page on this.
(Rav Falk’s heter and Rav Belsky’s heter both do not assume that chaza’l described the halacha according to perception, but rather that minei gavli does not mean spontaneous generation at all, but the larvae reaching the halachic status of existence in the flesh.)
If you would accept that whereas chaza’l knew the metzius; the rishonim, however, did not know the metzius, (but the scientists do), would it not follow logically that we should not be meikil according to those rishonim, but rather machmir like other rishonim (i.e. the Ramba’m) who asser flesh worms in the flesh)?
To justify this, one would have to postulate that we are bound to the gemoro because the gemoro knew the metzius (but described it differently), and the S.A. did not know the metzius, but we are bound to it for some other reason. I do not believe this to be logical or compelling.
What is more logical and compelling, however, is to treat both the gemoro and the rishonim literally, and treat any case which doesn’t appear the same as an exception, not covered in the S.A. and therfore up to the chachomim of the dor that sees this to pasken the shailoh on its own merit. This is what the gedolei haposkim have done.
Some poskim treat lice the same way and asser today’s lice, assuming they must be different than the ones in chazal’s time, and others feel with certainty that kinim are kinim, and we follow chaza’l and disbelieve the scientists. There is no need to do that in the case of anisakis. They do not act as the gemoro and rishonim describe those worms.
Daas Yochid: “the comparison of anisakis to lice does not work. Lice appear to generate spontaneously, anisakis do not. Since I already made this point, which you have not answered, if was fair for me to try to clarify if we’re on the same page on this.”
I DID answer this earlier in #3. the darna/morana of the Gemara also appear to generate spontaneously, and that is the literal translation of minei gavli. Rav Vaye and Rav Kubers’ heter as well as all the ossrim are based on the understanding that the Gemara ONLY permitted these worms because of spontaneous generation.
“If you would accept that whereas chaza’l knew the metzius, would it not follow logically that we should not be meikil according to those rishonim, but rather machmir like other rishonim (i.e. the Ramba’m) who asser flesh worms in the flesh)?”
Not at all. Why ignore predation.
“What is more logical and compelling, however, is to treat both the gemoro and the rishonim literally”
Do you really think that Spontaneous Generation is “logical and compelling”???
It seems you have conceded that the Chavos Daas does NOT mention any issur dRabannan and there is NO grounds to invent a new din of assuming the host’s status. So what do you find not compelling in predation???
BTW, Michtav me’Eliahu also gives the example of mayim shelanu as being described in the Gemarra as based on the premise that the world is flat. MY Rosh Yeshiva never considered it a higher level of emuna to belive that the world is flat.
“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.”
No they wont say it because its not true. Teh gemara says otherwise and any woman who doesnt believe in what the gemara says deserves to be fired from her job in a yeshiva. How can you let a woman near our dear children who will tell them that the Torah is false?
Daas Yochid: So is it resolved that the heter of predation is both logical and compelling, though not enough to be lenient on an issur dOraisa against the vast majority of the Gedolei HaPoskim?
Mosherose- It is a very easy experiment to do – such eggs do exist, and they will hatch into lice. Do the experiment.
EDITED
Rabbi Avigdor Miller, tz’l said that Chazal never said anything arose by “spontaneous generation”. And Rabbi Miller adds that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. He said that what Chazal were referring to was asexual reproduction which does not fall under the category of Pruru v Rivu. I am not knowledgable enough to discuss this further, but I heard R’ Miller say this in response to a question in his Thurs night series. I heard it (on tape) just a few days ago.
80- So is he saying that Chazal never said worms grow out of dead bodies?
That would make sense for lice which the Gamara describes as not Pareh v’Raveh, and science has discovered that they reproduce through parthenogenesis. However for the worms in the flesh of meat and fish the Gemara uses a different term minei gavli and would require a different explanation.
I just reported what he said. I don’t know anything about the issues. I am not taking a side. If you want clarification of the implications of his statement you will have to turn somewhere else.
“No they wont say it because its not true. Teh gemara says otherwise and any woman who doesnt believe in what the gemara says deserves to be fired from her job in a yeshiva. How can you let a woman near our dear children who will tell them that the Torah is false?”
Mosherose: Head lice do not generate spontaneously – they come from nits (eggs) that are laid by live crawling lice that go onto the heads of unsuspecting people. They do NOT come from dirt (OH gosh I am starting to itch just writing about this), and plenty of otherwise clean people can get it. Most notably, people coming back from overseas might bring it with them, or kids in camp situations (daycamp as well as sleepaway)often are infested. I have had ONE summer many years ago when my kids had licwe, and you had better believe I spent several agonizingly exacting weeks treating my ENTIRE family (presume they all have it if one does), and then checking for nits every single day. It is a tedious and disgusting job, but once you have seen either a louse or a nit (grayish pearly teardrop shape that attaches to the hair shafts), you will NEVER forget it. It can easily be seen with the naked eye, and the heads must be inspected in good light (preferably outdoors, so the nits are not brought back in the house). You cannot check too well. There is nothing spontaneous about this, and if the Gemarah says otherwise, then perhaps the Gemarah is actually talking about something else entirely. It certainly is not correct information about head lice, no matter what you think.
Body lice might be a different story, as I know absolutely nothing about that (B”H)and I am unqualified to comment. But I doubt that it is spontaneously generated, either. Even the maggots that we find in dead bodies generate from microscopic eggs that are ALWAYS present on us (now there is a nauseating thought). If you could actually see what is on your own eyelids, you would vomit. The larvae hatch and feed on decomposing flesh (as Hashem intended), but they are always present, from what I have been taught.
Your remark about the women who check children for head lice, is inappropriate, and your zeal to defend the Gemarah, while laudable, is based on a refusal to call a spade a spade. Lice eggs are VERY visible and very gross, despite your assertion to the contrary. You are mistaken. A person who insists he is right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, needs to ask himself why he needs to be so insistent. In any case, the head checkers are not telling our dear children that the Torah is false. They are only telling them to come closer so they check their heads for nits.
oomis: chill out. He was being tounge-in-cheek, sarcastic.
Hello99,
I have not changed my opinion, I’ve been busy. You’re right about the Chavos Daas, but it’s a stretch to rely on it against most poskim.(Whether he was matir even mid’rabbonon was a side point, but you’re right.)
I’ve been going through R’ Falk’s teshuva, and I am trying to get a copy of R’ Belsky’s, which is not publicly available, since I hear that it’s different than what I heard on the 17-18 min. audio.
You’re correct that R’ Falk goes with the m’halach attributed to R’ Dessler, although I find it strange, as I have already said, because since we’re seeing anisakis in the viscera, in the flesh, and in between, according to our perception (not just science), there is no SG going on. R’ Falk is basing his heter on the assumption that what we have today is no different than in the times of the gemoro and S.A.(I think you assumed otherwise, but this is how I read his teshuvoh). I have more to say, but shabbos is coming (lots to do); we’ll iy”H continue later.I assume you’ve logged out by now in EY, so I’ll wish you a gut voch.
Daas Yochid: Great hearing back from you. I’ve enjoyed this discussion and was afraid you had left the CR.
“You’re right about the Chavos Daas, but it’s a stretch to rely on it against most poskim”
I agree, I have said repeatedly I would not permit the fish l’maaseh against the vast majority of Poskim. Not because the Chavos Daas in not reliable, I’m not aware of anyone who disagrees, but for other factors.
“I am trying to get a copy of R’ Belsky’s, which is not publicly available, since I hear that it’s different than what I heard on the 17-18 min. audio”
So I gather. If you get a hold of it I’d be interested in seeing it.
“R’ Falk is basing his heter on the assumption that what we have today is no different than in the times of the gemoro and S.A., I think you assumed otherwise”
No, I agree that he is assuming things are the same and that Spontaneous Generation NEVER existed, and that Chazal were aware of this. However the ossrim ARE assuming that things changed, that the Gemara is describing Spontaneous Generation that once existed, but not in our Anisakis today.
I like talking about bugs.
Worms in cheese are muttar as long as they remain on the plate. If they go on the table, they are muttar midina but we are machmir
hello,
What I meant by “against most poskim” was not our contemporary poskim, I know we’re in agreement halochoh l’maaseh. I meant that the Chavos Daas is learning the sugya of shilia in a novel way, to answer some kushyos. There is definitely basis for the sevoro that worms have the status of their host, in fact, it’s the simple pshat in the gemoro (Chullin 67b, our sugya) regarding worms in an animal being ever min hachai.
More later, iy”H.
Concerning the different terms used in Chullin and Shabbos, it’s likely that since in Shabbos the gemoro is dealing with netilas “neshomoh”, the term poro v’rovo is used, because it refers to a higher “life” form. The gemoro in Chullin might be more concerned with where the tolaas came from (i.e. not “mei’almo”) because only certain types of sh’rotzim are ossur.
Hi Daas.
“I meant that the Chavos Daas is learning the sugya of shilia in a novel way”
Does anyone disagree with the Chavos Daas? I haven’t found anyone.
“There is definitely basis for the sevoro that worms have the status of their host, in fact, it’s the simple pshat in the gemoro regarding worms in an animal being ever min hachai”
See the Chavos Daas again where he explains that eiver min hachai is an exception.
Daas: I’m not sure your point in the second post. I was addressing the mod’s quote from Rav Miller that lice engage only in asexual reproduction. Anisakis reproduce sexually to the bet of my knowledge.
hello,
The point I was addressing:”However for the worms in the flesh of meat and fish the Gemara uses a different term minei gavli and would require a different explanation.” If you mean that they are different because the science is different, we’ve come back to our old discussion of literal chaza’l vs. science. I thought you were bringing a proof that they are different in the gemoro from the change in terminology, and I suggested an alternative reason for the change of terms.
I’ll address the C.D. soon, bl’n.
In addition, he is arguing on the ??”? and the ??”? as ???? ??? brings.
See also ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?”? that only the ???? ?? ???? is ???? because of ??????. The ?”? might agree that the reason is ?????? but hold the same for every ????.
Daas: Huh?!?!?!? Shulchan Aruch says the shilia of a chamor is MUTAR, NOT miyus and NOT yotzei.
Here is Rav Belsky shlita’s teshuva about worms in fish:
Edit: It might be easier to read the teshuva here:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/06/rav-belskys-tshuva-on-fish-worms.html
(Click on “Fullscreen” to enlarge the view.)
Kasha: Thank you VERY much. I read the teshuva and was very disappointed.
While I respect Rav Belsky very much and think there are good reasons to potentially be meikil, I felt that the teshuva did not do justice to the meikilim and relied too much on attacking the ossrim rather than laying out a clear line of reasoning to be matir.
The bottom line is he writes it is ridiculous to think the anisakis is any different than the worms permitted by the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch, however he never clearly explains why the Gemara and SA would logically permit these worms based on the metzius as we now know it to be. Also some of the reasons he gives for dismissing the ossrim are not at all compelling.
hello,
I do not want to address R’ Belsky’s ????? until I finish reading it (soon, ??”?), but from what I’ve seen so far, you’re right on the mark. Please explain, though, what you think the good reasons to be meikil are.
Regarding my last post and your response, I think you’ll need to go through the sugya to see what I mean. In short, the two ways of learning the ???? of ???? are 1)It’s not a ???? at all (and that’s the meaning of the word ?????).This is the??? of the ???”?.
2)It is so ????? that it is not considered a food (and THAT’S the meaning of the word ?????). This is the ???”?’s ???, and all of the ??????? I mentioned learn this way.
Whether or not ??? ?? ??? is unique is a productof this ??????, and if you learn like the second ???, there is no difference between ??? ?? ??? and other ???????. The ????? of ???? ????? must then be because they are considered part of the animal.
Rabbi Meisels research on fish worms:
(This material was presented at the recent OU meeting.)
The forwarded message contains R Belsky’s Shita on the anisakis worm.
The following is an article by a student of R’ Belsky explaining R’ Belsky’s stance on the anisakis parasite in fish on a basic level.
It is written under a pseudonym.
Feel free to forward this: the author has granted permission.
__________________________________________________
Kashrus of Worms In Flesh of Fish
By: Rabbi A. Margolin
The tzibbur has recently been flooded with literature pertaining to a recent tumult in reference to the presence of parasitic worms in fish. The following is a synopsis of several shiurim that Hagaon Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and senior posek of the OU has delivered on the inyan.
[these are shrimp like creatures]
The Gemara, as interpreted by Tosfos, says that the worms that are found in the stomach of a fish are forbidden but the worms found in the flesh of the fish are permitted. The Bais Yosef in Yoreh Deah in Siman 84 says that the reason the worms in the stomach are assur is because perhaps they came into the fish as fully developed worms and thus were included in the issur of sheretz hamayim [the Pri Megadim paskens this way as well]. This is in contrast with the worms that entered the fish that did not have the status of sheretz hamayim. In other words, when one observes worms in the stomach he does not know if it is mutar or assur. The Shulchan Aruch rules clearly that worms found in the flesh of the fish are always permitted. It is possible that Chazal knew that worms that were sheretz hamayim would not enter the flesh of the fish.
[Even those that disagree with the Chavos Daas would agree in this case, since minei gavli as will soon be explained.]
It is important to note that the Shulchan Aruch, when allowing consumption of worms in the flesh of fish does not differentiate between worms; the heter is a blanket heter. Had there been a limitation on types of worms the Shulchan Aruch would have indicated as such. This especially identified in the time of the Mechaber. Futhermore, there is no way for a lay person without expensive equipment to determine which worm he is looking at; whether it is the anisakis or any other type of worm. If we were to forbid the anisakis, then we are forbidding all worms, contrary to the psak of the Shulchan Aruch!
One writer suggested that the psak of the Shulchan Aruch permitting the worms is limited to a specific parasite that enter the fish from the outside and is microscopic. This is simply absurd! Had the heter been limited to one type of worm then the Shulchan Aruch would have said so.
Others expressed concern that once we know that it is the same worm from the stomach that is migrating to the flesh and it is established that worms in the stomach are assur then how can those same worms subsequently become mutar in the flesh. However, since the Bais Yosef explained that the issur is because it is a safek there is no issue with them once they migrated to the flesh as previously explained.
It is noteworthy to mention that a recently publicized letter which argues that anisakis should be assur is actually the most convincing the proof that it is mutar. This is because all the reasoning stated therein to prove that the worms are assur, would also apply equally to all other worms found in fish rendering all worms in fish assur. However this cannot be as Chazal clearly states that they are all mutar. Hence, the only possible alternative and consequently the truth, is to say that the reasoning is faulty and that they are all mutar. [The fault in the reasoning should be easily understood by anyone who read the forgoing material, but whether one discovered the flaw or not is immaterial as no amount of reasoning in the world could lead to an absurd conclusion – that the psak of the Shulchan Aruch permitting worms is rendered obsolete].
In conclusion, the psak of the Shulchan Aruch, permitting those worms found in the flesh of the fish, applies to the anisakis worm just as it applies to any other worm.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.