- This topic has 369 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There are numerous sources that show the ecological cycle of the anisakids. For example:
From Science and Nature – Natural History of Anisakids:
To complete their life cycle, anisakid worms must pass through three very different hosts:
2. Inside the egg, a tiny larva undergoes a period of development before hatching. Eggs containing larvae, or hatched larvae, are eaten by tiny sea animals such as krill (shrimp-like crustaceans) as they sink toward the ocean floor or drift in the current. (Some are eaten only after settling on the bottom.)
5. If the fish dies, the capsule breaks down and the larva moves away from the place where it has lain dormant. If the fish has been eaten by another fish, the larva simply moves to a location in the new host and becomes dormant again. If the fish dies but is not eaten, the larva may move from the abdominal organs into the muscles. If the fish is eaten by a marine mammal, the larva breaks free in the stomach and develops to an adult worm.
6. Worms that reach adulthood and mate in the stomach of a marine mammal produce eggs that are released into the water to start the cycle over again.
7. Larvae that are accidentally swallowed alive by a human usually cannot mature but typically cause a painful illness called anisakiasis, or anisakidosis. (Anisakiasis refers specifically to infection with A. simplex; anisakidosis is a more general term meaning infection with one of the anisakid worms.) Anisakiasis was first diagnosed in the 1950s.
The larva’s ability to move within a dead fish, or from one fish to another has important implications for the spread of the parasite:
The largest whale, the blue whale, eats tons of tiny krill in a day.
I’ve read R’ Belsky’s ?????, (the original) and I don’t understand all of it (I would probably need a few weeks to learn the ?????? well enough to begin to understand) but I think I see his overall approach – that he finds it hard to accept that the ??? of the ??”? is not referring to the anisakis worm which is prevalent today. Based on this, he seems to reject every ????? in the ?????, who learn ????? ???? means it actualy originated in the flesh (whether originate is to be meant as spontaneous generation is a side point), and goes with ??”?, according to his understanding.
R’ Falk begins his ????? with this approach, that the ??? of the ??”? must apply today.
I feel that by insisting on this, they are forced to learn the ???? and ??????? in a way which is very much at odds with the normal way one would learn.
R’ Chatzkel Roth, I am told (I haven’t seen or heard of a ?????), also has this approach, but I don’t know if he even has presented a way of explaining the ????.
What we have here, in essence, is not so much a ?????? in the ???? and ??????, but in how literally to treat the words of the ??”?. The ?????? in the ???? and ?????? is merely a by-product.
It is time to lay this matter to rest,together with sheitlech etc. The noisemakers have done thier damadge. Even though the halocho has been again established to be true and the worms kosher, mant people are turned off eating many types of fish and as Rav Belsky writes in his original tshuva, they will be saying “Zocharni es Hadogo”. Someone is gonna give din vecheshbon for the mess and pain that he caused to so many yiden.
Someone is gonna give din vecheshbon for the mess and pain that he caused to so many yiden.
This does not sound like you esther. I’m sure this was done purely l’shaim shamayim to prevent Yiddim from unintentionally being over an aveira.
HIE,
Firstly, thank you for starting a thread which has become more and more interesting.
To address your point, about what “minei gavli” means, nothing was proven, just speculated upon, and, I believe, erroneously. Please see Rashi in Chullin (58a) who says that the loshon of “godlo” specifically refers to an entire growth process,”kol giduleho”, not just a partial one. You can look it up here; I’ll give you a link.
http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=31&daf=58&format=pdf
See also Maggid Mishna, who uses the same term “gadli” as Rashi, yet also uses the term “mis’havim mimenu”, the same exact term which Rav Belsky Shlit”a uses in his teshuva to describe spontaneous generation!
http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=101106&rid=4593
Have you seen R’ Falk Shlit”a” teshuva? He learns Rashi as I do.
See also Ramba”m in Sefer Hamitzvos who uses terminology describing spontaneous generation.
and explains the misconception that denies it.
see also Rashb”a at the end of the sugya in Chullin 67b.
Estherh:
“It is time to lay this matter to rest,together with sheitlech etc.”
I agree, but for a different reason. Just like we don’t hear too much about the sheitlach any more, because no sheitel macher will use Indian hair, so too, the stores should only sell the fish which have no problem.
My local supermarket is makpid, but the display is still full with many types of delicious varieties of fish.
V’yochli anuvim v’yisbui.
Daas: I’m familiar with the sugya but don’t understand your comment “only the ???? ?? ???? is ???? because of ??????.” Shulchan Aruch clearly states that the shilia of a chamor is MUTAR and noone argues regarding a chamor. Maybe you wrote a typo and that is what threw me off?
“Please explain, though, what you think the good reasons to be meikil are”
As we have discussed at length the past week, I think that predation is a strong sevara to be matir.
Even according to the Kreisi u’Pleisi and Pri Chadash it is likely that worms would be mutar as they are also mius. Even if not, they would certainly not be worse than tzir dagim teme’im which is only dRabbanan as Tosafos Chullin 98 and the Rosh Avoda Zara write because there is no derasha for yotzei min dagim teme’im. Once the issue here has been reduced to asheila on a dRabbanan it is MUCH easier to rely on the meikilim.
I agree that Rav Belsky’s understanding of minei gavli, with all due respect, is “problematic”.
“What we have here, in essence, is not so much a ?????? in the ???? and ??????, but in how literally to treat the words of the ??”?. The ?????? in the ???? and ?????? is merely a by-product.”
Do you have a problem with that?
“Once the issue here has been reduced to asheila on a dRabbanan it is MUCH easier to rely on the meikilim.”
Why would enyone be meikel on a drabannan? Do we ignore Chazals words when its too inconvenent?
hello9;
Sorry; you’re correct, it was a typo; I meant ????.
Worms aren’t ????? enough to be ?????; otherwise ??????? and ???? ????? would be ????!
I have to think about your point about ???; and we both know that ??? ????? ?????. Please remember though that the ?????? are asuuming it’s ??? ????; the point of ???? is just a problem ??????of the ??????.
We started this discussion, if I recall correctly, with your assumption that either R’ Belsky’s ???? or R’ Falk’s ???? are more ????? than the ?????. So if I’m not mistaken, we should now continue our discussion of R’ Falk’s ?????. Have you seen it? I have, and while I’ll admit to not having read all of it, I think I’ve gotten the main points down, and I hope to continue our dialogue on it soon. I’ll just make one point now; if ????? ???? is based on perception (please let me know if this is what you think R’ Falk means) then the whole lifecycle/predation sevoro should be moot, because in the times of Chaza’l it wasn’t perceived that way.
“Do you have a problem with that? “
I don’t know if I have a “problem” with that approach, but it definitely puts a different perspective on this, and I think it’s much harder to be ???? on instinct rather than on how to learn the ?????.
Nice to hear from you again.
Mosherose:
hello99 is correct that if it was a ????? it would be easier to say ???? because ??? ????? ?????.
This is in no way a ????? to ??”? because ?? ???? ??? ????.
Please read my post to him (if you haven’t already) where I wrote with a little more detail.
Rav Elyashiv Rules Permissively on Herring: Forbids Wild Salmon & Other Fish Unless Inspected
(Thursday, June 10th, 2010)
[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.
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.
So what’s new?
Hi, cherrybim,
What’s new is that R’ Elyashiv has confirmed the psak of R’ Karp that despite the relatively high level of infestation of herring (which you had suspected) it’s still ???? to eat processed herring (pickled, shmaltz, matjes, etc.).
Daas: “Worms aren’t ????? enough to be ?????; otherwise ??????? and ???? ????? would be ????!”
Sorry but that isn’t true. Pirsha is only a heter from the issur of yotzei min hatamei, which is not the problem with kukiani which are independantly assur as sheretz hamayim. See Shulchan Aruch YD 104:3 that a sheretz retains it’s issur no matter how mius it may be, though it will not asser a ta’aruves because of NTLP. Additionally the Rema 103:1 writes that a sheretz may lose its status as a bria if it is mius, but it clearly retains the issur.
I have not seen Rav Falk’s teshuva, only what Rav Vaye quotes from him. Is it printed in Machaze Eliyahu? Rav Vaye quotes him as being mattir based on predation and writes that Rav Fischer, Rav SZ Auerbach, Rav Bentzion Abba Shaul and other Gedolei HaPoskim agreed.
“I’ll just make one point now; if ????? ???? is based on perception then the whole lifecycle/predation sevoro should be moot, because in the times of Chaza’l it wasn’t perceived that way”
I didn’t understand that he was explaining the words minei gavli as much as stating that the Halachaca is muttar, but again I did not see the original source.
“I think it’s much harder to be ???? on instinct rather than on how to learn the ?????.”
I wouldn’t call this being mattir on “instinct”. The responsibility of a Posek has always been to creatively use his knowledge of the entire realm of Halacha from every possible angle to determine whether an issue is muttar or assur. He is not limited to explaining a single sugya.
hi, hello,
I don’t understand, then, your point when you wrote “Even according to the Kreisi u’Pleisi and Pri Chadash it is likely that worms would be mutar as they are also mius.”
The issue here, primarily, is that according to the ??????, these anisakis are ??? ????. Just like ???????. Who knows? Maybe they are ??????? which now infest the ???.
I want to go back to my point about ???? ????? being a ??? of the ????, and by extension, so would ???? ?????? of ???? ?????. There is no ??? of ???? for an ???? ?????, yet many ?????? forbid selling wormy meat to an ???? ?????. The ????? is not ???? ?? ????, but, rather, that it is part of the animal (and remains ??? ?? ??? even after ????? because it has its own ????).
Gut voch Daas: “I don’t understand, your point about mius. The issue here, is that according to the ??????, these anisakis are ??? ????.”
Let me try to clear up your confusion. To refresh your memory, I posited a potential heter based on predation and you countered that the worms should obtain the halacha of the shrimp host and become assur as ???? ?? ????. I responded with the ???? ??? permitting ???? and you replied that the ??”? ???”? explain the heter of ???? as ?????. I stated that the same ????? they use to permit ???? could apply to worms, and my heter of predation could be ???”?. Now is it clear?
I’m not sure what you want from ??? ?? ???, it doesn’t apply to fish.
Very true, which is why I am uncomfortable with the heterim based on minei gavli. However if these worms were never ???? ?? ???? they are mutar based on other, easily understood seifim in S.A. and it is not necessary to resolve the understanding of darna and YD 84:16.
Hello, a Gut Voch to you too.
1) Microscopic eggs or larvae are swallowed by krill. To assume ????, we would have to postulate that they are never (or almost never) swallowed when at a visible size.
3) When the krill is digested, and the anisakis remains in the ?? ????, it is not considered a ????. Although we are ????? on ???? ???? ????, we are somehow being ???? (the ??? ???? directly addresses this point).
The vast majority of local Vaad Hakashrus agencies in the United States follow the OU standards as stated in their by-laws. Anyone know about other countries?
Cherrybim,
I’m under the impression that in Toronto, the COR follows R’ Shlomo Miller.
Daas: “The ???? of ??? ????? should apply to any ?????”
But I already clearly demonstrated that it does NOT.
Again NO. They are independent ???? ???? and therefore not permitted by the shechita, Also they may not be sold to a goy even if they develop in dead meat, clearly not because they obtained the status of their host.
This is what we have been discussing the past week, and as I have repeatedly mentioned Rav Vaye quotes this heter from Rav Falk’s sefer on ????? ??????. BTW there is no teshuva from Rav Falk on the topic in Machaze Eliyahu, and Mod42 has not responded to my request to forward the teshuva you sent. Your hesitations are accurate, we have already discussed most of them. #1 I have demonstrated that this is very likely if not certain, #2 I have explained previously and in this post that there is no such thing as becoming “part of the krill” other than ????, which certainly does not apply according to the ???”? and probably according to the ??”? and ??”? as well. Even if it did it would only be like??? ?????. Three Rav Vaye addresses this and disagrees with Rav Vozner. He differentiates between travelling parallel from one fruit to another and when a large fish ingests a small fish with a worm in its stomach. I think this ????? is logical, but admittedly it is the weakest link.
Again Rav Vaye writes that Rav SZ Auerbach Rav Fischer and Rav Abba Shaul were ???? based on exactly this ????.
cherrybim: I personally know of a specific local Vaad HaKashrus headed by a leading member of the OU that does not permit infested fish.
“I’m under the impression that in Toronto, the COR follows R’ Shlomo Miller.”
Go on the COR site; many kashrus alerts and news items including fish. Not one mention of the fish worm issue. And no mention of Rav Miller.
“I personally know of a specific local Vaad HaKashrus headed by a leading member of the OU that does not permit infested fish.”
Who’s that?
hello,
I have not seen Rav Vaye’s writings. Rabbi Yair Hoffman reports on Rav Vaye’s recent drosho in the Five Towns. “Rav Vaya also stated that if one did observe an anisakis worm go from the stomach to the flesh than that worm is forbidden to be consumed. He further explained that his position and those of many Gedolim that he spoke to is that one does not have to be concerned for this.”
According to the ???? we have discussed, even if it was observed going from the stomach to the flesh, it would be ????.
hello,
I forgot that I have the recent release by R’ Vaye. I will iy”H check to see if it’s consistent with what Rabbi Hoffman reported. I will also bl”n get back to you on the other aspects of your last post.
I have created a new email account for the sole purpose of sending you R’ Falk’s teshuvoh. You can contact me (anonymously, if you wish), and I will bl”n send it.
EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED BY MODERATOR
hello,
I started going through R’ Vaye’s recent release to YW, and I find it to be consistant with what R’ Hoffman wrote. His main reason for ???? is that we are unconvinced that they came ?????. He presents R’ Falk’s heter (as an ????) in an oversimplified manner (skipping the part about the krill, thereby avoiding the problems of ???? and ????)and merely writes that all of the ?????? you mentioned, plus others (most of whom now assur!) were ????. There is no reason to believe that based on the new information, all of the ??????, who then said ????, would now say ????, just as R’ Elyashiv and several others have.
hello,
In Rav Vaye’s letter which was sent to YWN, it says that Rav Falk’s original ????? was in “????? ?????? ??????”.
Cherrybim,
In a shiur given by Rabbi Shmuel Marcus, “Worms in Fish: When Torah and Science Collide?”, given on Sunday May 23, 2010
he says he spoke to the head of the COR which frequently consults with Rav Miller, who assurs, and the COR is currently investigating the prevalence of anisakis. I have posted a link to this shiur on page 2 of this thread.
hello,
“Also they may not be sold to a[n ???”?] even if they develop in dead meat, clearly not because they obtained the status of their host.”
Where does it say this? It says just the opposite in ??”?.
Daas: “According to the ???? we have discussed, even if it was observed going from the stomach to the flesh, it would be ????.”
100% true. While Rav Vaye quotes and explains Rav Falk’s heter, he personally does not agree, as I have mentioned in the past.
“There is no reason to believe that based on the new information, all of the ??????, who then said ????, would now say ????, just as R’ Elyashiv and several others have”
No, the new evidence presented by Rav Revach proves that anisakis originate outside the flesh of the fish. This is only relevant to those who were previously matir based on the assumption that Chazal permitted flesh-worms because they do NOT come from outside. For those who permit the worms even knowing they come from outside as I am proposing and quoting numerous Poskim who agree, the new discoveries are irrelevant and there is no reason in the world to change their mind.
“In Rav Vaye’s letter which was sent to YWN, it says that Rav Falk’s original ????? was in “????? ?????? ??????”.”
I know and said so, but I don’t have access to that sefer or any newer teshuva of his. Mod42 has still not forwarded your pdf and they deleted your email address.
I assume you are referring to ?? ??: ?”? ?????. However Tosafos only writes this relating to worms that are ???? ?? ???? and not ones that come from outside.
cherrybim: Rabbi Luban. But I don’t know from where you get the chutzpa to challenge me to name my sources, when you have still not provided a single name of the “vast majority of American Poskim” who permit, despite my repeated requests.
Also, while Rav Belsky personally is mattir it is NOT OU policy. Rav Genack who has the final word on policy has decided to be machmir.
“he says he spoke to the head of the COR which frequently consults with Rav Miller, who assurs, and the COR is currently investigating the prevalence of anisakis”
You can do all the lomdus you want with regard to this issue, kol hakavod. But Halacha is far too serious for your determining a p’sak by third degree implication, and investigating does not amount to a p’sak of treif.
“while Rav Belsky personally is mattir it is NOT OU policy”
Go to http://www.ou.org
cherrybim: I don’t know what you see there, that isn’t even the link to the Kashrus department of the OU.
cherrybim,
Your original post read “The vast majority of local Vaad Hakashrus agencies in the United States follow the OU standards as stated in their by-laws. Anyone know about other countries?”.
I am not giving any psak halocho; I was just trying to be helpful and answer your question!
hello99,
I’m interested to know your source that the OU is machmir (by now I hope you realize that I’m not challenging you, just genuinely curious).
From OU WEBSITE:
http://www.ouradio.org/index.php/ouradio/comment/9742/
Also see below:
OU Policy on Worms in Fish – 29 Adar 5770 – March 15, 2010
By Rabbi Chaim Goldberg
Recently there has been considerable discussion about worms in fish. Some Rabbonim understand the halacha (as formulated in Shulchan Aruch) to be that worms which hatch in the flesh are permitted, while worms that are swallowed whole and enter the viscera are prohibited.
Both of the worms migrate to the flesh. Based on this understanding these Rabbonim have stated that today, worms in fish are prohibited. This is because scientists maintain that contemporary worms known as Anisakis enter the flesh through the viscera and then migrate to the flesh. This is not a new issue and the question has been raised repeatedly in recent years. The OU has reviewed this matter and found it not to be an issue.
[Chulin 67B]
Rav Belsky further feels that it is irrelevant whether the tolaas entered from the viscera or from some other way, whether it happened when the fish was alive or after it died. As proof, he notes that S.A. (ibid) says that tolayim which come after the death of the fish are permitted. Rav Belsky felt these tolayim must have come from the viscera, because there was no other reasonable source for tolayim entering a fish after death and yet they are permitted.
Some are concerned that the tolayim found in the flesh are actually the forbidden tolayim originally found in the viscera (Shulchan Aruch forbids the tolayim found in the viscera). Rav Belsky felt this claim is not based on any significant research. Rav Belsky felt that his own inquiries from qualified experts indicate that the opposite is true, and that the tolayim in question are found in the flesh while it was alive. Furthermore, Rav Belsky feels even tolayim entering the flesh from the viscera would be permitted as per above.
[halachically invisible]).
so I was reviewing tolaim today and I’m wondering the following. How do we know that the worms which we witness migrating from the stomach to the flesh did not originate in the flesh and migrate to the stomach and then back? If that is the case, they are muttar.
(I generally assume that unless we can show that there is a metzius which the shulchan aruch does not address, that the metzius of the shulchan aruch is correct.)
“I don’t know what you see there, that isn’t even the link to the Kashrus department of the OU”
I see at least a dozen links to the OU Kashrus Department on the OU WEBSITE: http://www.ou.org
hello,
“For those who permit the worms even knowing they come from outside as I am proposing and quoting numerous Poskim who agree, the new discoveries are irrelevant and there is no reason in the world to change their mind.”
In theory, I agree. I am questioning, however, whether any of these poskim would have been ???? based on R’ Revach’s evidence. The poskim you bring were quoted by R’ Vaye, who does not accept R’ Falk’s ????. It’s reasonable to assume that they were ???? based on lack of evidence that they come from the outside, especially since most of those ?????? who were asked recently are now ????.
“Tosafos only writes this relating to worms that are ???? ?? ???? and not ones that come from outside.”
100%, correct, and yes, I meant that ??????. I should have explained that I’m making a (very) small leap here; if worms that are ???? ?? ???? are part of the ???, then worms which move from ??? to ????? (become visible) in the ??? should, as well. After all, as I understand this ????, they are halachically equivalent.
Do you accept my ???-? from the ??”?? I have another one as well, from a ??”? I saw quoted (I don’t remember where) that worms from cheese are milchig. You can say your ????? in these cases as well, but as I’ve said, I think they are the same, and if you don’t believe in SG, you must either accept that becoming ???? in the ??? is equivalent, or throw out all of these ?????.
To address point #1 from earlier (microscopic), aside from the fact that the evidence is far from convincing (I know someone whose research indicates otherwise, and R’ Belsky’s retraction on this point seems to be based on this as well), it is quite likely that we could not rely on this evidence ?????, since it is only brought by the ??????, not observable to us. See ??? ???? on this point, as well as R’ Belsky’s statement, which I freely admit to using out of context, “??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????.”
BTW, nowhere does it say in ??”? or ?????? that some worms which are ????? are ????!
I hope you have received R’ Falk’s teshuva by now, Moderator 42 informed me that he was kind enough (my words!) to send it to you.
cherrybim,
Do you have anything more recent than three months ago?
popa bar abba:
Your point was made by Rabbi Kuber and refuted by Rabbi Scher. In short, the fact that there are far more worms in the viscera (what you call “stomach”) than in the flesh, and there are far more in the parts of the flesh that are near the viscera, is considered ????? ???? that they came ?????.
Hello,
More on ???? ??????.
From Animal Diversity Web:
“Anisakis simplex juveniles range in size from less than 5 mm as second stage juveniles to more than 30 mm in their fourth stage. (Barnes, 1987; Brusca and Brusca, 2003; Roberts and Janovy, 2000; Smith, 1983)”.
I believe approximately .04mm is considered ???? ??????.
Even according to smaller estimates, it is longer than Milvan, (which we know is visible) but narrower. An additional factor to consider is that according to some reports, they are swallowed when they are free-swimming. Their movement makes them more ???? ??????.
“more recent than three months ago?”
Do you want poskim to validate their p’sak daily or weekly?
The OU site affirms its policy and is current. The OU informs consumers immediately concerning alerts or changes.
cherrybim,
You make a lot of sense, but two things make me hesitate. Firstly, although ordinarily, the OU might publicize a policy change, in this case they may feel it would be a bizoyon to an odom godol. Secondly, I’m sure hello99 heard it from somewhere, which is why I asked him for his source, which he may or may not be able to post.
“Firstly” and “Secondly”
Surprised you said.
Firstly, when it comes to halacha and the rabim, the OU and Rav Belsky know that ultimately they are responsible only to Hashem and would not mislead anyone if they felt the halacha was otherwise. There are many ways to save face if that’s a concern; just look at the posters in the CR, they are the best at that.
Secondly, as someone indicated earlier, “heard it from somewhere” doesn’t cut it in halacha. It’s like saying that the hashgacha on a restaurant is “everyone eats there”.
cherrybim,
Firstly, it’s not an issue of misleading anyone, most people knows there’s an issue here, and rely on their own rov; and even if someone relies on the OU as their rov, if Rabbi Genack does change OU policy, it’s to be “shoveh l’chol nefesh”, not because he feels R’ Belsky’s ???? is unreliable. If he felt so, then, yes, he would publicize it.
Secondly, I hope we are all smart enough to not rely on anything we see on the web, especially in th CR. “Heard it somewhere” certainly does not cut it in halocho, as you so correctly say, but it does tempt me do do further research.
“I personally know of a specific local Vaad HaKashrus headed by a leading member of the OU that does not permit infested fish….Rabbi Luban”
How do you know that Rabbi Luban holds that the fish is treif?
Daas: “It’s reasonable to assume that they were ???? based on lack of evidence that they come from the outside”
Again NO. They were aware the worms came from outside and were matir because they were inside the shrimp.
“Do you accept my ???-? from the ??”?”
I don’t know were to find it, could you please provide a specific location. In any event what I wrote regarding Tosafos would likely apply to the Pri Megadim.
“I have another one as well, from a ??”? I saw quoted (I don’t remember where) that worms from cheese are milchig”
I’ve never seen such a ??”?, but it would answer an old question of mine why the ??”? writes that one only need wait 6 hours after hard cheese if it is wormy with sharp tasting worms and one eats the worms. If one would spread ????? on cheese it would not require 6 hours so why are the worms different? According to this the worms do not make the cheese sharp, they are themselves the cheese. However your ?????? aside, how could there be a new halacha of “acquiring the host’s status” with absolutely no explicit mention in Gemara, Rishonim or Achronim.
“I believe approximately .04mm is considered ???? ??????.”
Rav Belsky is quoted saying that 1-2 mm is NOT ???? ??????.
Thank you, yes I did get Rav Falk’s teshuva. Now I need to find time to read all 35 pages of it.
cherrybim: you don’t deserve a response because you don’t validate you own claims. However let me say that I personally witnessed a local proprietor directed to remove any fish not on Rav Bess’s approved list.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.