☕ DaasYochid ☕

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 20,351 through 20,400 (of 20,466 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Worms In Fish #771418
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    I don’t have sources to prove those quotes, but I was addressing a claim which also had no sources.

    The only provable source I know of regarding R’ Dovid’s opinion is from R’ Bess, who says R’ Dovid recommends to be ?????.

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=59924

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771417
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    If I’m not mistaken, I think some companies were already checking for and removing worms from fish. Not for reasons of ????, but because people like oomis would otherwise not buy their fish. A&B always claimed that their fish was worm free. I think Dagim also did.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771416
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    This from the last link which I posted.

    Brooklyn’s Tap Water Isn’t Kosher

    According to the following email:

    Subject: Important Notice 18 lyar 5764

    Dear Chaver, It has been ascertained that the city water contains many bugs (Sheratzei Hamayim), and therefore one may not drink the water even though the sinks have strainers [the Water Department is aware of this, but since this does not pose a health hazard they allow it]. In order to drink the water one needs a filter which will pick up anything 30 microns or bigger. Washing dishes, doing laundry and showering are permitted without a filter. More information will be forthcoming bli neder in the coming days. Please pass this information on to others.

    Rav Feivel Cohen

    It’s possible that he would now agree that a less efficient filter

    is okay since most of the bugs are larger, and this was based on initial findings (but I think he was thorough on all of the details before he issued the psak). Either way, I don’t think he changed his mind on the ???? aspect.

    If you don’t mind checking the ?”? again, he says either aged 6 months or wormy require 6 hrs. The ??”? is qualifying the case of the wormy cheese (in that case it’s only required if the worms are still there), not arguing on the case of the aged cheese (even if there are no worms in it). Have you found anyone who argues on the case of the wormy cheese?

    ” Simple. When it is ????, it is a ??? ????? ?? ????. As far as the anisakis, ??”?. If it’s a ????, it’s ???? as a ??? ????. If not, it’s still a crustacean (in ???.)”

    Huh?”

    I guess not so simple. I’ll try again.

    In any case that the worms have the ??? of a ???, they will not have the ??? of ??? or ????”? which is why neither are listed, although I think we both agree that these worms have the ??? of ????”? (although we would disagree about ???).

    Do you know if Rav Elyashiv and Rav Vosner would require 6 hours on muenster or mozzerella? Or is the Israeli cheese stronger?

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771410
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    HIE,

    I’ve heard that quote. I’ve also heard that he said “I wish I could say it’s ????, but R’ Elyashiv said it’s ????.” I’ve also heard that the reason the Vaad of Flatbush is ????? on the worms is because R’ Dovid told R’ Bluth that he cannot be ????. I also heard (this one from a ?”? who had just minutes earlier discussed it with him) that he absolutely accepts the simple ??? in the ???? that worms generate in the fish (not like R’ Belsky or R’ Falk), and that if they were not ???? and then became ???? in the fish, it would have the same ???, and that whether or not this is what happens is the ???? here.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771409
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    I don’t think the term “microscopic” is synonymous with ???? ??????.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771408
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    ” “many ?????? will be ?????”

    it’s fine to be machmir, but it’s not assur then.”

    Then let me rephrase; “many ?????? will say ????”.

    “Why? According to your ?????”

    Again. not a ?????, just ???? ???.

    “it obtained the status of the host grape when it was living inside the grape and maintains it even when leaving, just like you claim the anisakis becomes a sheretz from the shrimp and remains one when it enters the salmon. What is the difference???”

    Simple. When it is ????, it is a ??? ????? ?? ????. As far as the anisakis, ??”?. If it’s a ????, it’s ???? as a ??? ????. If not, it’s still a crustacean (in ???.)

    “??? ??? ??? is only relevant if the worm developed in a live animal, and according to the ????”? it would not have the standard 5 issurim of sheretz.”

    Of course not, it’s ????”?. I think I missed your point here.

    re: size of copepods: Not really my point. I’m aware of the fact that most of the copepods are at least 100 microns; I was showing you the ????? of ????.

    “I have still seen NO evidence of a blanket rule that a parasite obtains the hosts status ??? ????? ????!!!”

    Then you haven’t followed my reasoning. I brought you a ????, a ??????, and two ??”?.

    I think you totally missed the point about the cheese. You should have brought the biggest ???? from the ?”? himself who says you need six hours after aged cheese! The point is that you ALSO need to wait six hours after wormy cheese! Does anyone disagree with that?

    Would Rav Elyashiv and Rav Vosner’s ??? apply to any cheeses available in the USA, other than Swiss and parmesan? (This question has nothing to do with our discussion, I just want to know.)

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771400
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    See ???? ????? who brings ??”? as “????? ???”.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771399
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello

    The ??”? I’m told, argues strongly on the ??”?’s acceptance of the ????”? even ????? ???? ?????, and many ?????? will be ?????. Besides the fact that whether this is considered a ???? ????? is a separate ????.

    Undoubtedly, the ?????? are aware of these ????? and hold differently. The ??? ???? addressed it directly. ????? ??? ???? who makes a beatiful ???? in ??”? that ????? ???????? only applies to ??? and the ????’s ???? is only because it’s the same ???, but here it would be a ?????.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771397
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    The Vaad of Queens is not makpid, but you can call and ask about specific establishments.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771396
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    BTW, (and this is not a psak, I’m just telling you a fact, since you asked earlier) the Vaad of Flatbush is makpid on the worms.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771395
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    “any of the vast majority of American poskim who hold that the fish is not treif”

    You STILL have not listed you vast majority, and STILL insist, without any source, that which country you live in determines whether worms (not fish) are ossur.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771394
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    If a rav violates halacha himself, it’s not a good idea to use him as your rav. If you recall, I posted sources which referred to the halachos of following a psak based on the shailo itself, and who issued the psak. Of course before I would “discard” (your term) a rav, I would make sure to consult with an odom godol to see if I was doing the right thing.

    In the future, I, and it seems many of us in the CR, would appreciate if you would pease keep your comments more civil.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771389
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    “When the ???? lists the issurim involved in eating a bug it does not mention ???? ??? ?????? which would apply to a worm from grapes.”

    Does it mention ??? ?? ????

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771388
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello again,

    “When the ???? lists the issurim involved in eating a bug it does not mention ???? ??? ?????? which would apply to a worm from grapes.”

    Correct. Because when it’s a ???, it’s not ???? ??? ??????. And when it’s part of the grape, it’s not a ???.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771387
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    Did you read the first sentence of my answer to you? In case it wasn’t clear enough to you, he holds that IT IS OSSUR to eat these worms. The point is, when the ?????? have issued a psak, local rabbonim are obligated to follow. If someone who I considered my rav would rule contrary to the psak of the majority of ??????, I think I would have to get a new rav. ?”?, my rav wouldn’t.

    I have a rav so that I can ask him ????? to which I don’t know the answer. I never asked him if I can turn on a light on ???, because I know already. I also know that since the biggest poskim of our generation have issued a psak about the fish, then we are required to follow.

    From your earlier posts, it seems that you have a rav in order to ask ????? for things which would be convenient for you to follow, otherwise you can pick and choose. I certainly hope that I have misunderstood you, and that this is not the case.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771385
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    The answer is that he feels it is not his place to argue on the ????? ????, who say ????. He’s a huge ?”?, but I don’t know what his personal opinion is, nor is it relevant ???? ?????.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771384
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    “The bottom line is you are admitting there is NO ???? ?????? to your ????? ???. “

    I believe in SG, as the ???? and ??????? say. Even so, I think it’s likely that becoming ???? would be the same. You find SG illogical and non-compelling. But it forces you to say that there is no ?????. So, bottom line, you should agree that the worm achieves the status of the crustacean. And it’s not a ????? ???. It is, as I’ve said, ???? ??? in the ???? (only the ???”? would possibly say it’s only because od ????”?), a clear ?????? (I believe other ??????? as well, I need to check) and the ??”? in two places, one if them cheese, on which I don’t know of any ?????? (of course, ?? ????? ???? ????, so I’ll be happy to hear of any).

    Besides which, if it’s a ??? ???? beforehand then this point is irrelevant, and besides the fact that I believe all information available shows that it is ????, I believe I am correct that there is no ???? ???????, only a ???? ?????.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771383
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    ” “BTW, R’ Belsky’s 1-2mm was the length, (it is thinner than that) which is why what he’s saying is not ridiculous”

    We’re talking about length, so what’s the ?????? “

    It’s ? ????? he discredits reports of up to 5mm (although I don’t think that’s what you meant.)

    The issue here is whether they are visible at a smaller size then 30-50 microns when the length is much bigger (as is even 1-2mm).

    Can you see the tiny fibers protruding from a cloth? They are thinner than a human hair.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771382
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    Sorry, I forgot to say gut voch.

    Do you know anyone who argues on the ??”? by cheese?

    BTW, the reason I didn’t use the ?”? in ??”? is that they were different in two prints of ??”?.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771381
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant
    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771380
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I’m still looking… Ez filter does 25-30. Not muchroch, but it makes sense for them to go with the most chomur.

    http://israel613.com/books/TOLAIM_WATER_NY.pdf

    BTW, my rov told me 30 is best, and I personally am sure that this is the shito l’chumro, I’m just trying to find you a source you’ll be happy with. Let me know when you’re satisfied.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771379
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I found the OU saying 50 microns for water, which is consistent with my assertion that it is mainstream. Wher does R’ Vaye say 300?

    http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/nyc_water/

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771377
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    The ????? of ????”? is only acc. to ???”?, which is, I think, not like ????? ?? ???????. Also, it only applies if it’s a ????, which I am contending that it is not. The ???”? could agree by ????.

    As I’ve said, Rav Feivel is ????? on 30, but it’s a ?????.

    “Is the term “limit of resolution” equivalent to ???? ?????????”

    I have no idea, but it seems the ?????? use this ?????. So my guess is, yes.

    “Why do you assume that a long thin line is more visible then a circle of the same surface area???”

    I think experimentation has been done, but I don’t remember the source, so I gave you the example of human hair to show you that it’s intuitively correct.

    “Also, why do assume we follow the ???? ????? over the ???? ??????????”

    What’s the ???? ?????????? We have no established starting point.

    BTW, R’ Belsky’s 1-2mm was the length, (it is thinner than that) which is why what he’s saying is not ridiculous ?”?, just puzzling to me. Reports, though, say up to 5mm.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771374
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Cherrybim,

    As I’ve said before, I’m not personally into numbers. If you want to know if my rov is lenient, and yet I continue to babble on about why I understand better the psak of issur, the answer is no.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771373
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    Nice to hear from you again (I thought I gave myself a longer vacation from you by sending you that teshuva, but you must be a speed reader! 🙂 )

    Thanks for your candor (expected by now).

    I do hear your ????? between ?? ???… but if you deny the existance in ??”? of spontaneous generation, then you are forced to say that in these cases (you didn’t address ??????) the worms achieve the status of the host despite the fact that there is only a ????? ?? ???. Or else reject these ???’? of the ??”? and ??????’s understanding of the ????, which I doubt you would be willing to do. It would be quite interesting to find a ???? who is ???? the worms and therefore is now ???? selling ???? ????? to a ?”?! And is now ???? eating meat after wormy cheese! (Alternatively, requiring ????? ?’ ???? even with the worms removed)!

    In other words, wheras I would not have such a problem making the ?????, one who says that SG is “a concept alien to ??”?” would be caught in a ??? ????.

    You might be right about my decimal point, (I often write these posts way past my bedtime), but here’s a place to check:

    http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_all.htm

    When I put in 0.03mm, I get: 0.03 millimeter = 30 micron

    From wikipedia references (under Orders of magnitude (length) )

    I think 100 microns is the average. (It says there 90.) BTW, it says over there that 45 microns is “close to the limit of resolution for the human eye”. I’m not sure how close, and anyway it’s not an extremely precise number.

    “If the eggs of anisakis are borderline on this ?????, it is logical to assume that the immature larva immediately upon hatching are SMALLER, not larger as you wrote, because they must fit inside the egg. Even if the krill do not swallow them immediately on hatching, it is doubtful if they grow significantly before they have any source of nourishment as they cannot eat without a host.”

    I think you are correct; now we’re even on the candor. 🙂 However, after they hatch, they uncoil and become longer and thinner, which makes them more visible.

    “Furthermore, I have not seen any indication if the scientists know whether the anisakis are swallowed by krill after they hatch or while they are still inside their eggs.”

    I have. From CDC:

    “The eggs become embryonated in water, and first-stage larvae are formed in the eggs. The larvae molt, becoming second-stage larvae , and after the larvae hatch from the eggs, they become free-swimming . Larvae released from the eggs are ingested by crustaceans “

    http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/anisakiasis.htm

    I therefore do not believe that the only information available leans to the side of ????, ?????. Besides, I don’t think we would say ?? ??????? ??????; I think the rules of ???? would have us assume that since when we see it in the fish it was visible, it was visible in the water (???? ?????). I’m looking forward to your response; have a good ???! And enjoy your herring!

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771368
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Yes, as do I. The definition of “My Rov” to allow one to follow his psak l’kuloh is spoken about in that Chazon Ish I mentioned earlier. It’s worth taking a look; not every Rav-talmid relationship qualifies.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771366
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I would like to add that the policy adopted by a kashrus agency does not constitute a psak. A psak is a halachic decision issued by a competent authority based on his thorough research in the topic, both halachic and practical (metsius).

    Anything less is merely a decision on which psak to follow.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771365
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Cherrybim,

    5. “And actually, halacha is regional, as in “minhag hamakom”.

    6. “When in doubt, check with the Poskim and Rabbonim of your dor and local.”

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771361
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Cherrybim,

    You say I’m wrong again. Did you look up the sources? Do you know of sources which disagree with mine? I’m definitely open to see information I have not seen before.

    I’m also puzzled by your assertion that the determination of majority is based on “local”. Do you have a source? And if I live in NJ, are NY poskim local? LA poskim? Canadian? Where do we draw the line? I ask you please not to answer with your own personal opinion, please back it up with an acceptable source.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771357
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    Halachah is not a free-for-all. There are very specific halachos about which psak one must follow.

    See gemara Avodah Zara 7a “B’shel Torah” etc.

    On a D’oraiso we follow the stringent view, on a D’rabonon we follow the lenient view.

    See also Chazon Ish Y.D. 150 (beginning) for when one follows his own rav even when he is more lenient.

    “Don’t take this the wrong way”, I am not paskening for you, but I am trying to make you aware that the only thing in this area which one can choose is who to accept as his rav, (also within limits) but not which psak he finds more convenient “if his regular rav/posek does not assir.”

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771353
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant
    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771351
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771349
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    The ??? of ????? which we discussed is actually a ?”? as explained by the ?????? ??? in ??”? ?”?, ? (on ??”?).

    Not a ??”?. Sorry for the error.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771348
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    What I mean is, do you also question R’ Karp’s facts, which indicate that these worms come from the outside? If you are merely quoting this questioner but don’t agree with him, then you are being consistent with the article which you posted earlier.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771346
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    About a week ago, you posted an article “From Science and Nature – Natural History of Anisakids:”.

    Now, you posted a quote of someone questioning Rav Karp’s knowledge of how anisakis works. I don’t get your point.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771345
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    The issue is not since when are there anisakis, but rather when did they start entering fish from the outside en masse.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771344
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Hello,

    How do you know what their ???? was based on?

    Since the worms are longer, the ????? of thinness would be smaller. Imagine a very thin human hair. Do you think it would be invisible? I do not think so. A very thin human hair is merely 17 microns!

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771335
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771333
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771331
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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 ???? ??????.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771330
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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 ?????.

    (Revised) Worms In Fish: Problem Or Not?

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=59040

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771329
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    cherrybim,

    Do you have anything more recent than three months ago?

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771328
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771324
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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).

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771323
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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!

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771317
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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 ??”?.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771316
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771313
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    hello,

    In Rav Vaye’s letter which was sent to YWN, it says that Rav Falk’s original ????? was in “????? ?????? ??????”.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771312
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Worms In Fish #771311
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    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

Viewing 50 posts - 20,351 through 20,400 (of 20,466 total)