Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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 ????.
Cherrybim,
I’m under the impression that in Toronto, the COR follows R’ Shlomo Miller.
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).
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 ????).
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.).
Moderator 80,
Thanks for the ???? ????. I always wondered about this ????.
A link to (Be’er Moshe 8:36): http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=890&st=&pgnum=420
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ????.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wolf,
You’re certainly correct about most of today’s music.
I’m told by an expert if the field of (genuine) Jewish music that the instumental style popular fo Jewish music in pre-war Eastern Europe was a uniquely Jewish style (known today as klezmer, but today’s neo-klezmer is obviously not the same).
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.
hello99:
Bottom line is, do you think chaza’l and the S.A. made a mistake? If so, the discussion ends here.
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.
You’re thinking of MBD’s Bird of Hope from V’chol Ma’aminim. A real OBG!
Anovim lyrics: (not my translation)
At the hour that the king moshiach comes, stands on the roof of the beis hamikdosh (holy temple) and he announces to Israel and says:
Anovim anovim, (modest ones) the time of your redemption has come, and if you dont believe, see my light that shines.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Moderator-80:
Thanks.
To all:
Have a good shabbos!
Moderator80:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
I’m just curious, are you referring to the esrog analogy, or being machmir misofeik?
rescue37:
Throughout the generations, poskim have very often advocated being machmir even when something is mutor meikor hadin. Halochoh is not black and white.
moderator:
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.
Rescue37,
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.
Rescue37.
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.
hello99:
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!
hello99,
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.
Cherrybim:
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?
hello 99,
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.
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.
Cherrybim, you still didn’t read my post so I’ll copy it onto this one:
Cherrybim:
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.
Cherrybim:
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.
HIE:
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.
Cherrybim:
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.
Hello,hello99,
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?
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.
Thanks.
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.
Estherh:
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.
Hi, Cherrybim,
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 Tuv