Forum Replies Created
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.
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).
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.
Bottom line is, do you think chaza’l and the S.A. made a mistake? If so, the discussion ends here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have a good shabbos!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
I’m just curious, are you referring to the esrog analogy, or being machmir misofeik?
Throughout the generations, poskim have very often advocated being machmir even when something is mutor meikor hadin. Halochoh is not black and white.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think the problem is too much coffee! 🙂
Please explain how hello99 implied anything about shechita, or how it compares to tzaar balei chayim.
I understood hello99’s point to be regarding how many poskim are concerned about the worms, because they ARE NOT THE SAME as the ones we have been eating for thousands of years [is gefilte fish so old? :)].
From aforementioned news article:
By posting this list, I do not mean to suggest that those on this list hold the fishworms to be assur, but they do apparently have at least some concern.
It’s silly to declare that slowly, the rabbonim are coming around to agree with Rav Belsky when, firstly there is no evidence, and secondly, the other matirim have different reasoning.
If you want to declare a majority, please list all of the rabbonim on each side.
BTW, I do hear that Rav Shlomo Miller has changed his mind and is now osser. Rabbi Marcus said this in a shiur available on the YU website, http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/745156/Rabbi_Shmuel_Marcus/Worms_in_Fish:_When_Torah_and_Science_Collide?
and I confirmed this with a friend from Toronto.
What I meant was that if the worms are mutor, they would be mutor in any fish, no matter in what percentage they are found. If the worm is assur, some fish would still be mutor without checking, if the worms don’t frequently appear in them. So unless the frozen packaged fish is possibly infested with a different species of worm, your rov must hold the anisakis to be assur, but is not concerned with fresh fish (and m’supok about canned salmon)because only a small percentage of these fish have anisakis in them.
In other words,if your rov held the anisakis is mutor, because it’s the same as described in the Shulchon Aruch, he would not assur frozen fish.
Clearheaded: “If those worms were ossur there’s no way the gedolim of the previous generation would have been (machshal) [nichshol] through ignorance.”
If you believe so, fine, and you are probably right. But we can’t pasken from that. We must assume, then, that HKB”H didn’t allow these worms into the fish which ended up in their mouths (like all the stories of non- kosher food which spoiled or were spilled before a godol inadvertantly ate it). Or, this species is only recently in such abundance (there is evidence for this). Or, someone is a complete onus for this until made aware.
Your rov, apparently, holds the anisakis is assur, otherewise why would you need to check packaged fish! He is apparently not convinced that the prevalence of anisakis is not sufficient to assur all fish. That’s just my take on his psak (which you heard directly!), I’m curious to know if it’s right. Could you ask him? Thanks
BTW, my line about the treife fish was just a joke. Sorry, I should have put a smiley 🙂
Wolf: I just read your post about why CY might not be required in the US, and I think you misunderstand R’ Moshe’s heter. He holds that government regulation creates an “anan sahadi” and that it is equivalent to a Jew witnessing the milking.
Rav Moshe himself, who is the primary source of the heter, wrote in a later teshuvah (reprinted in Rav Binyomin Forst’s Hilchos Kashrus Hebrew edition) that since there is no longer a significant price difference, “tzrichim l’hasig”. Rav Moshe was not unaware of the price differential, just that it became less drastic as the years went on.
Hashem does not require us to use ultraviolet light, just to abstain from worms which entered fish from outside. If worms are intrisically visible, but are difficult to see because they are similar in color to the flesh of the fish, they are assur if we know they are present. So if you can’t see them to remove them, you can choose to eat something else, or to remove them using ultraviolet light.
There was never such a minhag in Klal Yisroel, to eat worms which entered fish from outside.
I don’t think any gedolim ate treife fish, although I don’t know about the worms. I did hear that when someone asked how R’ Moshe could have drank water with bugs in it, R’ Dovid’s response was, “If he knew there were bugs in it, he wouldn’t have drank it!”. We can try to figure out how Hashem prevented gedolim from eating ma’acholos assuros which they were unaware of, but you can’t pasken shailos based on that. This issue was brought up by the asifoh, and Rav Karp responded with ra’ayos to this yesod.
I hope my answers were clear.
estherh: Astounding news. Do you mind sharing your source?
Cherrybim: If you don’t want to eat herring, gezunte hait. But even the osrim permit herring fillets.
The following are the preliminary findings of various fish experts. We will update this list as new information is received.
The Anisakis worm is found in the following fish (frozen or fresh) and may not be eaten unless checked for worms. [Even with a hechscher]
Canned Salmon (wild)
Cod: Scrod, Hake
Flounder: Yellow Tail/ Wild Dabs/ Black Backs, Turbot, Yellow Fin Sole
Pacific Red Snapper (Eastern or Atlantic Red Snapper is a different variety and is OK)
Fillet fish sticks or other breaded fish products
Sable a.k.a Black Cod [In NY, some smokehouses use Chilean Sea Bass but call it Sable (which is also a problem)
Yellow Fin Sole
The following fish do not require checking:
Farm Raised Salmon [E.g. Atlantic, Norwegian, Chilean, New Zealand, British Columbia)
Lox [Farm raised, if wild would state “wild”]
Minced Fish Sticks
Pollock – Atlantic
Sardines from Morocco, Philippines, Portugal
Whitefish: Michigan – Lake Superior [Some allow the Canadian as well]
Checking:Fish with white flesh can be checked [after the skin is removed) by shining a strong flashlight from underneath or holding up to a bright light. They may appear as extended worms or coiled in a circle. They are readily visible. Salmon or pink fish require an ultraviolet light and if infested cannot be removed.
HIE: Have you seen the letter from R’ Gross, Shlit”a, about R’ Elyashiv’s daas? It says he holds it’s ossur, it doesn’t say misofek.
Very smart of the Star-K. We should also make sure that the food we eat is acceptable by the standards of all gedolei yisroel!
BTW, the reason I originally posted the list of fish which are mutor is to dispel the myth that someone eating herring is a sign that he is matir anisakis.
Cherrybim: So now we’re supposed to follow whichever posek is followed by the majority, even if it’s only because it’s a name brand hechsher? Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vosner, and Rav Karelitz tower above any American poskim today. Also as I mentioned, Rav Belsky Shlit”a is arguing on the rishonim on the sugya. What a shame that Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vosner, and Rav Karelitz, not to mention the Rashb”a, Ramba”m (Sefer Hamitzvos),and Maggid Mishna, don’t work for a nationally recognized hechsher!
BTW, you misread my original statement about herring – I never said it’s dewormed, just that it’s not a problem. I said even if you saw someone eating wild salmon, you can’t assume they hold it’s mutor, maybe it was dewormed. I have no idea whether or not herring is dewormed.
Gefilte fish is not a problem because the worms are ground up, and they become botel (no longer a berya).
Cheerybim: Herring is not necessarily a problem. From the Star K website:
The following lists are based on research by Rabbi Gershon Bess. Note: Please READ CAREFULLY since there are some species of fish that appear on both lists. Their acceptability or non-acceptability depends on where they originate. We have no information about fish not included on this list.
Until further notice, only the variety of fish found on the following list may be used without any need for inspection:
Flounder – Only Fluke, Georgia Banks, Channel
Lox – Farm Raised
Minced Fish Sticks
Pollock – Atlantic
Red Snapper – Eastern or Atlantic only
Salmon – Farm Raised (e.g. Atlantic, Norwegian, Chilean, New Zealand, British Columbia )
Sardines – from Morocco, Philippines, Portugal
Whitefish – Michigan-Lake Superior
Cherrybim: Who said the herring at the kiddush you attended was a problem? Even had you seen rabbonim eating wild salmon, it wouldn’t prove anything; maybe they were dewormed!
Why can we not make judgements on which poskim are bigger? Would we not agree that R’ Moshe was bigger than any poskim alive today? True, we are “peanuts” and have no such hasagos on our own, but we have the opinions of our Rabbonim. If I’m not right, then we can’t judge who is a legitimate posek at all.
Find me a respected rov who considers R’ Belky bigger than the gedolei haposkim in EY! I know my rebbeim consider them bigger! R’ Dovid Feinstein has not issued a psak because R’ Elyashiv already gave his psak. Does this not tell us whom he feels is a bigger posek? Not to belittle R’ Belsky, chas v’sholom, but why would one follow his psak l’kulo against the gedolei haposkim in EY?