Forum Replies Created
Daas Yochid: #1 the Chavos Daas is explaining the words in Shulchan Aruch 81:4 that the shilia of a donkey is MUTTAR, not assur miD’Rabannan. He also explicitly differentiates between the halacha of hayotzei min hatamei which does NOT apply to a bria and eiver min hachai which does. If you want to invent a new halacha of “the status of its host” you need to bring a source.
I’m not sure what you want from the previous post. The Gemara that basis the heter of flesh-worms on minei gavli is describing a perception that they originated in the flesh, according to Rav Dessler this is not necessarily dependant on the reality. I am not certain according to Rav Dessler if his rule that Chazal knew the true reason even when they described a non-scientific explanation applies to the Rishonim as well, it would seem not. In our case it would appear that the the Rishonim took minei gavli to literally refer to spontaneous generation. Therefore to answer your question “Do you think the anisakis worm is the worm which the Shulchan Aruch discusses, or is the heter based on a sevoro not reflecting the case of the S.A., but yet a compelling sevoro?” I would answer that it is certainly the same worm, but the true reason to be matir MAY NOT be the one Shulchan Aruch refers to.
#1 Again I repeat, see the Chavos Daas.
#2 From what I have seen the worms entering the flesh of salmon are approximately 1-2mm, borderline nireh l’einaim. When they enter the krill 2 developmental stages earlier they are clearly much smaller then that. The only Posek I have seen concerned about the size at this stage is Rav Vaye, and he explicitly writes that he is NOT basing his concern on specific information, just on lack of trust in the scientists to define nireh l’einaim.
#3 I’m not sure what you don’t understand. Both Rav Kuber’s heter for anisakis as well as the ossrim are based on the literal understanding of the words minei gavli in the Gemara as spontaneous generation. They primarily differ on whether we concern ourselves with observations that seem to point to alternative sources for the worms. According to Rav Dessler we need not understand the Gemara is basing it’s heter on spontaneous generation at all and we can follow the psak of the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch to permit worms found in the flesh of fish even if they certainly originated outside the fish.
#4 I wrote that this derech may SEEM radical, but in truth it is logically compelling and also accepted by many Gedolim.
Daas Yochid: #1 I haven’t seen that quote in any of Rav Belsky’s statements on the issue, but it would only be relevant to his opinion that minei gavli applies even to a visible worm that grew larger in the fish. In any event look up the Chavos Daas and you will see from his examples of a bria (eg. the shilia of a donkey) that it would CERTAINLY apply in our case.
#2 Based on the size of the krill ingesting the worms and the size of the worms when the enter the salmon, I think it is safe to assume that the anisakis larva are minuscule. So did Rav Fisher, Rav S. Z. Auerbach etc.
#3 Look up the Michtav MeEliahu, where he uses this sevara to permit killing lice on Shabbos, which is “chayav” for paroshim according to the Gemara.
#4 I am disappointed to see that you too are stooping to partial quotes out of context.
I am in EY, don’t know where you are.
BTW, I have heard that Rabbi Genack of the OU wants to asser anisakis, and Rav Belsky’s position may not be followed even by the OU!!!
While I admit it may seem radical to render the entire sugya of Gemara and Rishonim irrelevant, the bottom line is if the anisakis is never shoretz al ha’aretz even when it originates outside the fish how could it possibly be assur.
Additionally I didn’t make this up, Rav Vaye quotes this sevara from Rav Falk and writes that Rav Fisher, Rav S.Z. Auerbach, Rav Greiniman and other Gedolei HePoskim agreed wit it (I don’t have the sefer in front of me so I am listing the names from memory). Rav Vaye personally is concerned that the larva may be of a size significant in Halacha before being ingested by krill, as scientist’s definition of “microscopic” he considers too large. Additionally he quotes Rav Elyashiv as considering a sheretz “shoretz al ha’aretz” even if it was shoretz only at a truly microscopic size.
Daas Yochid: “If they enter the fish in a krill, we have to deal with the issue of why they don’t obtain the status of the krill (as part of its flesh) and should be assur.”
The only reason they would become assur is because of “ha’yotzei min ha’tamei”, and the Chavos Daas 82:2 says this does not apply to separate bria.
“If indeed, we were to know for a fact that they are swallowed when microscopic, I could easily hear a sevoro to be matir”
I seems that the scientists believe that anisakis cannot live without a host beyond this stage of development. While they may be wrong, I don’t think that possibility creates a safek d’Oraisa.
“The gemoro, and S.A. with meforshim, clearly deal with the issue of whether the worms come “meialmo” or are “mino gavli”. A worm found in the flesh is “mino gavli”, and one in the viscera is “meialmo”. This argument, however assumes that even worms which came form the outside are mutor!”
True, however “Rav Dessler points out that the reason mentioned in the Gemara for the ruling of the Chachamim is not necessarily the only possible reason. The Chachamim gave the reason that was most obvious in their day”. Therefore it may be that the heter of the worms is not really minei gavli but because of “predation”. According to this anisakis worms found in the gut would also be mutar and this explains the words of the Beer Heitiv and Pri Megadim that even these worms are only assur mi’safek. The safek would be if they are anisakis which is mutar even in the gut or a different species which may have been swallowed free-swimming.
Daas Yochid: It is a pleasure to carry on a polite and intelligent discussion of the issue.
“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.”
An interesting idea. Why would we look at the worm as the same as the fish? The heter say with a worm in n apple is a gezeiras hakasuv of shoretz al ha’aretz, and not that the worm gets the din of an apple. If one needed to eat an apple worm for sakana reasons would he say borei pri ha’etz on the worm? Would someone eating this worm that was poresh from an apple receive malkos for tevel and orlah in addition to the multiple malkos for sheratzim?
“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.”
The scientists who research parasitology claim that the life cycle of the anisakis composes of 3 larval stages in at least three different species of fish, Since it doesn’t contradict Chazal, I see no reason to disbelieve it. Presumably a fish the size of a salmon would not bother eating tiny krill.
Daas Yochid: I stand corrected, the opinion I quoted is the Michtav Me’Eliahu vol 4 pg 355 footnote 4 who disagrees with the Pachad Yitzchok as you accurately quoted.
“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 referring to the earlier stage of development of the anisakis larva where they are ingested by krill when still microscopic. After the develop to a visible size they never leave a host organism, merely transferring from one host to another as the host is ingested. This is not considered shoretz al ha’aretz according to Rav Falk, and while Rav Vaye personally prefers a sevara similar to Rav Kuber’s he lists a number of Gedolim who agreed with Rav Falk.
HIE: I think continuing this conversation with cherrybim is clearly futile, but maybe YOU can enlighten us to the identities of the “vast majority” of American Poskim who are matir.
cherrybim: your attitude is obnoxious.
All 6 Rabbonim I mentioned have ruled that one may not consume anisakis, some vadai some safek, but agree it may not be eaten. You have still not produced a single name who permits.
The # of $ in the salary is almost irrelevant. You must compare it to the cost of living in the city. $50000 in NYC won’t get you nearly as far as $30000 in say Milwaukee.
Daas Yochid: It is a big sugya in Hilchos Shabbos regarding killing lice. The Pachad Yitzchok, not Rav Hutner, explains that while Chazal were aware that there is NO spontaneous generation they described things the way they appear to the naked eye and he says the Halacha follows the appearance. Therefore even though we know today that lice DO come from eggs, they are still mutar to kill on Shabbos because the microscopic eggs are Halachically insignificant. Rav Belsky is clearly following this derech and therefore he is NOT contradicting the Rishonim at all. Additionally based on the life cycle of the anisakis worm, they never exist independently after they are visible, they are in shrimp then smaller fisha nd then larger ones, and there are grounds to say that they are never shoretz al ha’aretz from when they are Halachically significant. Rav Falk uses this sevara in his heter, and Rav Vozner dismisses it in his teshuva, all written well over a decade ago.
I personally think Rav Belsky and Rav Falk’s logic is more compelling, and while I agree with much of what you have written, I must strongly object to any derogatory statements about Rav Belsky.
My issue is that the Gedolei HaPoskim do NOT consider the heter, however logical it seems to me, to be reliable enough to be matir an issur d’Oraisa. I defer to their judgement.
cherrybim: you sure have an attitude. Just cough up you list of the “vast majority” of US Poskim who matir. So far you haven’t come up with a single name.
estherh: it seems your rumor from yesterday was unfounded. Rav Vozner and Rav Karelitz stil forbid the worms.
HIE: If anything the consensus in the US seems to be swinging to asser.
cherrybim: If the “vast majority of American Poskim” permit the worms can you give some names other than Rav Belsky??? I have listed 6 respected US Poskim who forbid, you should be able to double or triple that from your “vast majority”.
I’ll help you get started with Rav Roth from BP and i’ll even let you count Rav Miller even though he his in Canada. I’m waiting for another 10 names or so.
cherrybim: “you have the option to choose the way to go if there is a machlokes of poskim”
NOT TRUE, unless you are a Posek yourself. Get yourself a Rav and follow his psak l’chmra or l’kula.
You can add Rav Feivel Cohen to the ossrim. Also see new news article that ALL Vaadei HaKashrus want to learn how to check for worms.
So who are you majority of even American Poskim???
“We hear some people pushing strongly for an Issur on these fish out of respect for Maran Rav Eliyashiv and Maran Rav Wosner”
It’s not out of “respect”, we don’t pervert Halacha so a Posek won’t be “insulted”. Rather the majority of even American Poskim seem to think that Rav Belsky’s heter is not enough to be matir a d’Oraisa.
cherrybim: I think I was very clear. You must ask all your sheilos to YOUR Rav, not each sheila to the Rav who you expect will give you the answer you want to hear.
If the story is true, wonderful. I have said from the beginning that I find Rav Belsky’s opinion the most logical. But as I explained, this rumor doesn’t make sense.
estherh: Also, Rav Vozner in the above mentioned teshuva directly addresses Rav Falk’s logic to be matir. While I personally find Rav Falk’s understanding more compelling, it is unlikely that there is anything new that would convince Rav Vozner to change his mind.
cherrybim: “Rav shopping? Nothing wrong with it as long as you follow the psak after the shaila has been asked of the Rav.”
First of all NOT TRUE. Secondly, Rav Moshe Feinstein writes in Dibros Moshe that if you know there is a machlokes haPoskim and you have not personally asked a sheila you may NOT follow the lenient opinion unless you are personally a Posek, rather it is considered a safak and on a d’Oraisa you must go l’chumra.
Chumra shopping is also wrong, you may note that on the CY thread I am promoting the kula side with you.
estherh: “As of yesterday Rav Wosner have rescinded on their Ossur. After having been explained the life cycle of the anisakis they came to the decision that it is MUTAR!
I find this very hard to believe because Rav Vozner in Shevet HaLevi 4:83 printed over 10 years ago describes the life-cycle of the anisakis worm in great detail and his description is precisely the same as what everyone is saying today and he rules that it is assur.
cherliehall: You misunderstood me, I meant the heter of powdered milk and butter is no longer relevant since today these products can be made even from non-Kosher milk using enzymes.
HIE: “I beleive Rav belsky really really really went deep into this inyan to make sure it’s mutar before being matir it.”
I don’t doubt it, but the bottom line is that Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Heineman and Rav Forscheimer did NOT think that was good enough to be meikil on a deoraisa against Rav Elyashiv etc.
cherrybim: “you have the option to choose the way to go if there is a machlokes of poskim”
NOT TRUE, unless you are a Posek yourself. Get yourself a Rav and follow his psak l’chmra or l’kula.
HIE: “hello99, can you answer my questions too”.
With pleasure. Go ahead and ask.
cherrybim: If Rav Belsky is THE Posek in America, why do you promote Cholov Stam on the other thread when Rav Belsky does not permit it. Also, are you aware that Rav Belsky and Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal hold that Starkist tuna fish is assur because it does not have a mashgiach temidi. Rav Schachter from the OU holds all milk is assur because the percentage of treif milk cows is over 50%, why aren’t you insisting everyone in the US desist from all dairy products?
Why does it look like you are shopping for kulos???
cherrybim: ground worms are assur, but they are batel b’shishim. Whole worms are not batel.
HIE: Thank you very much for proving my point. Rav Dovid Feinstein does NOT hold like some of the esteemed members of the CR that everyone in America should automatically follow Rav Belsky’s heter even though he is a big expert and also local. Neither do Rav Heineman or Rav Forscheimer.
I would do #1 in a delicate way.
hereorthere: “This is what this thread looked like in the beginning; An excuse to criticise those who drink only C’Y'”
Actually the OP was criticizing people who drink CS!!!
cherrybim: When in doubt, check with the Poskim and Rabbonim of your dor and local.
Then why do YOU drink CS based on Reb Moshe’s psak. He is no longer of our generation nor do you apparently live in Manhattan. The majority of living Poskim in Brooklyn are chassidishe and do NOT permit CS.
Rav Dovid Feinstein NEVER said it is assur, all he said was if this and this is the case then it’s assur
Gee, that sounds like a psak to me.
cherrybim: you clearly have a problem either with your vision or your reading comprehension skills. I have written repeatedly that I DO respect Rav Belsky and he is very reliable for what he is, ONE OF the Poskei HaDor. I am still awaiting YOUR response to why YOU don’t respect Rav Elyashiv etc!!!
qaws: hard cheese is certainly a problem as clear from the Gemarra Avoda Zara. Butter and powdered milk were once said to be impossible to produce from non-Kosher milk, but with modern methods of food production this heter is no longer relevant
Just trying to illustrate that most of us do NOT consider Rav Shachter and Rav Genack to be our Rabbonim in general, even though we rely on them to eat OU.
hereorthere, your mashal of the Yugo and Ferrari is very appropriate. You are just the same at your destination whether you traveled there by luxury sports car or by cheap junk. Same here according to Reb Moshe the milk is just as much CY if it got there by Reb Yankel mashgiach or thought the USDA.
hereorthere: If it was ‘just semantics’ then anyone could go rav shopping and hold only by the most makeil opinions in each catagory.
Huh? I meant your harping on whether Reb Moshe called CY and CS “the same” or “equivalent” or “fulfilling the same halachic obligation” are irrelevant. The bottom line is we considered chalav ha Companies to be CY.
Semantics, semantics. The bottom line is that the Rabannan forbade milk that was milked by a non-Jew without supervision, and Reb Moshe paskened that this does not apply to commercial milk in the US. Many Poskim disagree, but this was clearly Reb Moshe’s position.
cherrybim: You are still avoiding my point. I made my position VERY clear that I very much respect Rav Belsky for what he is, ONE OF the Gedolei Haposkim but not the only one.
Cherry and charlie: You have a peculiar perception of the process of Halacha. Halacha is NOT regional! A worm is either assur or muttar, as a swordfish is either a dag tamei or tahor, neither can be kosher some places but not others. Would you say that anisakis is assur in EY, Manhattan, Queens and NJ (Rav Forscheimer does not permit their consumption, mi’safek) but kosher in Brooklyn. What IS regional is minhagim, but here there is clearly NO pre-existing minhag. BTW today swordfish is universally accepted to be non-kosher and I don’t believe any Posek would allow an Italian Yid to eat them based on the supposed tradition you mention. Additionally eating OU does NOT automatically make Rav Belsky ones personal Rav any more then it obligates one to say Hallel on Yom Ha’Atzmaut as Rav Schachter and Rav Genack do.
I do concede that if Rav Belsky is your personal Rav and you follow all of his psakim l’chumra and l’kula you MAY rely on him for this too. But otherwise I think it would be irresponsible to be lenient at the time being.
Cherrybim: You are avoiding my point, Rav Belsky is not the only Posek in the world. Why do you ignore Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vozner etc who are arguably much greater, and certainly a generation more senior than Rav Belsky.
“You still haven’t listed the Gedolei Haposkim of America who forbade the fish.”
Actually I have. I mentioned previously Rav Bess and Rav Reissman, and I can add to them Rav Dovid Feinstein. But really Halacha is not regional, why do you specifically care what the “American” Poskim say.
Reb Moshe/HaRav Moshe Feinstein does not use the words “chalav stam”, he writes that chalav HaCompanies fulfils the
Halachic requirement of CY. Look up the teshuva yourself in IM YD 1.
BTW I think you are confused about who wrote what in the previous post.
Perhaps the difference is one (milk) has a gezeira from Chazal while the other (other food) doesn’t. Just saying, since you asked for the “difference”.
Trying my best – if that were the case, then CS would not be ok at all.
Actually Reb Moshe holds that CY IS a gezeira, not like the Pri Chadash. However he holds that the USDA supervision fulfils the requirements of the gezeira and is equivalent to CY, read the teshuvos in IM. Rav Gornish follows the Chassidishe Poskim who disagree with Reb Moshe, and is NO reflection on what Reb Moshe himself held.
re “the big 5”: Star K did NOT exist in Reb Moshe’s lifetime and CRC was purely a local hechsher in the Chicago area.
cherrybim: I respect Rav Belsky very much and find his position the most logical. However I don’t understand why you write as if he is the ONLY Posek in the world. The majority of Gedolei HaPoskim have forbidden these worms, and while I am not certain they are based on accurate information, I would be reluctant to take a risk of an issur deOraisa until I am completely certain.
oomis:”Do we check poultry and meat flesh for these worms, as well”
No, they are not infested.
“But if Hashem gave us fish to eat, the presumably He knew that fish ingest worms and they might be hard, if not impossible to remove from them. Yet, He did not say, eat the fish with fins and scales, but not if they have worms”
Hashem also gave us lettuce to eat knowing that bugs lay their eggs there and it might be hard if not impossible to check. Yet hHe did not say “eat only lettuce if it does not have worms”
What is the difference???
The Beis Din of the Eidah deliberated yesterday, Monday, afternoon on the halachic status and policy regarding Anisakis. They were inconclusive regarding the halachic status of the worms, but concluded that their policy for now is not to allow use of infested fish.
So even the Eidah is not convinced it is assur.
cherrybim: Not at all. I think Rav Belsky’s reasoning is much more logically sound than Rav Kuber’s. However many Gedolei HaPoskim rule it is assur miDeoraisa, and if you want to be safe there is a simple solution to buy Norwegian.
oomis: I don’t understand your point. Hashem also says we may eat lettuce, but the the bugs on them. Eat Norwegian Salmon and you’re safe.