[Avodah] Even More on the OU's Position on Worms in Fish

[Yitzchok Levine]

I have been in touch with Rabbi Chaim Goldberg 
who heads the "OU Fish Desk."  He sent me the 
most recent Daf Hakashrus, a monthly newsletter 
for the OU Rabbinic Field Representative that is 
edited by Rabbi Yosef Grossman. This publication 
contains more detailed information regarding the 
OU's position on worms in fish.

Rabbi Goldberg kindly gave me permission to post 
this issue of the Daf Hakashrus on my web site, 
and I have posted it at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/daf18_5_10.pdf

Since this is pdf file and some may not be able 
to access it,  below is what this publication 
says specifically about the OU's policy on worms 
in fish. Rabbi Goldberg may be contacted via 
email at "Goldberg, Chaim" <goldbergc at ou.org>  or by phone at  212.613.8340.

Yitzchok Levine

OU Policy on Worms in Fish
By Rabbi Chaim Goldberg
RC Fish

The Gemarah in Chulin 67b states that darna,
a worm-like parasite, found in the flesh of
a fish is permissible because “minei gavli” it
grows in the fish. The Shulchan Aruch, Y.D.
84:16, quotes this halacha, and adds that
worms found in the viscera (gut) are prohibited
while worms found in the fish are permitted.
Recently there has been considerable discussion
about worms in fish. Some Rabbonim
understand the halacha (as formulated in
Shulchan Aruch) to be that worms which hatch
in the flesh are permitted, while worms that are
swallowed whole and enter the viscera are prohibited.
Both of the worms migrate to the flesh.
Based on this understanding these Rabbonim
have stated that today, worms in fish are
prohibited. This is because scientists maintain
that contemporary worms known as anisakis
enter the flesh through the viscera and then
migrate to the flesh.
This is not a new issue and the question has
been raised repeatedly in recent years. The OU
has reviewed this matter and found it not to be
an issue. (Editor’s note)

Rav Belsky confirmed unequivocally
that OU policy remains that there is no
checking necessary and no prohibition of the
worms found in wild salmon and other fish,
in accordance with Y.D. 84:16 for the following
reasons: Shulchan Aruch does not limit
the permissibility of tolayim (parasites)
found in the flesh of fish to any species of
tolaas. The halacha states that a tolaas found
in the flesh of a fish is mutar because of the
rule of minei gavli [Chulin 67B], (that the
parasite found in the flesh of the fish is permissible
since it grew bigger in the fish) Rav
Belsky cited Rashi in the Gemara as using the
term gavul to mean that it ¡°became bigger¡±,
and he understood this to mean even if the
worm originated and was visible to the naked
eye outside of the fish, it would be permitted
if it grew in the fish flesh. Rav Belsky
felt there is no reason to believe the tolayim
present today are any different from the
tolayim discussed in Chulin and S.A. Rav
Belsky felt this reason itself was sufficient
to permit the matter, but added additional
reasons to permit as follows:

On his audio presentation for OURadio
last year (available for review at www.ou
radio.org/index.php/ouradio/comment/
9742/), Rav Belsky noted that Shulchan
Aruch did not require one to be an expert
in the tolayim found in the fish flesh to
know how they got into the flesh, either
from the viscera or from some other source.
Rav Belsky further feels that it is irrelevant
whether the tolaas entered from the viscera
or from some other way, whether it
happened when the fish was alive or after
it died. As proof, he notes that S.A. (ibid)
says that tolayim which come after the death
of the fish are permitted. Rav Belsky felt
these tolayim must have come from the
viscera, because there was no other reasonable
source for tolayim entering a fish after
death and yet they are permitted.

Some are concerned that the tolayim found
in the flesh are actually the forbidden tolayim
originally found in the viscera (Shulchan
Aruch forbids the tolayim found in the
viscera). Rav Belsky felt this claim is not
based on any significant research. Rav Belsky
felt that his own inquiries from qualified
experts indicate that the opposite is true,
and that the tolayim in question are found
in the flesh while it was alive. Furthermore,
Rav Belsky feels even tolayim entering the
flesh from the viscera would be permitted as
per above.

Rav Belsky confirmed that the size of the
tolaas when it is swallowed by the fish is not
relevant (even if it is visible while swallowed
by the fish and visible when it migrates from
the viscera). He also felt that reports that the
tolaas is typically 5 mm is an exaggeration of
the larger end of the spectrum recorded. He
believes that nearly all of these tolayim when
they are swallowed are between 1-2 mm long
and quite thin (Rav Belsky felt they would be
considered ayno nireh l’aynayim [halachically
invisible]).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100308/c30595b3/attachment-0001.htm>