[Avodah] The Anisakis Fish Ads: What It All Means

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:29:45AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R'MB:
:> ours found in our oceans today. I can only think to repeat RNSlifkin's
:> comparison of the issur on salmon with anisakis with a new issur on
:> bee honey.<SNIP>

: There's a new issur on bee honey?!

No, and I believe that's his point. If you use just theory, you would
be forced to conclude that nishtanah hateva, or honey must have been
made in a different way back when our ancestors ate it. Maybe devorah
referred to a kosher creature....

I was told off-line by someone who it seems did some serious research
that some of the sources I thought were authoritative when I googled
might have erred on things like distinguishing between anisakis and
nematodes found in fish in general, or something of the sort. I went only
to biology sites, knowing that anyone discussing kashrus implications
might be too partisan to be objective. I didn't save my search results,
so I can't really comment. Problems with relying on Reb Google. I'll let
him speak up, but as far as he found, anisakis are first identified by
Carl Linnaeus (the "Father of Taxonomy") in the 18th century.

So, we're not talking about a situation Chazal knew about. (Unlike bee
honey.) Unless the complex life-cycle of the anisakis is common among
nematodes in general, in which case distinguishing between one and the
other isn't relevent to my question.

But at the very least, we're still talking about something well-known
for generations and that had an established precedent. Is there any new
information that came to light to ignite the current controversy? Or did
someone start with a clean slate, and wonder how we can matir something
even though the authors of the Chayei Adam, QSA, AhS, MB, etc... likely
knew they were eating it?

As the OU put it
<http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single_print/1377835>:
    The OU has seen no reason to differentiate between the "toylayim"
    found in the flesh of salmon from those found in other fish, which
    the Shulchan Aruch in YD 84:16 rules are permissible.

	Don't some people think that something has changed and that the
	OU should require the removal of these worms?

    The OU has found no evidence of anything different from what has
    already been permitted by Shulchan Aruch. The "toylayim" in question,
    a form of nematode called Anisakis, has been known to infect saltwater
    fishes such as salmon for well over 150 years. Linnaeus (known as the
    "father of nomenclature") described a similar species of Anisakis
    in the late 1700s!! The same worm is known to infest cod, herrings
    and many other marine fishes, all of which are permissible per the
    Shulchan Aruch cited above without the requirement of insect removal.

But, as is my wont, I'm asking the meta-question... According to those
who hold lechumerah, what are the rules for halachic precedent? When
are the rulings of earlier generations binding, and when do we need to
reopen them and ask from a clean slate? Is it something as simple as
lechumera vs lequla? Is this an issue of changes in scientific knowledge,
ie knowledge of the metzi'us, vs changes that would require assuming we
know the halakhah better than they?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 49th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        7 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            goal of perfect unity?