<html>
<body>
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. <br><br>
Rabbi Goldberg kindly gave me permission to post this issue of the Daf
Hakashrus on my web site, and I have posted it at
<a href="http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/daf18_5_10.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/daf18_5_10.pdf</a>
<br><br>
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
<font size=3>"Goldberg, Chaim" <goldbergc@ou.org>
or by phone at 212.613.8340.<br><br>
</font>Yitzchok Levine<br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=5><b>OU Policy on Worms in Fish<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>By Rabbi Chaim Goldberg<br>
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>RC Fish<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>The Gemarah in Chulin 67b
states that darna,<br>
a worm-like parasite, found in the flesh of<br>
a fish is permissible because “minei gavli” it<br>
grows in the fish. The Shulchan Aruch, Y.D.<br>
84:16, quotes this halacha, and adds that<br>
worms found in the viscera (gut) are prohibited<br>
while worms found in the fish are permitted.<br>
Recently there has been considerable discussion<br>
about worms in fish. Some Rabbonim<br>
understand the halacha (as formulated in<br>
Shulchan Aruch) to be that worms which hatch<br>
in the flesh are permitted, while worms that are<br>
swallowed whole and enter the viscera are prohibited.<br>
Both of the worms migrate to the flesh.<br>
Based on this understanding these Rabbonim<br>
have stated that today, worms in fish are<br>
prohibited. This is because scientists maintain<br>
that contemporary worms known as anisakis<br>
enter the flesh through the viscera and then<br>
migrate to the flesh.<br>
This is not a new issue and the question has<br>
been raised repeatedly in recent years. The OU<br>
has reviewed this matter and found it not to be<br>
an issue. (Editor’s note)<br><br>
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><b>Rav Belsky
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>confirmed
unequivocally<br>
that OU policy remains that there is no<br>
checking necessary and no prohibition of the<br>
worms found in wild salmon and other fish,<br>
in accordance with </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>Y.D.
84:16 </i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>for the
following<br>
reasons: Shulchan Aruch does not limit<br>
the permissibility of
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>(parasites)<br>
found in the flesh of fish to any species of<br>
tolaas. The halacha states that a
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolaas
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>found<br>
in the flesh of a fish is mutar because of the<br>
rule of </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>minei gavli
[Chulin 67B]</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>, (that
the<br>
parasite found in the flesh of the fish is permissible<br>
since it grew bigger in the fish) Rav<br>
Belsky cited Rashi in the Gemara as using the<br>
term </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>gavul
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>to mean that it ¡°became
bigger¡±,<br>
and he understood this to mean even if the<br>
worm originated and was visible to the naked<br>
eye outside of the fish, it would be permitted<br>
if it grew in the fish flesh. Rav Belsky<br>
felt there is no reason to believe the
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim<br>
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>present today are any
different from the<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>discussed in
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>Chulin
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>and
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>S.A</i></font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>. Rav<br>
Belsky felt this reason itself was sufficient<br>
to permit the matter, but added additional<br>
reasons to permit as follows:<br><br>
On his audio presentation for OURadio<br>
last year (available for review at www.ou<br>
radio.org/index.php/ouradio/comment/<br>
9742/), Rav Belsky noted that Shulchan<br>
Aruch did not require one to be an expert<br>
in the tolayim found in the fish flesh to<br>
know how they got into the flesh, either<br>
from the viscera or from some other source.<br>
Rav Belsky further feels that it is irrelevant<br>
whether the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolaas
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><b>entered
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>from the viscera<br>
or from some other way, whether it<br>
happened when the fish was alive or after<br>
it died. As proof, he notes that S.A. (ibid)<br>
says that </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>which come after the
death<br>
of the fish are permitted. Rav Belsky felt<br>
these </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>must have come from
the<br>
viscera, because there was no other reasonable<br>
source for </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>entering a fish
after<br>
death and yet they are permitted.<br><br>
Some are concerned that the
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>found<br>
in the flesh are actually the forbidden
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim<br>
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>originally found in the
viscera (Shulchan<br>
Aruch forbids the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><b>found
</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>in the<br>
viscera). Rav Belsky felt this claim is not<br>
based on any significant research. Rav Belsky<br>
felt that his own inquiries from qualified<br>
experts indicate that the opposite is true,<br>
and that the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>in question are
found<br>
in the flesh while it was alive. Furthermore,<br>
Rav Belsky feels even
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>entering the<br>
flesh from the viscera would be permitted as<br>
per above.<br><br>
Rav Belsky confirmed that the size of the<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolaas
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>when it is swallowed by
the fish is not<br>
relevant (even if it is visible while swallowed<br>
by the fish and visible when it migrates from<br>
the viscera). He also felt that reports that the<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolaas
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>is typically 5 mm is an
exaggeration of<br>
the larger end of the spectrum recorded. He<br>
believes that nearly all of these
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>tolayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>when<br>
they are swallowed are between 1-2 mm long<br>
and quite thin (Rav Belsky felt they would be<br>
considered </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>ayno nireh
l’aynayim
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>[halachically<br>
invisible]).<br><br>
<br>
</font></body>
</html>