Monday, July 05, 2010

Anisakis worms and peshat in Kukyanei, according to Rashi and Rabbenu Tam

There are two main ways of understanding the gemara's discussion of worm parasites called kukyanei, that of Rashi, and that of Rif and Rabbenu Tam. I would like to explore each.








אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני אסירי מאי טעמא מעלמא אתו מתקיף לה רב אשי אי מעלמא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי איכא דאמרי אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני שרו מאי טעמא מיניה גבלי אמר רב אשי פשיטא דאי מעלמא קא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי והלכתא קוקיאני אסירי מ"ט מינם ניים ועיילי ליה באוסייה 

What are these קוקיאני? They are some sort of parasite. In Berachot 36a, barley-flour is harmful to man in creating tapeworks, kukiani:
But has not R. Zera said in the name of R. Mattena reporting Samuel: Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we say the blessing 'by whose word all things exist', and may we not infer from this that over wheat-flour we say 'who createst the fruit of the ground'? — No; over wheat-flour also we say 'by whose word all things exist'. Then let him state the rule for wheat-flour, and it will apply to barley-flour as a matter of course? — If he had stated the rule as applying to wheat-flour, I might have said: That is the rule for wheat-flour, but over barley-flour we need say no blessing at all. Therefore we are told that this is not so. But is barley-flour of less account than salt or brine, of which we have learnt: Over salt and brine one says 'by whose word all things exist'? — It was necessary [to lay down the rule for barley-flour]. You might argue that a man often puts a dash of salt or brine into his mouth [without harm], but barley-flour is harmful in creating tapeworms, and therefore we need say no blessing over it. We are therefore told that since one has some enjoyment from it he must say a blessing over it.
So too in Shabbat 109b:
R. Joseph said: Hyssop is abratha bar hemag; Greek hyssop is abratha bar henag. 'Ulla said: [Hyssop is] white marwa [sage]. 'Ulla visited R. Samuel b. Judah [and] they set white marwa before him. Said he to them, That is the hyssop prescribed in Scripture. R. Pappi said, It is shumshuk. [marjoram]. R. Jeremiah of Difti said: Reason Supports R. Pappi. For we learnt: 'The law of hyssop [requires] three stalks [each] containing three calyxes'; and shumshuk, is found to have that shape. For what is it eaten? — [As a remedy] for worms. With what is it eaten? With seven black dates. By what is it [the disease of worms] caused? — Through [eating] barley-flour forty days old.
Rashi in Shabbos defines these קוקיאני as worms of the בני מעים. In terms of the gemara in Chullin, though, he understands that the parasitic worms under discussion are in the liver and lungs of an animal. Thus:
קוקיאני - תולעים שבכבד ושבריאה:

Let us first learn the gemara through Rashi's eyes. Once again, it is:

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני אסירי מאי טעמא מעלמא אתו מתקיף לה רב אשי אי מעלמא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי איכא דאמרי אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני שרו מאי טעמא מיניה גבלי אמר רב אשי פשיטא דאי מעלמא קא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי והלכתא קוקיאני אסירי מ"ט מינם ניים ועיילי ליה באוסייה

There are two versions of the exchange -- I would argue based on the terminology of איכא דאמרי, girsaot -- which are brought down in our gemara.

The first:
אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני אסירי מאי טעמא מעלמא אתו מתקיף לה רב אשי אי מעלמא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי

Rav Sheshet son of Rav Idi said that kukyanei -- parasites found in the lungs and liver of animals -- are forbidden. What is the reason? They came from the outside. Rav Ashi objected to this: If they came from the outside, we should find them by the anus, at the end of the digestive tract.

I have seen some interpretations of this that everyone agrees they would not have come from the mouth, for they would have been digested. Rather, they came from the anus. Perhaps. I have reasons to think otherwise. and so for this post I am operating under the assumption that they think it came from the mouth.

And so, I would assert that the assumption here is that they came from the mouth, and went from there into the trachea and from there into the lungs and the liver. How is this possible? Because Chazal were operating on the different biological assumptions than we are. To get to the lungs from the trachea is trivial. What about the liver?

See the gemara in Chullin 48b:
ההיא מחטא דאישתכח בחתיכה דכבדא סבר מר בריה דרב יוסף למיטרפה אמר ליה רב אשי אילו אשתכח בבשרא כה"ג הוה טריף מר אלא אמר רב אשי חזינא אי קופא לבר נקובי נקיב ואתאי אי קופא לגיו סמפונא נקט
That is, if a needle is found in the liver, it may be permitted if it is facing a particular direction, because we may assume that it passed via the vena cava, which extends from the trachea to the liver. See Chullin 49a, and Rashi there, based on Chullin 45b, which says that the simpon extends from the trachea to the liver. Rashi writes:
מכשר - כיון דבסמפונא אישתכח אמרינן מי מיכוונה להכנס בסמפון זה אלא דרך הקנה נכנסה והקנה וקנה כבד סמוכין זה לזה בהתחלקן סמוך לריאה וגם קנה הלב וקנה הכבד מתחלקין לסמפונות בראשן האחד וי"ל שנכנסה מסמפוני הכבד לסמפוני קנה הכבד ומשם עלתה לכבד דרך הסמפונות:

This does not accord with our modern understanding of biology, and this is a strong question whether we should be mattir for such a needle found in the liver nowadays. But it explains how, according to Rashi, the worm parasite could get from the mouth to the trachea to the liver.

And that is why Rav Sheshet son of Rav Iddi forbids. Rav Ashi argues with him. For if it is ingested in the mouth, we should expect that it would be found all along the digestive tract, including the end of it, for some worms will be swallowed rather than going into the trachea. Therefore, they must have simply spontaneously generated in these organs of the animal.

That was the first of the two versions of the dispute. The second:
איכא דאמרי אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני שרו מאי טעמא מיניה גבלי אמר רב אשי פשיטא דאי מעלמא קא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי
Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi said that parasitic worms -- in the liver and lungs -- are permitted. Why? Because they spontaneously generated. Rav Ashi reinforces this position, by noting that they could not have come from outside the animal, for if so, we would have found them at the end of the digestive tract as well.

In both versions, Rav Ashi permits, though in the first version, he has a disputant.

If Ravina and Rav Ashi were in charge of the chatimas haTalmud, and are sof horaah, it is strange that there are different versions of a dispute involving Rav Ashi. And that the halacha is not like Rav Ashi, and for a reason not explicitly mentioned by his disputant. The next statement, the hilcheta, is presumably the setama d'gemara from Savoraim or later. At any rate, the gemara concludes:

והלכתא קוקיאני אסירי מ"ט מינם ניים ועיילי ליה באוסייה
The halacha is that these parasites found in the lungs and livers of animals are forbidden. For when the animal sleeps, the parasite crawls into its nostrils.

To explain, it crawls into its nostrils, and from there to the trachea, and from there to the lungs and to the liver, as explained above. The animal will not be swallowing it as well, while awake, so it won't be found in the end of the digestive tract.

All this works out well, except for the science of the circulatory system, and of spontaneous generation, being incorrect.

Regardless, worms found in the flesh would be entirely separate, for they would be assumed to have been spontaneously generated. Because the assumption (seen elsewhere) is that worms cannot dig through flesh.

That is one way of understanding the gemara. Rif understands it differently, that it refers to worms in the belly of the fish.

Thus, the Rif summarizes the gemara as follows:
וקוקאני דאינון תולעים
שבמעי הדגים אסירי מאי טעמא מעלמא קא
אתו דמינם נאים כוארא ועייל באוסיה:
Kukaini -- which are worms in the bellies of fish -- are prohibited. What is the reason? They come from the outside. For when the fish sleeps, the parasite comes and enters it nostrils.

This is a good summary of the conclusion of the gemara, but does not give us the meaning at each stage. Perhaps this is influenced by another gemara which speaks of a parasite entering a fish's nose. (Indeed, if it comes from the setama, we should it expect that he gets it from some other gemara, from a statement from a named Amora.) Or else it is influenced by Rabbenu Tam's question:

קוקיאני אסירי. פי' הקונטרס תולעים שבכבד ושבריאה וקשיא לר"ת דלאידך לישנא דשרי תקשי ליה מברייתא דבסמוך דואת נבלתם תשקצו לרבות דרנים שבבהמה אע"ג דמינה קא גדלי אלא אומר ר"ת דבדגים איירי הכא והא דאמר כי ניים עייל ליה באוסיא אשכחן בדגים כי האי גוונא בפ' המוכר את הספינה (ב"ב דף עג:) דאמר רבה בר בר חנה חזינא ההוא כוורא דיתבה ועיילא ליה טינא באוסייה:
According to the second lashon, that they should be permitted, the brayta which follows should have been cited. That brayta, cited within a more general discussion, and ensuing discussion, was:
תולעים דרני דבשרא אסירי דכוורי שריין ... ש
א"ל רב משרשיא בריה דרב אחא לרבינא מאי שנא מהא דתניא  (ויקרא יא, יא) ואת נבלתם תשקצו לרבות את הדרנים שבבהמה 
א"ל הכי השתא בהמה בשחיטה הוא דמשתריא והני מדלא קא מהניא להו שחיטה באיסורייהו קיימן אבל דגים באסיפה בעלמא מישתרי והני כי קא גבלן בהיתרא קא גבלן
Thus, we see that despite spontaneous generation, the worms in flesh are forbidden, since they were initially forbidden because of ever min hachai and shechita did not mattir them. So too, one would think, for worms found in the liver and lung! That the gemara did not ask this indicates that it is not a relevant question, which should indicate that we are not discussing spontaneously generated worms in animals. Rather, we must be discussing fish.

(Since Rashi was not afforded the opportunity to respond, I will offer a response on his behalf. This is a question and proof, but an answer is always possible, no matter how far-fetched. I would note that Rashi has a very precise definition of darnei:
דרני - תולעים הנמצאים בין עור לבשר כשמפשיטין הבהמה ובלע"ז גרביליי"ש:
That is, worms found between the skin and the flesh. This could be very different from worms found within the flesh itself, or within internal organs of the animal. Indeed, if this is all misevara, that first it is ever min hachai and that shechita does not work, why does there need to be an explicit derashah from the pasuk, of ואת נבלתם תשקצו לרבות את הדרנים שבבהמה?! And if it is a derashah, then it makes sense that only the darnei, which the brayta mentions, are included in this novel law and inclusion. This might operate by the derasha informing us that shechita is no mattir for these. Alternatively, leave aside the derasha and operate only on the logic of Ravina. Why should shechita not be good, when it is valid for a shalil? Maybe because these darnei are not actually in and part of the flesh, but are outside it next to the skin. But worms in the flesh or organs would be covered by the shechita. And therefore, only darnei are problematic. Either could be a strong answer to Rabbenu Tam on Rashi's behalf, and so I would not be so quick to dismiss Rashi. This, by the way, could have halachic repercussions.)

Assuming we agree with Rabbenu Tam that we must be discussing fish, then we must be discussing parasites found in the belly of the fish. Why? Not only because this is what Rif explicitly says, but because the brayta he references and the ensuing discussion made clear that darnei in fish, which are in the flesh, or out of the flesh but under the skin, and therefore certainly in the flesh itself, are muttar! It must then be talking about worms found in the stomach of the fish. Let us consider this entire gemara, then, according to Rabbenu Tam.

We can once again assume that the gemara is worried about whether they came from the anus, or else that it comes from the mouth. I will assume that it is worried about them coming from the mouth, which is more straightforward, in my humble opinion.

The first version of the discussion:
אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני אסירי מאי טעמא מעלמא אתו מתקיף לה רב אשי אי מעלמא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי
Rav Sheshet son of Rav Idi declared that parasitic worms -- found in the bellies of fish -- are forbidden. What is the reason? They came from the outside -- for since they were found in the belly, we will worry that the fish swallowed them, rather than their being spontaneously generated. Rav Ashi objected to this: If they came from outside, we should find it by the end of the digestive tract, since they come in with the food, and we do not. Therefore, they must be spontaneously generated, and should be permitted.

The second version of the discussion:
איכא דאמרי אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי קוקיאני שרו מאי טעמא מיניה גבלי אמר רב אשי פשיטא דאי מעלמא קא אתו לישתכחו דרך בית הריעי
Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi said: Kukianei -- parasitic worms in the muscle tissue of the bellies of fish -- are permitted. What is the reason? Because they grow from them. Rav Ashi said: This is obvious, for it they came from the outside, we should find them in the end of the digestive tract.

Despite all the named Amoraim stating categorically that these parasitic worms are permitted, and one of them  is Rav Ashi who is sof horaah, the gemara rejects this and rules otherwise, that it is forbidden. On what basis?
והלכתא קוקיאני אסירי מ"ט מינם ניים ועיילי ליה באוסייה
They are forbidden because perhaps while the fish slept, the parasitic worm crawled in its nose. Since I am explaining the gemara up to this point as the concern being that it entered via its mouth (rather than the anus), how is entering via the nose different from entering via the mouth. Perhaps that it stayed there until the fish was no longer digesting its food -- maybe after death or some other time -- and entered the stomach or stomach muscle. Therefore, it would have come from the outside.

How does the setama degamara -- indeed, how do we -- know that a fish has nostrils, and that a parasite might enter into it? Tosafot refers us to the gemara in Bava Batra, daf 73b:
Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: Once we were travelling on board a ship and saw a fish in whose nostrils a parasite had entered. Thereupon, the water cast up the fish and threw it upon the shore. Sixty towns were destroyed thereby, sixty towns ate therefrom, and sixty towns salted [the remnants] thereof, and from one of its eyeballs three hundred kegs of oil were filled. On returning after twelve calendar months we saw that they were cutting rafters from its skeleton and proceeding to rebuild those towns.
I would note that a likely assumption -- made by Rashi there -- is that when the worm entered the fish's nostrils, the fish died, and that was why the water cast up the fish.

Now, can we really derive facts about nature from such a fantastic story? Perhaps, either because it is true, intended as true, or is metaphor predicated on true facts. So we can derive that a fish has nostrils, and that a parasite can enter its nostrils.

However, from the story, it seems that the parasite entering its nostrils was fatal. Perhaps because it entered the brain?

A stronger objection. Looking at the actual world, yes, a fish does have nostrils. However, this is purely as an olfactory sense. A fish's nostrils do not lead to the throat; not to the respiratory system and not to the digestive system. If so, there is a major flaw in Rif and Rabbenu Tam's peshat in the gemara.

I would maintain we then have two choices. First, we can simply say that Rif and Rabbenu Tam are wrong, and Rashi is right. I answered on Rashi's behalf, above, and so Rashi is in good standing.

Second, we can say that Rif and Rabbenu Tam are absolutely correct in explaining the gemara, but the setama de-gemara itself was wrong. I would gravitate towards this second explanation. After all, this הלכתא is likely setammaitic, and I have observed on many occasions that the setama draws from other sources. Tosafot was extremely perceptive in identifying the fish parasite in nostril from Rabbah bar bar Chanah. And this could have been an objection to Rav Ashi pulled in its entirety from the gemara, rather than perception of reality in the physical world. (I make a similar claim regarding how White Elephants Can't Jump. Not that Tosafot was wrong about elephants jumping, but rather Tosafot accurately identified the gemara's intent. It was just the setama which had the reality wrong, and pulled some information about elephants from another gemara.)

I will close, for now, with two possible conclusions.

Conclusions
(1) If we revert to Rashi, I would assert that at the least, Rashi considers worms in the flesh itself, rather than between flesh and skin, to be shechted and entirely permissible. This would overturn currently understood halachah. Further, the idea of a parasite entering via the nose is stammaitic, and perhaps we should rule like Rav Ashi who is sof horaah, and permit the worms in the organs as well. Of course, this could possibly clash with modern scientific understanding of how these parasites operate, but I'd like to consider this interaction in a separate post.

Rashi does not even discuss the stomach, and from my reading would consider them (almost) certainly forbidden, but I could imagine arguing for permitting worms found in the stomach via a slight variation of Rashi's presentation. But whatever is said for animals would likely apply to fish as well, and so just as worms in the abdominal cavity of animals are prohibited (according to Rashi), so too in the abdominal cavity of fish. (Except of course that the "nostril" answer would not hold true for fish, but would for animals.)

(2) If we maintain Rif and Rabbenu Tam's reading, then I think we should dismiss the setama. It was post-Rav Ashi, argues with him (the redactor!), and does so based on a mistaken understanding of biology drawn from a mistaken reading of a distant gemara. Yes, it seems that based on modern science the Amoraim are also erring in science, but we might be able to answer this up (in a separate post). Therefore, in both versions of the dispute, we should rule like Rav Ashi, and permit even the worms found in the stomach of the fish.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

meir says
of course this discussion is of course above my level.

Looking at the artscroll he brings an or sameach who after having looked him up says that rashi chose the liver and lung specially because they are like a shlil. and he says the chazon ish disagrees.
is that what you also meant.
he also says the ravia answers rashi which i do not possess.
your problem with the gemoro why he says osur for no apparent reason then the gemoro also finishes by saying osur.
this sometimes happens in the gemoro that the later reason was meant by a previous amora without saying so. i am sure one the meforshim will mention something.

Anonymous said...

meir says
thanks for your reply.
Please also look at tiferes yaakob who says something similar. I dont know why the artscroll doesnt mention him
Having again looked at the gemoro i have come up with something different having seen the meiri.
the first one says ossur because it comes from the outside. on that rav ashi says that anything going through the mouth would be digested and therefore cannot come from the outside. on this the first one disagrees.
on that the gemoro finishes off. true anything coming from the mouth would be digested but it could come through the nose.

Another point i dont understand. Accordingly in any internal organs which can come from outside are ossur.
why does the hagohos oshri and shiltei gibborim specify the nose as well.
just because the gemoro says it comes through the nose.
it seems they learn that in can always come through the mouth and the gemoro just adds on the nose.
there is no mesivta yet for another few years so i dont have the seforim to be able to get to the bottom of it.
it may be something simple but i still mention it.

joshwaxman said...

sorry, but i don't have the time to discuss this back and forth, or to start looking up sources left and right.

i don't see how your summary of the meiri covers anything i didn't already mention, or how it answers how fish nostrils do not connect to the throat, such that they CANNOT come in through the nose to get to the belly.

without your specifying what the Hagahos Asheiri and Shiltei Giborim actually say (but assuming instead what? that I read through Artscroll?), I do not understand your suggestion.

[I actually read that Shiltei Giborim citing Hagahos Asheiri in the past, when I was learning through the sugya in the Rif, and what Shiltei Giborim is saying is that since the gemara assurs that found in the belly because it entered through the nose, even if was not found in the nose, but in the belly, it would be assur. This because the nose is the only conduit from the outside. So he is NOT saying that it is via the nose AS WELL AS VIA THE MOUTH, as you are suggesting.]

my analysis of the gemara is self-contained, consistent, carefully developed, comprehensive and IMHO rather convincing. i'm sure plenty of Rishonim and Acharonim developed other theories. these would each have to be analyzed in turn to see if they are (as) persuasive. but providing a dizzying array of alternate perspectives, half-presented, is not helpful.

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

in the phrase
"even if was not found in the nose, but in the belly, it would be assur"

reverse the words nose and belly

joshwaxman said...

tiferes yaakov is available online, btw:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14030&st=&pgnum=456

almost everything is there at HebrewBooks.org. a good link goes a long way. i see now that you meant regarding my answer on behalf of Rashi. without seeing this inside, i had no idea what you meant by "who says something similar", as a made a number of points with which he could have been saying something similar...

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

meir says
'I actually read that Shiltei Giborim citing Hagahos Asheiri in the past, when I was learning through the sugya in the Rif, and what Shiltei Giborim is saying is that since the gemara assurs that found in the belly because it entered through the nose, even if was not found in the belly, but in the nose, it would be assur. This because the nose is the only conduit from the outside. So he is NOT saying that it is via the nose AS WELL AS VIA THE MOUTH, as you are suggesting


דברי שלטי הגבורים
כל תולעים הנמצאים בדג מחיים במעיהן לדברי רבינו ומיי' וטור אסורים אבל בין עור הדג לבשרו ובבשר הדג עצמו מותרים ובהגהת אשר"י בשם א"ז כתב שאף בנמצאים בחוטמו אסורים ובעל התרומות כתב בין שנמצאו בראשו בין שנמצאו בבני מעיים ואפי' בגוף החתיכה אסורים

joshwaxman said...

yes, precisely.

that everyone agrees דג מחיים במעיהן לדברי רבינו ומיי' וטור אסורים אבל בין עור הדג לבשרו ובבשר הדג עצמו מותרים.

what shiltei giborim cites from Hagahot Asheiri in the name of the Or Zarua is אף בנמצאים בחוטמו אסורים. Why in the nose? Because that is what the gemara specified as the (only) conduit towards the belly.

Nobody here was suggesting that the mouth was also conduit, because this was rejected by the gemara.

Thanks for bringing down the actual text, though.

kol tuv,
josh

joshwaxman said...

where by "everyone" i meant the ones at the top, as well as hagahot asheiri...

Anonymous said...

meir says
thanks for the tiferes yaakob i dont possess and now i can look at it.
Again but please dont trouble yourself to reply. i do understand

rav shilo says ossur without reason
there can be two reaons either
A) he holds that they do not get digested and they come from the mouth and if found in the nose see further would be muttar.
B) that they come from the nose while asleep.

rav ashi says muttar that they do get digested. now it seems to me he held that they cannot comes from the nose (while it was sleeping) and if you found it in the nose most likely it came from itself not from outside and would be muttar. i think this is clear

then the gemoro says it can come from the nose.
now one could learn especially if you learnt like A)
that it can come from both but the gemoro is just disproving rav ashi.

or like B) where the gemoro is not really saying anything new since rav shisha said so already.

or that the gemoro is agreeing to rav ashu that it cannot come from the mouth only the nose.

now the hagohos oshri can be understood because you might have learnt like rav shisha and rav ashi that from the nose it comes from itself and the only issur is because it comes from the mouth like A)
there fore the hagahos oshri has to say EVEN from the nose is ossur.
other wise the word EVEN is not clear.
its ok no reply necessary you have done enough to reply so far

joshwaxman said...

sorry, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that this is what Hagahot Asheiri means. you are constructing a whole extremely speculative edifice for his reasoning, when the straightforward meaning is simply that since we know that the nose is the (only) conduit, if you find it in the nose and not just in the belly, of course it would also be assur. thus Hagahot Asheiri is applying a bit of sechel instead of blindly adopting just the most literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the belly.

the "even" means even the nose, not just the belly, as a literal and unthinking reading of the gemara would yield. thus, the word EVEN is entirely clear.

(rav ashi had no clue about the nose, and never mentions the nose in his disproof of Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi. this could be [and indeed i suspect] because the named Amoraim are all aware of correct science. but I would think that if you put it to Rav Ashi, he would *assur* if it were found in the nose, since there is a direct path to the outside.)

kt,
josh

anon said...

Please, more discussion of whether post amoraic statements in the gemara are binding.
Seridei Eish (somewhere in chelek 4) says they are.
I don't think the Rambam agrees. Somewhere (sorry I don't know) where he writes that those who questioned what he wrote in mishne tora, either didn't have the latest version of mishne tora or their gemaras had lines that were added later and aren't binding. Perhaps, he is referring to savoraic statements. Although, it could be that he is referring to הלכתא. Tos. says in a couple of places that it was added from the בה"ג.
....

Anonymous said...

meir says
with all due respect the gemoro does not mention belly unless i have missed something.
that is why rashi can say lungs liver.
i have thought more about it.
i hope you and your viewers dont mind me going on about it.

In reference to my previous post.
According to rashi. rav shisha said lungs liver ossur. rav Ashi says from the mouth it would never get there. the gemoro says it got there from the nose.
i think that means that that is what rav shisha meant originally.
so if rashi can learn like that so can the rif. that the gemoro later explains rav shisha.
i say that as a possiblity but i prefer my other one.

now to the meiri which i found to be a chidush
according to the rif who is the only one who mentions belly meaning internal organs. you see that from the nose it can get to all of them. only the meat is muttar.
i would say the same from the mouth. according to rav shisha it can get to all of them.
so not like rashi that rav ashi says from the mouth it wouldnt get there but like the meiri that from the mouth it would be digested and not get there.
now at the end the gemoro says it came from the nose.
the shiltei hagiborim i was mistaken the translation of 'af' is also not even.
but the wording of the hagahos oshri is this.
it comes from the nose 'hilkoch' therefore the belly and nose is ossur.
the plain reading is that only because it comes from the nose and not mouth.
true its not 100% proof just 'mashma' and i say only the nose

this was my original point.
now the shiltie hagiborim which i quoted says that the sefer hatrumos says the whole head. i believe he argues on the rif who only says the belly (and nose which is self understood)

Thank you again for your replies.
each time one learns it one gets nearer to the truth.
who knows if i am there yet

Anonymous said...

meir says
"rav ashi had no clue about the nose, and never mentions the nose in his disproof of Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi"

How do you understand rashi then. That rav shisha says it came from the mouth to lungs and liver and rav ashi says no. why does he just choose lungs and liver if it came from the mouth are there no other limbs in an animal (not fish to rashi)
no i think he also meant it came from the nose.
rav ashi is saying that if it came from the outside it would find itself in the 'beis reiei' meaning it can only come from the mouth. true its not put very well but that is the best i can do.
because it cannot get into the nose.
on that the gemoro says it gets in while its sleeping.
one could answer that rashi means these worms are only found in lungs and liver. although they come from the mouth.
again not convincing

joshwaxman said...

i don't have time to pursue this back and forth.

yes, of course rashi was basing himself on the conclusion of the gemara in explaining it. as i said, rishonim don't do mechkar.

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

meir says
my previous very long comment seems to have got lost.
Maybe its a sign that it should not have been made.
i will try once more but a very very shortened version of it.
"ost literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the bellymost literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the belly"
the gemoro does not mention belly only the rif.
"av ashi had no clue about the nose, and never mentions the nose in his disproof of Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi. this could "

how do you understand then rashi why did he choose lung and liver.
for rav shisha if it came through the mouth there are many more limbs in an animal it was just as likely to get to.
only because he meant through the nose.
why rav ashi doesnt mention it one can find answers
the wording of hagahaos oshri
is it comes through the nose 'hilkoch' therefore the belly and nose
my whole point was that if it was through the mouth the nose would be muttar.
i will in future have to make copies before submitting them

Anonymous said...

meir says
my previous very long comment seems to have got lost.
Maybe its a sign that it should not have been made.
i will try once more but a very very shortened version of it.
"ost literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the belly most literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the belly"
the gemoro does not mention belly only the rif.
"av ashi had no clue about the nose, and never mentions the nose in his disproof of Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi. this could "

how do you understand then rashi why did he choose lung and liver.
for rav shisha if it came through the mouth there are many more limbs in an animal it was just as likely to get to.
only because he meant through the nose.
why rav ashi doesnt mention it one can find answers
the wording of hagahaos oshri
is it comes through the nose 'hilkoch' therefore the belly and nose
my whole point was that if it was through the mouth the nose would be muttar.
i will in future have to make copies before submitting them

Anonymous said...

meir says
my previous very long comment seems to have got lost.
Maybe its a sign that it should not have been made.
i will try once more but a very very shortened version of it.
"ost literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the bellymost literal reading of the gemara, which discusses the belly"
the gemoro does not mention belly only the rif.
"av ashi had no clue about the nose, and never mentions the nose in his disproof of Rav Shisha bar Rav Idi. this could "

how do you understand then rashi why did he choose lung and liver.
for rav shisha if it came through the mouth there are many more limbs in an animal it was just as likely to get to.
only because he meant through the nose.
why rav ashi doesnt mention it one can find answers
the wording of hagahaos oshri
is it comes through the nose 'hilkoch' therefore the belly and nose
my whole point was that if it was through the mouth the nose would be muttar.
i will in future have to make copies before submitting them

joshwaxman said...

very briefly:

I don't see any reason "hilkach" is any different from "af". indeed, i would also say "hilkach."

the Rif didn't get the idea of belly from nowhere. it stands to reason from the gemara discussing going out the derech beis hare'i that we are talking about something along these lines. so for Rif and Tosafot, who maintain it speaks of fish, it would be the belly, as (they believe) the nose as well is connected. (especially as elsewhere is encompassed under "darnei".)

for Rashi, it has to be discussing organs accessible via the mouth/digestive tract, in the beginning of the gemara, and excluding the digestive tract in the conclusion. that leaves the lungs and the liver (via nose then throat), which he knows from other gemaras (namely Chullin daf 48) are connected in this manner. I analyzed all this in my post. Rashi doesn't mention e.g. kidneys because who says there is a direct connection to these? there has to be a consistent way of making sense of the gemara, both in the discussion of the Amoraim and in the conclusion of the stama.

none of this leads to your speculative reconstruction of what Rav Shesha or Rav Ashi must have maintained.

kt,
josh

Anonymous said...

meir says

"the Rif didn't get the idea of belly from nowhere. it stands to reason from the gemara discussing going out the derech beis hare'i that we are talking about something along these lines. so for Rif and Tosafot, who maintain it speaks of fish, it would be the belly, as (they believe) the nose as well is connected"


The rif uses the word belly but he means all internal organs.
otherwise the shulchan oruch wouldnt say only the meat is muttar.

Anonymous said...

meir says

"the Rif didn't get the idea of belly from nowhere. it stands to reason from the gemara discussing going out the derech beis hare'i that we are talking about something along these lines. so for Rif and Tosafot, who maintain it speaks of fish, it would be the belly, as (they believe) the nose as well is connected"


The rif uses the word belly but he means all internal organs.
otherwise the shulchan oruch wouldnt say only the meat is muttar.

joshwaxman said...

nope. that is YOUR diyuk, and one which does not work well with the plain and simple sense of the gemara. you need to show where Shulchan Aruch says this (and clarifies that by basar he excludes organs other that the belly), and IF he says this, how he develops it in Beis Yosef from the words of various Rishonim. And even IF this (which I don't believe to be so), that would only reveal to us how Rav Yosef Karo understood the Rif, not necessarily what the Rif intended.

this is not the sort of assertion to be suggested so casually. if i were to make it, i would be providing ample documentation, in the form of a full-blown post.

Anonymous said...

meir says
you are right.
the caf hachaim says liver as well.
that shows that not all internal organs.
But the shulchan oruch mislead me by saying (i think from the rashbo) that in the meat.
thanks.

joshwaxman said...

no prob.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin