tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post8908907572628270613..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Rav Belsky on Anisakis Worms in Fish, and his (mis-)interpretation of Rashijoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-40535760416778205452010-06-10T15:04:29.196-04:002010-06-10T15:04:29.196-04:00i'd rather not.
bli neder, eventually.
but n...i'd rather not.<br /><br />bli neder, eventually.<br /><br />but not in a comment thread. if you are looking for reasons to be mattir, you can read what <a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/06/rav-belsky-on-anisakis-worms.html" rel="nofollow">Rabbi Slikfin</a> (and <a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/04/worm-controversy.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>)writes in his blog, and at greater lengths, in one of his books, Sacred Monsters.<br /><br />I don't entirely subscribe to this as the reason it is permitted. I think I'll dance around the issue for a while first, giving several reasons, in various posts, for it to be permitted. (and maybe a few why it should be forbidden.)<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-243227764951911352010-06-10T14:34:06.955-04:002010-06-10T14:34:06.955-04:00"Even without this, I can think of other reas..."Even without this, I can think of other reasons the fish should be permitted, without checking..."<br /><br />May you please elaborate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59710593710266939112010-06-10T12:28:14.238-04:002010-06-10T12:28:14.238-04:00Additionally, it's quite clear from Rashi in S...Additionally, it's quite clear from Rashi in Sanhedrin 91a (on the right side of the ammud towards the bottom, dibbur hamaschil 'achbar' and dibbur hamaschil 'hayom' that Rashi believed in spontaneous generation ( see - http://www.dailygemara.com/Default.asp?MasechetID=31&PageID=1963 ). Rashi even says about certain mice 'there are certain of them that are not created through reproduction' and he then goes on to say that snails are created out of the earth.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23173104335178495682010-06-10T12:09:33.804-04:002010-06-10T12:09:33.804-04:00It's quite clear that Chazal believed in spont...It's quite clear that Chazal believed in spontaneous generation, as did everyone of their era. See the following (http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/64755/excerpt/9780521564755_excerpt.pdf):<br /><br />"During thousands of years, the comforting theory of spontaneous generation seemed to provide an answer to this enduring question. In ancient China, people thought that aphids were spontaneously<br />generated from bamboos. Sacred documents from India mention the spontaneous formation of flies from dirt and sweat. Babylonian inscriptions indicate that mud from canals was able to generate worms.<br />For the Greek philosophers, life was inherent to matter; it was eternal and appeared spontaneously whenever the conditions were favorable. These ideas were clearly stated by Thales, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, and even by Plato. Aristotle gathered the different claims into a real theory. This theory safely crossed the Middle Ages and the Renaissance."<br /><br />It's quite strange that according to R. Belksy, Chazal knew that spontaneous generation was wrong, yet neglected to inform anyone.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57506767176931692132010-06-10T09:23:32.873-04:002010-06-10T09:23:32.873-04:00Also, even though he predicates his entire assumpt...Also, even though he predicates his entire assumption on the fact that chazal never erred, isn;t he just following the school of thought of the Maharal? In truth, he should have just explained why the meaning was not literal and that Rashi had a deeper message in order to be following the derech Maharal. Then this whole approach would be considered valid since it is just going according to the non-rationalistic camp of thought and we still allow them to have halachic decisions. I mean, there are things in the shulchan orech that are also not 100% correct according to todays science, no?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69396796339665649832010-06-10T09:16:33.897-04:002010-06-10T09:16:33.897-04:00I don;t understand how he learns that Gemorah/Mish...I don;t understand how he learns that Gemorah/Mishna still. Doesn't it say straight out that they do not reproduce. How do they come into being then according to him?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-9095565555682718422010-06-09T10:58:33.048-04:002010-06-09T10:58:33.048-04:00indeed. though as stated in the article, rabbi bel...indeed. though as stated in the article, rabbi belsky reinterprets that gemara as that the louse cannot survive on its own, and that interpretations of the gemara as spontaneous generation must have been mistaken. so i didn't list this one.<br /><br />he would probably find some clever way of reinterpreting the Mechilta as well. but it would seem rather farfetched that the Mechilta is willing to claim that a pasuk, in order, as it explicitly states is wrong, unless there were compelling scientific reasons to state so.<br /><br />that says, rav belsky's answer is not necessarily dead in the water. one can question whether the same reason they permitted because of spontaneous generation would apply even in its absence... that is, not that it is reckoned fish such that asifa makes it kosher, but that since it never went outside the fish (either due to spontaneous generation or having hatched inside the fish), it is not sheretz hamayim. we should look at the Bet Yosef and Pri Megadim inside.<br /><br />it is really just this aspect of the teshuva I am objecting to -- to the claim that Chazal never erred in science, such that for the sake of Truth, we must reinterpret their words; and his basing himself on Rashi for this interpretation, where I don't think that this is what Rashi means.<br /><br />Even without this, I can think of other reasons the fish should be permitted, without checking...<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-84939245447947041672010-06-09T10:23:48.228-04:002010-06-09T10:23:48.228-04:00Another place where chazal clearly talk about spon...Another place where chazal clearly talk about spontaneous generation is the Gemorah in Shabbos that deals with the permissability of killing lice on shabbos.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.com