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.

How Ravina ate worms

I had an interesting thought, but decided to leave it out of the previous post on anisakis worms because it would distract from the main point.

In Chullin 67b, we hear about how darnei, a worm parasite which dwells between the flesh and the skin, is forbidden in meat but permitted in fish.

This is followed by a statement of how Ravina used to eat these worms:

אמר לה רבינא לאימיה אבלע לי ואנא איכול

A typical explanation would be:

"Ravina asked his mother to mix fish worms with his fish, so he would eat them without seeing them."

Why should she mix them together? As Rashi explains:

אבלע לי - דכוורי בתוך הדגים תני אותם שלא אראה ואקוץ בם:

And so, she was to mix the worms into the the flesh of the fish -- so that it was swallowed up / אבלע לי -- and then he would eat them. This disgust at the worms might be problematic for the reason I mentioned in the previous post, of bal teshakatzu. Further, the reason for mixing it up like this is missing from the statement itself. And to use the phrase אבלע לי in context of eating carries another connotation.

That would be that Ravina was acting in a silly manner with his mother, telling her to treat him like a baby bird. Since these worms are absolutely kosher, she should drop them in his mouth like a mother bird would her chicks, and he would then eat them.

This would then be the very opposite of Rashi's explanation, both in terms of disgust and in terms of whether they were separate entities. I don't know that I really am convinced this is the meaning of the statement, but I thought I'd record it here for later consideration.

Anisakis worms are disgusting! From Ravina to Rav Moshe

A separate concern from any of those popularly raised regarding anisakis worms in fish may well be the issur of making oneself abominable by doing or eating abominable things. Thus, the pasuk in Vayikra 11 reads:

43. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping creature that creeps, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, that you should become unclean through them.

מג. אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם:

or in Vayikra 20:

25. And you shall distinguish between clean animals and unclean ones, and between unclean birds and clean ones; thus you shall not make yourselves disgusting through [unclean] animals and birds and any [creature] which crawls on the earth, that I have distinguished for you to render unclean.

כה. וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא:

And as we learned a few days ago in daf Yomi, in Makkot 16, this includes doing disgusting things. Thus:
אמר רב אחאי המשהה את נקביו עובר משום  (ויקרא כ, כה) לא תשקצו 
אמר רב ביבי בר אביי האי מאן דשתי בקרנא דאומנא קא עבר משום לא תשקצו

Or in English:

(Rav Achai): If one urgently needs to excrete and holds it in, he transgresses "v'Lo Seshaktzu (do not make yourselves detestable)";
(Rav Bivi bar Abaye): If one drinks from a bloodletter's vessel (which is disgusting), he transgresses "v'Lo Seshaktzu." 

As Rambam puts it at the end of hilchot maachalot assurot, perek 17:

כו  [כט] וְאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מַאֲכָלוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנֶּפֶשׁ רֹב בְּנֵי אָדָם קֵהָה מֵהֶן, כְּגוֹן מַאֲכָלוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרַב בָּהֶן קִיא אוֹ צוֹאָה וְלֵחָה סְרוּחָה וְכַיּוֹצֶא בָּהֶן; וְכֵן אָסְרוּ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת בְּכֵלִים הַצּוֹאִים שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָם מִתְאוֹנֵנָה מֵהֶן, כְּגוֹן כְּלֵי בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּכְלֵי זְכוֹכִית שֶׁלְּסַפָּרִין שֶׁגּוֹרְעִין בָּהֶן אֶת הַדָּם וְכַיּוֹצֶא בָּהֶן; [ל] וְכֵן לֶאֱכֹל בְּיָדַיִם מְזֹהָמוֹת, וְעַל גַּבֵּי כֵּלִים מְלֻכְלָכִים:  שֶׁכָּל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ, בִּכְלַל "אַל-תְּשַׁקְּצוּ, אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" (ויקרא יא,מג).  וְהָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָלוֹת אֵלּוּ, מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת.

Thus (roughly), "The Sages prohibited foods and drinks which the spirit of most people recoils from, such as food and drink in which is mixed vomit, excrement, odious phlegm, and the like. And so too the prohibited to eat and drink from fouled vessels which the spirit of a person recoils from, such as a chamberpot or glass cups of barbers which which they let blood and the like, and so too to eat with fouled hands, or on dirty dishes, for all these things are included in 'Thou shalt not my thy souls abominable'. And one who eats these foods, they lash him lashes of mardus {rebellion}."

Even if the anisakis worms are entirely muttar, most people nowadays would find them disgusting to eat. Indeed, because they are mius, their exuded material is more easily nullified (and perhaps berya is cancelled according to some poskim). Even back in Talmudic times, I would guess that they would find them disgusting. And indeed, the peshat of the pesukim in question, from which this stands, discusses sheratzim. This may well be cultural, but that is the nature of the prohibition. So even the muttar worms, how can we eat them?

To illustrate this, take a look at this video of rabbis extracting anisakis worms from fish:


As E-man wrote in a comment on an earlier post:

Thanks for your insights. Honestly, I would never want to eat wild salmon or any other fish that might have these worms because I saw this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyxnO7uMpo and almost threw up.

Disgust does not necessarily mean prohibition (and E-man wasn't trying to suggest so), but I wonder if it might, at least in our generation.

This disgust and inclination to throw up is not a new thing. In the gemara discussing how anisakis worms underneath the skin of the fish are entirely permitted, on Chullin 67a:

אמר לה רבינא לאימיה אבלע לי ואנא איכול
"Ravina asked his mother to mix fish worms with his fish, so he would eat them without seeing them."

Why should she mix them together? As Rashi explains:
אבלע לי - דכוורי בתוך הדגים תני אותם שלא אראה ואקוץ בם:

So that he shouldn't see them and feel sick.

The gemara might just be using this as a demonstration that such worms are entirely muttar and that this Amora indeed ate them. But I wonder if there was some halachic reasoning in the mix, that if they disgusted him, he would not only not eat them as personal preference but because of בל תשקצו... Regardless, even though eating whole worms is disgusting, he did not mind them mixed in, where he could not really see them.

It is not just Ravina. In more modern times, Rav Moshe Feinstein explicitly permitted anisakis worms, without going into contortions of why they should be muttar. Simply put, these are the worms which Chazal permitted. I saw the following comment in a fish-worm post at Matzav:

Rabbi Eidelman from MTJ said that he was once sitting next to R Moshe and they were eating fish and R Moshe pulled out a worm from the fish and told R Eidelman that that is the worm from the shulchan aruch and kept on eating. So R Moshe also holds that fish does not require checking.

Presumably Rav Moshe did not eat the worm that he had just extracted, even though it would be muttar. I wonder whether he was slightly disgusted by the idea of eating possibly wormy fish, but ate it anyway so that people should not take his not eating it as a maaseh rav.

The facts of the matter is that much of our food and environment is not pristine in this way. We inhale dust mites:

As we learn in Berachot:

תניא אבא בנימין אומר אלמלי נתנה רשות לעין לראות אין כל בריה יכולה לעמוד מפני המזיקין אמר אביי אינהו נפישי מינן וקיימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא אמר רב הונא כל חד וחד מינן אלפא משמאליה ורבבתא מימיניה

It has been taught:

Abba Benjamin says, If the eye had the power to see them, no creature could endure the Mazikin.

Abaye says: They are more numerous than we are and they surround us like the ridge round a field.

R. Huna says: Every one among us has a thousand on his left and ten thousand on his right. [Psalm 91:7]

Some estimates put the amount of bug matter consumed by a person in a year on average to be one and two pounds. And yet people don't think about it. And perhaps we can wrap our minds around it by thinking that we don't know for certain that it is there in this particular fish, and even if it (the anisakis worm or part of it) is there, it is kosher, and is "meat" just like any other meat that the Torah permits.

Note: This is meant as a mere exploration of the issues, not halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Are Anisakis worms muttar because of safek berya?

The real reason anisakis worms are muttar is because they are. But here is another analysis, by which perhaps they should be muttar -- but maybe not.

Since anisakis worms are not readily recognizable in the flesh of fish without a powerful light, or in the case of red-colored fish, a UV-light, they are not nikkar. Even so, they are a complete non-kosher entity where a part of it is considered a part of the whole, and so the whole anisakis worm is considered a berya. In terms of bliyot, they are mius, and are certainly batel given the amount of surrounding fish. But in terms of the worm itself, it is not batel because it is a berya, and even in 1000 X it is not batel. This din of berya is discussed in Yoreh Deah siman 100.

However, as the Taz discusses, and as Aruch Hashulchan brings down as pashut, this idea that it is not nullified even in one thousand times the amount (rather than mere taste or 60X) is a din derabanan. And there are implications. To cite him inside:

The idea of the importance of items such that they are not nullified is a Rabbinic law. For since, Biblically, there is this importance such that we lash on its consumption even when it is less than an olive's measure, for it is plainly (setama) written regarding impure species that you should not eat them, even if they are small, therefore the Rabbis were stringent regarding mixtures of them. However, Biblically, they are nullified just as other prohibited items. And the practical distinction here is in terms of a case of doubt if it is a berya or not, it is a case of Rabbinic doubt, and it is nullified. And so too all the things about which we say in future text that they are not nullified, such as rauy lehitkabed or davar shebiminyan. However, if it is certainly a berya, or one of these which are not nullified, but rather the prohibition is a doubt, in this even in 1000 they are not nullified. Such as eggs of something which might have been a treifah, and the like. And so writes the Issur beHetter, Klal 25, law 7.

If so, an opportunity to be mattir these has opened and then swiftly shut. We might have said that berya is a din deRabbanan, and so in any case of safeik, it is a safeik deRabbanan and it is lekulah. But while Taz indeed indicates that it is a din deRabbanan, he says that they did not establish it like that. Rather, if there is doubt whether the berya is present in the first place, then it is a safeik whether the Rabbinic law of berya not batel goes into effect, and so safeik deRabbanan lekulah. But once the entity exists as a complete entity, even if there is a doubt as to its prohibited state, Chazal would indeed apply this rule that it is not batel since it is an entity, and the origin safek deOrayta stands. Thus, it would be assur.

What about by anisakis? There are two sefeikos we can posit. The first is whether it is in the fish, or in any given piece of fish. This would be the first type of safek mentioned by the Taz, whether the berya is present. I suppose that the osrim could or do counter that in wild salmon and the like, it is so prevalent that there is no safeik. I am not certain about this -- in any slice of fish before me, I would guess that there is indeed a safeik.

The second safeik we can posit regarding anisakis is whether they are assur in the first place. Everyone now agrees that the worms in the flesh come from the belly. The worms in the belly are assur misafek, because maybe they came from the outside, or maybe they hatched from eggs inside the fish. This is the understanding of Beis Yosef and Pri Megadim regarding the worm in the belly. Rav Belsky asserts that worms in the flesh must have come from eggs that hatched in the belly, such that worms in flesh are vadai muttar -- and that was what Chazal meant. The osrim must hold that they have the same status as worms in the belly, and so are assur misafek. If so, perhaps this is safek berya and is nullified? It would seem that we cannot say this, for the safek deOraysa applies to the issur, but there is no safeik whether they are berya! Thus, Taz ruled this out.

I will try a more novel approach to make this not berya. There are different ways of understanding berya, that of Rosh and that of Ran. Both are brought lehalacha in Shulchan Aruch. According to Ran, it is not a berya unless the issur applied mitchilat beriyato, from the moment of its creation. So, for example, a non-kosher bird is a berya, but a kosher bird which became a neveilah is not. These tolaim, these anisakis worms, are assur misafek in the belly. Why are they assur? Because maybe they were shoretz al pnei hamayim, or maybe they were internally generated.

Assuming that Chazal and Rishonim understood them to be spontaneously generated, then they initially were regular sheratzim which had not yet been shoretz, but subsequently they moved from one fish to the next and were indeed shoretz. Thus, in their initial state they were muttar and only later were they assur. How can they be berya?!

Assuming that we are operating via external vs. internal generation / hatching, then I would guess that they are saying in this case that maybe the anisakis eggs hatched inside the water (rather than the other fish species), and were swallowed as larvae. If so, they were shoretz in the water. And presumably they were shoretz in this manner rather immediately, once they emerged from the egg. Perhaps we can make the argument that for the one instant, they were not. Or we can say that that some are shoretz later reveals this aspect to be an extrinsic rather than intrinsic factor. It is a sheretz, yes. But there is a sheretz which has not yet been shoretz and a sheretz which has already been shoretz. As such, maybe we can argue that it is not a berya! (Certainly, we should be able to say it is not a berya for something that was initially entirely muttar for a while, and only later escaped and was shoretz on the water.)

The major problem with this is that while it works well with the theory of the Ran as I understand it, it seems to be against an explicit Mishna. In Makkot 13a, which we learned a few days ago in daf yomi, the Mishna discusses berya, in terms of being liable for eating a small amount, less than a kezayis. (This is the explicit statement regarding berya, whereas that it is not nullified even in 1000 I think comes implicitly from the relevant sugya.) And the example is אוכל נמלה, eating an ant, which Rashi explains is assur because of sheretz hashoretz al haaretz. Maybe they operated under a correct presumption that all ants are shoretz on the aretz from birth, as opposed to the anisakis worm, where it depends on the stage of development and pace of development? Perhaps, even so, this chiddush is somewhat difficult to say.

Also, even if we do say it is not berya and therefore would be batel, this is presumably only if it is not nikkar. I think it is not nikkar if we need a very bright light to spot them, or a UV light in the case of red-colored fish. But maybe the osrim would disagree with that assessment.

I should note that even if we say it is berya, there is still a reason to be lenient. From a purely Biblical perspective, it was batel. Only Rabbinically is it not. And the same Rabbis who said that it was not also said that these particular worms in the flesh are muttar. (I made a similar argument in the past regarding the safek whether they were present and the safek whether they crawled, under a disputable view that safek deOraysa lechumra is a din deRabbanan. But here this seems to clearly be a din deRabbanan.) So I am solid in terms of Chazal. And even if I am not, so I am violating a din deRabbanan when there are major Rabbonim such as Rav Belsky who give straightforward reasons to be mattir besides this; and where all generations, from Moshe Rabbenu to Rav Moshe all ate this fish and believed it to be muttar. And I am countering an unfortunate trend to go looking for reasons to prohibit everything by selectively applying scientific discoveries and wish that the Torah was given to malachei hashareit. I am OK with possibly violating a deRabbanan given all these (and other) factors.

Note: Not intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

My Thoughts on Rav Elyashiv on the Anisakis worms in Fish

According to recent news, Rav Elyashiv permitted herring, but still forbids wild salmon and other fish unless they are inspected. To cite:

According to both Rabbi Karp and others present, Rav Elyashiv stressed that the Anisakis is forbidden because of the clear evidence that it’s origin is clearly from outside of the flesh of the fish and are thus considered Sheretz HaMayim. Other worms that develop inside the flesh of the fish are permitted, however, and fall under the rubric of the Talmudic dispensation of “Minei Gavli” (See tractate Chullin 67b).

It is difficult to consider a non-written teshuva, so I don't have much to work with here. And so I am stumbling about in the dark here. (Corrections are, of course, welcome.) There are good reasons for forbidding fish with the anisakis worm (though I still maintain they are permitted and we should not change our practice; and there is an alternate theory of the relevant halachot provided by Rabbi Belsky). What are these good, straightforward reasons? Namely, Chazal were operating under a theory of spontaneous generation -- minei gavlei -- and that is the only reason they would be permitted, along with the fish. But just as worms in the belly are forbidden, for they might have come from outside, so too any instance when they might have, or especially if they certainly came from outside. The scientific investigations conducted showed that the worms in the flesh came from the worms in the belly, and we know that the worms in the belly come from the outside.

Given a general statement of Chazal against eyewitness reports of the actual metzius, we would of course believe the actual metzius. This, in contrast to what Rabbi Chaim Scher wrote:

While we should embrace spontaneous generation, we should do so boldly and without apology. We trust the words of Chazal over what we can observe with our own eyes[3]. This is a feat which only Hashem’s chosen nation, the Maaminim B’nei Maaminim, can accomplish. For, in the end, it is not scientists’ words which we disbelieve in favor of Chazal’s tradition, but rather evidence that our own eyes may confirm.

But where there is no such concrete evidence, we are entitled to follow this general rule. (Of course, Rabbi Scher was talking about the general case, but explains why it does not apply in this present case.) Does Rav Elyashiv indeed believe that spontaneous generation operates on all these other fish, or even in general? He very well might. On the other hand, from Rabbi Scher again, Rav Elyashiv is willing to permit not just based on spontaneous generation but upon hatching of the eggs internal to the fish:

In truth, however, according to many Poskim including Rav Elyashiv[4] and Rav Nissim Karelitz[5], a worm need not be spontaneously generated in order to be permitted. Any internal generation, even generation from an egg, would be permitted. Therefore, even worms that have been demonstrated to be generated from eggs may be permitted. It follows, therefore, that in order to prohibit these worms, it is not sufficient to prove that the worms generate from eggs; we must prove that they generate externally.

This would appear to be in line with Rav Belsky's discussion of shoretz on the water; or alternatively, understanding minei gavlei as any internal development. I don't know whether this is to the exclusion of the possibility of spontaneous generation, or not. And that we rely on Chazal's statement as a general rule, but when we can directly observe the opposite, then this is NOT covered by the blanket heter of Chazal.

(According to Rabbi Scher's presentation, they would only be forbidden if is was

Rav Elyashiv is certainly entitled to his position, just as Rav Belsky is. I will explain my slight disagreements in a moment. But one important point I could extrapolate may be this:

If not for certain troublemakers who were looking to establish yet another thing as assur, who demonstrated to rabbis in a lab this migration from the belly, perhaps "we" would not "know" that they generate from the outside of the fish, and we could have continued to rely on the blanket heter of Chazal.

Perhaps not. Perhaps existing scientific discussion of this was sufficient. But see for example Rav Wosner:

Rav Wozner Shlit”a clearly stated in my presence and in the presence of Rav Shaul Klein Shlit”a, his Av Bais Din, that while in the past he did not feel an obligation to be Mocheh [protest] since the evidence was based only on scientific reports, now that there is a Raglaim L’Dovor [strong circumstantial evidence] that it enters the flesh from the viscera, one is obligated to protest.

While I personally disagree with this distinction, based on an assumption that we cannot trust scientists, for they lie, it seems that this investigation by trouble-making busybodies was what sparked the recent issur.

Now here is my disagreement.

1) First and foremost, according to some reports, both Rav Vaye and Rav Belsky, who permit, were not allowed entry to speak to Rav Elyashiv about this. (There have also been denials on the point of Rav Vaye.) As such, he may not have been adequately presented with the reasons to be mattir, on the level of halacha or metzius. We have seen the tznius video where someone manipulated Rav Elyashiv to extract the answers he wanted. So while the halachic theory may be consistent and sound, I would not attach Rav Elyashiv's name and endorsement to it, despite firsthand reports that he does endorse it.

Call it instead the position of whatever Rabbis are propounding it.

2) This is based on a particular understanding of the relevant sources which I don't think is really true. Chazal and the Rishonim did rely on the idea of spontaneous generation. Substituting another theory and working with that in a way that we conclude that these in particular are forbidden does not convince me. Minei gavlei in almost all likelihood means spontaneous generation, and this was their basis. If you forbid these, first state categorically that spontaneous generation was the basis, and that Chazal were mistaken. And / or, then reevaluate ALL of halacha in ALL the places Chazal were incorrect in science. (This is true even here, where they are saying Chazal erred in science even as they claim they are not saying Chazal erred in science.) The osrim have no idea the major upheaval this would cause, and how many simanim in Shulchan Aruch would need to be rewritten. (That is, forbid, but accurately, and consistently! This, BTW, is the true reason I would say we should permit, though I should develop this in another post.) And if Chazal really meant internal generation of the eggs, or we could extend the reason to include internal generation from eggs, then regardless, Rav Belsky is correct that both Chazal and the Shulchan Aruch do not make distinctions but make a blanket heter. Yes, I know the difference, according to the present theory, is in how we may conduct ourselves, and whether we can rely on this assumption, where the metzius has changed -- the metzius that changed being our knowledge of the metzius. But the reason Chazal made this assumption was faulty science, and faulty observation. Why should we be able to rely on this blanket heter and assumption made by Chazal in error?

3) In terms of the science, it is not clear that these worms indeed generate externally. The eggs and larvae are swallowed by krill, the krill are swallowed by the salmon, and the anisakis then leaves the krill and enters the salmon. If swallowed when eggs, then perhaps this is enough "internally". If when larvae, perhaps not. (Why? Under a theory of shoretz upon the water.) On the other hand, as Rabbi Scher presents it, while earlier in the article he said:

It follows, therefore, that in order to prohibit these worms, it is not sufficient to prove that the worms generate from eggs; we must prove that they generate externally.

But I think later he modifies this to the idea that they could have generated externally, according to "many" poskim. Emphasis mine:

There is broad agreement among the Poskim that the Gemara refers only to a case where there is no contrary evidence. Furthermore, many take the position that to prohibit a specific worm in fish flesh, we need not even provide definitive proof that the species is externally generated. Even evidence of doubt would be sufficient to question the assumption that a certain worm has internally generated. Where there is a reason to question the assumption, we will assume that the case is an exception. However, in absence of such evidence, we will assume that a worm is covered under the “blanket heter” of Shulchan Aruch.

Who are these many poskim? Does it include Rav Elyashiv? If not, we have possible reason to permit.

4) There are other ways of permitting which I will discuss, even in light of all of this. And besides, Rav Belsky has a way of interpreting the sources to permit; because there are multiple ways of reading these sources and developing a theory of these halachot.

Note: Don't rely on this, or really anything on the Web, for halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi instead.

Further analysis of Rav Belsky's teshuva on Anisakis Worms in Fish

I recently read deeper into Rabbi Belsky's teshuva regarding anisakis worms in fish. There is a difference between what is written in the English summary, by a student, and the actual teshuva. The English summary is insufficient, IMHO, because while it refers to the fact that it is a safeik when found in the belly, and refers back to that point subsequently, there is not enough information to fully appreciate Rabbi Belsky's proof, and its implications as to why anisakas found in the flesh would be permitted. It is a pretty ingenious proof, I think. Still, I disagree with it.

As discussed in a previous post about Rav Belsky's teshuva, he insists that the gemara is not speaking of spontaneous generation, but rather of growing / developing within the fish. Which means that if the egg, (or some early stage of the worm -- namely the hatched larva) -- enters the belly of the fish when the fish swallows it, and then it develops within the fish, Chazal would say that such a thing was muttar, because it grew / developed within the fish. Why, then, should one found in the belly of the fish be prohibited? Though different theories are possible, the one put forth by the Beis Yosef (as understood by Rav Belsky) is that perhaps in its developed form, it was shoretz in the water and thus was assur, and subsequently was swallowed by the fish. Thus, it is a matter of safek, that when we see this developed worm in the belly, maybe it is muttar because it was swallowed in their earlier stage, or maybe it is assur because it was swallowed in its later stage. Therefore, it is assur misafek.

But if we find it in the flesh of the fish, then we know that it was not initially shoretz outside in the water; rather, it was swallowed into the belly in this earlier stage, and then moved into the flesh. Therefore, it is muttar. So from the existence of safek by worms in the belly, there must be a lack of safek by worms found in the flesh.

A large basis of this is the assumption that Chazal, and similarly Shulchan Aruch, are not discussing spontaneous generation, and thus are permitting them when swallowed at this early stage. This is based on a mistaken understanding of Rashi, I think, as I discuss in my earlier post, and a mistaken impression of Chazal. But Rabbi Belsky does have going for him this operating theory spelled out in Beis Yosef that the concern is that it was shoretz in the water. This works well with his explanation.

Still, I {=Josh} would point out that the words of the Beis Yosef can work out well with the assumption of spontaneous generation, just as well. (See here for a description of the life cycle of these worms.) Before being swallowed by the fish, the anisakis floats in the water, either as eggs or hatched larvae. These are eaten by krill. The krill are eaten by fish, and the anisakis worms then burrow out into the fish muscle or abdominal organs, and then lie dormant until the fish dies or is eaten by another creature. (It is still not it its fully adult stage -- it reaches that if the fish is eaten by a marine mammal. In this adult stage, it mates and lays eggs into the water.) If the larvae are considered developed enough to be sheratzim, then they can be shoretz in the water, and be assur. But if so, why should they be considered entirely permitted when found in the flesh rather than the stomach? Because Chazal, and the Beis Yosef, were mistaken about science. They believed in spontaneous generation, and believed that if found inside the belly, they could have come from outside (either as larvae or perhaps even, mistakenly, fully developed worms), but if found in the flesh, they could NOT have come from outside. Rather, they must have spontaneously generated from the flesh of the fish itself. Chazal did not believe that these parasitic worms were able to burrow into the fish's flesh. (Perhaps they are somewhat correct, in that after the krill is swallowed, they anisakis burrows out into the fish, into what is available and lies dormant until the fish dies -- at that point, it moves away from the place it has lain dormant.) If it spontaneously generated inside the fish, then it could never be shoretz in the water. Except of course that Chazal are wrong about spontaneous generation.

But again, Rabbi Belsky's assumption was that what the gemara and Shulchan Aruch meant was that fish found in the flesh must have come there from anisakis swallowed in the early stage, but not swallowed in the late stage. As stated very briefly, scattered in the English summary:

It is possible that Chazal knew that worms that were sheretz hamayim would not enter the flesh of the fish.

In other words, once something was shoretz in the water, it would never enter the flesh, but remain in the belly. Stated again later as:

We are not concerned that the worm was in the fish’s stomach prior to its migrating to the flesh and was thus considered assur; its assur status is only a safek, and once it is in the flesh, it is permitted.

In other words, only while in the stomach is it assur, because we do not yet know that it is capable of migrating to the flesh, and so it might have been shoretz. However, once we see it in the flesh, the initial safek is removed, for it obviously had the power to burrow even into the flesh, which shows that it was swallowed in this early stage, before it could be shoretz. Therefore it is muttar.

Stated again later as:

However, since the Bais Yosef explained that the issur is because it is a safek, there is no issue with them once they migrated to the flesh, as previously explained.

This is not well written, IMHO. But again, what he means is that since the issur in the belly is because of the safek, there is no issue once they migrate to the flesh, because this proves that they have the power to burrow into flesh, so they must have been swallowed in this early stage of development, and never had opportunity to be shoretz in the water.

This sounds like something we could subject to concrete experiment. What later stage of development does Rav Belsky want, that is actually found in nature. Take that, place it into the water such that it is swallowed by krill, place krill into water such that it is swallowed by salmon, and then investigate to see whether they only are embedded into the belly. Perhaps this will be so, but it seems like quite the stretch to me.

Where does Rav Belsky state this in his teshuva? When he states:

וא"כ שפיר נוכל לומר שאין ביכולת לתולעי איסור לבקוע דופן בני המעיים ולהסתתר שם. ורק לתולעת שהיא באמת חלק מן הדג, דמיניה קגבלי, יש לה כח הנ"ל.

That is, from the fact that Chazal don't consider it possible that it burrowed from one place to another in the flesh, we see that only one which developed in the fish will have such a power.

Indeed, Rabbi Belsky continues:

ובזה מיושב ג"כ מה שכתב המהרא"י בהגהות שערי דורא (שערי דורא אות מ"ז) שלא להקפיד לאכול דגים שיוצאין מגופן תולעים לבנים ורגילין לצאת מקצתן ולחזור, ואנו קורין אותן שויב"ן ולפעמים נמצאים במעיהם אותן התולעת וכשנמצא במעיהם רגילין להשליכן משום מיאוס עכ"ל. הרי שדרכם של דרני דכוורי לצאת לבני המעיים ולחזור, ולכאורה זה תמוה דאם יש כח לתולעת לבקוע כותלי בני המעיים,  איך כתבו הראשונים שהופעתם בבשר הוה הוכחה ברורה שלא באו מעלמא. ע"כ כדברינו שרק תולעת שאמרו עליו דמיניה קגבלי, יש בה כח לכנס ולצאת.

That is, in Hagahot Shaarei Dura, they relate that they are not makpid about certain white worms that come out of the flesh a bit and return, and sometimes are found in the belly, and when they are found in the belly, people throw them out (it seems only) because of mius, disgust. This should pose a problem both to Chazal and (certainly) to the Rishonim. Here is evidence that these worms can burrow! So how can the safek only be when it is in the belly?! Rather, it must be as he said, that worms which "develop within" (or I would say, spontaneously generate within) have this power.

If this is indeed the correct interpretation of Hagahot Shaarei Dura, that there is a difficulty does not mean that we must posit this reinterpretation. Maybe Chazal didn't know about this worm movement, and the Rishonim did not recognize the stira, or else the reality described by Hagahot Shaarei Dura. Certainly no one states this rule overtly.

But this whole difficulty comes from the words נמצאים במעיהם אותן התולעת וכשנמצא במעיהם
within the statement: שלא להקפיד לאכול דגים שיוצאין מגופן תולעים לבנים ורגילין לצאת מקצתן ולחזור, ואנו קורין אותן שויב"ן ולפעמים נמצאים במעיהם אותן התולעת וכשנמצא במעיהם רגילין להשליכן משום מיאוס עכ"ל.

However, when I looked in my Hagahot Shaarei Dura, I saw the text to the right, with that all-important phrase not present.

That is, a small portion of the worm leaves the body and then return. No mention of entering the belly. And sometimes, people indeed regularly toss them out -- these worms which exit partially and return. But this is just because of disgust, possibly, not because they maintain they are assur. And even those that left the flesh, we are not makpid about them, because we know that they come not from the outside world, but from the flesh of the fish, and that it is their practice to leave a bit (or in part) and return. Yes, the word במעיהן appears beforehand, and perhaps someone expanded the text on that basis, interpreting it as having breached the stomach barrier, as opposed to, e.g., going outside the fish entirely.

At the end of the day, we really need to know the correct girsa of this Hagahot Shaarei Dura. I suspect that what happened is that someone put explanatory comments in some citation from the Hagahot Shaarei Dura, in some printing, and Rabbi Belsky is making a diyuk based on the words that don't actually appear. Of course, perhaps those explanatory comments are correct, in which case the diyuk would be a fairly good one, though I could imagine a response or two. But it could well be that that was not the intent, and so we should not make this diyuk.

Also, this gloss is from Maharai, Rabbi Yisrael Isserlin, who was born 1390 and died in 1460. He is considered among the acharonei HaRishonim. Perhaps earlier Rishonim were not aware of this phenomenon involving worms. For example,

I would note that this is the gloss, the hagaha, to Shaarei Dura siman 47 which he cites. But if you look at the beginning of Shaarei Dura siman 48 itself, or as cited by the same Beis Yosef (d"h v'-kasvu), shortly after what Rav Belsky cited from Beis Yosef, you will note that he discusses בשר המותלע מחמת חום, flesh which becomes wormy due to heat. This means that Hagahot Shaarei Dura subscribes to spontaneous generation. As does Beit Yosef, who cites this without disagreement.

At the end of the day, Rav Belsky's theory is based on lack of spontaneous generation, such that Chazal must be referring to being swallowed at an earlier developmental stage, and such that there is a difference in migration. Indeed, the worms in the flesh certainly have migrated from the belly, but Rav Belsky transforms this into a reason it should be muttar, since it testifies to its not having been shoretz in the water.


But if I don't agree that Chazal asserted this, because it makes more sense for them to believe in spontaneous generation within the flesh; and I don't really accept, without evidence, that there is indeed a difference in actual metzius in power between worms which were swallowed at a different, or that Chazal or the Rishonim maintained this differentiation.


I wonder, though -- assuming that Chazal, and Beis Yosef did base themselves on spontaneous generation, perhaps portions of Rav Belsky's teshuva may be salvaged. After all, we still may say that Beis Yosef said that due to spontaneous generation, it was not shoretz outside in the water, and the real reason is the lack of being shoretz (as opposed to the competing theory, that spontaneously generated from fish are the fish and muttar, and since fish only need asifa, they are not ever min hachai). Similarly, if these were swallowed as eggs, they would not have been shoretz. But what about hatched larvae in the water? And what can we do about this assertion about inability to migrate? Does this have any scientific basis in fact?


If we could somehow show that no anisakis is shoretz in the water, because of its life cycle described above, then perhaps all should be permitted, even those found in the belly, because there is no longer any safek.


I believe there still are ways to be mattir these fish, without relying on the assumptions of Rabbi Belsky, and even aside from any suggestions I made immediately above.


Note: Don't rely on any of this for halacha lemaaseh.


Update: Apparently, from what I've read, there are indeed variant texts in Hagahot Shaarei Dura which would include this text.

Does the recent sinkhole prove the plausibility of the incident with Korach?

Summary: Only according to rationalists like Ibn Ezra. This ties into a dispute as to whether this hole in the ground was a brand new invention or something relatively commonplace.

Post: In parashat Korach, Datan and Aviram fall into a giant hole which opens up in the ground. According to Rashi's understanding of the pasuk, this is a new, novel creation:

29. If these men die as all men die and the fate of all men will be visited upon them, then the Lord has not sent me.		כט. אִם כְּמוֹת כָּל הָאָדָם יְמֻתוּן אֵלֶּה וּפְקֻדַּת כָּל הָאָדָם יִפָּקֵד עֲלֵיהֶם לֹא יְ־הֹוָ־ה שְׁלָחָנִי:
the Lord has not sent me: But I did everything on my own, and he [Korah] is in the right for opposing me. - [Mid. Tanchuma Korach 8, Num. Rabbah 12]		לא ה' שלחני: אלא אני עשיתי הכל מדעתי ובדין הוא חולק עלי:
30. But if the Lord creates a creation, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them and all that is theirs, and they descend alive into the grave, you will know that these men have provoked the Lord."		ל. וְאִם בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא יְ־הֹוָ־ה וּפָצְתָה הָאֲדָמָה אֶת פִּיהָ וּבָלְעָה אֹתָם וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם וְיָרְדוּ חַיִּים שְׁאֹלָה וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֶת יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
But if… a creation: A new one.		ואם בריאה: חדשה:
the Lord creates: to kill them through a death by which no man has died until now. And what is this creation? “And the earth will open its mouth and swallow them up.” Then you will know that they have provoked the Holy One, blessed is He, and I [Moses] have spoken by Divine word. Our Rabbis interpret it: If there was a mouth already created to the earth from the time of the six days of Creation, well and good, but if not, let God create [one now]. - [Mid. Tanchuma Korach, Sanh. 110a]		יברא ה': להמית אותם במיתה שלא מת בה אדם עד הנה, ומה היא הבריאה, ופצתה האדמה את פיה ותבלעם, אז וידעתם כי נאצו הם את ה', ואני מפי הגבורה אמרתי. ורבותינו פירשו אם בריאה - פה לארץ מששת ימי בראשית מוטב, ואם לאו יברא ה':

Of course, Chazal leave open the possibility that this is indeed not a new creation, but Moshe is still right. A new creation, unless it already exists from the 6th day of creation -- as indeed is described in Pirkei Avot.

Regardless, בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא indicates creation of something new, according to Rashi, and his sources. In contrast, see Ibn Ezra's take:

[טז, ל]
בריאה -יש אומרים:
שהיא תורה על המצא מה שלא היה וכבר פירשתי שאין המלה רק מגזרת וברא אתהן וכבר נבקעו מדינות רבות וירדו הדרים בהן שאולה, והנה פירושה כטעם גזרה.

Ibn Ezra is referring us to Yechezkel 23:47:

מז  וְרָגְמוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶבֶן קָהָל, וּבָרֵא אוֹתְהֶן בְּחַרְבוֹתָם; בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם יַהֲרֹגוּ, וּבָתֵּיהֶן בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרֹפוּ.

47 And the assembly shall stone them with stones, and despatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.

where וּבָרֵא means slashing, cutting. Indeed, Rashi on that pasuk agrees:

and slash them with their swords: That is the judgment of murderesses. [The word] וּבָרֵא is an expression of cutting, and so: “and you shall cut it down (וּבֵרֵאתוֹ) ,” of “the forest shall be yours” in the Book of Joshua (17:18).

And even gives another parallel. If so, it is an interesting usage of an otherwise arcane word, which works quite well in context.

That is one reason this interpretation recommends itself to Ibn Ezra. A second is his point that this was not the only time there was a split in the earth in some country, due to an earthquake, and people were swallowed within it. (This all ties in, as well, into discussions of aspects of Bereishit, yesh mei'ayin and yesh meiyesh.) A third reason might be a general trend to rationalize miracles, and make them work as closely with derech hateva as possible. This mouth in the earth which swallowed Datan and Aviram is no different from an earthquake or sinkhole, which can occur through natural means.

Ramban rejects this position of Ibn Ezra on the basis of the meaning of the word, but also because of the different aspect of this miracle from natural occurrence:

(ל): ואם בריאה יברא ה' - כתב ר"א: 

יש אומרים כי בריאה תורה על המצא יש מאין, וכבר נבקעו מדינות רבות וירדו הדרים בהן שאולה, אבל פירושה כטעם גזרה, מן וברא אותהן (יחזקאל כג מז). 

והנכון שתאמר על המצא דבר מאין, כי אין אצלנו בלשון הקדש מורה על זה זולתי המלה הזאת.
אבל העניין, כי בקיעת האדמה אינה בריאה מחודשת, אבל פתיחת הארץ את פיה לבלוע הוא חידוש לא נהיה מעולם. כי כאשר תבקע האדמה כמו שנעשה פעמים רבים ברעש הנקרא זלזלה תישאר פתוחה, גם ימלא הבקע מים ויעשה כאגמים. אבל שתפתח ותיסגר מיד כאדם הפותח פיו לבלוע ויסגור אותו אחרי בלעו, זה הדבר נתחדש ביום ההוא כאלו הוא נברא מאין, וזה טעם ותכס עליהם הארץ (פסוק לג). ולכך אמר הכתוב אחרי ותבקע האדמה (פסוק לא), ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אותם (פסוק לב).

ועל דעת רבותינו (סנהדרין קי א): 

בקרוב פתח גיהינום, גם הוא עניין נתחדש לשעתו:

I think it is noteworthy that Ramban first rejects Ibn Ezra based on a peshat reading of pesukim, about the covering them up; and only afterwards on the basis of the midrash that this was the opening to Gehinnom, in which case it would certainly be different.

(Shadal, meanwhile, understands it as a new creation.)


This was running through my mind as I saw the news about the recent sinkholes, and then saw various bloggers relate it to parashat Korach. For example, Avakesh posts this video, with a blogpost title of "Who Says It Can't Happen?"


And so too Shirat Devorah, about China's sudden sinkholes, related to parashat Korach.

But focusing on Avakesh, the question is whether this is meant to be inspiring. On the one hand, people might reject the miracle outright as too far-fetched, and so pointing out an identical, or close phenomenon works to increase emunah, that it is not so far-fetched. Here is a hole in the ground that opens suddenly and swallows everything. (And if indeed a sinkhole, the miracle can readily be in the timing and location, that it suddenly struck these rebels right after Moshe told them it would.) On the other hand, if we can explain the miracle by natural means, does that take away from the miraculous nature?

Chazal maintain that this was the entrance to Gehenna, and Ramban also notes something not particular to natural earthquakes and sinkholes. Certain pashtanim, perhaps due to a rationalist streak, want their miracles as extensions of, or manifestations of, natural ocurrences. Those who subscribe to the midrashic approach will see the miracles mentioned in midrash and will be more likely to dismiss any relationship to natural occurrence. Plus, non-pashtanim might be motivated by a more mystical approach.

When someone on Avodah asked whether the hole which swallowed Datan and Aviram was like a perfectly round sinkhole, someone responded, based on Malbim, that it would not, because that mouth of the earth had lips. Perhaps. I would need to see that Malbim inside. But I would note that Malbim is fairly late, and his interpretation, be it an attempt at peshat or derash, is not compulsory.

On a similar note, the New York Times recently had an article discussion manna; and article also carried by Vos Iz Neias. Some choice comments, rejecting the possibility:

1) Read the Rashi on the manna. Sorry guys, but this is not quite the same thing.

2) The "manna" in the midbar tasted like whatever a person wanted, except for 4 things (I think cucumbers, garlic and two others, I'm not sure). Whatever wasn't gathered up melted and disappeared, except for one small jar that was put away for posterity. It was an entirely miraculous food, but, there will always be those who attribute miracles as natural events somehow.

3) Very nice, but what does any of this have to do with what Hashem fed us with in the Midbor? Do these things dry up and disappear if left out or produce no waste when eaten?

4) That, plus the manna in the desert was satisfying enough for a person to live on as their daily food. You try to live on the stuff described in this article for more than a couple of days, you'd probably develop diabetes.

(Me'am Loez, on Parshas Beshalach, has about a dozen proofs that the Torah's manna isn't these insect exudations. Your points and mine are among them; I don't recall the others offhand.)

Yet many (not all) of these rejections are based on specific interpretations, and particularly midrashic interpretations. (Meanwhile, Ibn Ezra apparently tries to relate it to some real known substance in the area.) See also Rationalist Judaism about this, and how Rambam explained it as a natural phenomenon because of a distinct miraculous feature it possessed (hard, yet melting), or that is appeared continuously. In particular, I would side with the latter. Even if it is an entirely natural substance, it reflects an absolute control of nature to be able to direct, day after day, quail and manna to the entire Israelite camp. The miracle is in the timing and consistency.