| Nationwide Kashrus Gathering on Worms in Fish | | |
| International News |
| By Rabbi Yair Hoffman |
| on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 |
| (click on story to see video) Yesterday, Rabbis from Kashrus agencies across the country gathered in Brooklyn to see and hear how to remove the Anisakis worm from fish. The seminar was sponsored by the Vaad HaKashrus of Flatbush, under the direction of its Rav HaMachshir, Rabbi Meir Goldberg. The Vaad had flown in Rabbi Shneur Zalman Revach and his assistant Yehudah to demonstrate. The event was videoed and projected so the hundreds of participants could better see. Representatives from CRC in Chicago, Star K in Baltimore and Kashrus agencies across the country flew in to attend the seminar. The OU, the Vaad of Queens, the Five Towns Vaad HaKashrus was also in attendance. |
Will R' Natan Slifkin be getting a personal apology from every rav who condemned his second-guessing Chazal but are now worried about the kashrus of tola'im that Chazal knew about and ate?
ReplyDeleteBTW, the OU's sending someone to attend the event should NOT be taken to mean they changed their pesaq. R' Belsky still states that Shulchan Arukh YD 84:16 holds, and this worm that was found within the flesh of fish even in Chazal's day is still kosher.
Pet peeve: Why don't we have a video of rabbanim going down to a futures exchange to check out a new chumrah in ribis?
-micha
Micha,
ReplyDeleteYou mean like here where the situation was only addressed when a ruling was sought:
http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A7-13.html
KT
Joel Rich
Nah, I'm a real dreamer...
ReplyDeleteI said "chumrah", not pulling people back to iqqar hadin. There are many people who would never consider drinking hchalav hacompanies but pile qulah atop qulah in how they make money.
BTW, did any permanent change happen anywhere consequent to those big asifos in the US after last July's scandals? Did the Spinka Rebbe having the anavah to hold himself up as a cautionary tale about qulos in geneivas aku"m and willing to risk chilul Hashem serve any purpose?
-micha
Here's a shiur by Rav Belsky explaining why the worms are not a problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ouradio.org/index.php/ouradio/comment/9742/
Ironically, here R. Slifkin thinks it is muttar, because scientific discovery can't change a psak from chazal even if it was based on incorrect science (e.g. spontaneous generation.)
ReplyDeleteI see no irony. RNS divorces halakah from science so as to maximize the domain for which we can question chazal's science and still not hit pragmatic frumkeit issues.
ReplyDeleteWhereas they minimize the range under which we can question chazal. Except, it seems, where new chumeros could be had.
However, he's no poseiq, and his opinion about how pesaq works is really no more significant than yours or mine.
-micha
"RNS divorces halakah from science so as to maximize the domain for which we can question chazal's science and still not hit pragmatic frumkeit issues.
ReplyDeleteHowever, he's no poseiq, and his opinion about how pesaq works is really no more significant than yours or mine.
-micha"
However, from what I understand, Rabbi Slifkin's position that Chazal can be challenged on science in hashkafic matters, but incorrect science in halachic matters does not alter the psak that we give, this is in line with a posek (Shlita) whom I am a talmid of. It's probably best if I don't elaborate. But to summarize what is the important point of what I'm saying: To say Rabbi Slifkin's position is not significant is not true.
Which is why I said that the fact that it's his position is what's unimportant.
ReplyDeleteJust as the fact that my position on science and halakhah is supported by "Rabbi Micha Berger" is unimportant. The position itself is R' Dovid Lifshitz's and is implicitly used lemaaseh, so the position itself matters.
RNS is someone with semichah from Ohr Samayach (like numerous kiruv professionals) and a strong but hobbiest education in zoology. His writing ability made him famous, and the ban amplified that, but fame doesn't equate to knowledge. He is no bar pelugta of the people we're comparing him to by saying "their position" vs "his position". He isn't even a local shul rav, to have had experience and a feel for pesaq. Citing him doesn't convince me any more than if you said it yourself.
-micha
In an article today in Yeshiva World news: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=59924 [...]
ReplyDeleteRabbi Micha,
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is what you meant, in your heart/mind, but that's not what you said.
You said plainly:
"However, he's no poseiq, and his opinion about how pesaq works is really no more significant than yours or mine."
Regarding what you said this time around:
I don't understand. If Rabbi Slifkin is repeating over what is Rabbi Dovid Lifshitz's position then how is it not relevant or not significant, just because a great rav said it before him? Rabbi Slifkin's citation of this position reflects the fact that many of those today whom I'm sure you would consider "significant" have disregarded Rav Lifshitz's position. They are not necessarily correct by virtue of their existence. Nor do they need to lead a crusade against what is being repeated from Rabbi Lifshitz by anyone who does so. Or do you disagree?
My point isn't that RNS's position is different than those of R' Kook or Rav Dovid Lishitz (which are also different than each other). It might be the Chazon Ish's. It certainly is NOT Rav Dovid's.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that R' Natan Slifkin is one of us -- not one of them. As I said when we started this detour -- he is not even a poseiq in the local-rabbi sense. His opinion on how pesaq works adds no weight to that position. His interest is in animals, not the theory of pesaq.
-micha