On June 7, 2011 the Hamodia published two ads concerning fish worms - one by those who prohibit fish because of the worms and one by those who don't. Yated published only the ad that prohibited. However a closer look at the ad which appeared on page 41 - from those who prohibit fish with worms - seems to indicate that it is not one ad but rather it reflects two disparate views . Furthermore the two parts of the same ad in fact contradict each other.
I would appreciate feedback as to how these ads are to be understood The statement at the top of the page, with Rav Eliashiv shlita's, signature, seems to saying that the fish are forbidden. But the bottom part says only that some fish are only of concern. Furthermore I have also been told by experts in the field that the list in the second part is based on very haphazard and subjective data and that in fact no systematic scientific study has been done. (For example they didn't examine 100 cans of salmon and determine the frequency with which worms appeared.) I would greatly appreciate clarification of exactly what means were used to determined whether a particular type of fish is infected or is clean. I would also like to know how the two parts of the ad can be reconciled. Are they saying the fish are definitely prohibited (part 1) or is the prohibition because of a sofek (part 2)?
I would appreciate feedback as to how these ads are to be understood The statement at the top of the page, with Rav Eliashiv shlita's, signature, seems to saying that the fish are forbidden. But the bottom part says only that some fish are only of concern. Furthermore I have also been told by experts in the field that the list in the second part is based on very haphazard and subjective data and that in fact no systematic scientific study has been done. (For example they didn't examine 100 cans of salmon and determine the frequency with which worms appeared.) I would greatly appreciate clarification of exactly what means were used to determined whether a particular type of fish is infected or is clean. I would also like to know how the two parts of the ad can be reconciled. Are they saying the fish are definitely prohibited (part 1) or is the prohibition because of a sofek (part 2)?
easily reconcilable -- two diff ads, two separate $pon$or$ (and i dont mean the fish importers / distributors).
ReplyDeletealso, as mentioned on another blog regarding succession planning (on your next post) -- silence on the part of certain "gedolim" on statements (supposedly) said in their name is deafening.
The list has the most up to date information regarding the occurrence of the anisakis worms in fish. It says of concern so that every Rov and morah horah can determine how he wants to go about dealing with the issue, perhaps further research is needed however they are still of concern
ReplyDelete