New York – Leading Rabbis Reiterate: Anisakis Worm in Fish Forbidden

    26

    New York – Like the Anisakis worm in fresh salmon, it is the kashrus issue that never died. Eighteen months ago, the debate raged in the Jewish community – may one consume fish that are infested with the Anisakis worm or must one first removing them from the flesh of the fish?

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, the leading halachic decisor in the United States, has come out strongly forbidding the consumption of fish that contain the worms. The letter, that was published in an ad this Wednesday in the HaModia, has the signatures of Rabbi Feivel Cohen Shlita, Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita and Rav Aharon Schechter Shlita.

    The Brooklyn Vaad HaRabbonim, the Baltimore Kashrus agency, and a handful of other Kashrus agencies were stringent.

    The Orthodox Union, in agreement with Rabbi Vay from Jerusalem, however, ruled that these worms while still in the flesh of the fish are kosher. [The interview of Rabbi Vay on May 28 2010 may be seen at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMtQLb1YmLo]. Even the lenient position is of the opinion that once the worm has left the fish it is no longer kosher.

    The fact that such leading authorities have ruled that the fish is forbidden will undoubtedly cuase many Kashruth Agencies to retool their policies.

    “Since the issue involves a possible biblical prohibition,” remarked one Rabbi on the Vaad HaRabbonim in Queens, “it is difficult to imagine that the OU will remain with the lenient position. This is especially true now that Rabbi Feinstein has signed this letter.”

    Rav Feivel Cohen is a Rav in Brooklyn and a prolific author of halachic works, Rav Feinstein is one of the leading Poskim in the United States, and Rav Aharon Schechter is the Rosh HaYeshiva of the Chaim Berlin Yeshiva.

    The Kashrus issue centers on the whether it has been demonstrated that the Anisakis worm clearly comes from outside of the fish or whether it may still be assumed that the worm develops internally. The Orthodox Union maintains that according to Jewish law, one may still make the assumption that the worm has developed within the fish itself. Other authorities maintain that the permissive ruling of the Shulchan Aruch does not apply when it can be observed that the worm actually migrated into the flesh from elsewhere.

    The new initiative to ban the parasitic worm comes directly from the court of Rav Elyashiv in Jerusalem. Rabbi Efrati in particular has pushed the new effort toward the ban on fish that have not had the Anisakis removed.

    Anisakis are rare in waters with low salinity and in the southern North Sea.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    26 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    12 years ago

    What fish are they talking about?

    shredready
    shredready
    12 years ago

    it seems that the difference is where the fish comes from outside or inside.

    One would think to ask a marine biologist who studies this where do these worms comes from

    12 years ago

    Who wants to eat anything that has worms anyway.

    12 years ago

    It is interesting that only the litvish yeshivish rabbonim say this . What do the other chassidish hold about its kashrus?

    MASHBAK1
    MASHBAK1
    12 years ago

    Rav Belsky Shlita issued a letter today on behalf of all OU Rabbanim that the issue was presented to the Poiskim of the previous dor including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l and Rav Moshe Feinstein zt’l who permitted the fish. There is also a letter from Rav Vay to the Modzitzer Rebbe Shlita confirming the permitted status.
    Both these letters are in today’s Hamodia.

    12 years ago

    So what do I do with the many cans of salmon I already have that are under the OU? Also, what about all the heimish brands of canned salmon?

    BETTERWEAR
    BETTERWEAR
    12 years ago

    If haposek hador R, Moshe Feinstein wrote L’heter, why would his son R Duved write L’iser?

    kalman1
    kalman1
    12 years ago

    I don’t get it doesn’t the gemara and all the rishonim write that worms in the flesh of fish is mutar. I think this shinui teva thing is just bizzare ignorance.

    curious
    curious
    12 years ago

    Just wait, checked fish or fish from areas muchzak not to have the worm for 30 dollars a pound. Here comes the jewish mafia!!!

    ThinkFact
    ThinkFact
    12 years ago

    According to R. Belsky’s Teshuvah (as I understand it) we don’t care where the worm developed. The question is one of habitat. Worms that inhabit the sea(Sheretz Hamayim) are assur. Worms that inhabit fish are muttar (until separated from the fish). Anisakis clearly inhabit fish regardless of where they originate from.
    Worms found inside the intestines are assur misafek as we cannot determine what type of worm they are, a “fish worm” or “fish food” swallowed from the water.
    If the worm migrates to the flesh we can now determine with a degree of certainty that its habitat is fish (as a sheretz hamayim would not have the ability to migrate).
    The exception to this is the kukiani which is a Sheretz Hamayim that has the OBSERVED ability to migrate within the fish, and is therefore excluded from this chazakah.

    LiberalismIsADisease
    LiberalismIsADisease
    12 years ago

    This is a machlokes in the m’tzius ha’dover. There has been lots written and disseminated throughout the yiddishe press. If you need more, go do your research and ask a shayla from a competent rabbi.

    12 years ago

    OK so now I am REALLY confused. I thought that the purpose of buying whole, albeit “cleaned and scaled”, fish from a fishmonger under kosher supervision was that he checked the fish for parasites. So then I saw this video of a kashrus conference in Brooklyn on Youtube and it seems the ONLY way a fish can truly be checked is if it’s filleted and lain on a light box. Most people would not want to go through all that trouble and I for one became so disgusted that I just stopped eating all fish. So if the fishmonger is not performing this type of inspection, how is his kosher certification even helpful unless you will tell me that it’s really just certifying that he only sells kosher species and his knives and other utensils have been kashered and toiveled.

    Anominous
    Anominous
    12 years ago

    Perhaps this is another sign of Maschiach times as it says that before his coming a poor person will not be able to find fish to eat.

    speakup
    speakup
    12 years ago

    (Reply to #23 ):
    At least he learned how to spell “clueless!”
    Have a Gut Shabbos, and let’s daven for all those individuals who need a yeshuah.

    FredE
    FredE
    12 years ago

    I have the impression — but I’m not sure — that the lenient ruling of the Shulchan Aruch is because he thought that spontaneous generation was a real possibility. That idea that life could just spring from inanimate matter originated with Aristotle and wasn’t disproved until I think Pasteur. The problem is that we know now that spontaneous generation is hogwash. If I’m not mistaken the Shulchan Aruch allowed killing head lice on Shabbat as well because of the same idea. He thought they were spontaneously generated. So the question is, do we take a kula based on mistaken assumptions or not.