Haredi Rabbinic Leaders Ban Most Fish

Fish are infested with worms which cannot be seen without light boxes and, in many cases, magnification and ultraviolet light.

Breaking News - Gedolim Sign Letter Against Worms in Fish
By 5TJT Staff    

The 5TJT has just received word that this past Friday, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Vosner, and Rav Karelitz have all signed upon a Kol Koreh declaring the Anisakis worm to be completely forbidden even when it was found in the flesh of fish.

The three Rabbinic leaders signed the letter after it was proven to them beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Anisakis worms enter the flesh of the fish through the viscera of the fish itself. 

The Rabbis rejected the alternative reading of the Shulchan Aruch Chapter 84 that was promulgated by a number of Rabbis in America and England.  In that reading, the author of the Shulchan Aruch categorically states that all worms found in the flesh are permitted to be consumed – even if it is known that the worms arrived in the flesh directly from the Mayaim – the guts of the fish.

“This was the reading that Kadassiah in England and the OU in New York were trying to fit into the Shulchan Aruch,” remarked one Rabbi deeply involved in the Anisakis controversy.  “The problem with the reading is that it is not in line with the thinking of the Rishonim on the matter.”

It is estimated that despite the written ruling which will be released in the next day or two, it may take some time for the Kashrus agencies to change their policies on the fish. 

The letter was written at the behest of Rabbi Gershon Bess from the RCC in Los Angeles, California.  Earlier last week, Rabbi Bess visited Rabbi Revach’s labaroatory in Beit Uziell.  The laboratory found  over sixty Anisakis worms in one specimen of salmon.

The 5TJT had previously reported that there was little room to indicate that the worms would be considered kosher in light of the evidence that the worms do in fact migrate from the viscera…

Here is that previous article, published Thursday:

Fish And Worms: The Bottom Line
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman • 5TJT
   
There has been, of late, a huge debate in the Orthodox Jewish world regarding the permissibility of certain types of fish that are infested with worms. Some may dismiss this as an old story—but it is not. Much research has been done for this article, and a video will soon be made available.

Some rabbis say that the worms under discussion are kosher (as long as they do not actually leave the fish). Other rabbis are adamant that these worms are, in fact, completely forbidden. None deny, however, that these particular worms are found in otherwise kosher fish—and they are found in abundance.

The particular type of worm in question is called Anisakis. Those who say that it is permitted believe that the worm reaches its recognizable form within the flesh of the fish itself (“Mineih Gavlei,” in the words of the Talmud, Chullin 67b), rather than having entered the fish from the outside. Those rabbis who forbid it claim that the Anisakis worm originates outside the fish and goes to the stomach of the fish; from there, apparently, the worm will migrate to the edible flesh of the fish unless the fish is immediately gutted or frozen after being caught.

The lineup of rabbis on each side, thus far, is quite impressive. Forbidding it are Rabbi Gershon Bess from Los Angeles and the top poskim of Israel—Rav Elyashiv and Rav Vosner of Bnei Brak. Permitting it thus far are Rabbi Yisroel Belsky of the OU; Dayan Yechezkel Roth, the former Satmar Rebbe’s dayan; and Rav Shlomo Miller of Lakewood and Toronto.

But does everyone agree to the facts behind the issue—before we get to the discussion of the halachah? To personally ascertain what the facts are in regard to this parasite, while in Eretz Yisrael for a yahrzeit this author spent a day at the Machon l’Mitzvos ha’Tluyos BaAretz in Beit Uziel. The machon is under the direction of Rav Shneier Zalman Revach. It is a fascinating place, with microscopes that have a computer interface, special light boxes with both fluorescent and ultraviolet bulbs, and many roomfuls of seforim and responsa that the machon has published. The machon is housed within a revitalized religious moshav that was established at about the same time as the founding of the State of Israel.

Under a light at the machon, we proceeded to pull out numerous Anisakis worms from different types of fish. After seeing these worms firsthand and where they are located, both in the fresh fish and on tapes and photos from the boats, it is vividly clear that the worms found in the flesh actually have migrated from the stomach—meaning that they have been ingested by the fish from the outside. (I pulled out one of those worms myself; indeed, a test tube filled with spiraled-up Anisakis worms pulled out during my visit lies in my front pocket as I write this article.)

After the fish have been partially cleaned out or gutted, there are still dark portions of the gut remnants that are attached to the inside part of the stomach’s flesh. Worms that are there cannot go back into the no-longer-existent gut. They therefore worm their way into the flesh of the fish. Many of the worms are fully through; some are halfway through, some three quarters. It is all very interesting (and all very gross).

This being the case—that the origins of this parasite and the manner in which it enters the fish is now known—the position of those that permit the consumption of fish infested with these worms seems to be quite tenuous.

There is another issue, too. Even if the worms would be considered kosher, the halachah states that if someone is personally disgusted by the consumption of the worms then it is forbidden to eat them.

One might have been tempted to read the Shulchan Aruch as permitting even the Anisakis worm. How so? The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 84:16) rules that worms that are found in the mei‘ayim (gizzards) of the fish are forbidden; if they are found in between the flesh and the skin or in the flesh, they are permitted. There seems to be a statement here that all worms found in the flesh are permitted. However, if one actually saw the worm proceed from the gizzards into the flesh, then clearly the Shulchan Aruch would not have permitted such a case.

Some maintain that the Shulchan Aruch’s wording seems to be stating categorically that worms do not migrate from the gizzards to the flesh. Because if they did migrate in such a way, the Shulchan Aruch would not have given tacit permission to consume worms in the flesh. Since we do not at the drop of a hat say “nishtaneh ha’teva”—nature has changed—in regard to halachah, some maintain that we may still follow the ruling that worms found in the flesh of the fish are permitted.

Rabbi Revach maintains that the issues regarding the kashrus of the Anisakis worm have no bearing on whether one says that nature has changed. He says that the Shulchan Aruch was only referring to a type of worm that is found in the flesh—not one that migrates there afterward because of faulty fish processing. The fault in the fish processing lies in only partially cleaning the fish. When we partially clean the gizzards, but do not make sure that the gizzard remnants are all clean, the worms located there could migrate into the flesh. In Talmudic times, Rabbi Revach maintains, it is likely that homemakers thoroughly cleaned out the gizzards themselves.

Is it possible for those who wish to avoid eating these worms to still eat the fish? Can the fish be cleaned? Yes. The seasoned inspector can look at a completely skinned fish in 65 seconds if using a light box. Red fish, however, would require an ultraviolet light and need about 90 seconds to inspect properly.

What, then, is the bottom line?

Before we get to that, let’s go over a few points:

1. As of this writing, the major kashrus agencies in America are not yet committed to ensuring that our fish are free from the Anisakis worm.

2. It is this author’s contention that anyone who is shown the fish gizzards with the worms, the non-frozen fish that is partially gutted, and the fish on a light box will be conclusively convinced that these worms are not kosher.

3. Some species of fish, and fish from certain countries, simply do not have the Anisakis worm. This is either because the waters do not have it or because the fish is frozen so quickly after the gizzards have been removed that the worm has no chance of migrating.

Below is the current status of each type of common fish regarding Anisakis infestation, as of this week.

Tilapia fillets have no Anisakis (even those from China).

Hake fillets from Argentina: without skin, they have no Anisakis; those with skin are problematic. Hake fillets from China, even without skin, are problematic.

Halibut (from all countries) must be roughly scraped and then thoroughly cleansed.

Pollack from China are infested. With skin, they may not be used; fillets without skin must be inspected on a light box.

Tuna cuts and slices are free of Anisakis.

Mackerel fillet sides must be scraped and thoroughly cleansed.

Herring fillet sides must be scraped and thoroughly cleansed.

Norwegian and Chilean salmon are free of Anisakis but may have external lice. The fillets must be defrosted and rinsed, and the skin must be scraped or brushed. Chinese, American, Canadian, and Japanese salmon fillets may not be used without inspecting on a light box. Farmed salmon in the U.S. is okay.

Sardines from Morocco are okay. All others must be scraped, brushed, and washed off thoroughly.

Skinless flounder fillet from the Netherlands is free of Anisakis. Flounder from China must undergo examination on a light box. Flounder with skin from China is unusable; from the Netherlands, it must be defrosted, rinsed, and brushed to remove external lice.

There are other types of less common fish as well; please inquire about them.

Rabbi Hoffman may be reached at [email protected] . Published in honor of the yahrzeit of the author’s father, Dr. Nathan Hoffman (Natan Yosef ben Moshe), on 5 Iyar.

Here's my take on this:

The rabbis of the Talmud had no way to know how worms got into the flesh of fish. There were no microscopes, no light boxes and no magnification.

Like many other other issues related to science, the rabbis were wrong.

But, that said, the fish should still be kosher. Here's why:

1. The worms are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Therefore they do not fall under the law banning crawling things.

2. One can say the Talmudic rabbis were not wrong. What those rabbis meant was that worms found in the flesh of fish (and remember these were worms that could be seen with the naked eye) were kosher no matter where they really came from, while worms found in the guts and internal organs of fish – which are not eaten anyway – are presumed to come from the outside of the fish, and are therefore not kosher. This would have been a way around a rabbinic law called baria, which in effect prohibits nullifying insects and worms found in food if those insects are whole. (If they are insect parts, the normal law takes over and they are nullified if there is 60 times as much kosher food.) This would have been done to avoid the banning of all fish, which would have left Jews with no readily available source of pareve animal protein at a time when other sources of animal protein – cattle, deer, chicken – were very expensive.

People who successfully work to ban things become celebrities of sorts in the haredi world. They gain power, their children get 'better' marriage partners, and money tends to flow to them. If they are in the kashrut business, their reputation grows along with their income. If they're teachers or other types of community workers, they can come to be seen as close to haredi rabbinic leaders.

So some people work very hard to find a  way to ban something, be it a book they don't like or fish that has microscopic worms.

I wouldn't eat sushi made from any of the allegedly infested species. But I would eat any of them cooked.

My guess is that you should, too.