The Life of a Bug
Recently a tiny worm called the Anisakis has made the headlines in the Jewish world. Although this bug lives a relatively placid and boring life, his claim to fame is his infestation of salmon and other fish. Let us try to understand what this controversy is about, and how his presence affects the halachic status of the fish it appears in.
The Gemara in Chulin 67b writes that bugs found in the stomach of animals and fish are forbidden. If these insects are found in the flesh of an animal, they are considered to be a part of its meat. Since they have taken residence and grown inside the meat, they are considered to be an actual part of the flesh of the animal.
In such circumstances their status differs depending if they are found in meat or fish. Meat requires shechita to permit it, and this shechita does not help permit the bugs. Therefore one can not eat the meat without first removing the bugs.
However fish do not require shechita or any other process to render them permitted. Since these bugs are considered part of the actual flesh of the animal, they take on the same halachic status as the flesh of the fish. Therefore the Gemara, Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch 84,16 rule that bugs found in the meat flesh of fish are mutar to eat.
Thus these fish worms present us with a fascinating halachic situation. While Jews generally cringe at the site of a bug or worm in our food, the insects found in the flesh of the fish are 100% glatt kosher. The Gemara says that Revina, the coauthor of Shas, would eat them but ask his mother to cover up the bugs in the fish so he would not have to look at these revolting creatures while eating his food.
Based on the above parameters, we seemingly have clear guidelines to deal with any shayla. If the bug is found in the stomach of the fish it cannot eaten, and if it is discovered in the flesh it is permitted. Wherein lies the difficulty?
In steps the Anisakis worm. According to the research and observations of scientists and others, this bug originates in the stomach of the fish and bores its way into the flesh of its carrier. Boring its way from one place to another creates complicated circumstances for the concerned Jewish fish consumer as whether he can eat this fish without first removing the worms.
Since the bug was originally found in the stomach, seemingly it should be categorized as a stomach bug and be forbidden. However after it bores its way from the innards to the flesh, perhaps we should judge its status as a flesh worm and permit it. Let us try and get some clarity regarding this question which is on the table of the greatest halachic authorities of our time.
Humble Beginnings
There are a number of practical and halachic grey areas regarding the Anisakis worm. Each one presents us with a new difficulty in classifying its halachic status. In order to understand these points, we will try and trace the life cycle of this bug.
The Torah categorizes insects as sheratzim, animals which crawl. Some crawl on the ground, others in the water, and others in the air. Any insects which did not exist in one of these domains can not be forbidden.
Thus we find the poskim discuss bugs which originate in cheese are permitted to eat. These insects originate and remain in the cheese for the duration of their existence. Since they never crawled out of the cheese they can be eaten together with the cheese.
Some Anisakis worms start as larva on the bottom of the marine floor, at times tens of thousands of feet under sea level. At this stage of their existence some of them are eaten by crill, small non kosher sea creatures, which are consequently eaten by salmon and other fish. If at this point in time they are microscopic they are a halachic non entity and permitted.
After these bugs are consumed by salmon and other larger fish, their status should depend on their size. If the worms remain microscopic, they would not become forbidden. However if the grow to a visible size, they should be included in the Gemara’s prohibition against eating bugs found in the stomach.
Researchers say that while in the stomach of the salmon the worms bore their way into the flesh of the carrier fish. This migration from the stomach to the flesh brings us to the main point of dispute. How will we now classify these worms?
Points of Doubt
In any halachic question, the points of doubt involved always make coming out with a clear conclusion difficult. While most questions involve some level of doubt, the amount of unclear points regarding this issue makes coming out with a clear psak a formidable task. We will try to list some of them in order that we can fathom the depth of the arguments of the Gedolim who are discussing these points.
Some larve of the worm originate on the ocean floor. If at that point they are visible entities they take on the status of sheretz hayam and are forbidden. On the other hand, if they are not visible to the naked eye then they are considered a halachic non-entity and are permitted.
This doubt continues after the larve are swallowed by the crill. If at that point the Anisakis worm would be visible if it was outside the fish then it may become a sheretz hayam and is forbidden. However it is not clear if a worm which became visible inside of a fish does indeed get a status of issur.
Even the worms found on the inside of the fish, are not definitely forbidden. The Pri Megadim (Sifsei Da’as 84,43) rules that this is only a safek if these worms originated from outside the fish. However like any Torah issue, even in a case of doubt we are forbidden to eat these worms.
Worm or Fish
The Gemara writes that worms found in the flesh of animals are forbidden since the animal meat requires shechita to permit it. At first glance the words of the Gemara are baffling. Why should we think that shechita make a worm permitted?
Rashi explains that once the bugs become part of the flesh of the animal, they take on the halachic status of the animal and the Shach (84,42) rules like this. Therefore in the case of worms found in the meat of a cow, these worms become meat, and technically require shechita to permit them. Since shechita does not help to permit worms, they remain with the issur of aver min hachai.
The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 14,13) takes a different approach. He argues that even after these worms have lodged themselves into the meat, since the meat of an animal is not considered food, the worms retain their prohibited status. Fish on the other hand, do not require shechita, and the bugs found retain the food status and do not get an issur of sheretz hamayim.
According to the Chazon Ish who rules that these bugs retain their status of worm while embedded in the animal because it is not considered food, we may be able to apply this halacha to our case. If the worms become a recognizable entity inside the body of their carrier fish, since they are not considered to be food, they could get a worm status.
Even according to understanding that the bugs are forbidden because of aver min hachai, these worms may still be forbidden. The reason that they are considered aver min hachai is because they become part of the actual meat. Some poskim say that becoming part of a non kosher fish may give the worms the status of the non-kosher fish (Minchas Chinuch 163).
Interpreting Silence
One of the strongest arguments of those who wish to permit these worms is that the Gemara does not discuss the case of migrating worms. If the halacha is that these worms are forbidden then someone should mention this. Rav Belsky amd Rav Falk understand this is a clear proof that the bugs are permitted.
Rav Belsky argues that from the stimas of the Shulchan Aruh it must be that these bugs are permitted. It is unlikely that thee was such a major change in metzios, and therefore he concludes that the Aniskais worms that we have today are te same worms that existed in the times of Chazal, and that there is no reason to forbid them.
Rav Falk agrees with the general principle that the Shulchan Aruch would permit these bugs, and adds lundus to the heter. Rav Falk aargues that any bug which became visible only inside the fish never becomes assur, and cites scientists. The reason for this is just as the sides of the bucket is ribisei, so too inside the fish is certainly rebisei. Since the bug spends its whole existence as reviseh of a sheretz hamayim, there is no time when an issur is chal on it.
Rav Falk adds that there is clear distinction between sheretz hayama and sheretz ha’aretz. Sheretz ha’artez is forbidden as soon as it becomes separated from the fruit. Therefore if the fruit is in a basket it becomes assur as soon as it comes out of the fruit. However if the bug comes out of the water, it remains permitted as long as it is still in the sides of the bucket or the well. The reason for this is the sheretz hayam only becomes forbidden after it has completely separated itself from the water, and as long as the bug is in the side of the bucket or the well it is rebisei and mutar.
Furthermore the Ravyah says that anything that a sheretz hamayim cannot become a sheretz ha’aretz afterwards. The Rema relies on this shita if the bug gets mixed up with food afterwards. In this case the Ravyah would argue there is never a shem issur on this bug.
If these bugs are mutar, why are the bugs found in the stomach assur. Rav Falk argues that this is a chumrah of Chazal, lest the fish swallow a bug that is forbidden. However these Anasakis worms which are definitely not swallowed seen and never get a halachah of shertez ha’aretz, are definitely permitted, ad there is no room for a safek.
Rav Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 4,83) in a teshuva written a number of years ago describes an almost identical situation regarding worms that were swallowed up by shrimp.
Rav Wosner writes that the scientists definitely can not be trusted to relay the facts correctly. If the metzious however is how they describe, then the fish should be forbidden.
In the teshuva Rav Wosner brings an opinion that since the worms were swallowed by a fish as larve, perhaps there is no issur. He latter disputes this point in the continuation of h teshuva.
More S’feikos
The Gemara makes an open ended statement that worms found in the fish’s stomach are forbidden and in the meat are permitted. It does not discuss the question of worms which started inside the stomach and traveled into the flesh of the fish. If these worms were at some point visible will we treat them as forbidden as stomach worms or as permitted as flesh worms?
The matirim that these should now be treated as worms found in the flesh. Even though the Ran and other Rishonim explain that these worms are permitted because they grew in the flesh, these worms also grew somewhat in the flesh of the fish. This would render them permitted.
There is a major question to be asked on this understanding. If in fact these worms were previously forbidden in the stomach of the fish, how can these worms now make a 180 turn and now become permitted? Once their halachic status is set, it cannot change.
We add to the difficulty of determining the status of these fish with the following three questions about the life cycle of the Anisakis bug: First, are they in fact swallowed microscopic by the crill, or perhaps they are already visible and prohibited as sheretz hamayim? This issue is extremely difficult to determine as they are consumed very deep on the sea floor.
Second, even if they were eaten microscopic, do they remain microscopic when they are eaten by the crill? Researchers say that they have found visible Anisakis worms inside the crill. If so they may become forbidden at that point.
Third, even if they are halachicaly invisible inside the crill, what is their status inside the stomach of the salmon? If at that point they are visible then they would have the status of a sheretz hamayim. When they bore into the flesh they would enter as forbidden entities.
A further problem is that the poskim write that the bugs found between the flesh and the skin of the fish are permitted. These Anisakis bugs are found inside the flesh of the fish itself, and sometimes near the stomach. This would point to the fact that the bugs found in this fish are not the same ones that are permitted by the Gemara and the poskim.
Some poskim write that if the worms are found in the brain or lungs that they are definitely forbidden (PriChadash 84,54, Darkei Teshuva 84, Chachmas Adam 38,28).
Bitul Issur Lechatchila
Even if these bugs are forbidden, perhaps they are batel since they cannot be openly seen in the fish. There are a number of issues to deal with.
Hukar isura tells us that if the issur is nikar then it has to be removed. Here the issur may not nikar to the naked eye, but under blue light or even fluorescent light the can be seen.
Taz 104,1 (end) says that by yavesh b’yavesh the issur changes to heter and becomes heter. However if the issur is yavesh b’lach and a person could remove it, the worms remain issur. What about if one cannot remove the worms?
The Taz cites the Rambam that as long as the issur is not mixed in with the heter it is not batel, and therefore the whey of issur of cheese is not batel. According to this the worms would be a problem. The Rashba holds that even if it is nikar, if you can’t remove the issur it is batel. Since you can remove these bugs the fish should be a problem.
Can a person cook the salmon thus making it impossible to find the salmon? The Shulchan Aruch 84,13 says a person can cook honey in order to liquefy the honey in order to remove the legs even though taam will go into the honey.
However the Taz only permits this if there is no other way to rectify the issur. Here on can remove the bugs beforehand so it wouldn't be permitted to be mevatel them, and if it is impossible to remove them it would be mutar.
However all of this applies to v’dai issur. The Shach 114,21 writes that if there is only safek issur then one can prepare the food in a way which will be meatel the issur. The Pri Megadim in Sifei Daas 99,7 argues on the Shach but in Mishavetzos Zehav 99,7 he writes that if it is a tircha to remove the issur and there is no way to eat it b’heter, then it is mutar to be mevatel it. Furthermore this is a safek doraisa and maybe one can only be makil when there is a safek in the metziuous and not a safek in din.
Here in the case of the fish you have all of these sibos. The issur isn’t immediately nikar, plus it is safek, and plus it is a tircha to remove it. Seemingly this would be a reason to be matir the fish.
However all of these Achronim are only matir if the situation already existed, e.g. his wheat was infested or his honey had ants in it. Also the bugs are a beriah and perhaps they are not batel.
Do the bugs survive the cooking? The author heard from a rav who used to be a professional cook that if the fish was cooked for a while them the worms would probably not remain intact. However if the fish was fried or baked (which is usually the case), the worms would probably survive frying or roasting.
Safek S’feikos
There is a famous principle in halacha, that a safek s’feika is permitted. The basic premise of this concept is that even when one has to be stringent regarding a case of doubt, when it comes to a doubt which itself is a doubt, the result is not prohibited. In a number of areas of halacha the concept of safek s’feika is utilized to provide lenient ruling.
As we have noted, the issue of the Anisakis worms in fish contains some many doubts. Perhaps we can combine these doubts to produce a safek s’feika. On closer introspection, this is not a viable option for a number of resons.
There are numerous conditions required to have a safek s’feika, and the Shach in his treatise on safek s’feika concludes that this topic is so difficult that one should not utilize any safek s’feika unless it is explicitly mentioned by the Gemara or early poskim. Others argue on this ruling and do make use of safek s’feika. In general we follow the Shach, barring exceptional circumstances when we will use a safek s’feika to rule leniently.
One of the conditions for formulating a safek s’feika is that each of the doubts must differ from its counter doubt. In this case, although there are numerous doubts, they essentially boil down to a single question: Is this Anisakis worm a sheretz hayam which is forbidden or does it have some other status which is permitted? This would invaildate it from being considered a safek s’feika
Conclusion
Because of all of the technical and halachic questions involved in understanding the Anisakis worm, the poskim of Eretz Yisrael have currently ruled that until these issues are clarified, fish containing the Anazsis worm have the status of safek issur Torah. If these factors can be significantly clarified perhaps this ruling will change. But at the current time the issues is far from clear at this stage.
While the Anisakis leads a relatively boring life, this little worm has shaken up the entire Jewish world. He has presented us with a set of circumstances which forces us to dig deeper, and try to understand what Chazal meant. May Hashem give us the siyata dismaya to get a better understanding of these halachos.
