Grocery price discrepancies

[yungermanchik]

Rav Dovid Feinstein said that the Mesorah (and Rav Moshe's Psak) was for lake fish not for ocean fish. Not that I understand this, but I've heard this from his grandson who asked him.
I once bought a package of wild salmon by mistake and I asked Rav Reuven about it. He said to try to return it, and if they don't take it back, to come back to him. The store took it back.

[aygart]

Because at that point it was a general lifecycle discussion which directly contradicted the Talmud. That’s is different than a direct discussion about a specific creature with empirical evidence. That’s no different than other similar discussions in the achronim.

It was about a specific creature. How would we know if there was empirical evidence without looking at it? The evidence available then was no different than the evidence now.

[imayid2]

The evidence available then was no different than the evidence now.

That is hotly disputed.

[aygart]

Rav Dovid Feinstein said that the Mesorah (and Rav Moshe's Psak) was for lake fish not for ocean fish. Not that I understand this, but I've heard this from his grandson who asked him.
I once bought a package of wild salmon by mistake and I asked Rav Reuven about it. He said to try to return it, and if they don't take it back, to come back to him. The store took it back.

I can't make heads or tails of that because herring is an ocean fish that was absolutely discussed in the poskim.

[aygart]

That is hotly disputed.

People dispute objective facts all the time. I have seen the evidence brought and I also saw the historical evidence.

[imayid2]

People dispute objective facts all the time. I have seen the evidence brought and I also saw the historical evidence.

Ibid:
In the earlier instances the matter was dismissed by most rabbinic scholars because of lack of empirical evidence that the parasites in ques- tion were of a category that is halakhicly forbidden.7 However, with re- gard to the current controversy concerning the Anisakis worm there is a plethora of evidence, both empirical and scientific, giving substance to the problem. R. Schneur Zalman Revach, head of the Machon le-Mizvot ha-Teluy’ot ba-Arez, was apparently the first to bring the Anisakis issue to the attention of rabbinic decisors. Rabbi Revach conducted a thorough investigation of the problem. He personally performed numerous exami- nations of infected fish and has observed the Anisakis in various stages of development. Detailed information derived from those investigations is presented by Rabbi Revach in his Tola’at Shani (Bet Uzi’el, 5767), II, Birurei Halakhah, chap. 5, reprinted in Or Yisra’el, no. 54 (Tevet 5769), pp. 34-41, and in subsequent contributions to that journal. An excellent
and widely circulated, but regrettably unpublished, analysis of the prob- lem has been authored by Rabbi Gershon Bess of Los Angeles. Many of the pertinent halakhic issues were earlier discussed by R. Yisra’el Dov Halberstam of Antwerp in Kuntres Ve-Anokhi Tola’at, included as an ad- dendum to his anonymously published Yad Mikveh (n.p., 5754)

[CountValentine]

That's pretty cheap for Monsey fish, those things talk

I know some fish out of water that talk here also.

[aygart]

Ibid:
In the earlier instances the matter was dismissed by most rabbinic scholars because of lack of empirical evidence that the parasites in ques- tion were of a category that is halakhicly forbidden.7 However, with re- gard to the current controversy concerning the Anisakis worm there is a plethora of evidence, both empirical and scientific, giving substance to the problem. R. Schneur Zalman Revach, head of the Machon le-Mizvot ha-Teluy’ot ba-Arez, was apparently the first to bring the Anisakis issue to the attention of rabbinic decisors. Rabbi Revach conducted a thorough investigation of the problem. He personally performed numerous exami- nations of infected fish and has observed the Anisakis in various stages of development. Detailed information derived from those investigations is presented by Rabbi Revach in his Tola’at Shani (Bet Uzi’el, 5767), II, Birurei Halakhah, chap. 5, reprinted in Or Yisra’el, no. 54 (Tevet 5769), pp. 34-41, and in subsequent contributions to that journal. An excellent
and widely circulated, but regrettably unpublished, analysis of the prob- lem has been authored by Rabbi Gershon Bess of Los Angeles. Many of the pertinent halakhic issues were earlier discussed by R. Yisra’el Dov Halberstam of Antwerp in Kuntres Ve-Anokhi Tola’at, included as an ad- dendum to his anonymously published Yad Mikveh (n.p., 5754)

There was nothing there not brought up by R Vaye previously and that wasn't readily available for quite some time. There were no chiddushim there.

[imayid2]

There was nothing there not brought up by R Vaye previously and that wasn't readily available for quite some time. There were no chiddushim there.

This was never brought up:

He personally performed numerous examinations of infected fish and has observed the Anisakis in various stages of development.

Until then it was a “but the scientists say discussion”.

[imayid2]

That is hotly disputed.

To state that this exact question was posed to Rav Moshe ZT”L is simply inaccurate.  The shailoh was posed years ago by Rav Shlomo Gross Shlit”a as follows: Chazal say that worms generate in the flesh and the scientists say that it is untrue. Who do we follow? The obvious answer to this question is, as Rabbi Vaye quotes, Ayn lonu ella divrei Chazal! We ignore scientific theory that conflicts with the words of Chazal. The presentation of the issue to Rav Moshe is recorded in Teshuvos Mishneh Shleimah Siman 31. Rav Tuvya Weiiss Shlit”a has related to me that the question was posed in the same way to Rav Padva ZT”L. This is also Rav Vaie’s presentation of the Shailah in his own writings. He presents the question based only on scientific theory regarding the lifecycle of worms. There is no mention in the Shailah of the observed prevalence of this worm in the viscera!
The question posed to the Gedolei Yisroel today is completely different. We have a worm that is found in the viscera and in the flesh. In many fish, these worms are far more prevalent in the viscera than in the flesh. Are these worms permitted? The Gedolim have ruled that it is forbidden.
Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlit”a  has not been Matir the worms and recommends to all that ask him to be machmir.
It is said that Rav Moshe was asked to write a Teshuva that it is permitted. He answered that it is so poshut that it is a Bizayon to write a Teshuva. If the question was posed to the Rav Moshe in the same way as it has been presented now, it was as prevalent then as it is now, a situation that  the present Gedolim are machmir, would Rav Moshe have said that it is so poshut that there is no need for a teshuvah? There is no greater proof to the falsehood of such a report. The Rabbonim have been searching for months for some justification to permit worms that come from the outside, and have had to take difficult positions to be matir: Can one believe that Rav Moshe ZT”L held it is so poshut that it is mutar that there is no need for a Teshuvah. Look at the length of Rav Falk’s Teshuvah!
There is no doubt that Rav Falk Shlit”a is a very great talmid chochom and Posek and is surely entitled to render a psak, but one must realize that it is a psak that is contradicted by HoRav Elyahisv Shlit”a, HoRav Wozner Shlit”a and other Gedolei Yisroel.
When I was in Eretz Yisroel and met with Rav Vaye, the first question I asked him was: People say the question was not presented properly. Is there any difference between my understanding of the facts pertaining to the question and yours? He agreed that we are “on the same page” with regard to the facts.
Rav Vaye says that all the Gedolim were matir previously. However, all those that are still alive today who were matir then say today that it is forbidden!
It has been reported that Rav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a, The Toronto Rosh Kollel, is amongst the Matirim. This is also inaccurate. HoRav Miller is not matir and only allows one to use the wild salmon if it is ground, for reasons related to bittul.
I feel an obligation to make this Machoah for Kovod HaTorah.
With great sorrow,
Rabbi Gershon Bess

[aygart]

To state that this exact question was posed to Rav Moshe ZT”L is simply inaccurate.  The shailoh was posed years ago by Rav Shlomo Gross Shlit”a as follows: Chazal say that worms generate in the flesh and the scientists say that it is untrue. Who do we follow? The obvious answer to this question is, as Rabbi Vaye quotes, Ayn lonu ella divrei Chazal! We ignore scientific theory that conflicts with the words of Chazal. The presentation of the issue to Rav Moshe is recorded in Teshuvos Mishneh Shleimah Siman 31. Rav Tuvya Weiiss Shlit”a has related to me that the question was posed in the same way to Rav Padva ZT”L. This is also Rav Vaie’s presentation of the Shailah in his own writings. He presents the question based only on scientific theory regarding the lifecycle of worms. There is no mention in the Shailah of the observed prevalence of this worm in the viscera!
The question posed to the Gedolei Yisroel today is completely different. We have a worm that is found in the viscera and in the flesh. In many fish, these worms are far more prevalent in the viscera than in the flesh. Are these worms permitted? The Gedolim have ruled that it is forbidden.
Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlit”a  has not been Matir the worms and recommends to all that ask him to be machmir.
It is said that Rav Moshe was asked to write a Teshuva that it is permitted. He answered that it is so poshut that it is a Bizayon to write a Teshuva. If the question was posed to the Rav Moshe in the same way as it has been presented now, it was as prevalent then as it is now, a situation that  the present Gedolim are machmir, would Rav Moshe have said that it is so poshut that there is no need for a teshuvah? There is no greater proof to the falsehood of such a report. The Rabbonim have been searching for months for some justification to permit worms that come from the outside, and have had to take difficult positions to be matir: Can one believe that Rav Moshe ZT”L held it is so poshut that it is mutar that there is no need for a Teshuvah. Look at the length of Rav Falk’s Teshuvah!
There is no doubt that Rav Falk Shlit”a is a very great talmid chochom and Posek and is surely entitled to render a psak, but one must realize that it is a psak that is contradicted by HoRav Elyahisv Shlit”a, HoRav Wozner Shlit”a and other Gedolei Yisroel.
When I was in Eretz Yisroel and met with Rav Vaye, the first question I asked him was: People say the question was not presented properly. Is there any difference between my understanding of the facts pertaining to the question and yours? He agreed that we are “on the same page” with regard to the facts.
Rav Vaye says that all the Gedolim were matir previously. However, all those that are still alive today who were matir then say today that it is forbidden!
It has been reported that Rav Shlomo Miller Shlit”a, The Toronto Rosh Kollel, is amongst the Matirim. This is also inaccurate. HoRav Miller is not matir and only allows one to use the wild salmon if it is ground, for reasons related to bittul.
I feel an obligation to make this Machoah for Kovod HaTorah.
With great sorrow,
Rabbi Gershon Bess

I am fully aware of R Bess's position here and have discussed it with his son.

I would need to go find the papers showing it, but R Vaye absolutely did mention the presence in the viscera. (note that it is impossible for the worms not to be found in the digestive tract considering the way they are prevalent in the fish that are eaten by larger fish.)

Who is alive that was matir and changed his mind?

[aygart]

This was never brought up:Until then it was a “but the scientists say discussion”.

it is a question of whether a Jew opened a krill? Seriously? Why would we not trust a scientist's picture maysiach lifi tumo?
There is zero indication at all that there was ever a change in the metzius here since brias haolam other than the regular normal fluctuations of prevalence.

[Lurker]

You guys need to take all these discussions to the halacha thread.

[aygart]

You guys need to take all these discussions to the halacha thread.

Every thread is the Halacha thread.

[imayid2]

Who is alive that was matir and changed his mind?

Rav Elyashiv for one.

[imayid2]

it is a question of whether a Jew opened a krill?

It was more comprehensive than that, certainly more than was ever done.

iSeriously? Why would we not trust a scientist's picture maysiach lifi tumo?

Because they are at complete odds with the Talmud.

There is zero indication at all that there was ever a change in the metzius here since brias haolam other than the regular normal fluctuations of prevalence.

That is poor reason to be matir something that isn’t explicitly permitted by the Gemara and shu’a.

[ya]

Someone is making a killing.

on the backs of people who can not afford to put food on the table or make Yom tov.

[moko]

on the backs of people who can not afford to put food on the table or make Yom tov.

don't patronize those stores. There are other options.

[imayid2]

on the backs of people who can not afford to put food on the table or make Yom tov.

אונאה?
Or is this the wrong thread

[ya]

don't patronize those stores. There are other options.

in Monsey?