What is the reason for the exemption when it cannot be seen by the eye? Why not say that in the past it was permitted because people weren’t aware of it, but today, when we have magnifying glasses, it is forbidden? I always thought the reason for the exemption was that it is unreasonable to ask people to check everything with a magnifying glass, and also because there are microscopic insects in drinking water. That is to say, because it would require too much work.
And regarding insects in strawberries, according to this short video https://youtu.be/oAnBHNIxbgE it seems that in principle you can see them, though maybe not at first glance. Do you think that in such a case one should be concerned? Is that defined as “visible to the eye”?
Thank you

Is “he looks and doesn’t see” enough?

That may fall under the category of “the Torah was not given to ministering angels.” Not because of the work involved, but because it is not part of the human world. A magnifying glass, unlike eyeglasses, is not part of our everyday functioning. Why not an electron microscope, then? Of course, one can disagree with that.

Binyamin, “he checks and doesn’t see” is perhaps more accurate.

What I heard is that strawberries have lots of insects, they just hide in the little holes.
Check around each little hole with a toothpick and see whether something comes out…

In China too it’s not part of the human world to check for insects at all—they eat insects!
Apparently every innovation in Jewish law is not part of our everyday functioning. Obviously not checking around every hole with a toothpick…

Rabbi, could you please explain more precisely what is meant by saying that something is not part of everyday functioning? When you said “why not an electron microscope,” did you mean that otherwise there is no end to it, so we stop at some arbitrary point, for example before getting to a magnifying glass? And what if one day we do use magnifying glasses in day-to-day life—would Jewish law then change?
And when you said that it is “not part of the human world,” I assume you meant ordinary human beings, that is, non-Jews. But there are many things in Judaism that are unique to us alone, for example tekhelet. Why say that one is obligated to dive in order to obtain tekhelet for tzitzit—which is not something people use in everyday life—but not say that one is obligated to use a microscope in order to check for insects?

There is no obligation to dive in order to obtain tekhelet. Tekhelet was produced in quantity in the ancient world, especially in Tyre. All one had to do was go to the market and buy tekhelet at a high price, because it was a royal product. Also, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, it seems that the prohibition of insects is only against eating them independently, not about checking vegetables. But the Sages understood otherwise, and it is hard to refute their position.

And by the way, an old wise man from Meah Shearim told me that Rabbi Vaya (the leading authority on the issue of checking for insects) once had a tiny insect on his eyeglasses, and that’s why he became so stringent… I heard that Eitam Henkin of blessed memory has a systematic and innovative approach regarding checking food for insects, and that the book on the subject has already been published.

The name of Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s book is: “It Shall Be Yours for Food.”

Best regards, Shatz

With God’s help, 16 Shevat 5780

To Eli and Gil—hello,

From what both of you are saying, one could seemingly explain why nowadays most of the world does not wear tekhelet. According to the reasoning that the Torah did not obligate us to dive into the sea in order to catch snails, we could say that in our generation, when people do not use snail-based tekhelet to dye garments, once again we are not obligated to catch snails for tekhelet.

Best regards, Shatz

I don’t think the reason people do not wear tekhelet today is that it is hard to obtain, but rather that they are not sure this is the correct tekhelet, they do not want to depart from ancestral custom, etc. I assume that if everyone agreed that this really is the correct tekhelet, then everyone would have to wear it, even if it required diving to get it (just as we would say that a person living in a remote country still has to keep kosher, even if it is very difficult for him).
And therefore I return to the original question. If we assume there is such a concept as “the Torah was not given to ministering angels,” and that it can be used in halakhic ruling, what case is it talking about?
We have ruled out the possibility that one need not work hard in order to fulfill commandments. The Rabbi suggested that one need not do things that are not part of our everyday functioning, but one does need to use a special knife for ritual slaughter, and one does need to dive in order to obtain tekhelet (in my opinion), and there are many more examples of unusual things that need to be done in order to fulfill commandments.
Maybe one could say that in the Talmudic period people did not know about small insects, and therefore today there is still no prohibition, but I hold that if we accumulate more information, Jewish law should be updated accordingly (for example, the prohibition against killing lice on the Sabbath).
The last possibility I can think of is that there is no end to it: if we require checking with a magnifying glass, then we will also have to require a microscope, and that is simply not practical.
Maybe one has to combine these and say that Jewish law updates itself as knowledge is acquired, so long as it does not reach situations that are impractical—that is, absurd—although I am not so satisfied with that answer.

And thanks for the name of the book.

Eli, it is certainly possible, and reasonable, that if a situation arose in which magnifying glasses were in frequent use, Jewish law would change. Exactly like eyeglasses. That is exactly what I wrote.
It has no connection to the question of tekhelet. All human beings deal with checking whether things are present (for example, most people do not want to eat insects, even if not for halakhic reasons, and still they do not use a magnifying glass), yet they still do not use a magnifying glass. As for tzitzit, non-Jews do not use that. That is true for most commandments. It is unrelated to the matter at hand.
Besides, with tekhelet this is a one-time matter. That is how tekhelet is produced. But with insects, the normal way is to check with the eye each time there is such a concern.

Gil, the wording in Maimonides’ Book of Commandments is that there is a commandment to inspect the signs of fish, or of animals and birds. It is reasonable to extend this to insects as well: if there is a prohibition on eating them, then there is an obligation to check—not as an independent commandment, but as the practical means of avoiding the prohibition of eating. But perhaps your intention was to distinguish between insects that are found in fruit and insects that crawl on the ground. But this extension seems entirely reasonable to me (excluding worms that originate inside fruits).

I accept the distinction. I hadn’t thought of that. In any case, my understanding is that the Torah forbids foods that set us apart from the nations. Not everything that human beings eat should we also eat. We do not eat pork, etc., and we do not eat creeping creatures—even though non-Jews do. Everything was forbidden to us except locusts. But what are we dealing with? Something analogous to locusts—something commonly eaten as food. It never occurred to anyone to inspect fruit, only to refrain from eating insects and creeping things as food. In any event, I accept your reasoning, if only as a stringency due to doubt (since we do not really know the intention of the verse, and therefore the prohibition of the Oral Torah is sensible). All this is only about the rationale of the verse, not about practical Jewish law, where of course one must inspect.

“It never occurred to anyone”? You’ve gone overboard.