Insects in Food and Halachic Fashion
Hello,
I would like to ask (for reference) about charging for testing for invisible insects as follows:
Assuming that the source of the obligation for methods that require checking for insects that are not visible to the eye (I am not going into the distinction between those that can be seen and those that cannot be seen, etc., but only the reality when checking whether they were seen or not) is the importance of the creature, meaning that in insects there is no obligation on the slightest, but rather the importance of the creature in which there is no minimum rate is what is binding, a priori there is an error here, for if it cannot be seen, then surely there is no importance?
PS: I would like to thank the rabbi for also referring to the division between what can be seen and what cannot be seen. What does this mean?
Does the Halacha depend on “fashion?” Many people testified to me that in their youth they had not heard of such tests, but rather insects that were seen were removed and those that were not seen either did not exist or were eaten… and what is said today about such things is “new ones have come soon”?
Regards
Hello S.
I don’t think that sight necessarily determines importance. Creation has importance by virtue of being a complete creation. Perhaps if in principle it cannot be seen, it is more reasonable to speak of a lack of importance. But it seems to me that the distinction between what can and cannot be seen is not on the level of importance but on the level of existence. What cannot be seen does not exist on the level of halakhic law. Halakhic law does not deal with it. Therefore, the question of importance does not arise at all.
Although it is debatable whether what is seen through devices is considered visible or not. In my opinion, if it is an accessible device (like glasses), it is like normal vision.
Regarding halakhic fashion,
A. Just because many testified doesn’t mean it was always like that. The question is who did you ask? Is this a representative sample?
B. The fact that they once did not do something does not make it a halakhic fashion. It is possible that they once made a mistake (and it is true, I found myself blaming the early generations). It is like the claim about the Tekhel that our ancestors did not follow it and therefore some poskim write that there is no tradition or that it is an invention, etc. This is nonsense, of course.
C. For some time now, I have thought that the laws of the rabbinic law against slander are a halachic fashion. Originally, these were not actual prohibitions, and the details of the halachic law that he proves from legendary sources are not really halachic. But the halachic fashion today sees this as halachic law. Of course, there is a prohibition against slander, and it is listed and mentioned. I am referring only to a large part of the details that appear in the rabbinic law and the Shemaiah.
In conclusion, the important question is what is right and what is wrong, not what was once done and what was not.
In the Rabbi's opinion, "accessible devices" also include fluorescent lights, etc., does this mean devices that improve natural vision or also those that improve the visibility of the insect? Please explain what he said.
I didn't understand the gibberish. I meant any device that we use to see things and is accessible.
It is clear to me that if I use glasses, it is because my vision is impaired. The function of a magnifying glass is to improve visibility even for those who have normal vision. So is sunlight not enough for those who have normal vision? Will the halakha require them to use artificial means?
Why not? If they are available like fluorescent. It's a part of life.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
