Eating worms – messing around?
Hello Rabbi,
There is an opinion in the Responsa Teshuvot ve HaNagatot (Chapter 3, Rn. 2) that one can apply a din mestot to eating worms, since it is clear that the eater does not intend to eat worms and is even disgusted by them:
“And more especially, the prohibition of eating worms in bread, which must be taught as a virtue, since a person intends to eat bread and not worms, is like one who is concerned with the prohibition of worms, and although in milk and meat there is no exemption for one who is concerned with enjoying it, namely, precisely in eating it and enjoying it like milk, but with worms one does not belong, for a person’s soul is limited to them, and if he ate and did not know, he is called concerned, and there is no prohibition at all, whose taste is neutralized by flour and is not affected at all, and therefore he did not transgress the prohibition by one who is concerned. And look again at Mishkenot Yaakov, 36, a great deal on this, and it does not belong to one who does not nullify the prohibition from the outset, who does not intend to do so and relies primarily on the fact that there are no worms.”
What does the rabbi think about this explanation?
With thanks,
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These things are explained at length in the Gamma 7 (the issue of the rat in Shikra, page 68), and in the Poskim Yod 6:11.
The legal conclusion in the Poskim is that an innovation is something that the Torah has innovated, even though these things are forbidden. (Zel Gamma 7:11) An innovation is something that is forbidden, because it is a kind of evil that is forbidden, and it is forbidden, most merciful.
And you have nothing in it except its innovation. Therefore, all the creatures that are whole (which are not invalid), the one who eats them is afflicted. And all those whose bodies are wiped out and mixed with the majority are invalid, and they do not prohibit even though there is no evidence against them, since they give reason for the defect.
And not only that, but even if there is a handful of them in order to eat the reward, they are invalid.
And on the question of whether they are invalid when they are visible, but only to clarify them, the rabbis and others disagreed.
Therefore, for the answer, the rabbi's assumption that there is a "benefit" here is incorrect. There is no benefit here, and therefore there is room for exemption on the grounds of "busyness."
Another point that should be emphasized is that a "busyness" is exempt from Qorban, but it is not clear that there is no offense here.
As is known, Rek (from the commentary on the HaShem HaKh) believes that in all of the Torah (except for Shabbat work), busyness is a complete offense, but the Torah did not require it. (And other recent ones disagreed about Rek”a).
This point should have been emphasized to the questioner.
What is the Rabbi's opinion???
Hello.
I didn't understand the comment, that's exactly what I wrote. The innovation of the Torah regarding worms is that I am not exempted due to lack of enjoyment, but in order to impose a duty on someone who is busy, he must enjoy it and simply there is no enjoyment here.
These words of Reka are puzzling, as we know, and the words are ancient.
It should be further discussed, according to what the Torah scholars wrote in Menachot 71 that prohibitions on eating are considered food and do not require thought as in impurity, because in eating it you have no greater thought than that, so where he does not intend to eat, the explanation returns that the thing is not food.
But a. Apparently the Torah scholars' words were not ruled out by law.
B. It is possible that the Torah scholars were only talking about the obligation of flogging, and not about the actual prohibition on eating.
I don't see a connection with the words of the text there. There it is about intention regarding the prohibition, and here it is about enjoyment and not intention. Unless you mean what I wrote here that you don't think here that “because he enjoys” the debtor is busy.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
