Q&A: Insects in Food and Halakhic Fashion
Insects in Food and Halakhic Fashion
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I would like to ask, for analysis, about the obligation to inspect for insects that are not visible to the eye, as follows:
Assuming that the source of the obligation, according to the views that require checking for insects that are not visible to the eye (I am not entering here into the distinction between those that can be seen and those that cannot be seen, etc., but only the practical reality at the time of inspection—whether they were seen or not), is the significance of a whole creature—meaning that with insects the obligation was not said only regarding an olive-sized quantity, but rather the significance of a whole creature, which has no minimum measure, is what creates the obligation—then prima facie there is a mistake here, for if it cannot be seen, then surely it has no significance?
P.S. I would appreciate it if the Rabbi would also address the distinction between things that can be seen and things that cannot—what exactly is meant by that?
Is Jewish law dependent on “fashion”? Many people have told me that in their youth they never heard of inspections of this kind; rather, insects that were seen were removed, and those that were not seen either were not there or were eaten… and nowadays about such things one says, “these are newcomers.”
Best regards
Answer
Hello S.,
I do not think that visibility necessarily determines significance. A creature has significance by virtue of being a complete creature. Perhaps if in principle it cannot be seen, it is more reasonable to speak of an absence of significance. But it seems to me that the distinction between what can be seen and what cannot is not on the plane of significance but on the plane of existence. What cannot be seen does not exist on the halakhic plane. Jewish law does not deal with it. Therefore the question of significance does not arise at all.
However, one can discuss whether something that can be seen by means of instruments is considered visible or not. In my opinion, if these are accessible instruments (like eyeglasses), then it is like ordinary sight.
As for halakhic fashion:
A. The fact that many testified does not mean that this is how it always was. The question is whom you asked. Is it a representative sample?
B. The fact that in the past people did not do something does not make it a halakhic fashion. It is possible that in the past they were mistaken (and yes, I realize that this makes me sound as though I am casting aspersions on earlier generations). It is like the argument about tekhelet, that our ancestors did not wear it, and therefore some halakhic decisors write that there is no tradition or that it is an invention, and so on. That is nonsense, of course.
C. For some time now I have thought that the Jewish laws of malicious speech as formulated by the Chafetz Chaim are a halakhic fashion. Originally these are not really outright prohibitions, and the details of Jewish law that he derives from aggadic sources are not really Jewish law. But halakhic fashion today sees this as Jewish law. Of course there is a prohibition of malicious speech, and it is listed and mentioned. I mean only a large part of the details that appear in the Chafetz Chaim and in his Be’er Mayim Chayim.
In summary, the important question is what is correct and what is not, not what people did in the past and what they did not.
Discussion on Answer
I did not understand the hair-splitting. I mean any instrument that we use to see things and that is accessible.
It is clear to me that if I use eyeglasses it is because my vision is impaired. The role of a magnifying glass is to improve visibility even for those whose vision is normal. So is sunlight not enough for those whose vision is normal? Would Jewish law require them to use artificial means?
Why not? If they are available, like fluorescent lighting. That is part of life.
With the Rabbi’s permission, do “accessible instruments” also include fluorescent lighting and the like? Do you mean instruments that improve natural vision, or also ones that improve the visibility of the insect? I would appreciate it if the Rabbi would explain his words.