Rabbi Yigal Kaminetzky's response to a series in Besheva by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed on the halachic obligation to inspect leafy vegetables for tiny insects, plus a scientific survey on why there are more insects today than in the past.

Rabbi Yigal Kaminetzky, Emunat Itecha 125, Tishrei 5780

Introduction

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed wrote a series of articles in the newspaper Besheva on the halachic perspective on tiny insects and the obligation to inspect leafy vegetables today.¹ I would like to point out that I am not writing this article to confront the author's conclusions (although I completely disagree with them; they deserve a separate article). Rather, I want to focus on the method of halachic ruling as reflected in these articles (due to the length of the articles, I only cited parts of the articles, and address them).

Below are some of the fundamental assumptions the author relies on:

1. "The Acharonim" in previous generations "who were strict about small insects most likely referred to larger insects."

2. "It is likely they only prohibited vegetables with many more insects."

3. "There used to be many more insects than there are today."

4. Usually, there are no insects in the amount of mi'ut mazuy (minority presence).

5. If one does not taste the insect, there is no Torah prohibition.

I wish to point out two fundamental problems with these articles:

1. Halachic rulings are issued without thoroughly understanding the facts on the ground.

2. Even more serious, the halachic ruling is based on unproven personal assumptions in a manner that does not align with the halachic methodology.

A. The size of insects prohibited by the Rishonim

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed's article states:

Questioning the sources of those who are stringent: Although it is clear that there were Acharonim who were strict about small insects, it seems they were not as exacting as are the stringent opinions of today, as it is likely that they intended their warnings for larger insects and for vegetables that contained many more insects.

Objections

1. Does the author have a source indicating that the Acharonim were only strict about insects larger than those found today?

Below are several sources from Rishonim and Acharonim alike, completely contradicting Rabbi Melamed's assumptions and establishing that the reference is to very small insects, which are nevertheless visible to the naked eye.

Rashi (Eruvin 28a): "Sheretz – she-ratz, that runs; a term for something that crawls on the ground and is only visible through its movement due to its small size."

Tosafot (Pesachim 24b s.v. tzira): "And the term sheretz refers to something that moves on the ground and is only visible through its movement due to its small size."

Tosafot question Rashi's words, but eventually agree with this determination.

Rashba's responsum (I §275):

...Also, what you mentioned regarding beans... there is a black spot where the creature resides. The head of the creature is visible, but its body is not noticeable except against the bean, since it slightly differs from the [color] of the bean. Is this creature forbidden or not?
Answer: That creature's place is immediately known by the dark spot, and it is very, very small... and it can be placed on the fingernail and moves around. Thus, in a dark spot within beans, a small portion is removed, and this is its inspection and kashrut...

Rashba also prohibits a black spot that cannot be identified as an insect except by its movement. What he wrote about the head of the creature being visible does not mean seeing the head of an insect; otherwise, why check if it moves? Clearly, the visible head only refers to a black spot.

Shulchan Aruch rules similarly (YD §84:6): "...And sometimes a black spot is found in the fruit, which is where the worm begins to develop... it is forbidden just like the worm itself [Responsa Rashba §275]."

Shelah also refers to very small insects (Kedushat Ha'achilah, §113):

The tiny mites called milvan are common during the summer in all dried fruits... and this is a common matter, and many times I have forbidden the entire market selling these items because inspecting them requires very sharp eyesight. Many times people checked them and said there are none, and another observer came and showed everyone how numerous they are, moving and shifting. Therefore, this matter should be observed, as it is a Torah prohibition.

Here too, we see that there were insects that stood still and therefore could not be identified, and only after causing them to move was it recognized that they are insects forbidden by the Torah.

Maharam ben Chaviv in Responsa Kol Gadol (§5), states:

...Vinegar tends to produce very tiny worms when it ages, thinner than a hair, without substance, except for the movement visible in sunlight... from the Mishnah, Gemara, and the posekim, it seems that even if it is smaller than a mustard seed, one is liable for lashes according to Torah law, regardless of whether it is thinner or thicker than a hair... and similarly, in liquids for worms that are so small that there is concern that even filtering the liquid through a dense cloth will not help to remove them because they may pass through the filter holes..."

2. How can he write, "It seems that the Acharonim intended their warnings for larger insects," when he himself presents a list of Acharonim from the previous generation who prohibited tiny insects?

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed states in his article:

As a source for the stringent view, one can mention the opinion of the Laniado rabbis from Aleppo, who prohibited eating grape leaves due to the tiny worms found in them. Similarly, other posekim warned against small insects (Maharam ben Haviv in Responsa Kol Gadol §5, regarding worms in vinegar; Pri Chadash 84:34, who ruled that it was necessary to inspect infested leaves against the sunlight; Chida in Machazik Beracha, YD 84:24; Shelah in Shaar HaOtiot, Kedushat Ha'achilah 18, stating that the inspectors must have good eyesight; Ben Ish Chai, Tzav 27, who warned against eating lettuce leaves because they contain many insects).

A.1 The size of the insects found in lettuce and the reference to the rulings of Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed states in his article:

An example [that the Sages were stringent specifically about larger insects] can be inferred from the interpretation of the words of Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah (473:42), who wrote: "It is very common during Passover to find small worms that are not noticeable to those with weak eyesight; therefore, if one does not have special G-d-fearing individuals to inspect them properly, it is better to use tamcha (horseradish)." The stringent authorities derived from this an absolute prohibition. However, Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah were precise in their words, requiring G-d-fearing individuals who are not of weak eyesight to inspect the lettuce, but they did not conclude that there is an absolute prohibition without this.

Objection

Unfortunately, the author did not complete his study of Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah. Below is the complete quote from Chatam Sofer, OC §132:

If one does not have special G-d fearing individuals inspecting and cleaning them from small worms that are very common during Passover and are not noticeable to those with weak eyesight; for this reason, whoever does not have someone in his household to inspect them properly, it is better to use tamcha, a.k.a. krain (horseradish), which is listed third in the Mishnah [Pesachim 39a], while lettuce is listed first and is the preferred mitzvah. Heaven forbid to cause the transgression of one or multiple prohibition biblical prohibitions, even in cases of doubt, in order to perform a positive rabbinic mitzvah, and the mitzvah of maror nowadays is rabbinic.

The words of Chatam Sofer, "small worms that are very common... and Heaven forbid to cause the transgression of one or multiple biblical prohibitions even in case of doubt" – imply there is a majority presence of insects in lettuce, and it is a biblical prohibition, and that one who eats lettuce without meticulous inspection may be liable for multiple prohibitions. Therefore, even in doubt, it is forbidden to eat this lettuce, as a doubtful biblical prohibition is treated stringently. How then can it be said, as the author suggests, that Chatam Sofer was unclear if there is an absolute prohibition?!

Similarly, Mishnah Berurah (ibid.), based on the ruling of Chatam Sofer, states: "For Heaven forbid to cause the transgression of a biblical prohibition for the fulfillment of a rabbinic mitzvah..."

The reason for the writer's mistake is the wording of Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah, "It is better to eat tamcha" and not that it is obligatory to eat tamcha. Afterwards Chatam Sofer wrote, "and Heaven forbid to cause transgression of prohibitions or multiple prohibitions even in doubt..." – is it conceivable that he wrote "it is better" to eat horseradish to imply that if one wishes, it is permissible to eat infested lettuce?! It must be that what they meant by "it is better" to eat horseradish is that despite the issues present with horseradish, it is preferable to eat it rather than not eating maror at all.

The issues with horseradish are as follows:

1. Mishnah Berurah writes:²

The custom in our country is to eat tamkha (hrain; horseradish), and one must be careful not to eat it whole because it is almost a danger, and there is no mitzvah in it because its sharpness causes great harm; therefore, it must be grated [similar to the Chacham Tzvi, §119: "I call krain a danger, and there is no mitzvah in it"]...

2. We find many Rishonim who believe that tamcha is a different vegetable, not horseradish.³

3. Shulchan Aruch notes that horseradish is only "third in the order they are listed... and the primary mitzvah is with lettuce."

In light of this, Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah wrote that it is better to make do with eating horseradish rather than avoiding consuming maror completely. However,it is clear that according to their opinion, it is a severe biblical prohibition to eat this lettuce without meticulous inspection.

A.2 Size of insects in flour and the method of sifting them then and now

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed writes in his article:

Additionally, it is plausible that even the devout and the discerning in the past did not find all the creeping creatures that today's stringent individuals find. This is evident from the attitude towards flour. Today, the stringent require sifting it with silk sifters (70 mesh), whereas until about fifty years ago, silk sifters were not found in the homes of the devout, and all the God-fearing men and women sifted the flour with regular sifters (about 30 mesh), so in practice, they could not sift out these tiny insects from the flour. Not only that, but until recent generations, whole flour was used, which is known to have larger particles that do not pass through a 70 mesh silk sieve.

Objections

1. It is true that there are means today to see even the tiniest insects, but no one claims to forbid those insects if they are not visible to the naked eye. Regarding a dead insect that appears only as a dot and cannot be made to move, there is a debate whether identifying it with a magnifying glass renders it forbidden or not. But that is not the discussion here. A large portion of the insects are visible to the naked eye, and therefore, the guidelines are to optimally use a silk sifter. Of course, very small insects that are not visible to the naked eye are permitted because "the Torah was not given to angels."

2. What is the author's source that using a sieve with large holes permits eating small insects that pass through it? Perhaps the permission was only for large insects that do not pass through this sieve?! We also find that Shulchan Aruch (YD 84:5) rules: 'Worms found in flour and the like are forbidden lest they have separated [from the flour and become prohibited].' On this, the Shach (on Shulchan Aruch, ibid., n. 14) explains:

The Rosh states:

what they call milvin; this refers specifically to small milvin that cannot be sifted out of the flour with a sieve or sifter so that the worms remain on top. But certainly, if large worms are found in the flour or other things in a way that they can be sorted out with a sieve or other methods, the food is definitely permitted, as will be stated later in subsection 9 in the gloss.

We see that Shach explicitly forbids using a sieve through which small insects pass, and it is permitted to use it only if it is known that there are large insects that do not pass through the sieve's holes. We also find that small insects passing through a sieve with much tighter holes are forbidden.

Ben Avraham (Beit Hasafek 50) writes: "...they issued an enactment to cook the vinegar and thereby the worms do not pass through... because they are very thin... even if they would filter with a very thick cloth, nevertheless worms would pass through it..."

Similarly, it is written in Responsa Kol Gadol (ibid.) that worms in liquids that are so small that there is a concern that even filtering the liquid with a dense cloth will not help to remove them because they might pass through the sieve's holes.

A.3 Why were the detailed laws of inspecting for insects not mentioned in the Gemara or Rishonim?

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed writes in his article:

Even though it was not explicitly stated, it is evident from the Gemara, Rishonim, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch that they did not elaborate on the laws of inspecting for insects in every vegetable and fruit in detail, as would be expected if it were indeed an obligation meant to prevent a Torah or rabbinic prohibition. They also did not establish essential guidelines for inspecting for insects, such as advising individuals over fifty not to inspect food because they cannot see tiny insects, and that inspections should be done against a contrasting background. Additionally, all the posekim should have written in their books that the inspection should be done in sunlight, not indoors where it was dim since the windows were small.

Objection

The author claims that from the fact that "the Gemara, Rishonim, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch" did not detail the laws of insects "as would be appropriate" for Torah or rabbinic prohibitions, it can be inferred that they disagree with the statements of "the stringent ones" mentioned earlier by the author regarding the issue of insects, including Rabbis Laniado from Aleppo; Maharam Ben Chaviv; Pri Chadash; Chida, in Machzik Brachah (YD 84:24); Shelah (Sha'ar Ha'otiyot), and Kedushat Ha'achilah (18); Ben Ish Chai (Tzav 27). One can say regarding his words:

1. Contrary to the author's statement, the Rishonim and Shulchan Aruch prohibit insects, even the very small ones. The citations I brought above imply that they themselves were among "the stringent ones."

2. Why does the author ignore all the writings and the extensive ink spilled, with great detail on the issue of insects, from the early Acharonim to the present day? Can one rule halachah while ignoring their words?

3. This is the way of the Torah: the Gemara and Rishonim laid the halachic foundations, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch summarized the main laws, and all the details were provided by the Acharonim as needed, with the halachah being determined through careful study and consideration of all their words (the Gemara and Rishonim are not books of abbreviated halachic conclusions!).

A.4 The skill and reliability of an insect inspector

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed writes:

They also did not require that experts conduct the inspection for insects; rather, they relied on the inspection of any person, whether man or woman, young or old. Only when a chomet (a small lizard according to Rabbi Saadia Gaon, or a snail according to Rashi) was found in the food they inspected lost their reliability, because it is clearly visible to the eyes (Shulchan Aruch YD 84:11).

Objections

What does the writer want to prove from the case of the chomet? If he means that those who cannot discern insects slightly smaller than a lizard or a snail are permitted to inspect and one can eat the food based on their inspection, then we are talking about the "elephants" that are vastly larger than the largest insects found in vegetables, which everyone forbids, including Shulchan Aruch, who prohibited even the smallest insects. Even the author himself, who is lenient, forbids insects of that size. Certainly, he does not intend to permit inspection by people who cannot identify an insect slightly smaller than a chomet.

The writer did not complete his study of the words of the Shulchan Aruch; here is the entire quote (ibid.):

If a woman's inspection was followed by the discovery of an insect visible to the human eye, such as a chomet, it is forbidden to eat from her inspection. However, if only worms that infest within the leaves, which are not visible until after boiling, were found, it is permitted to eat from her inspection.

From the end of Shulchan Aruch's statement, it is implied that a woman who inspected vegetables, and small worms that could have been identified before cooking were found, it is forbidden to eat the food she inspected. This means that inspection is permitted only for someone who has not lost their reliability. Similarly, Raavad writes in Isur Mashehu (§2):

Inspectors who feed [others] vegetables, and a worm was found after them, are not considered suspect, and may be returned [to their role immediately]. And I say they are not dismissed from inspection until a worm is found after them three times, for then they are considered negligent; however, once or twice is considered accidental, and we testify that they intend to inspect very well.

Therefore, we must conclude that in these laws Shulchan Aruch did not intend to teach us the size of forbidden insects, but rather the laws of reliability. A person who does not distinguish large insects close in size to a chomet loses their reliability after one instance. A person found to have missed identifiable small insects loses their reliability after three instances, as stated by Raavad (ibid). However, everyone agrees that one should not rely on people who do not know how to inspect. This clearly includes those who are not at all knowledgeable about the types of insects and worms; who may inspect are "special G-d fearing individuals who inspect properly," as stated by Chatam Sofer and Mishnah Berurah, mentioned earlier.

B. Number of insects and their prevalence in leafy vegetables

Rabbi Melamed writes:

It appears that the latter intended in their warnings... for vegetables in which there were significantly more insects.

Objections

1. From where does the author derive this statement? Does he have a source for this?

2. What is the reasoning for drawing a distinction regarding the basic halachah between situations with many insects or few? Are twenty insects permissible to eat and only a hundred forbidden?!
   In any case, if we are discussing vegetables generally infested by insects, according to all opinions, in past and present it would be biblically forbidden to consume them without inspection.
   If we are dealing with a mi'ut she'eino matzuy, an uncommon minority occurrence, it is always permissible to eat them without inspection;
   If there the infestation is a mi'ut matzuy, a common minority, inspection is required miderabanan.

On this issue, Rashba writes (Chullin 9a):

Regarding the concern of the Sages' and our fathers, the Rishonim, to inspect the lungs among the eighteen defects that can render an animal taref, is because a sircha (a mucous-type scab) on the lungs is a common occurrence; and they were concerned for common minority occurrences but not about uncommon minority occurrences.

B.1 Laboratory testing for insect prevalence in leafy vegetables

Rabbi Melamed writes: "Generally, there are no insects in the quantity of a mi'ut matzuy, common minority presence, and there is no need to check for them, since we follow the majority."

Objection

Unfortunately, the author did not carefully examine the data. Today, among leafy vegetables grown in open areas, the infestation level is rov matzuy, a common occurrence, as noted in reports published by Roni Schreiber in Emunat Itecha (Kislev 5755). These reports completely contradict the author's statements and prove that almost all leafy vegetables grown in open fields are infested, thus mandating inspection biblically.

Inspection of leafy vegetables grown in open fields:

1. Celery: Four heads were examined, all found to be heavily infested. Each head contained over one hundred aphids and other various insects. Insects were distributed throughout the celery.

2. Cabbage: Seven heads were examined from two different purchases. On average, each head contained 25 insects of various species. Most insects were found within the florets, but some were also found on the stalks. Signs of feeding and insect excreta were found everywhere.

3. Green onions: Twenty heads were examined, with 18 found to be infested with thrips, averaging 5-6 per head. Similar findings were also found in another inspection conducted about a year ago.

4. Dill: A batch of approximately 300 grams was examined, with around 150 sprigs. Fifteen of these were found to be infested.

5. Parsley: A batch of approximately 400 grams was examined, with around 250 sprigs. Eighteen of these were found to be infested.

6. Red cabbage: Seven heads were examined, all found to be infested with one or two insects, but only on the outer leaves up to the third. Additional insects were found inside a crevice in one of the heads.

7. Lettuce: Four heads were examined, all found to be infested. Each head contained an average of 11 insects (thrips, spiders, aphids, and African cotton leafworm). Insects were also found on the inner leaves.

These results are representative of inspections conducted over a long period in open fields. They were published in Emunat Itecha in issues 3–18. These findings are impressive and speak for themselves.

B.2 Prevalence of insects in the past

Rabbi Melamed writes: "It seems that in the past there were more insects than there are today..."

Objection

What is the basis for this assertion? Does it have a halachic or scientific source?

In truth, the situation today is exactly the opposite. Insects have become more resilient to pesticides, and globalization has transformed the world into a closely interconnected global village. This has led to the introduction of insects that were previously unknown to us. Consequently, both the overall quantity of insects has surpassed historical levels, and new species have emerged.

I asked agronomist Yossi Osher to verify whether the claim (by Rabbi E. Melamed) that there were more insects in the past is indeed correct. He replied, based on the studies mentioned below, that the opposite is true today. Insect prevalence is higher today, and he enumerates the reasons for this.

Yossi Osher's review on insect prevalence today

1. Monoculture⁴

Modern agricultural cultivation is based on large areas of uniform crops (monoculture). This method significantly optimizes cultivation processes such as planting, harvesting, and other regular agricultural work. However, the drawback of this method is that these areas foster the development of harmful insects, which are drawn to the extensive feeding areas preferred by pests. Unlike traditional rural agriculture, which uses small plots of diverse crops (polyculture), modern cultivation typically requires continuous management against additional insects. This cultivation method often increases the insect population with a preferred host (monophagous) and encourages a noticeable increase in their species compared to their natural population.

2. Off-season cultivation (greenhouse effect)⁵

Today, a variety of crops can be found on supermarket shelves throughout the year, whereas in the past they were seasonal. Such host plants allow pests to complete their life cycles on crops that grow around the year. This, in turn, creates a bridge between seasons with the pests persisting throughout all seasons of the year. For example, table tomatoes,⁶ traditionally grown in open fields, are now mainly grown in greenhouses and net houses. A major pest, such as the red spider mite, completes its life cycle on the host even during winter, eliminating the limited period in the past when the population was suppressed and required time to rebuild.

3. Banning the use of the effective soil fumigation agent, methyl bromide⁷

About 15 years ago, methyl bromide was phased out of use in most developing countries. This chemical was known for its effectiveness in soil sterilization against diseases and various pests and was used for a wide range of crops. So far, no equally effective alternative to methyl bromide has been found. While various alternatives have been tested over the years, an effective soil sterilizer has yet to be discovered. Consequently, in some instances, the response to damages caused by these harmful insects prompted increased reliance on alternative chemical substances.

4. Widespread pesticide use - resistance and impact on natural enemies⁸

Today, a major tool in combating harmful insects is chemical pesticides. Due to the widespread use of these chemicals, resistant strains have developed over the years. Also, at times the natural enemies of pests are affected by broad-spectrum chemicals, disrupting the balance of pest levels. There are pests today against which the effective chemical range is limited, causing significant agricultural damage and widespread occurrence of these insects.

5. Globalization⁹

Due to extensive trade relationships between countries today, pests migrate between different geographical regions. Each country has an authorized organization tasked with protecting against the introduction of new pests. However, they are not always successful and pests penetrate new areas where they were not previously found. Sometimes, a new pest spreads more quickly in new geographical areas due to the absence of natural enemies that balance the pest population. From 2000 to 2019, 255 new species invaded Europe. In contrast, between 1925 and 1949, only 134 new species were added. This increase is due to the globalization of trade. In Israel, a prime example is the infamous Californian thrip, which entered the country in 1988. This pest is now considered a major agricultural pest in Israel.

C. Eating insects - how many prohibitions are there?

Rabbi Melamed writes:

It seems that the Torah prohibition of eating a prohibited food cannot apply to food that, when eaten alone, cannot be tasted or felt during swallowing. In practice, it is impossible to taste or feel most tiny insects.

Objection

These claims are incomprehensible. They contradict the explicit words of the Torah, Gemara, and Rishonim. Vayikra (11:41) states: "And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten." Regarding this, the Gemara states (Makkot 16b):

Rav Yehuda says: One who eats a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow [binnita devei kerava], we flog him due to violation of the prohibition: “And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth … shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41) … [If one ate] an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes for violating the prohibitions " And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth " [which appears three times in scriptures, in addition to the two prohibitions mentioned above – Translator's note].

Rashi explains (s.v.) achal futita: "he swallowed a water insect"; s.v. nemala – [He swallowed a live] ant: "Since it is a complete insect, eating even a little bit is prohibited, and he is flogged five times."

From here we see that one who eats or swallows even one insect is liable for several prohibitions. As mentioned above, we are talking about very tiny insects, which are only noticeable when they move, as explained by Rashi, Tosafot, Rashba, and others. Despite not being able to taste or feel them while swallowing, and despite this eating them still violates several prohibitions.

Conclusion

As emerges from the articles, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed rendered halachic rulings based on erroneous data and unproven basic assumptions. Therefore, his rulings regarding insects should be rejected outright.