2

So we typically clean vegetable matter of bugs because, while it isn't an aveirah to eat a bug part if it's smaller than a(n) (halachic) olive, it is still prohibited to eat any non-kosher living thing as a whole regardless of size. How far does this extend though? Obviously we aren't concerned with microbacteria because those are impossible to see with the naked eye, but what are the machmir and makil opinions on this subject? How big does the bug have to be before it is required, by these opinions, to brush them off your veggies?

rosenjcb
  • 1,574
  • 9
  • 20
  • 1
    I'm pretty sure that the rule is "visible to the naked eye," but I don't have a source for you. – MTL Jan 01 '15 at 18:00
  • @Shokhet That's the thought I had as well, but it's a little subjective... kind of like the size of said olive. – rosenjcb Jan 01 '15 at 18:06
  • About the size of the kezayis: http://www.amazon.com/Halachos-Kzayis-Yisroel-Pinchos-Bodner/dp/1583304894/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393562492&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=kezayis – MTL Jan 01 '15 at 18:13
  • @Shokhet You are correct. The standard is: large enough to see with the naked eye in optimal conditions (i.e. a person with excellent vision, examining in the sunlight against a contrasting background). See also here, here, and here. – Fred Jan 01 '15 at 18:34
  • 2
    "...while it isn't an aveirah to eat a bug part if it's smaller than a(n) (halachic) olive...." That is incorrect. It is biblically prohibited to eat even a bug smaller than a k'zayis, and the person is theoretically biblically liable for lashes if such a bug was eaten intact (Rambam Hil. Ma'achalos Asuros 2:21). – Fred Jan 01 '15 at 18:41
  • We aren't concerned about microbacteria because they're not bugs, not because they're hard to see. – Ypnypn Jan 01 '15 at 20:42
  • @Fred Bug part As in, a bug leg or a bug head. Not an in tact bug. – rosenjcb Jan 01 '15 at 21:45
  • 1
    @rosenjcb Oh, I somehow missed that, probably because there's every reason to expect that there are intact bugs on infested vegetables, and the logical part of my brain overpowered the careful reading part of my brain. Thanks for pointing that out. – Fred Jan 01 '15 at 22:43
  • (Also, to clarify: By "excellent vision" I didn't mean someone with unusually acute vision, but rather what is considered standard among people with good, unimpaired vision). – Fred Jan 01 '15 at 23:19
  • @Fred If it's visible but not visibly a bug, how is that prohibited? No one could have known it was a bug until the last few centuries. – Double AA Jan 02 '15 at 01:41
  • @Shokhet More about the size of the kezayis: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/03/evolution-of-olive.html – Double AA Jan 02 '15 at 01:42
  • @DoubleAA I'll take a look, thanks for the link! – MTL Jan 02 '15 at 01:46
  • @DoubleAA If experts could visually recognize a particular specimen as such under optimal circumstances, that may be sufficient to be considered visible. In the article linked by Loewian, Rabbi Hoffman said R' Elyashiv considered it a chumra to forbid a bug that is visible to the naked eye but only identifiable as a bug via a lens (likely based on your reasoning). – Fred Jan 02 '15 at 02:53

1 Answers1

2

I don't know of any positions that forbid that which can't be detected using means that were available in ancient times (e.g. microscopic); nor of a position that would allow one to take an individual bug that is visibly a bug, albeit small, and eat it (or frankly, l'chatchila, even an individual bug part that is not part of a larger mixture). There is a range of positions, however, about when it is a concern in a taaroves (mixture) regarding how evident the bugs' presence have to be. See: http://5tjt.com/tropicana-orange-juice-an-update/

Loewian
  • 17,746
  • 2
  • 29
  • 60