Siman 84

All types of sheratzim are forbidden by the Torah, and there are three types of sheratzim: the swarming creature of the birds, the swarming creature of the water, and the swarming creature of the land. And all of them are explicitly stated in the Torah. Regarding the swarming creature of the birds, it is written in Re'eh: "Every swarming creature of the birds is unclean to you; they shall not be eaten." And regarding the swarming creature of the water, it is written in Shemini: "And all that have not fins etc. and they shall be an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat etc." And according to the opinion of the Rambam, the negative commandment of the swarming creature of the water is from "You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming creature that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them," as we explained in siman 83, section 11, and more will be explained regarding this. And regarding the swarming creature of the land, it is written: "And every swarming creature that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten." And the swarming creature of the land is divided into two matters: the swarming creature of the land and the creeping thing of the land, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

What is sheretz ha-of? For example, a fly or a gnat, and a wasp and a bee, and their like—anything that flies. And what is sheretz ha-mayim? These are the small creatures such as the worms and the leeches that are in the water, and the large creatures in the water that are sea beasts. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, anything that does not have the form of a fish, even those that have fin and scale, they are sheretz ha-mayim, as I wrote in siman 83, see there. And what is sheretz ha-aretz? For example, the eight shratzim mentioned in the Torah: the weasel and the mouse, etc., and the snake and the scorpion and the beetle and the centipede and their like. And there is a distinction between the eight shratzim in the Torah and other shratzim, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Included in the category of "creeping things of the earth" are those worms created in fruits and grains detached from the ground, as well as those born in liquids such as vinegar and water in vessels and other liquids, and all those born in detached foods such as cheeses and meat and the like. For all of these, as long as they have not departed, they are permitted; but when they depart onto the earth, they are forbidden, as they are called "creeping things of the earth" since they now creep upon the earth. Similarly, those born in fruits attached to the ground are forbidden even when they have not departed onto the earth, for since it was born while the fruit was attached to the ground, it is a "creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The details of the laws will be explained in this siman.

Included in the category of "creeping things of the earth" is "the crawling thing of the earth," and this is what is written: "And you shall not make your souls impure with any creeping thing that crawls upon the earth." And what is the difference between "creeping things of the earth" and "crawling things of the earth"? "Creeping things of the earth" refers to those creeping things that procreate from male and female, and "crawling things of the earth" refers to those species that are created in refuse and in the bodies of carcasses, such as maggots and worms and the like, which are not created from male and female but rather from dung that has decayed and the like, and those created from sweat, like the lice on man and beast and everything similar to this. However, a flea, which is the jumping louse and is called "pulce" or "blocha," is included in "creeping things of the earth" for it indeed procreates [Shabbat 107b and see Tosafot there 12a]. And the Rambam explained this distinction in the second chapter of Ma'akhalot Assurot, halacha 13; see there [see Rashi, Pesachim 24a, starting with "he is lashed five times"].

The measure of eating sheratzim to be lashed for them is a kezayit, as with all forbidden foods, for regarding them as well the language "you shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing" is written, and every eating is a kezayit [Meilah 17b]. And even if one ate a whole limb from the shereetz and it does not have a kezayit of flesh, he is not liable for malkot, for regarding impure animals there is no prohibition of ever min hachai, and this we explained in siman 62. And the blood of the shereetz is like its flesh, for one is not liable for karet for the blood of sheratzim as for all types of blood, but rather a liability of malkot. Therefore, if they warned him on account of a shereetz, he is lashed; on account of blood, he is not lashed [Keritot 21a]. Therefore, the blood of the shereetz and its flesh join together to a kezayit to be lashed for it, and so the sages taught in the Mishnah [Meilah 17a]: The blood of the shereetz and its flesh join together with one another. And this is regarding all types of sheratzim that do not contract tumah, such as a snake and the like.

But the eight species of sheratzim mentioned in the Torah—the weasel, the mouse, the toad, the hedgehog, the monitor lizard, the lizard, the skink, and the mole—which contract tumah and whose measure is like a lentil, for such is the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai; therefore, the prohibition of eating them to be lashed for them is also their measure in like a lentil [ibid. 67b]. And thus came the tradition: it is written, "And you shall not make your souls detestable etc. and with everything that creeps on the ground which I have set apart for you as tamei." The verse opened with eating and concluded with tumah; just as tumah is in like a lentil, so too eating is in like a lentil [ibid.].

And just as with other sheratzim the blood joins with the flesh to the measure of a kezayit, so too with the eight sheratzim the blood joins with the flesh to the measure of a ke'adashah. And according to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, specifically the blood of this shertz joins with its flesh and not that of another shertz [ibid. 17, s.v. Amar]. And according to the opinion of the Tosafot [ibid.], even that of this shertz itself does not join except when the blood is attached to its flesh, but not when it has separated from the flesh, for as soon as it separates from the flesh, one is not liable for its blood in less than a kezayit. And this is the opinion of the Rambam as well. And this law is only relevant regarding the eight sheratzim, but regarding other sheratzim, even regarding their flesh their measure is a kezayit as has been written [and also regarding the matter of tumah it is so, as the Rambam wrote with the help of Heaven in Hilkhot She'ar Avot HaTumot, see there].

Since the measure of the eight sheratzim is different from all other sheratzim, therefore regarding joining one with another, it seems to me correct to say that all other sheratzim join with one another to a kezayit [ibid. 15b], and similarly the eight sheratzim join with one another to a ke'adashah. But the eight sheratzim do not join with other sheratzim, since their measures are not equal to one another, and whenever their measures are not equal, they do not join with one another [ibid. 17a]. And it is not necessary to say that other sheratzim do not join with the eight sheratzim to complete the measure of a ke'adashah, for this would be joining from the lenient to the stringent; but even the eight sheratzim do not join with other sheratzim to complete the measure of a kezayit. And in this case itself there is no ke'adashah, such as where it lacks less than a ke'adashah and he completed it from the eight sheratzim, which would be from the stringent to the lenient—this also does not join. And even though regarding the impurity of midras the stringent joins with the lenient, as we learned in chapter 27 of Kelim, see there, nevertheless regarding the prohibition of eating and regarding the touch of impurity, it appears to me that it does not join [as is implied in Rashi there 17a, see there].

Since the stringency of the eight sheratzim regarding the prohibition of eating is because of the impurity, as I have written, therefore the sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid. 16b] that only in their death is their measure a k'adashah, but in their life their measure is a k'zayit, for in their life they do not impart impurity, as it is written: "Whoever touches them in their death shall be impure until the evening." Therefore, if one severed a limb from the living from one of the eight sheratzim and ate it, he does not receive lashes until there is a k'zayit of flesh. And it appears to me that regarding combination, it only combines from living to living and from dead to dead, but from dead to living it does not combine even from that same shereetz itself, since the measure is not equal to one another.

The Rambam wrote that if one ate a complete limb from a shereetz after it died, he does not receive lashes unless it contains the size of a lentil. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that, seemingly, since regarding the eight sheratzim the measure of the prohibition is like the measure of tumah, and regarding tumah we maintain that limbs have no measure—even less than a lentil from a shereetz conveys tumah—if so, regarding the prohibition we should also say this. He comes to teach us that it is not so; for regarding the prohibition, even with a complete limb, one is not liable for less than a lentil. And the reason is that even with a nevelah, limbs have no measure regarding tumah, and nevertheless regarding the prohibition one requires a kezayit in a nevelah even with a complete limb, for in an impure animal there is no prohibition of ever min hachai as written in siman 62. It follows that regarding limbs, we do not compare the prohibition to tumah, and if so, regarding the eight sheratzim the law is also thus. [According to the explanation of Rashi and Tosafot there, this law is not explicit in the Gemara, and the Rambam explains the sugya with a different explanation as the Maggid Mishneh wrote; nevertheless, regarding the law, it is possible they would agree with him, see there in the Lechem Mishneh].

And that which we required a kezayit for other sheratzim and a ke'adashah for the eight sheratzim, this is specifically when one ate a kezayit from a large creature or combined a little from this creature and a little from that creature of its species until he ate a kezayit, and similarly regarding the measure of a ke'adashah for the eight sheratzim. However, one who eats an entire impure creature by itself is lashed according to the Torah, even if it was smaller than a mustard seed, whether he ate it dead or he ate it alive; and even if the creature had become putrid and its form had changed, since he ate it in its entirety, he is lashed [the Rambam, chapter 2, halakhah 21]. And this is specifically when it has not become so putrid that it is unfit for human consumption; but if it has become putrid in a manner that it is not fit at all for human consumption, he is exempt, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 14 of Ma'akhalot Assurot [the Maggid Mishneh].

Therefore, one who eats a whole fly or a whole mosquito or anything similar, whether alive or dead, is lashed for it on account of a winged swarming creature, even though it does not contain the volume of a kazeit. And such is the law regarding all types of swarming creatures. And know that in the Gemara [Nazir 51b] there is a doubt whether a creature that is whole in its entirety regarding matters essential to its life, but is missing something not essential to its life such that it could live without it—for example, an ant, a fly, a wasp, or similar creatures that are missing one of their legs—if it is included in the status of a creature or not. Consequently, since there is a doubt, he is not lashed. And this is what the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote there: An ant that is missing even one of its legs, one is not lashed for it unless it is the volume of a kazeit. Thus far his words. This is because it is a legal doubt, and consequently, regarding a doubt of prohibition, it is a doubt of Torah law and not a rabbinic doubt. There is a practical difference for several matters regarding the nullification of prohibitions and for several other matters, for we judge it as a doubt of Torah law and we follow the stringent path in a case of a Torah doubt.

There are times when by eating a single shertz one transgresses several prohibitions. Thus our sages, of blessed memory, said in Pesachim [24a]: One who eats a potita is lashed four times; an ant, he is lashed five times; a wasp, he is lashed six times. A potita is a shertz of the water, and one prohibition is in Shemini: "And all that have not fins and scales etc. of their flesh ye shall not eat." And one prohibition is in Deuteronomy in Re'eh, as it is written: "And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat." And two prohibitions are written in Shemini regarding shertzim in general, where it does not specify shertz of the water or shertz of the fowl or shertz of the earth, as it is written: "Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any shertz that teems, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them." "Ye shall not make yourselves detestable" is one prohibition, and "neither shall ye make yourselves unclean" is a second prohibition. The intention of "neither shall ye make yourselves unclean" is through eating them, for it is impossible to say it refers to actual tumah, since all shertzim do not convey tumah at all except for the eight shertzim specified there. Since it is written "shertz" without qualification, every type of shertz is included. Therefore, one is lashed for the potita, which is a shertz of the water, four lashings. And for an ant, which is a shertz of the earth, he is lashed five times; behold, "shertz" without qualification is as I have written. And the third is that which is written: "And every shertz that teemeth upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten." And the fourth is that which is written: "As for every shertz that teemeth upon the earth, ye shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing." And the fifth is that which is written: "Neither shall ye make your souls unclean with any shertz that creepeth upon the earth" [Rashi]. Even though "remesh" is a species that does not procreate, it is certainly so that this species is not included in "shoretz," for "shoretz" implies by means of male and female, but every shertz is included in "remesh," for the term "remesh" refers to that which walks low, close to the ground, and all shertzim are included in this, as is proven from the account of Creation where it is written: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and remesh, etc." And regarding Noah it is also written: "Every beast, etc. among the fowl, and among the cattle, and among every remesh, etc." A wasp, he is lashed six times, for a wasp is a shertz of the fowl and also teems upon the earth, and it contains these five prohibitions, and the sixth is that which is written: "And every shertz of the fowl is unclean unto you; they shall not be eaten" in Parshat Re'eh.

This interpretation that we have explained is according to the commentary of Rashi and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot and most of the Rishonim. And one should not ask that if you obligate him for the negative commandment in Mishneh Torah independently, if so, one who eats an impure animal or an impure bird should also be obligated twice, for they too were repeated in Mishneh Torah. However, the reason is that certainly every negative commandment that was repeated in Mishneh Torah and innovates something regarding the matter of this mitzvah, we do not count it independently, for it was written for the sake of the innovation. Therefore, regarding animals and birds, there are innovations of laws in Mishneh Torah, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the "shesu'ah" and regarding the "ra'ah" and "ayah" [Chullin 63b]. But regarding the swarming creatures of the water in Mishneh Torah, not only did it (not?) add anything, but it also wrote it very concisely; if so, it comes to add a negative commandment [the Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvot, Root 9, see there]. And also one should not ask, since these two negative commandments of "do not make yourselves detestable" and "do not make yourselves impure" include all swarming creatures, if so, it is a "negative commandment of a general nature" and one is not lashed for it; for in truth it is not so, as all types of swarming creatures are one, but they were divided into details. Therefore, the name "swarming creature" is not a negative commandment of a general nature, and it is only when it is divided into details that automatically one is not lashed for another type of swarming creature that was not in the detail. And also one should not ask how it is possible to lash for one prohibition because of the multiplicity of negative commandments, for there are several negative commandments that were repeated several times and one is only lashed one set of lashes; for it can be said that every place where it was repeated, it was repeated for the need of some law, such as in shaatnez, where it is written "you shall not wear shaatnez" and it is written "and a garment of shaatnez shall not come upon you," for two verses are needed, one for wearing and one for placing upon oneself, as is explained in the Talmud, and so too everything similar to this. In such a case, it is certainly not considered an independent negative commandment, which is not the case with these of the swarming creatures, which did not add any law, and perforce they come to add negative commandments [ibid.] [and according to the Rambam, in truth, it comes for an innovation, and examine it carefully].

But the Rambam, of blessed memory, has another approach in this, for he holds that one does not receive lashes for a single thing on account of the multiple prohibitions that were increased regarding it. Therefore, he explains that these creatures are composed of several types of sheratzim. This is what he wrote at the end of chapter 2, and this is his wording: If a creature was of the winged sheratzim, the aquatic sheratzim, and the terrestrial sheratzim—for example, it had wings, and it walks upon the earth like other sheratzim, and it breeds in the water—and one ate it, he receives three sets of lashes. And if it was, in addition to this, of the species that are created in fruit, he receives four sets of lashes. And if it was of the species that reproduce, he receives five. And if it was among the category of unclean birds, in addition to being of the winged sheratzim, he receives six sets of lashes for it: on account of "unclean bird," and on account of "winged sheratzim," and on account of "terrestrial sheratzim," and on account of "aquatic sheratzim," and on account of "creeping upon the earth," and on account of "worms of fruit," whether he ate it in its entirety or ate a kezayit of it. Therefore, one who eats a flying ant that grew in the water receives five sets of lashes. Thus far his words.

And behold, it is not understood what he wrote regarding the fruit worm, and his intention was to one born in the fruit while it was attached to the ground or while it was detached and it spread to the ground and returned; for is this not itself a shertz ha'aretz? It would be understandable that a romesh is considered a separate negative commandment because shertz refers to those that procreate from male and female, and romesh refers to those that form from putrefaction, as I wrote in section 4, but those in fruits are surely shertz ha'aretz. However, he follows his own reasoning in the Sefer HaMitzvot, for in commandment 176 he wrote that He warned us against eating shertz ha'aretz, and in commandment 177 he wrote He warned us against eating the sheratzim that form from putrefaction, and in commandment 178 he wrote He warned us against eating worms that are born in fruits and seeds, and he cited from the Sifrei to include those that spread to the ground and returned. Thus far his words. Behold, he counted this as a separate negative commandment. And so too when he counted the number of commandments at the beginning of the laws of forbidden foods, twenty-eight commandments, and he counted not to eat shertz ha'aretz, and he counted not to eat remesh ha'aretz, and he counted not to eat the fruit worm when it emerges into the air; see there. Behold, he counted this as a separate negative commandment. And it is also not understood, since remesh ha'aretz and shertz ha'aretz are two opposites, how it is possible for this to be in one creature. And the Ramban already challenged him there. And the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, seems to be because two verses are written regarding shertz ha'aretz, for thus it is written: "And every shertz that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten. Whatever goes on its belly... among all the shertz that swarms upon the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are a detestable thing." And if so, granted that in the repetition of negative commandments one does not double the lashes, nevertheless, since they can be established upon two separate things—one for the general shertz ha'aretz and the second for the shertz ha'aretz that comes from fruits—each one is rightly a separate negative commandment. And this is what the Sifrei derived from the second "for all the shertz," and so he wrote in chapter 2, law 14; see there. And as for his obligating it because of shertz ha'aretz and because of remesh, even though they are two opposites, nevertheless, since ultimately it was born from the fruit and is like that which is born from putrefaction, therefore even though it procreates, it is nevertheless also included in remesh ha'aretz. And therefore, since it walks upon the earth like a general shertz ha'aretz and was formed from fruit and it also procreates, he is liable for these three: because of shertz ha'aretz, and remesh ha'aretz, and shertz from fruit, aside from shertz hamayim and the bird and the impure bird. And nevertheless, most of our teachers did not agree with him in this; and see what I wrote in siman 159, section 6.

And know that the prohibition of aquatic crawling creatures was brought by the Rambam from "Do not make yourselves detestable... with any crawling creature that crawls" and not from the verse "Everything that does not have fins and scales," because he holds that there it deals only with fish. And even though it is also written there "of all the aquatic crawling creatures and of every living soul that is in the waters," nevertheless, the verse in which the prohibition is written—which is what is written afterward, "and they shall be an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat"—the essence of the prohibition only stands upon fish. And his reason, it appears to me, follows his reasoning that we explained in siman 83, section 6, that unclean fish and aquatic crawling creatures are two separate matters, for aquatic crawling creatures are forbidden even with fins and scales; and if we were to say that this prohibition includes all of them, then it would be a "prohibition of a general nature." Therefore he divided them, such that this prohibition is for unclean fish, and the prohibition of aquatic crawling creatures is from "Do not make yourselves detestable," as he wrote in chapter 2, law 12. This is his wording: One who eats a kezayit of an aquatic crawling creature, he is lashed according to the Torah, as it is said, "Do not make yourselves detestable... with any crawling creature," etc. See there.

The Rambam further wrote at the end of chapter 2: If one crushed ants and brought one whole one and joined it to those that were crushed, and the whole became a kezayit and he ate it, he is lashed six sets of lashes—five on account of the one ant, and one on account of a kezayit of the nevelah of the impure. Thus far his words. And it is an explicit Gemara in Makkot [16b]. However, the matters are puzzling, for he wrote explicitly at the beginning of chapter 4 that nevelah only applies to pure animals and not to impure ones, for regarding impure ones the concept of nevelah is not applicable; therefore, even upon their death one is only lashed for the prohibition of impurity [Lechem Mishneh]. If so, here too, one should only be lashed for the prohibition of sheratzim, and the prohibition of sheratzim is already present in the one ant. The Maggid Mishneh already raised this difficulty there. And it appears to me that the Rambam was precise in his wording to say "from the nevelah of the impure," whereas in the Gemara they said "nevelah" without qualification, to indicate that the prohibition is not on account of nevelah. Rather, this is the explanation: the Gemara holds that the prohibition of a biryah and the prohibition of a kezayit are like two separate matters, and the intent is on account of a kezayit of a sharetz. They required the term "nevelah" because regarding the one ant, the Gemara uses the term "living," and the intent is "whole," as the Rambam wrote; and only because in its lifetime it is certainly whole, the Gemara employed the term "living." But these nine that were crushed are certainly dead, and any dead thing has the name "nevelah" upon it. Therefore, the Shas says "and one on account of nevelah," meaning, on account of a kezayit of dead sheratzim. And the Rambam, who always guards himself to align his wording with the wording of the Shas, therefore said "from the nevelah of the impure," meaning, from the nevelah of sheratzim which are impure.

It has already been explained in section 3 that worms that developed in detached fruits are permitted as long as they have not emerged, for we do not apply to them the term "swarming upon the earth," see there. Similarly, swarming things in the water are only forbidden if they developed in seas, rivers, and lakes; but worms that developed in water that is in vessels or in other liquids are permitted as long as they have not emerged, for the Torah only forbade in the seas and in the streams those that do not have fins and scales. However, water that is contained in vessels, or water in pits and caves that is collected, is permitted as long as they have not emerged. But when they have emerged, we apply to them the term "that swarms upon the earth." According to the opinion of the Tur, even water in trenches and ditches, when they are not flowing, their law is also like water in vessels. But according to the opinion of the Rambam, they are forbidden since they flow and resemble rivers; and "trenches" are called long and short [Rashi 67a] and "ditches" are called wide, such as those made for fish ponds [ibid.].

Therefore, a person may bend down into a pit or into a vessel and drink the water and need not be concerned about the worms within it, and also regarding "do not make yourselves detestable" there is no concern, for his intention is not for the worms, but rather they enter his mouth of their own accord. However, if the matter is repulsive to him, it is certainly forbidden due to "do not make yourselves detestable." And know that these small flies that fall from the air into the water remain in their forbidden status, and only the worms that were formed of themselves in the water or in the wine or in the vinegar were permitted. But those that fall into them, as is common during the summer time when flies and small creeping things fall from the air into the water or other liquids or into foods, remain in their prior forbidden status. And because there are those who err in this and transgress several prohibitions, as has been explained that for an ant one is lashed five times, therefore one must be very careful in this and also warn the masses about this.

It has already been explained that those that emerged are forbidden even if they afterwards fell into the water, and it is called "emerged" when it emerged to the back of the vessel or the back of the pit. And even if it emerged onto the rim of the vessel or the rim of the pit, or if it emerged into the air, it is forbidden even when it afterwards fell into the water. But if it emerged to the inner wall of the vessel or the inner wall of the pit, it is not called "emerged," and when it afterwards falls into the water it is permitted. And the reason is that this is their way of growth; that is to say, it is the way of the worm to go out from the water to the inner wall of the vessel. And if we were to say that even in such a case the Torah forbade it, if so, it did not permit at all those that grow in detached matter, for behold, it is their constant way to emerge to the inner walls. And since the Torah permitted them, we learn from this that even in such a case it is permitted [Gemara 64].

And just as in this vessel the worms that were formed are permitted when they have not departed, so too if one poured the water or the liquids from this vessel into another vessel, the other vessel has the law of the first vessel; for as long as they are in the liquids, or even if they departed to the inner walls of the other vessel, it is permitted just as in the first vessel. And the reason is that this is their way of growth, for such is the way of foods and liquids to be poured from vessel to vessel, and what difference is there to me if it is a first vessel or a second vessel or a third? But from a pit to a vessel it is not so, and it is forbidden to draw with a vessel and drink from them, for perhaps they will depart to the inner wall of the vessel and it will be as if they departed to the ground. And it is not similar to pouring from a vessel to a vessel which is permitted, as we have explained, for the name has not changed, as originally it was a vessel and now it is a vessel; but here, originally it was a pit and now it is a vessel [Shach, subsection 4].

Furthermore, even if we were to say that there is no difference between one vessel and another or between a pit and a vessel, it is also forbidden to draw with a vessel from the pit because we are concerned lest they separate from the pit onto the outside of the vessel, or onto the rim of the vessel, or even on the inner wall of the vessel but before the water enters into it. This is not the case with pouring from vessel to vessel, where there is no such concern, for he does not place the second vessel into the first [this is the intent of the Taz, subsection 5].

However, according to this, the law would also change from vessel to vessel, for there would only be permission to pour from the first vessel into the second vessel, but to place the second vessel inside the first vessel would be forbidden due to these concerns that we have written. And if we were to say so, it would also be forbidden to eat with a spoon from the bowl, for we would concern ourselves that [the worm] might separate onto the back of the spoon or onto its rim. Yet the widespread custom is to eat vinegar with a spoon from the bowl as is common, even though vinegar is presumed to contain worms, and the permission is because it has not separated. If so, we should not eat the vinegar unless one pours from the bowl into his mouth, and this is not a logical reasoning at all, and the custom is not so. Therefore, it appears that from a spoon to a vessel there is no such concern, for he inserts it quickly and the eye sees and the sense awakens that the creeping thing has no time to separate onto the back of the spoon; this is not the case with a pit where the eye does not rule and there is a delay, for in such a case one must be concerned [see Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 5, and he did not take heart of the widespread custom, and perforce one must say as I have written, and the Binat Adam permitted it for the reason of growth, see there].

There is one who says that this which is permitted from vessel to vessel is only when in the second vessel there will be nothing but the liquids alone, but when there are foods there it is forbidden because they will spread onto the foods. These are puzzling matters, for when the food is mixed with the liquid, that is their natural way and they are considered as one. And behold, even if it spreads to the inner walls of the second vessel we have no concern with it, as I have written, and all the more so if it spreads to the food mixed together with the liquid. Furthermore, one of the early authorities wrote explicitly that it is permitted to pour from a vessel of vinegar into a cooked dish [Rabbi Yerucham], and in a cooked dish there are foods. Therefore, one should not be concerned for this stringency [and also the opinion of the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 5 is so]. See in section 38.

It is certainly so that there is no concern lest they separated to the back of the vessel or upon the rim of the vessel, and similarly in a pit, as long as we did not see that they separated; for specifically inside the vessel is it their way to separate upon the inner wall, but not upon the rim of the vessel, and certainly not the back of the vessel. However, those worms that form in vinegar or in other liquids that have the appearance of wings and whose way is to fly from within the liquid into the air and fall back into them are certainly forbidden, since such is their way. And only those that do not have wings are permitted; so wrote one of the great ones [Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in Sha'arei Dura, Sif Katan 10 in the name of Damash"a]. And it is very wondrous to me how our teachers, the Rishonim, omitted explaining to us such a law which is found every day, and our eyes see vinegar full of gnats with wings, and in their cooking they are even more recognizable; and how could they have brought such a stumbling block before the congregation of the Children of Israel? For perhaps their strengths are weak and they do not have the power to fly from the water into the air, and why should we maintain a deficiency? Therefore, it requires further study as a matter of law, and one who is stringent should be stringent for himself, and may a blessing come upon him.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: One who strains water or other liquids, and there were worms or gnats or mosquitoes in it, even if they returned into it, they are forbidden because they have already separated. Therefore, a liquid in which it is common for worms and the like to grow should not be strained with wood chips or straw at night, lest they return and fall into the vessel and he come to drink them. However, it is permitted to strain them through a cloth or a strainer, for they will not be able to fall through there into the liquid. And likewise, it is permitted to pour the liquids from vessel to vessel, since they are always with the liquid, which is their growth. Thus far their words. And the matters require clarification:

And behold, in the Gemara [67a] they said: A person should not pour beer through wood-chips at night, lest it separate above the wood-chips and then fall into the cup, and he would be transgressing because of a "creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Rashi, of blessed memory, explained: Date beer, in which worms are common. Thus far his words. And his intention is that barley beer, in which worms are not common, one need not be concerned that there are worms in it; and only something in which worms are common did they forbid to strain at night through wood and thin straw, because at night when the worm falls upon the straw he will not see it, and from there it will fall into the vessel, and tomorrow when he sees it he will think that it did not exit from the beer onto the straw, and a water worm is permitted [Rashi]. And from this we have learned explicitly that specifically when the worm does not go through the hole of the strainer together with the liquid, but rather the liquid goes and the worm remains on the wood or on the straw and afterward falls into the liquid, it is forbidden, for this is actual "separation." But if it goes through the hole together with the liquid, we have no concern with it. And we also learned that only at night is there this concern, because during the day he will surely see if it went together with the liquid or not, and if it remains on the wood and the straw he will cast it out; but at night he will not see.

It appears explicitly that our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, followed this path, and therefore they wrote "water or other liquids and there were worms in it," meaning that they are presumed to have worms. And this is why they wrote "even if they returned into it they are forbidden," their intention being that previously they were on top of the object from which they emerged. And therefore they wrote that one should not strain it through wood chips or straw, because in this case there is a concern that the worms will remain upon them, according to the explanation of Rashi, and because the holes are wide they will slide themselves from the wood and the straw to the liquid. But with narrow holes there is no concern, and therefore they wrote that through a cloth or a strainer, meaning a fine strainer, there is no concern in this, for they will not fall through there. And the matter is simple, that a strainer when it has wide holes, its law is like wood and straw. And the reason they did not specify a fine strainer is because a standard strainer is fine. And even with wood and straw and a wide strainer, the prohibition is only at night and with something that is presumed to have worms. And in section 34 more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

However, from the words of the Tur, a different opinion appears regarding this matter, for he wrote, and this is his wording: One who strains a liquid and there were sheratzim in it, it is considered as if they separated, for they have separated from their place of growth; therefore, a liquid in which sheratzim tend to grow should not be strained at night, lest the sheratzim return into the vessel and he come to drink them, and they have already separated. But ordinarily there is no concern lest they separated as long as there is no proof in the matter. Thus far his words. And his words are puzzling, for he did not mention wood or straw mentioned in the Gemara [Beit Yosef]. And there is one who answered that he holds it is not specifically wood or straw, for the same law applies to a strainer, and he brought proof from what we say in the Gemara [ibid.]: "Every swarming thing etc." to include gnats that one strained, and certainly the intention is when they fell afterward into the liquid, for if not so, it is obvious; evidently, even by way of a strainer there is this concern [Bach]. And also what he wrote, "But ordinarily there is no concern lest they separated etc." refers to what he wrote previously regarding liquids that are in pits and vessels [ibid.]. And these matters are puzzling, for the derivation of gnats that one strained, the intention is to eat the gnats themselves, as is explained in the Rambam, see there; and the novelty is that we should not say that since its growth is in liquids that are in a vessel, the status of "swarming upon the earth" does not apply to it at all. And also, why should the Tur repeat the previous matter?

Therefore, it appears to me that for the Tur there was a difficulty: for if the concern is that at the time of straining the worm will fall onto the straw and from there it will slide into the liquids, if so, even by day one should be concerned for this. For does one who strains keep his eyes directed to see the manner of the falling of the worms into the vessel into which he strains? Behold, for this one would need strong vision and not to avert one's eye from the strainer even for a brief moment. Rather, certainly there is no concern for this ordinarily, and we say that the worm went together with the liquid. And the concern of the Gemara is a different concern: that perhaps after he strains all the liquid and the worms remain on top and crawl about for a long time here and there while the liquid stands there, it is possible that afterwards they will crawl into the liquid. Therefore, this concern exists only at night, for by day, when he sees worms crawling around the liquid, he will remove the liquid from there; but at night he does not see. And this is what it says, that one may not strain at night lest they return, etc., meaning a long time after the straining. And this is why it concludes: but ordinarily there is no concern, etc., meaning that seemingly, if so, in every straining there should be a concern lest the worm does not go together with the liquid, as I have written, and if so, why specifically at night? Even by day one should also be concerned for this. It says that ordinarily there is no concern, etc. And according to this, certainly there is no difference as to which strainer he strains with [and that which they said in the Gemara "tzavyata" is because it was their way to strain by means of this, as is proven from the end of Avodah Zarah 75, see there, and likewise in Shabbat 139: "a person should not press the tzinayata," and the Aruch reads "tzavta," but for the law there is no difference in what he strains with, and examine this].

And know that the Rambam, of blessed memory, omitted this law entirely and only wrote in chapter 2, law 20, and this is his wording: One who strains wine, beer, or vinegar and eats the gnats, flies, or worms that he strained, incurs lashes because of "swarming winged creatures" or "swarming aquatic creatures," even if they returned to the vessel after he strained them, for they have separated from their place of origin; but if he did not strain them, he may drink and need not refrain, as I have written, see the Beit Yosef. And this law, not to strain at night, he did not write at all. It is not his way to omit an explicit law in the Gemara. One cannot say that he holds we do not concern ourselves with the doubt that perhaps they separated unless he saw that they separated, as would seemingly appear from the surface of his wording, for it is impossible to say so, as the Gemara was concerned for this when one strains at night. Furthermore, one cannot say the opposite, that he holds that whenever one strains one must be concerned, and one may not permit straining except when they see clearly that they did not separate; first, because his wording does not imply this, and furthermore, this too is against the Gemara, for the Gemara was only concerned at night and not during the day [see what I have written, and also his wording is opaque, and examine it].

And it appears to me that the Rambam explains the Gemara with a different interpretation, and he holds that one cannot establish a fixed rule in this matter, for it is not because of the straining that it is a necessity that the worm will separate, as I wrote according to the reasoning of the Tur; for indeed, if so, the sages, of blessed memory, should have forbidden all straining to us, for who can determine which is a fine hole and which is a coarse hole? Rather, it depends on the perception of the person straining and according to his estimation. Therefore, the Rambam informed us of this law, that if it separated by means of straining and returned to the liquid, it is forbidden. And in the Gemara, it is a different matter, that which it says: One should not pour beer through a funnel at night; for the term "pouring" regarding liquid is when there is dross in the liquid, they let it stand for a long time so that over the course of time the dross remains at the bottom. And this was especially so with beer, as we say in Shabbat [139b]: The house of Rav Papa poured beer from vessel to vessel. And Rashi explained: Wherever the term "pouring" is taught, it is done gently, and the dross remains at the base of the vessel. Thus far his words. And so we learned in a Mishnah there [140a]: And one may not soak bitter vetch nor pour them. And Rashi explained: To remove the dross, see there. And their way was to let this stand for the entire night, since it requires a duration of time, as is found in Beitzah [29a], see there. And this is what it says, that one should not do so with beer through a funnel, because over such a long duration, it is obvious that there is reason to fear that the worm will separate and return. And it was not necessary for the Rambam to mention this at all, for even in less than this duration there is certainly reason to fear; however, because in the time of the Gemara it was their way to do so, they warned about this.

According to what we have explained, the approach of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, follows the approach of Rashi, of blessed memory. Even according to this approach, they wrote that the prohibition is only with wood chips and straw, but by way of a garment or a strainer it is permitted. We explained in section 29 that the intention is a fine strainer, and an ordinary strainer is fine, see there. Nevertheless, it is a wonder to me, for if it were prohibited with a wide strainer, they should not have remained silent and placed a stumbling block before those who study. Therefore, it appears to me to say that their intention is that with a strainer it is permitted in all manners. For why should we assume a flaw and say that those which descended through the holes of the strainer were initially upon the strainer and afterwards descended and returned into the liquid? On the contrary, let us say that they descended in their path together with the liquids and did not remain upon the strainer without liquid, and the senses testify to this. This is specifically with wood chips and straw, as this is not the way of straining since they are not made for straining, and the liquid falls instantly, and certainly the worms are scattered upon the wood and upon the straw, and afterwards when one pours into them—and especially according to what we explained, that pouring is for a long duration. But with a strainer, where the liquid descends instantly with everything that is capable of descending through the strainer, they certainly descended, and those that remain in the strainer will not descend afterwards into the liquids, as they immediately remove the strainer from there. Nevertheless, in practice, it requires further study, and especially if they leave the strainer inside the vessel that the liquids descended into.

I saw one of the great authorities who wrote in this language: And so too vinegar that became infested with worms, it is forbidden to strain them because they are not recognizable except against the sun, and we fear lest they separate onto the strainer and return into it; but without straining it is permitted, according to the law of water that became infested in a detached vessel. And I heard clearly that even if it were a very thin cloth that does not have a small hole, even so it will pass through, and it has no remedy except that he should boil the vinegar first and afterwards strain it, for since the worm is dead it will not pass through the straining. Thus far the words of that great authority [Chachmat Adam, Klal 38]. And according to his words, our teachers did not explain all that is necessary in a matter such as this which is needed at every time and every hour. And according to what we have explained, this is not necessary, for in any case, if they pass through, they will pass through together with the vinegar, and we do not have to establish a flaw in that which we do not see. And behold, this is what the Tur wrote, that presumably one need not fear lest they separated. Nevertheless, certainly one who is concerned for this, a blessing shall come upon him, and so we practice.

There is one who wrote in the name of the natural scientists that one who looks through a magnifying glass called a "spaktiv" will see that vinegar is full of worms. Now, regarding vinegar there is no concern, as has been explained, for the Torah permitted worms that come into existence in detached matter. However, I have heard that in all types of water, and especially in rainwater, it is full of minute creatures that the eye cannot see. In my youth, I heard from one who was in distant lands and saw through an extremely powerful magnifying glass, up to tens of thousands of times, all types of creatures in the water. According to this, how do we drink water, for behold these creatures came into existence previously? However, the truth is that the Torah did not forbid that which the eye cannot perceive, for the Torah was not given to the ministering angels. For if it were not so, behold several researchers have written that even all the air is full of creatures, the most minute of the minute, and when a person opens his mouth he swallows several of them. Rather, it is certain that their mouths speak vanity, and even if it is so, since the eye cannot perceive them, it is nothing. However, that which the eye can see, even against the sun and even the most minute of the minute, is a complete sheretz.

Therefore, one must be very careful in the summer regarding those who drink from rivers and from lakes and from wells and springs that are not deep, for through the heat, small flies and small worms are formed there, and one must be careful to filter the water with a very fine filter. And similarly, in the summer, small flies that fly in the air become mixed into rainwater, and one must be careful not to drink them before filtering with a very fine filter or by means of a cloth, in the manner that we filter water on Pesach due to the concern of a mixture of chametz. However, in deep wells and springs, the creeping thing is not common in them.

One of the early authorities wrote: Vinegar that contains worms, if they emerged into the air it is called "emerged," but from the vinegar into the cooked food is not considered "emerged" and they are permitted [Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham]. These are simple matters, except that there is one who wrote, and this is his wording: It stands to reason that this even refers to cold cooked food, and even if it emerged from place to place within the food itself, this is its growth and it is perfectly fine; but if it emerged from the food to the outside, even on the inner walls of the vessel, it is forbidden, as this is not its growth. According to this, one should not eat this cooked food except during the day when he can see it, but not at night [Pri Chadash, subsection 9]. These are astonishing words, for one way or the other: if we consider the food as standing alone, it should be completely forbidden since it emerged onto the food; and if we consider the food and the drink as one, what do we care if it emerged onto the inner wall of the vessel? And so I saw one of the great authorities who questioned these words [Chachmat Adam in Binat Adam]. See what I wrote in section 25 [and if it emerged while dead, it will be explained further on].

It has already been explained that worms that grow in fruits after they have been detached are permitted, for we do not apply to them "that which swarms upon the earth." Therefore, they are only permitted as long as they have not departed to the earth; but if they departed, they are "swarming upon the earth," and if they returned to the fruit, they are forbidden and one is lashed for them. Furthermore, even if they departed and died in the air before they reached the earth, it is called "that which swarms upon the earth." This was an inquiry in the Gemara that was not resolved, and consequently, a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition is ruled stringently. Consequently, when there is another doubt, it becomes a double doubt and there is room to permit [Pri Megadim, subsection 11]. However, this is according to the one who holds that an unresolved inquiry in the Gemara enters the category of a double doubt, but according to those who disagree on this, this is not a double doubt [see Pri Chadash, subsection 10, in the rules of double doubt, letter 5].

And even if it did not emerge entirely from the fruit but only partially, or if it only emerged onto the surface of the fruit, or if it was in the pit of the fruit and emerged onto the pit even while the pit is still within the fruit, or if there were two fruits adjacent to one another and it emerged from fruit to fruit—all of these are forbidden. For these too are inquiries that were not resolved in the Gemara, and the doubt is that perhaps since they left their place of growth, even though they did not swarm upon the ground, nevertheless it is possible that they are called "that which swarms upon the ground." And this is like worms in water within vessels that emerged to the outside of the vessels, and it is not similar to those that emerged onto the inner wall of the vessel, which is truly their place of growth; for if not so, why did the Torah permit them? Behold, it is impossible otherwise. But regarding worms in detached fruits, on the contrary, their way is to be there always, and therefore this is also called "emerged." And since their prohibition is due to doubt, therefore when there is an additional doubt, it becomes a double doubt, as I wrote in the previous section.

And know that according to the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot and many of the Rishonim, it is not called "departed" unless it departed while alive, but if it departed while dead, it is nothing. For the entire essence of the prohibition of departing is because it is called "swarming upon the earth," and behold, in its death it cannot crawl, and "swarming" means something that crawls and moves [Rashi]. Therefore, whether regarding a worm in water that departed to the back of a vessel, or regarding detached fruits where it departed to the ground or to the air or to anything that has been explained, this is all regarding departing while alive and not in its death. And according to this, worms in vinegar and in detached fruits and in lentils and in beans and in legumes that one boiled over the fire and the worms died, we do not care afterwards if they departed [Beit Yosef in Bedek HaBayit in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham].

But the Rambam, the Rif, our teacher Chananel, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, said even in such a case, and they hold that even if it separated after death, it is a question that was not resolved in the Gemara. And it appears to me that they follow their reasoning, as they hold that even with worms in a detached state, they are forbidden even when they have no place to crawl. Rashi, the Tosafot, and many of the Rishonim hold that even in a detached state, there must be a place to crawl, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And according to the one who holds that crawling is a requirement, then automatically regarding separation from a detached item, crawling is specifically required; and the one who holds that crawling is not a requirement, then automatically regarding separation from a detached item, it is not a requirement [this must be the clear explanation, and even though they differ in the version of the Talmud, whether the version is "it separated after death" or "it separated and died," nevertheless the reasoning is clear as I have written].

And according to these teachers of ours, boiling over the fire does not avail if they subsequently separated, as is understood. And certainly it appears that since there is a dispute among the great authorities, one should be stringent. However, it appears from our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch in section 4, that they took as primary the opinion of those who permit, and the opinion of those who prohibit they wrote in the name of "there are those who prohibit." And according to what I wrote, that it depends on whether in a connected state it requires bubbling, they also follow their reasoning in section 6 that it requires bubbling. And such is the opinion of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch [Shach subsection 12, and the Kereiti, and the Pri Chadash], and I wonder at them, for they hold regarding a connected state that it does not require bubbling, as will be explained with the help of Heaven; so how did they rule leniently here? Rather, one could say that they hold that here it is more lenient, for even according to the opinion of those who are stringent regarding a connected state, nevertheless here it is only a question that was not resolved, and therefore they were lenient in this, and it requires further study. And certainly one should be stringent [and the Peleti subsection 3 wrote that this is only rabbinic, and I do not know from where he has this, and also the Pri Megadim subsection 14 wondered at him regarding this, see there and examine it].

As long as the worm is found within the fruit and it became wormy while detached, even if its hole is perforated to the outside, we are not concerned that perhaps it exited through the hole and departed and returned to its interior, just as we are not concerned regarding water in vessels that perhaps they exited to the back of the vessel. And even though there we do not see a flaw and here we see the flaw of the hole, nevertheless, it is not a common occurrence that they return to their holes after they have exited from there. However, there are some among the great poskim who forbid it if its hole is perforated to the outside, because the hole proves regarding it that it exited; whether it exited entirely or exited partially, for it is also forbidden as has been explained. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is the custom to forbid according to this opinion, and so we establish the law.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5: Worms found in flour and the like are forbidden, lest they departed and swarmed upon the ground and returned; and the same law applies to salt or other things that are not liquid. And it is forbidden to sell it to a non-Jew, lest he return and sell it to an Israelite. Thus far their words. The explanation of their words is that worms that form in flour, salt, and other types of fine foods—certainly the entire heap together is considered as one fruit. As long as they have not departed to the ground, it is called "not departed," even if they departed from one grain to another grain. This is not similar to a worm in a fruit, which is forbidden if it departed to another fruit, for there the worm formed in the interior of the fruit, and there was its increase and growth, and when it left from there it is called "departed." But in flour and salt and the like, which have no interior and each and every grain is not divided on its own, the entire heap is considered as one fruit. And I saw a certain great authority who wrote that each grain of flour is like one fruit [Chachmat Adam in Binat Adam], and these are astonishing words. It is explicitly proven from the Responsa of the Rosh [Klal 4, section 3] and from the words of the Shulchan Aruch that they were only concerned with departing to the ground, and not from grain to grain, and there is no doubt about this. And so too, a heap of wheat, barley, legumes, and the like: if the worm formed inside the fruit, certainly each wheat or barley or legume is considered as a fruit on its own, and if it departed from one wheat to another wheat—and so too in barley and legumes—it is called "departed" and is forbidden. But the worms that form in the heap, such as mites that form because of moisture and are not inside the fruit, the entire heap is considered as one fruit, and it is not called "departed" except when they departed entirely from the heap to another place or to another heap.

Furthermore, here it is not relevant to prohibit when they are on top of the flour or the salt, for specifically a worm that is generated inside the fruit, when it separates onto the surface of the fruit, it is called "separated" because that is not its place of growth. However, when they are generated in food, even if they were generated in the middle of the pile, this is not like the inside of a fruit, and the entire pile—both the surface and the interior—is their place of growth. There is proof for this matter from what our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman regarding worms of cheese, that it is permitted to eat them even though they jump here and there on the cheese, see there. And the reason is clear as I have written, because this is not comparable to those generated in the interior of a fruit. This is why they wrote in the Shulchan Aruch regarding worms found in flour and the like that they are prohibited lest they separated onto the ground and returned; thus far his words. For they are only concerned with separation onto the ground, and not with separation onto the surface of the flour or from grain to grain. And the reason that here we are concerned with separation onto the ground, whereas with water in vessels they were not concerned with separation onto the outside of the vessel, is because here it is their nature to crawl and it is a near certainty that they separated onto the ground and returned. Similarly, this is not comparable to a worm in a fruit, where they were not concerned even if its hole is perforated to the outside according to many poskim, as I wrote in section 44, for there, since its growth is in the interior of the fruit and that is its place, we do not establish a flaw that perhaps it exited. This is not the case here, where they have no specific place and are always crawling from place to place; it is obvious that one must be concerned [and with this, the difficulty of the Taz in subsection 8 is settled, see there].

And even if the flour is placed in a vessel it is also forbidden, for it is nearly certain that they crawled onto the inner walls of the vessel. And here there is no permission to say that the inner wall of the vessel is considered the substance itself and is not called "crawled," for this is only regarding vessels and pits of water or other liquids which the Torah explicitly permitted; from this we learn that even in such a case it is permitted because it is impossible otherwise. However, regarding foods, the Torah did not permit it; the Torah only permitted a case where the worm was formed in a detached item and did not crawl, but who says that it also permitted when the food is in a vessel? Just as when the food is on the ground we are concerned for their crawling onto the ground, so too we are concerned when they are in vessels for their crawling onto the inner walls of the vessels, for this too is not their place of growth. And some permit here as well, just as with water in vessels, but the primary view is like the first opinion [the Shach in subsection 16 and the Kereti U'Peleti forbid, and the Pri Chadash in subsection 17 permits, and the Kereti U'Peleti wondered at him; yet there is no wonder here, for the Pri Chadash means this: since regarding water the Torah said that the inside is like the water itself, from where do we know not to say so regarding everything? Nevertheless, one should be stringent, and observe carefully].

It is a simple matter that if it is possible to sift the flour and the worms will remain in the sieve and he will discard them, the flour is permitted. However, if the worms are small, such as mites and the like, which pass through the holes of the sieve, the flour is forbidden [Shach, subsection 14]. It is forbidden to sell all of it to a non-Jew lest he turn around and sell it to an Israelite. Even if they are accustomed there not to take flour from non-Jews without checking for worms, nevertheless we are concerned lest he make bread from the flour or put the flour in herring and the like, and in such cases checking is not applicable [ibid., subsection 16]. Therefore, he should sell a small amount to each non-Jew, for in this there is no concern that he will sell it to an Israelite, as was written in Orach Chaim siman 466 regarding grain that was submerged in a river concerning the matter of chametz, see there. Likewise, if he has non-Jewish male and female servants, he may feed them, provided that he does not extend it for a long duration so as not to come to a pitfall [ibid., subsection 17]. Therefore, with groats that are wormy, he may sell them to a non-Jew, for with groats there is no concern that he will put them into something else, and when an Israelite takes from them, he will see that there are worms in them, for they are visible to the eye.

And know that regarding what we wrote, that one may sell little by little, there are those who disagree on this and hold that only regarding the matter of chametz before Pesach do we assume that even if he sells to an Israelite, the Israelite will eat them before Pesach, but not regarding other prohibitions [Magen Avraham ibid. subsection 60, and so too the Shach in Nekudat HaKesef and the Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Panim Meirot]. And this is not compelling, for certainly regarding chametz there is also this reason, but even without this reason we say that he will use it for himself and will not sell them when it is not in abundance. And so it implies explicitly from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in siman 134, section 8, that even regarding a mixture of wine he permitted selling little by little, see there, and here too it is so [In Pesachim 40b they permitted even to an Israelite to sell little by little for the reason that it will be finished before Pesach, and therefore also regarding a gentile this reason suffices, and regarding other things the reason is simple, that he will use it for himself, and furthermore there is a double doubt: perhaps they did not separate, and perhaps he will not sell, as the Pri Megadim wrote in Shiftei Da'at subsection 17].

Wheat and barley that are wormy, even though they are forbidden to eat, nevertheless one may make from them a beverage such as whiskey and the like, where only the vapor is extracted. For there is no issue here of nullifying a prohibition ab initio, as his intention is only to extract the vapor from the flour. There is one who forbade this on the grounds that he might come to eat them as they are [Taz, subsection 9], but all the great authorities disagreed with him, for we do not decree decrees of our own accord, and for a short period of time we are not concerned that he might eat them [Pri Chadash, Kereti U-Peleti, and Pri Megadim], and such is the widespread custom.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: Worms that grow in fruits while they are still attached are considered like that which swarms upon the earth and are forbidden, even though they have not emerged, provided that they moved. However, worms found in beans and peas under the skin, where the skin is blackened over them from the outside, and when the skin is removed the gnats are found beneath them, are permitted because they are resting in a narrow place and we do not apply to them "that which swarms upon the earth" as long as they have not moved. But those found in the pods are forbidden, for they have room to move. Thus far his words.

And behold, this is the opinion of Rashi, Tosafot, and the Rosh [at the end of the first chapter of Chullin] that although we establish that those that grow while attached are called "creeping things upon the earth" because the fruit or the vegetable is attached to the ground and is like the ground itself, nevertheless we require a wide space so that the worm will have the ability to creep and move, for any expression of "creeping" (shritza) is creeping and moving [Rashi ibid.]. And just as when it is upon the earth the space is open for it to creep, so too it must be when it is within the fruit. Therefore, when it has no space to creep, such as under the skin in beans and peas where the space is narrow, the name "creeping thing" (sheretz) is not upon them. And even though the Rashba, of blessed memory, disagrees on this, as the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: The Rashba wrote that even if the hole within it is small and only holds the volume of the worm it is forbidden, but my father, the Rosh, permits, thus far his words. And also the Ran agreed to this and wrote that just as when it is upon the earth we do not concern ourselves with whether it is creeping or not, so too when it is attached to the ground, see there. And it must be said that his intention is, for example, if the sheretz was formed in the ground in a narrow place where it has no space to creep and nevertheless it is forbidden, so too when it is in fruit attached to the ground. And the first opinion would hold that even if it were born in the ground in this manner, perhaps the Torah did not forbid it, since the name "sheretz" only applies when it creeps and moves itself. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not concern himself with this opinion because the majority of opinions agree to permit it, as he wrote in his great book, see there.

And there is a great question to be asked regarding this: how is it possible to say that it requires actual crawling? For even in a case where it was born in a detached state, there is an inquiry in the Gemara regarding a case where it emerged into the air and died before it reached the ground, and it remains in doubt, and we establish that due to the doubt it is forbidden, as I wrote above in section 39. Even though upon its death it is impossible to crawl, all the more so in a case where it was born in an attached state, it does not require crawling at all, and in any event it is forbidden due to doubt [Pri Chadash, subsection 18]. Furthermore, from the fact that the Shas inquires regarding a detached state, it follows that in an attached state there is no doubt here, and it is certainly forbidden by the Torah; for if we were to say that even in an attached state it is permitted without crawling, all the more so in a detached state, and what would be his inquiry? And in truth, the Ran, of blessed memory, brought this proof that it does not require crawling in an attached state.

And it appears clear to me that these, our teachers, maintain that the Gemara, which raises the inquiry regarding one that detached and died, is not because there is a doubt whether it requires movement at all, for certainly without movement there is no prohibition at all. Rather, it raises the inquiry whether movement in the air is considered like movement on the ground or not. And here, when it detached into the air and died before it reached the ground, it has moved in the air. And you should know that this is so, for regarding the primary detachment that is required in a detached item, the doubt is also whether detachment into the air is considered like detachment to the ground. And if so, also regarding movement it is so, for since they compare the air to the ground, then what does it matter to me if it is going on the ground or going in the air? But movement is indispensable. [And this is what Rashi wrote, this is his wording: It detached etc. that it died immediately upon its fall, do we say etc. or perhaps we do not require swarming, thus far his words; his intention is that we do not require it on the ground, for the air is considered like the ground. Nevertheless, one must study the Beit Yosef and the Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 100, who did not bring the words of the Ran at all, and to resolve his difficulty, whether in any case one should be concerned for this opinion; and it requires great study.]

And behold, the great Acharonim disagreed with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and hold that one should be stringent according to the opinion of the Rashba and the Ran, that movement is not required while attached. For behold, the Maggid Mishneh wrote at the end of chapter 2 of Ma'achalot Assurot that the opinion of the Rambam and the Ramban is also like the Rashba, see there. And even if in the Rambam this is not explicitly stated, nevertheless it is proven so from what he ruled there regarding detached [fruit], that even if it emerged while dead there is a doubt, and we hold it is forbidden as I wrote in section 42. And regarding emerging while dead, it is certain that there is no movement here even in the air; and since he raised a doubt regarding detached [fruit], it follows that while attached no movement is required at all. And this is what we wrote there, that they follow their reasoning, see there. And certainly one should be stringent with this opinion.

And the words of our teacher, the Rema, also follow the opinion of those who forbid, for he wrote regarding the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and this is his wording: And sometimes there is found in the fruit something like a black dot, and that is the place where the worm begins to form, and one must remove it from there with depth, for it is forbidden like the worm itself. Thus far his words. And his source is from the Responsa of the Rashba [siman 275], and he follows his own reasoning that we do not require movement, for certainly in the formation there is no movement here. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch have already wondered about him, for he wrote this regarding the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who ruled that we specifically require movement, but in any case his opinion is that movement is not required [Pri Chadash subsection 20]. And there is one who says that he holds that only regarding the worm itself should one be stringent even when it did not move, but not to forbid its discharge [Shach subsection 20 and Atzeret Tzevi subsection 10 who wondered about him; and in truth the words of the Shach are forced, for he should not have written without clarification].

And I am wondrously amazed at all the great authorities who grasped that according to the opinion of one who requires movement, there is no prohibition regarding formation. How is it possible to say this? For behold, we say explicitly in Chullin [64a] that for the formation of a sheretz one is lashed because of "every sheretz that swarms upon the earth," see there. Behold, it is explicit that movement is not required for formation. And according to them, they should have raised a difficulty against the holders of this opinion from an explicit Gemara. Rather, it is certainly so that they are not related to one another, for the Torah prohibited its formation just as it was created in its completeness and had already moved. And this is not a matter of wonder—that for formation movement is not required, while for its entire creation movement is required—since regarding formation, movement is not relevant at all. According to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are settled according to all opinions. If so, regarding the sorting of kitniyot, where it is customary to sort out the wormy ones even if there is no worm in them, but only that the worm ate them and we are concerned for its formation as is customary in all the dispersions of Israel—and many say that this is merely a stringency according to the disagreeing opinions who hold that movement is not required—according to what we have clarified, it is a prohibition according to all opinions, and one must be very careful in this.

Worms that grow in truffles and mushrooms have the same law as in other fruits and are forbidden by the Torah. We do not say that they are not considered attached to the ground because one does not recite the blessing "Who creates the fruit of the ground" over them, for these matters are not dependent on one another; for they grow from the earth, and the Sages, of blessed memory, explicitly said in Eruvin that they are like beans and dates [Tosafot 27a, starting with "Man," see there]. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam [Chapter 7 of Ma'aser Sheni] that they may not be purchased with Ma'aser Sheni funds, nevertheless the Sages, of blessed memory, said in Nedarim that one who vows to abstain from the products of the ground is forbidden from truffles and mushrooms [ibid. 55b] because they grow from the earth, only that their nourishment is not from the earth, and therefore one recites the blessing "by Whose word all things exist" over them [ibid.].

Since it has been explained that a worm that developed while attached is forbidden and while detached is permitted as long as it has not emerged, therefore, if there is a doubt regarding a wormy fruit whether it became wormy while attached or while detached, it is forbidden, as it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition and we rule stringently. This is even if we did not know that the nature of this fruit is to become wormy while attached; for if we knew its nature is to become wormy while attached, it would be forbidden to eat without inspection even when no worm is seen, as will be explained. Similarly, if we knew its nature is not to become wormy while attached, we attribute it to the lenient possibility that it developed while detached, for in every doubt regarding a prohibition, we attribute it to the common occurrence. However, when we do not know if its nature is to become wormy while attached or while detached, it is forbidden due to doubt [Shach, subsection 21, and Pri Megadim, ibid.]. And when its hole is perforated to the outside, it is forbidden in any case even if it became wormy while detached according to one opinion in section 44, see there. But according to the first opinion there, it is a doubt in all cases, even when its hole is perforated to the outside [ibid.].

All types of fruits that are prone to become wormy while they are attached, one may not eat them until he examines the fruit in its interior lest there be a worm in it. Therefore, one may not eat them at night without visual inspection by the light of a candle. And such is the law regarding water and other liquids into which it is common for flies, worms, and mosquitoes to fall; it is forbidden to drink them without examination. According to this, regarding types of legumes in our country, where in most years aphids are common in them, and similarly with the fruit of raspberries or cherries in which worms are always common, they are forbidden to be eaten without examination. Similarly, with apples and pears in the summer when worms are common in them, it is forbidden to eat them without examination. And in a year when the worm is common in them within the seeds, it is forbidden to eat their seeds; rather, one should cut the food and cast the seeds out. And this matter depends on each and every country according to the nature of its fruits, for one country is not similar to another country, and one year is not similar to another year, as is known.

This is the wording of the Rabbi, author of the Chachmat Adam [Rule 38]: Not all lands are equal in this regard, for the cherries in the lands of Germany, Saxony, and France, all species are presumed to have worms while still attached, except for one species called "sour cherries" (sauer kirschen), and likewise all species of plums and all species of fruit, and one must inspect them from within. In Danzig and Konigsberg and their provinces, the plums are commonly infested with worms, but the cherries are not commonly infested, rather the infested ones are recognizable from the outside in that they have something like a pit. In the land of Lithuania, the plums that grow there—because the fruits are very lean—are not commonly infested with worms, and likewise with the cherries. However, the dried plums brought from other lands must be inspected from within, for they are certainly presumed to have worms. Thus far his words. And so is the widespread custom among all Israel, that with the dried plums that come from afar, they open every plum, and those that contain something like grains that are not smooth and beautiful, they discard them; because they are presumed to have worms, it is to be estimated that these are the worms themselves that were crushed, or that this is the formation of the worm.

He further wrote: Vegetables in all countries are presumed to have worms, and likewise the vegetable called "petroska" and "kummel," and the herb called "hoipt" or "kap kroit," and all other types of vegetables are presumed to have worms and it is forbidden to eat them without inspection. And likewise types of "salatin," and likewise green onions that are eaten raw, and one must inspect them well. And likewise green legumes that are still in their pods, called "arbes" and "babin," are very much presumed to have worms, and it is forbidden to eat them until one opens each and every pod and inspects the legumes, each one individually. And that which the women say, that they singe the vegetables in fire, is of no avail. And the type of vegetable called "krapa" that they place in "ugerkes," there is not a single stalk that does not have many worms in it; therefore, even after the fact, if they placed it in the "ugerkes," one must strain the brine and rinse the "ugerkes." However, when they wish to place it for the sake of the aroma, then they should cut off all the leaves and place only the stalks, for they also have an aroma. Thus far his words. And we have inspected the stalks as well and there are worms in them; therefore, it is the custom in my home to place only the stalks in a very hot oven, such as at the time of baking bread, and afterwards to place them in the "ugerkes." And know that the "ugerkes" themselves are completely kosher and have no worms in them. But the "kroit" vegetable that they set aside in pickling for the entire winter, in most years they have many worms in them, and we inspect each and every leaf individually two and three times, and afterwards they cut them and set them aside for the winter days. And this we have tested and seen: that those inspected leaves, if they do not cut them on that same day to set them in pickling with salt in a vessel as is the custom, and if they leave the leaves until the next day, more worms will form in them, and they crawl and spread from leaf to leaf and also upon the place where they are lying, and the obligation is to sort them anew; and so I have practiced in my home.

He further wrote: Lentils, I have heard that there are two types; there is a type that is presumed to have worms, in which red worms are mixed, and there is a type in which nothing is found. Thus far his words. And I have heard that the small lentils are presumed to have worms and the large ones are not presumed to have worms, and in my home they distance themselves from eating lentils. And truffles and mushrooms, which are called "shvemlach," are very much presumed to have worms and require thorough inspection. And there are those who do not clear them of worms and only cook them tied in a cloth in order to give flavor to the cooked dish, and after the cooking they throw them away. And the seeds that are in apples and "bernes" are presumed to have worms, therefore one should not eat the seeds. And the peel of "pamarantsin" must be inspected to see if there are "milvin" in them, because this is very common; and a certain great authority instituted in his city to place them in a hot oven until the "milvin" there are burned. And rice and millet, "milvin" are common in them, and especially in rice in the summer that comes from afar. And I heard that there are two types of rice, simple and good, and in one of them it is not common and in the second it is common, and this matter was not clearly clarified to me, therefore I am unable to specify clearly. And generally, it is proper to distance oneself from eating rice, which is called "reiz," in the summer, and so I practice. And in the summer, all types of "groipin" have "milvin" in them, and I saw with my own eyes even the "groipin" that were taken from under the millstones, many "milvin" were found in them. And it is proper for every conscientious person not to eat "groipin" in the summer, unless he places them in a hot oven. And so they practiced in my home, to distance themselves with all their ability from "groipin" during the time of heat, and if there is a necessity, they place them in a very hot oven, and even so, perhaps [it is sufficient]. [And see what we wrote in siman 100, section 17].

And know that all types of flour placed in shops during the summer certainly contain milvin, and there is no remedy for this, as it is impossible to place them in a hot oven, and bread is the sustenance of life. Therefore, in any case, they should be careful to see if there are milvin in them or not. And I have heard that when the sack is full of flour and well-pressed, which they call "eingepresst," in these the milvin are not common. And we have heard that in the generation before us, there were supervisors from the community who would go in the summer to check the flours in the shops to see if there were no milvin in them, and happy is their lot. And every homeowner must see the places where foods are placed, that the places be clean and dry, for in damp places the milvin multiply there. And behold, regarding a single ant, our sages, of blessed memory, said [Pesachim 24] that one violates five prohibitions, and anyone who strengthens himself to distance himself from a prohibition is assisted from Heaven, and one who comes to purify himself is assisted.

All types of fruits that are prone to become infested with worms while they are attached, it is forbidden to eat from them until one checks the fruit from its inside lest there be a worm in it. It is of no avail that he checked some of them, and even if he checked the majority of them, it does not avail for the remaining ones; rather, the obligation is to check each and every fruit, as it is a "frequent minority." However, if it is not their way to become infested, even if occasionally some wormy ones are found among them, he checks some of them, and if he did not find a worm in them, presumably they are all fit. Further will be explained regarding this in section 72.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Chullin 58b]: Any creature that has no bone does not survive twelve months. And in the Yerushalmi Shabbat [Chapter 1, Halacha 3] and in the Midrash, Parshat Shoftim, it is stated that a creature that has no sinews and bones does not live more than six months. The Rishonim explained that its life is only six months and afterward it dies, but it remains in its completeness until twelve months, and after twelve months it becomes like mere dust. Let it not be difficult for you from leeches which live longer, for in a leech there is a soft bone and sinew, and only around the mouth, for so it is stated in the Yerushalmi; and I have heard that the pharmacists have already checked and found it so. Therefore, even those fruits whose way is to become wormy while attached, if one keeps them twelve months, he may eat them, for even if there was a worm in it, it has already become mere dust. This is regarding the inspection inside the fruit due to the concern of a worm from while it was attached; but nevertheless, it requires inspection lest worms were formed while detached, and they explained that therefore an inspection of the outside is always required, as will be explained.

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 8: If the fruit remained for twelve months after it was detached, it does not require inspection. Nevertheless, one must inspect them to discard the worms found among them on the outside or upon the fruit. And even after he discards those found on the outside, there is a concern lest when he places them in water inside the pot, they will emerge and crawl in the water, or on the walls of the pot, or upon the fruit. Therefore, one who comes to cook fruits that have become wormy after twelve months should place them into cold water; the wormy and perforated ones will rise to the top. Afterward, he should place them in a pot of boiling water, so that if a worm remains in it, it will die immediately. And it is not effective for them if he inspected the majority; rather, he must inspect all of them, as it is a frequent minority. Thus far their words.

And why do we not rely on this inspection even within twelve months? Because those that become wormy while attached to the ground do not typically float to the top like those whose way is to become wormy while detached. Furthermore, regarding that which is attached, where the prohibition applies even if the worm did not crawl out, we do not rely on this inspection, as perhaps not all the wormy ones will rise to the top. However, regarding the prohibition of a worm in detached produce, where the prohibition is only due to the concern of crawling out, we rely on this inspection [Ran and Beit Yosef]. And proof for this is that in the inspection that was explained, one of them would have sufficed: either with cold water so that the wormy ones would rise to the top and he would discard them, or with boiling water so that they would die immediately; rather, it is because this inspection is not clear to us. Therefore, in detached produce, due to the concern that it crawled out, we rely on these two inspections, but not regarding a worm in produce attached to the ground [see Shach, subsection 24]. And know that many have toiled over their intent as to why we require these two inspections, and in my humble opinion it seems clear as I have written. And there is one who says that after twelve months no inspection is needed at all [ibid. subsection 26 in the name of the Maggid Mishneh], and his reason is that we need not be concerned about a worm in detached produce. But we have only the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and their reason is clear: since these fruits typically become wormy while attached, it follows that the worm is attached to them by their nature, and all the more so we must be concerned that worms were formed in them after they were detached from the ground.

One of the great authorities wrote: One who wishes to eat lentils and other types of kitniyot without any hesitation or fear of worms and without inspection should purchase them at the beginning of the year and place them in boiling water, and wait six months from the time of boiling; for any dead worm over which six months have passed has returned to mere dust and is permitted for consumption. If so, what should we be concerned about? For if it is because of a worm that grew in them while attached to the ground, it is mere dust and permitted, and if it is because of a worm that grew in them while detached, since they were placed in boiling water, a worm will no longer grow in them. Therefore, they are permitted without inspection. Thus far his words. [Pri Chadash, subsection 26]. And there are those who challenged him for two reasons: one, that perhaps this fact that the worm does not persist for more than six months and becomes dust applies when it lived for six months beforehand, and not when they killed it immediately upon its birth [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 24]. Furthermore, regarding that which he wrote that after they were placed in boiling water they no longer become wormy—on the contrary, we have seen empirically that they become even more wormy [ibid. in the name of Minchat Yaakov]. Therefore, this remedy is rejected, and we have nothing but the words of our teachers, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 9: If one transgressed and cooked within twelve months without inspection, if he is able to inspect, he must inspect; and if not, it is permitted. Thus far their words. This law is from the Rashba in his book Torat HaBayit [Bayit 3, Shaar 3], and he explained the reason: that this is similar to "a wolf came and took the intestines," where we establish it upon its status of permissibility. Furthermore, there are two doubts here: a doubt if there was a creeping thing there or not, and if you say there was one there, perhaps it was dissolved and nullified. Even though a creature is not nullified, this is when it is in its entirety, but when it is dissolved, it is nullified. Since there are two doubts, we follow the lenient path even regarding a Torah prohibition. Thus far his words. The great authorities wrote that this applies to an ordinary case, but if they were established to have worms, it is a certainty and not a doubt, and even post facto it is forbidden if he cooked them within twelve months [Shach subsection 29 in the name of Issur V'Heter and our teacher, the Maharam Lublin, and Pri Chadash subsection 31, and Kereti U'Peleti subsection 16].

And ostensibly their words are baffling, for the Tur and Shulchan Aruch explained this regarding their previous words where they wrote that all types of fruit whose way is to become infested while they are attached [to the ground] one may not eat until he checks, etc., and regarding this they said if he transgressed and cooked them, etc. And the Rashba there wrote even more clearly in his explanation, for he wrote, and this is his wording: The Rambam wrote that all types of fruit whose way is to become infested while they are attached one may not eat, etc., and therefore soft beans and lentils are forbidden to be eaten without checking because worms are commonly found within them, etc. Nevertheless, it appears that this is specifically ab initio, but if he transgressed and cooked when he is unable to check, they are permitted, in the same manner they said regarding an animal, etc., and furthermore, here there are two doubts, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly this law regarding species that are presumed to have worms, and how did they write that even ex post facto they are forbidden?

However, in truth, all the words of our teachers are correct, and the matter is as follows: that which they wrote, "all types of fruit that are prone to become wormy," etc., the intention is not that the majority of the fruits are prone to become wormy, for certainly in such a case there is no remedy for this without checking each one, and even post facto it is forbidden. Rather, their intention is that this species is prone to become wormy while attached, and in a minority of them there is certainly a worm. And even though in the majority of them there is no worm, why do we not follow the majority? Because it is a "frequent minority." And this is like the checking of the lung, for even though the majority of animals are kosher, nevertheless the Sages, of blessed memory, required checking because sirkhot are common, and it is a frequent minority, and we do not follow the majority. And so wrote the Rashba explicitly there, and this is his wording: For anything in which the matter is common, we are concerned for it, even though it is in the minority, for they were concerned for a frequent minority, similar to the matter where they were concerned for sirkhot in the lung. Thus far his words. And regarding this they said correctly that post facto, if one transgressed and cooked them, it is permitted, just as when a lung is lost, and for the reason of a double doubt as I have written. And that which the great authorities said, that if they were established as having worms it is forbidden even post facto, this is when the majority of the fruits were established as having worms. And according to this, for the law in our province regarding beans and legumes, in most years the majority of them are not established as having worms, but there are years in which the majority of them have worms, and therefore even post facto it is forbidden. And such is the law regarding milbin [and the difficulty of the Peri Chadash there on the Rashba is settled, and examine it closely]:

And that which we permitted post facto if one transgressed and cooked them without inspection, even if some worms were found in the pot, he casts them away and eats the remainder. We are not concerned for the flavor that the worms imparted into the fruits, because there is no fruit among the large fruits, such as apples and pears, where there is not sixty in the fruit against the worm within it. And even in small fruits, such as cherries and all types of berries and all types of small cherries like currants and raspberries and the like, nevertheless, there is in every fruit sixty against the flavor of the worm [Pri Chadash]. Furthermore, most worms and creeping things are repulsive, and their discharge does not forbid, like all repulsive things as will be explained in siman 104 [ibid. and Taz subsection 15, and see Shach subsection 30, and see Pri Chadash who agreed with the Taz, and the senses testify so, that worms are very much defective]:

And some say that one should not permit when some worms are found in the pot unless one or two are found, but when three worms are found, and all the more so more, the cooked dish is established as having worms and the whole of it is forbidden, for three constitutes a presumption, and it is as if it is clear to us that there are worms there. Thus, the double doubt mentioned in section 70 is not present here, and there remains only the doubt that perhaps they were dissolved, and a single doubt is forbidden regarding a Torah prohibition. This applies to worms that were formed while attached, but those that were formed while detached, there is still a double doubt: perhaps they did not depart while alive, and it is permitted according to the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch as written in section 43, for he holds like the approach of those who rule that if it departed while dead it is permitted; and if you will say they departed while alive, perhaps they were dissolved. Therefore, even though many great authorities forbid even if they departed while dead, as written in section 42, nevertheless here, where we are concerned because it was established as having worms and there is no certain prohibition here, perhaps one may rely on the opinion of those who are lenient. However, truly even this is only regarding worms in detached produce that are formed inside the fruit, and not those that are formed upon the fruits like mites and their like, for in this case there is no double doubt, as they certainly departed while alive [see Shach, subsection 31].

And specifically a food that is impossible to strain and to remove the worms from them, and since it was established to have worms, the whole of it is forbidden. But if it is possible to strain it, one removes from there the worms found there and the remainder is permitted, even if many worms were found, for we have already explained that their discharge does not forbid. And so too if there is meat in the cooked dish, he shall wash it and inspect it and it is permitted, as was written in siman 100, see there. And everything depends on the food, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10, and this is his wording: Cooked vegetables in which worms were found, the broth is permitted by means of straining, but the vegetables themselves, if he found in them three times, one must be concerned lest there are more and they are not recognizable. Thus far his words. For with vegetables it is impossible to recognize after cooking, and there are fruits that even after cooking it is possible to recognize if there are worms in them or not. And even truffles and mushrooms, it is possible to inspect them even after they were cooked, and they are permitted with inspection [Shach, subsection 94]. And there are things that after cooking it is impossible to inspect, and everything depends on the sight of the eyes of the posek, and it is impossible to specify all the things [according to the Pri Megadim there].

And there is one who says that that which we say—that when three worms are found, the cooked dish is established as infested with worms and is forbidden, as has been explained—this is regarding worms that come from the fruit itself that were formed within it, or mites that were in the fruits and one did not check before cooking. But if the fruits were not established as infested with worms or mites, but rather the worms fell into it from elsewhere, such as on Pesach in a cooked dish in which three grains of barley were found, where they certainly came from elsewhere, and similarly throughout the year regarding the prohibitions of creeping things, such as if three flies or three fleas were found in the cooked dish, where they certainly came from elsewhere, or even three worms, provided it is known that they fell in during the time of cooking and the like, it is not established as infested with worms; and he throws away these worms and eats the cooked dish without straining [Taz, subsection 17].

There are those who disagree with this reasoning and bring proof from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in Orach Chaim in his great work, siman 467, who cited there in the name of the Kol Bo that when three barley grains are found in a cooked dish on Pesach, the dish is established as containing barley and is forbidden even if they did not split [see Pitchei Teshuva in the name of Chok Yaakov and Makom Shmuel]. However, there is one of the great authorities who wrote there that since our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not cite this law there in the Shulchan Aruch, it implies that he holds that regarding a matter that comes from elsewhere, we do not apply this establishment of status [Magen Avraham ibid. subsection 13]. And in truth, from the words of the Rif, of blessed memory, in the second chapter of Pesachim, there is proof for this reasoning, for behold, he wrote there that to forbid the dish we require specifically that they split, but the barley grains themselves are forbidden even if they did not split. And he wrote this is his wording: We do not forbid that cooked dish in which two or three barley grains are found unless they split. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that even with three barley grains we do not say that the dish is established as containing barley [and I wonder that they did not cite the words of the Rif, and it requires further study as to the law].

An incident occurred on the holiday of Shavuot where many women baked fladens with raisins that they all bought from one shopkeeper, and they did not check the raisins for mites. One woman checked hers and found mites, and they also checked at the shopkeeper's and mites were also found there in the raisins from which they all took. One of the great authorities ruled that those who bought before the mites were found with the woman and the shopkeeper should be permitted based on a double doubt: perhaps the mites were formed afterwards, and if you say they were there before, perhaps they were crushed [Turei Zahav, subsection 17]. Several great authorities disagreed with him, for since they all took on the same day, it is very forced to say that in a short time the mites were formed and previously they were not there; although it is possible for it to be so, nevertheless one should not make this into a doubt, and there remains only the doubt that perhaps they were crushed, and all the fladens bought from this shopkeeper are forbidden [Pri Chadash, subsection 33 and Nekudot HaKesef, and the difficulty of the Kereti U'Peleti is settled, and examine it]. And certainly it is so, for if the mites were found only with the woman alone, one could say that with her the mites were formed, but since they were also found with the shopkeeper, certainly they were also there previously; only if they bought several days before can it be attributed that they were formed afterwards. And likewise, one who checked the raisins and did not find mites, even if she bought at the same moment as the woman who found the mites, her fladen is kosher, for since she checked, we say that in hers the mites did not spread, and we do not have to fear that perhaps she did not check well [and it is an a fortiori argument from a heap of ritual impurity that was mixed etc. in Niddah 61a: where the Rabbis hold one checks until reaching virgin ground etc. and even according to Rava there who holds "until the impurity is known to you where it is," that is when the impurity we saw previously was not found at all, but here all the raisins were not established such that some of them are not without mites; and a proof for this is from Pesachim 10 where even according to Rava we attribute it to the eating of a mouse, even though it deals there with a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless here where the matter is not certain as I have written, it is certainly permitted, and examine it].

One must deliberate regarding that which has been explained, that when three worms are found it is established as infested with worms: if they were not found by one person—for example, if three people took fruit from one shop and each one found one worm—do we join them all together to make these fruits established as infested with worms, such that they would be forbidden to eat without inspection? Behold, this is certainly nothing if they did not all take them at one time, for even with one person himself, if we were to find a worm in one fruit and he threw it away, and after an hour another fruit with a worm and he threw it away, and after an hour another fruit with a worm, we would not join them all together unless the matter is clear that they became infested while attached to the ground. For regarding infestation while attached, what does it matter to us if they were found at one moment or at three different times? Ultimately, it was revealed that these fruits became infested while attached. But regarding infestation while detached, one could say that at the time the first was found, the third was not yet infested, and after he threw away the first, it came into being in it. However, if all three took them at once, perhaps they should be joined, and so it appears primary [according to Pitchei Teshuva subsection 6, what he wrote in the name of Chavot Yair; and one should not compare this to "two paths," as is understood, and it is simple that when there is reason to attribute that in one of them the worm came into being in his house, they do not join, but without this, they certainly join, for go after the reasoning, and examine it closely].

There is one who says that women are not believed regarding the selection of worms from vegetables where there is great effort involved. And even though we rely on women regarding several Torah prohibitions, this is in a matter where there is no great effort; but with excessive effort, they are not believed [Shach, subsection 35, in the name of the Rashal]. And at the beginning of Pesachim, our sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the search for chametz: the rabbis believed women in a rabbinic matter, see there. This implies that in a Torah matter, they are not believed in a matter where there is excessive effort, like the search for chametz. And it is explained in the Yerushalmi there that this is because women are lazy [see there in Tosafot and in Eruvin 59b]. And ostensibly, this is also implied from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in siman 127, who wrote: and regarding a certain prohibition women are believed, but regarding a doubtful prohibition, such as where she must select impure fish from pure ones, or a prohibition that has sides to be lenient, a woman is not believed, for her mind is light to be lenient. Thus far his words. And the selection of worms also involves doubts, as is understood.

However, the custom is not so in all the diasporas of Israel, and all women check the legumes and the fruits and the vegetables, and we rely upon them [Shach ibid. and Pri Chadash subsection 35]. And our teacher, the Rema himself, wrote likewise in his book Torat Chattat [ibid.], and it is not similar to what he wrote in siman 127, for here a prohibition has not been established [ibid.]. And so it appears explicitly from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in this siman, section 11, who wrote: A woman whose checking was followed by the discovery of a creeping creature visible to the eyes, such as a snail, it is forbidden to eat from her checking; but if there were only found worms that breed within the leaves, which are not visible except after their boiling, it is permitted to eat from her checking. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that women are trusted. And in truth, we can say that even here it is only a rabbinic prohibition, for the worms were nullified in the pot by sixty; and if it is because of a "complete entity" (beriah) which is not nullified even in a thousand, this is only by rabbinic law. And if so, regarding chametz they are trusted even with excessive effort when it is rabbinic, and why should they not be trusted here as well [Pri Megadim ibid. in the name of Knesset HaGedolah]. And furthermore, one of the great authorities wrote that now the senses testify that there is more to rely upon the checking of women, who investigate much more than men who hurry to go out to business [Kereiti U-Pleiti subsection 19]. And nevertheless, he wrote that to eat cooked foods one may rely upon them, but to eat raw vegetables one must see for himself, see there, for the reason that this he can clarify for himself.

Regarding the essence of the matter, I wonder how it is possible to say, Heaven forbid, that our women would be lenient regarding prohibitions because of the exertion. For have we not seen their great exertion in everything pertaining to prohibitions? And that which they said in the Gemara regarding the search for chametz and the eruvin of boundaries—that if it were a Torah prohibition they would not be believed—it is not because they are lenient regarding prohibitions. Rather, the matter is as the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote at the beginning of his book Torat HaBayit, and this is his wording: For the search for chametz requires searching in holes and crevices, and women are indolent, and they will say "there is no chametz in the holes and crevices," etc. And regarding boundaries, one also needs expertise to be precise in measuring, squaring, and absorbing, and if boundaries were a Torah prohibition, she would not be believed, for perhaps she measured and erred, or she saw one who is not an expert measuring and he erred. However, in general, even regarding Torah prohibitions they are believed, and it is a daily occurrence that we rely on them for the removal of the sciatic nerve and fats and salting, and even though they are Torah prohibitions, and proper removal requires extra exertion. Rather, since they know that there are fats and nerves and threads that must be dug after, they search very well. Thus far his words. And we have learned from his words that as long as they know that there is a prohibition here, even if the exertion is great, they will not leave it from their hands without searching very well. And regarding the inspection of vegetables, fruits, and legumes, do they not know that they are presumed to have worms? And they search very well. And it is not similar to the sorting of impure fish from pure fish, for that is not a constant occurrence but only a random happenstance, and they would not know or understand and would tend toward leniency due to their indolence. But in matters that are a daily and yearly occurrence, and a constant matter known to all, Heaven forbid that they should let it leave their hands without searching very well. And in our days we have never heard, even regarding the righteous and geniuses of the world, that they would not rely on their virtuous wives regarding the inspection for worms. And so too, Jewish daughters who work for hire—if the master of the house knows her to be God-fearing and precise regarding prohibitions, he may rely on her. And if not, he should not rely on her alone, and he should see for himself when he does not have a wife or his wife is not at home, or he should request a woman from the virtuous women to look into the sorting of the worms and the mites.

The nature of honey is to preserve whole things buried within it even for a long time. Therefore, regarding that which has been explained—that fruits which typically develop worms while attached to the tree are permitted after twelve months because any creature that has no bone does not survive twelve months—if that fruit is fried in honey or placed as such in honey, they are forbidden even after twelve months because the honey preserves them. However, this is when the thing is in its entirety; but sliced things that fall into honey, on the contrary, the honey consumes them and returns the thing to the honey itself. Therefore, if the creature is not in its entirety, such as if it crumbled slightly by way of cooking and nevertheless the prohibition of a beriah applies to it as I wrote in siman 100, if it is buried in honey it is permitted because the honey consumes it [Pri Megadim 137]. And so there is a practical difference regarding a sheretz whose prohibition is in the size of a lentil as I wrote in siman 120, and when it is in honey it is nullified [Shach subsection 37]. And it appears that in a short time it consumes them, but it is not known to us in how much time, and it requires further study, and one should investigate this.

Honey into which ants have fallen, one should heat it over fire until it is melted and strain it, for this is not considered nullifying a prohibition le-khatchilah, since his intention is not to nullify but to repair the honey. And there is one who says that this is only bedi'avad when the prohibited substance has already become mixed, but to mix le-khatchilah and nullify its taste based on the reasoning that his intention is only to repair the thing he is making—for example, one who makes whiskey or beer and places non-kosher meat there to dispel the bitterness, and afterward throws the meat out, and the taste remaining there dispels the bitterness, and there is sixty against the meat, and the only prohibition is because one may not nullify a prohibition le-khatchilah; and since in this case his intention is not to nullify the taste of the prohibition but to dispel the bitterness of the whiskey and the beer, and so too anything similar to this—nevertheless, it is forbidden to do so except when the prohibition has already fallen there, as in the case of honey into which ants have fallen, it is permitted for this reason that his intention is not to nullify the prohibition, but le-khatchilah to do so is forbidden [Noda BiYehudah, section 26]. And these are words of reason, except that it must be clarified in this matter that it is only forbidden when he places a prohibition directly, as I have written; but when he places something that contains no prohibition at present—for example, if he puts milk into whiskey, which is completely permitted, except that if he drinks it with meat he would be nullifying a prohibition le-khatchilah—this is certainly permitted [Magen Avraham, siman 446, subsection 45]. And so too when he puts wormy fruit into whiskey, since the primary act of placing is not for the worm but for the fruit, it is also permitted, and in this manner are all things [the Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 9, disagreed with the Noda BiYehudah and did not descend to the depth of his opinion, see there].

Therefore, all types of preserves into which worms or mites have fallen, one should fry them over the fire until they become like a sauce and strain them through a strainer [according to the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 17, who cited from the Knesset HaGedolah regarding vinegar in which there are worms, etc., and they are puzzling matters, see there; and similarly the Chachmat Adam, Klal 38, subsection 24, cited in the name of the Beit Lechem Yehuda regarding preserves that contain worms, that beyond the thickness of a finger there are no worms in them, see there, and his words are puzzling, and the Pri Megadim already rejected this in the Siftei Da’at subsection 37, see there].

Wheat and barley that are wormy: if the majority are wormy, it is forbidden to grind them for an Israelite. If a minority are wormy, whatever is possible to select before the grinding, they should select. Even if it is not possible to select all of them, nevertheless, it is permitted to grind them, and we are not concerned that perhaps the worms will also be ground, because when one pours the wheat and barley into the hopper, every worm that has an opening before it through which it can exit crawls and flees outside through the walls of the hopper due to the sound and vibration of the millstones. However, regarding mites, I have heard that they do not flee from the sound of the millstones. Similarly, in millstones that do not have a hopper, such as hand-mills where the worms have no place to flee. Yet there is another permission in this, for even if the worms are ground, they are nullified in sixty, and there is no issue here of nullifying a forbidden substance intentionally, for he does not intend to nullify it but rather to grind them, as we permitted regarding honey. However, when he sifts the flour afterward, he should sift them by the light of day to see if perhaps dead worms fell there from the heat and dust of the millstones, and he should throw them away and the rest is permitted. One should sift the flour with a sieve and a strainer so that the worms that died from the heat remain on top.

There are types of birds that grow on a tree and hang from the tree by their beaks; since they grow on a tree attached to the ground, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 15 wrote that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of a swarming thing that swarms upon the earth. And it appears to me that their intention is that besides the negative commandment of a swarming winged creature, they also transgress the negative commandment of a swarming thing of the earth. Similarly, flies that grow on trees, which are formed from the seed that their mothers cast upon the leaves, are also forbidden due to the prohibition of a swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, besides the prohibition of a swarming winged creature. For since the tree is attached to the earth and they grow on the tree, their law is also like a swarming thing of the earth [according to the Pri Megadim in the Shiftei Da'at, subsection 41, what he wrote in the name of the Maharil].

Worms found in an animal, whether they are found in the brain within the head, or whether they are found in its intestines, or whether they are found between the skin and the flesh, are all forbidden. The reason is that those in the brain and in the intestines came from the outside; while the animal sleeps they enter its nose and from there to the brain, or to the windpipe, lungs, and liver, and they are literally a "creeping thing of the earth." And those that are between the skin and the flesh, or literally within the flesh, were formed within it before it was slaughtered and came from the prohibition of ever min hachai, for everything within the body of the animal is ever min hachai, and its slaughtering is not effective for the worms since they have a vitality of their own. And even though a fetus is permitted by the slaughtering of its mother even though it has a vitality of its own, this is from a decree of the Torah as I wrote in siman 13, because it is written "anything in the animal you may eat" to include the embryo, as is explained there. But these worms the Torah did not permit; and if so, even if they are not forbidden due to the reason of "creeping thing of the earth," nevertheless they are forbidden due to ever min hachai. [But for the children of Noah they are permitted, for there is no prohibition of ever min hachai regarding creeping things, as is written in Sanhedrin 57a, and the stringency of the creeping thing from the animal should not be greater than the creeping thing itself; and furthermore, since they have a vitality of their own and slaughtering does not permit them, they are as if independent, and observe this carefully].

And the worms found in fish: if they are found in the intestines, they are forbidden because they come from the outside, just as in an animal. But those found between the skin and the flesh, or within the flesh itself, are permitted, for they grow from the fish itself, and fish do not require shechitah. And even if they moved slightly and returned, they are permitted, for such is their way of growing, to move slightly and return. However, if it moved out entirely, it is certainly forbidden.

And that which is forbidden in an animal refers to those worms that were formed during life; however, those that are formed after slaughter, such as when they salted the meat for many days and worms were formed in them, are permitted as long as they have not departed. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 16 wrote that therefore, worms found in a bowl that fell from the meat are permitted, and we do not fear that perhaps they departed during life to the outside of the piece, for presumably those that departed during life fell when they rinsed the meat. Thus far their words. And they follow their reasoning, for they hold that if it departed while dead it is permitted, as I wrote in section 41. But according to the opinion of those who forbid it if it departed while dead, as I wrote in section 42, here too it is forbidden [Levush]. And there is one who wishes to permit it even according to the opinion of those who forbid it, based on what will be explained regarding worms in cheeses, for there is a line of reasoning to say that even if they departed completely it is permitted [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 45]. However, later it will be explained that Heaven forbid one should rely on the one who holds thus.

The Tur further wrote, and this is his wording: And it would have been appropriate to be concerned in a case where one placed the meat in the pot in cold water, perhaps they crawled to the walls of the pot, and this is not their natural growth, but the custom is to permit. Thus far his words. And the explanation of the matter is that behold, it has already been explained in section 40 that worms in detached items, if they only crawled to any place whatsoever, are forbidden, as is the case with worms in water that crawled to the back of the vessel, and therefore even if they crawled to the inner wall of the pot they are forbidden. However, here the permission is because we say that if they had crawled while alive, they would have fallen off during the rinsing of the meat, and regarding a crawl after death, he holds it is permitted. However, it still must be understood, for behold the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch themselves did not permit above the worms themselves, whatever the case may be, and we do not hang the matter regarding the worms themselves to say that it crawled after death, as was written above in section 67, see there. And in the Tur it is explained even more so, that even those found after cooking, one throws away the worms. And there is already one who raised this difficulty and answered that it is not comparable, for worms in fruit are a common thing, which is not the case with meat, and they did not stringently rule regarding it so much. And furthermore, in fruit the worms are on the inside, but in meat they are on the outside, and these would have fallen off during the rinsing of the meat. [Divrei Phinehas, letter 24, see there]. And this is the intent of the words of the Tur, that it is truly so that we hang the matter on this, but ultimately there is reason to be concerned lest the worm was inside the meat and did not come out during the rinsing of the meat, and when they placed it in the pot while the water was cold and the worm had not yet died, it crawled to the inner walls of the vessel. And he wrote that in truth it would have been appropriate to be concerned for this, except that the custom is to permit for the reason that was explained, that regarding worms in meat we say that they were always on the meat and not inside, and also it is not so common. However, in practice one must certainly be stringent and throw away the worms, and one should not change this.

And know that the Rambam has another approach regarding worms in meat, unlike all the other poskim, and he maintains that even those born after shechitah are forbidden, based on the reasoning that regarding all matters of meat, nothing found within it is permitted without shechitah, even those born afterward. And also regarding fish, he maintains that even those found in the flesh of the fish during its life, we assume they entered from the outside, and worms in fish are only permitted if they are born after their salting; see there at the end of chapter 2, for so the Maggid Mishneh and all the commentators explained his intention. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of section 16, that there is one who forbids the worms that form after shechitah in anything that requires shechitah. Thus far his words. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is to be lenient like the first opinion; see there.

He further wrote that it is customary regarding worms in cheese to eat them even though they jump here and there upon the cheese, but if they separated entirely, they are forbidden. However, if they became mixed with other food and one cannot remove them from there, they do not forbid the food, for there are those who permit them in any case, and it is good to be stringent where there is no loss of a significant amount of money. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters is as follows: behold, according to what has been explained in this entire siman, there are three levels regarding the prohibition of the separation of worms that form in detached matter. For in water that is in vessels, it is not called "separation" until it separates to the outside of the vessel. And worms that form inside the fruit while detached, it is called "separation" even if it separated onto the surface of the fruit, and certainly if it left the fruit entirely to the inner wall of the vessel. And the worms that formed in other foods, such as mites that are in flours and groats and the like—in these, it is not relevant to call it "separated" when they are upon the flour and the groats, for behold, they did not form inside the fruit, and even when they walk upon the flour and the groats, it is as if they did not separate, and the entire pile is as one thing, as is explained from the words of the Shulchan Aruch, section 5. And we elaborated on this in section 45 and section 46, see there. And we explained there that when they are placed on the ground, it is called "separated" only when they separated onto the ground, and if they are placed in a vessel, it is called "separated" when they separated onto the inner walls of the vessel, as I wrote in section 47, see there. And behold, according to this, regarding worms in meat after shechitah according to most poskim, and regarding worms in figs, and regarding worms in cheese, it appears the law is also thus, for behold, their formation is not specifically in the interior of the food; on the contrary, most of them form upon the surface of the food, as I wrote in section 91. However, when they separated within the vessel, even on the inside, and certainly to another place entirely, it is certainly "separated" and they are forbidden. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, says: that when they jump here and there upon the cheese, we have no concern with it, and when they separated entirely, even within the vessel on the inside, it is called "separated" and they are forbidden. Except that there are those who say that these worms, even if they separated entirely, are permitted, for they hold that worms that form from an abundance of fat or from putrefaction do not have the status of a "creeping thing" at all, for it is not a "creeping thing" except in products of the ground or in matters of drink such as water and other liquids [Taz, subsection 23 in the name of the Rashal, and the Beit Yosef in the name of the Raviah]. And our teacher, the Rema, did not agree with their opinion, except that he relied on this opinion regarding a mixture. And in truth, this opinion is astonishing, for behold, the Rambam wrote explicitly in chapter 2, law 13, and this is his wording: These species that are created in refuse and in the bodies of carcasses, such as maggots and worms, etc., from dung that has putrefied, etc., and one who eats a kezayit of them is lashed, etc. These species that are created in fruits and in foods, if they separated, etc., even if they returned into the food, he is lashed, etc. Thus far his words. And so wrote all the Rishonim. And already one of the great Acharonim [Pri Chadash at the end of this siman] cried out about this like a crane, and Heaven forbid to be lenient in this [and so it is proven in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Shemini].

And know that that which we wrote regarding worms in carcasses, that when they emerged within the vessel on the inside they are forbidden, so wrote also the Levush. However, the Shach, of blessed memory, [subsection 46] wrote that within the bowl they are permitted and are not forbidden unless they emerged onto the table, and he took issue with the Levush, see there. And I am greatly wondered, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote explicitly at the end of this siman that most of the great Rishonim hold so, that they are not permitted unless they emerged onto the surface of the piece [of meat], and only a few hold to permit within the bowl. And the opinion of the Rashba is to forbid even upon the piece itself. And how shall we be so lenient against the opinion of most of the great Rishonim, and against the words of the Rambam, and against logic? Therefore, Heaven forbid one should be lenient in this.

A burnt sheretz is permitted to be eaten for the purpose of healing, as it is merely dust. One who suffers from epilepsy, which is like an internal wound, may be fed food containing a winged sheretz if the cure is certain; but if not, it is forbidden. If a gentile nullified the medicine in sixty parts, it is permitted [Taz, subsection 24]. Regarding what they say of a cure for those with jaundice to swallow lice, it is forbidden to do so, for it is not a proven cure [Tuv Yerushalayim, subsection 2]. One who inhales a forbidden substance through his nostrils is exempt, since this is not the manner of its consumption [Be'er Heitev in the name of Halachot Ketanot]. In siman 155, more will be explained regarding these matters; see there.