Halakhah su Levitico 11:41

However, R. Moshe Viya, Bedikat ha-Mazon ke-Halakhah, I (Jerusalem, 5758) 2:4, reports that the late R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach ruled that organisms that are visible but which are not perceivable as "creeping things" are forbidden. A somewhat different version of Rabbi Auerbach's position is reported by R. Joshua Neuwirth, Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhatah, I, 2nd edition (Jerusalem, 5739) 3:37, note 105. Rabbi Neuwirth relates that Rabbi Auerbach originally opined that an organism that can never be perceived as living or mobile cannot be regarded as a "creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:41). However, Rabbi Auerbach later recounted that he heard from persons close to Hazon Ish that the latter considered such organisms to be forbidden. In point of fact, Hazon Ish, Yoreh De'ah 14:6, s.v. ve-shi'ur, writes explicitly: "[Even] if the eye does not recognize it because of its small size, if it is yet whole it does not become nullified by virtue of rabbinic decree because of the law of biryah."²⁷Cf., the rather cryptic and tentative statement of R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De’ah, IV, no. 2, “she-efshar she-davar she-lo nireh le-ma’aseh le-einayim eino assur—it is possible that something that cannot actually be seen by the eye is not forbidden,” that continues to declare “u-le-khol ha-paḥot eino be-ḥashivut biryah—and at the very minimum does not have the status of a biryah.” See infra, notes 50 and 51, and accompanying text. Hazon Ish clearly maintains that even organisms that cannot be identified as insects are forbidden.²⁸As noted supra, note 16, Ḥazon Ish does indeed endorse the view that microscopic organisms that could not have been visually perceived were not banned at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, he as well as the other authorities who rule that even creatures that cannot be readily identified as insects are prohibited, must be understood as maintaining that visual perception of such creatures as “black dots” creates a safek, or doubt, and as such are subject to the rules governing doubtful situations. Moreover, since the “doubt” is perceived and can now readily be resolved by means of magnification, this “doubt” can no longer be willfully ignored. That consideration is sufficient to prohibit ingesting such creatures. See R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini, Sedei Ḥemed, V, Kellalim, ma’arekhet ha-samakh, klal 51. R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv is also quoted in Bedikat ha-Mazon ke-Halakhah, I, 2:4, note 4, as ruling that all such creatures are forbidden even if they cannot immediately be identified as insects.²⁹Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De’ah 84:36, rules that insects are forbidden even if they are visible only when scrutinized in direct sunlight. R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Halikhot Sadeh, no. 51, indicates that this is the case even if the insects can be seen only by employing an electric light.

To not eat the swarming creature of the ground: To not eat the swarming creature of the ground, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:41), "And any swarming creature that swarms on the ground is an abomination; it shall not be eaten."

He prohibited us from eating any swarming thing that it might be without specification - whether a swarming thing of the water or a swarming thing of the earth. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive with anything that swarms" (Leviticus 11:43). We give lashes for this negative commandment on its own; and it is similar to a general negative commandment. Hence one who ate any of a swarming things of the earth is lashed two [sets of lashes] - once on account of, "All the things that swarm upon the earth are repulsive, they may not be eaten" (Leviticus 11:41); and once on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And one who eats a flying swarming thing is lashed two [sets of lashes] - once on account of, "All winged swarming things are impure for you, they may not be eaten" (Deuteronomy 14:19); and once on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And if he ate an animal that flies and walks on the ground, such that it is a flying swarming thing and a swarming thing on the earth, he is liable four [sets of] lashes. And if along with this, it would also be a swarming thing of the water, he would be liable for six [sets of] lashes - the fifth of them on account of [being] an impure fish, as it is stated (Leviticus 11:11), "you shall not eat of their meat"; and the sixth on account of, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive," since it also includes a swarming creature of the water. And we do not have another verse with us to forbid a swarming thing of the water besides, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive with anything that swarms." And about these swarming things, they said in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 16b), "One who ate a putita is lashed four [sets of lashes]; an ant, is lashed five; a wasp, is lashed six." And this is the explanation that was explained by anyone that I have heard speak or whose words I have seen explain this statement of, "One who ate a putita." But it is an incorrect explanation - it cannot be followed or sustained without upturning the true principles that are a signpost in the language of the Talmud. And that is that when you look into what we have said before, behold you will find that they have made one liable three [sets] of lashes from one negative commandment - and that is, "You shall not make yourselves repulsive." And it has already been explained that one is not lashed two [sets of] lashes for one negative commandment under any circumstances, as is explained in Chullin (Chullin 102b). And we ourselves have already discussed this in Principle 9 and we have explained it [several] times. And behold I will bring examples for you in that which is [to come in the] future.