A fruit that is sown in completely clean growing conditions, of which there are very few in Israel (and I don't know if it is available on the market), but in very cold countries this is more common, it is allowed to eat.
An ordinary strawberry that is suspected to be infected is not washed, which is forbidden to eat, and even if it is washed, it is still required to be tested, since washing is completely useless, and it is still required to be legally tested, and then it will be allowed to eat.
But if mm is washed well, it is permissible to grind it not for the purpose of canceling the prohibition and then it will be permissible.
However, the whole permission to grind after washing the fruit is only for the purpose of those who come to grind for the sake of the food they come to eat, not intending to allow it, but grinding from the beginning with the intention of allowing it by grinding, the permission to do so is not clear and is not agreed upon.
And in any case, all that the grinding of the fruit can be useful for is only a complete grinding that does not leave any pulp from the fruit, but if there are pieces of the fruit left after the grinding, the grinding is not useful.
And M.M. also regarding the matter of grinding fruits, the puskims mention some restrictions on the grinding method, such as grinding in daylight and inspecting during grinding (Tahad 4 and Shu'a and puskims), and grinding in such a way that the worms have a place to escape (Shech and Parah and Bhat 9 and PMG) ACP to begin with (i.e. Baht and PMG), and what did they rely on today to carry out the tahina normally.
Sources: What the strawberry is an infected fruit is known and verified, and as explained in detail in the articles below (most recent years).
The basis of what is discussed about grinding is based on the decision of the judges (the controversy between the Tarovad and the Farah and the Gara and the Raa), whether the permission to grind fruits that are not intended to be harvested is only when there is a doubt or even a certain fear of worms in them, and see the article of the Gara and Bar The Remnant of the Israel Defense Forces (Field Proceedings File 143) has long-standing views on this.
And by the way, what made it difficult there for the Gra and the Farah, who permit tahini, as was the custom of the first, that canceling in the first place is prohibited even when one does not intend to cancel in the first place, Yl in the raids of the Hither, it is only in conjunction that this is the way according to the Jerusalem L. that they brought, and it is on the way of Rok Durso according to Tomu [i.e. Shabbat kaka 2b and Rashi], we do not argue against him that he should not do this, since it is useful to cancel a ban that he does according to his custom, the authority in his hand to claim that he is not doing an act of cancellation, and it is condemned in Rashba and Ran [17 12 12] and 16 and 16 [27 7] and Neka'k there, on the reward of wine is something that is not the way of the KU, and if it is so, it is possible that there will be a Nakam in the matter of sects and pomegranates which is not the way of all Alma to grind them [ Shabbat Kamag EB] Dabza also for the Farah and his helper will be forbidden, and from Mm in the 20th Hagarcho there dela ki'al as the Farah.
And I. in the article Beit HaSheracha Dahisher Vah Tov 7 569, which he expanded as God's good hand on the matter of annulment in the first place in the Nidad and brought the opinions of the arbitrators in this, and brought there the opinion of the PMAG and the Nuvi in this, and an apparent contradiction in the PMAG, and more to the point The condemned is a model for the opinions that it is permissible to grind only when there is a doubt of a prohibition, it will only be permissible when there is a doubt of the prohibition of Durbanan but not when there is a doubt of the prohibition of Dauriyta, and his conclusion is to allow grinding after washing that the percentage of worms is not large when the grinding is not done in order to allow the fruit.
And from M.M. one must refer to the fact that one should check apart from the grinding, and when A.A. to check, it is forbidden as M.S. in C. Pad Skalat, and also as S.C. there in the name of the Maharshahl, and as S.C. Farah there Skalat, and also wrote Also the Shachak there SCM Dduka Barihia Dafrakhsat Hika Daszhar who can escape and so on the Parach there SCM, so why did he decide as the RA to dismiss him from an investigation.
And I. in the article of the Rabbi Rubin of Bedatz Mehdrin (in the Beit Hillel file 5577 22-20) who expanded a lot on this law both in law and in reality, and there he started to make it stricter and require testing even in a tested strain since it is part of an infected species, and his words are renewed and are not agreed on everything As a rabbi there, that's why I blurted out at the beginning of things that a tested variety is better, and apparently also in the case of greenhouse leaves that are aggravated by the name of the infected species.
There are oversights that their official instruction to customers is to grind the strawberries in order to allow them to be eaten. In eating, 204 in the 16th Pad, 225 in the Torah Hatat Moi, and 25 in the source of the words in the 16th Kid and Ke'a, and in the shalma if buying strawberry juice in which the grinding is to turn the thing into juice, but if the grinding is done in advance Only because he knows that he does not have the permit without tahina, what is the permit in this, and apparently there are more opinions attached here regarding the cancellation in the first place in the Darbanan doubt, but it is not understood by the AA because according to the halachic practice KL Devdarbanan purely there is no such permit.
The answer code is: 2526