[Avodah] Synthetic meat

[Elazar M. Teitz]

RMeir Rabi wrote:

>It should be noted that there is only a very weak decree that applies to
Ben Pekuah. And it does not even apply to all BeNey Pekuah. This is the
decree that it requires Shechitah. There is no decree to prohibit Tereifos,
there is no decree to prohibit Gid or Cheilev.<

     YD 64:2 states explicitly that if the ben p'kuah stood on the ground (the condition that triggers the decree requiring sh'chita), its cheilev and its gid are prohibited, v'yeish om'rim (which includes Rambam) that if it was full-term, then even without standing on the ground the cheilev is prohibited min haTora and carries the penalty of kareis.

    Thus, according to the first opinion, there _is_ a decree to prohibit gid and cheilev, while according to the second opinion, it is true that there is no decree -- but only because its issur is mid'Oraisa, not merely by rabbinic decree.

RMR continued:

>If we argue that the Ben Pekuah is Parev, there is no indication that our 
Sages decreed that out should be treated as though it is meaty.<

     I suspect that what was intended was that we can argue that it is pareve _because_ there is no indication of a decree that it should be fleishig.  (As written, the sentence interchanges the "if" and the "then.")  

     However, since the permissibility of BP is because its mother's sh'chita permitted it, it is like any other flesh permitted by that sh'chita -- i.e., fleishig.  Indeed, the g'mara in Chullin 74b refers to the BP, even while alive, as "bisra b'dikula" -- meat in a basket.  There is no indication of a decree that it be fleishig because it is so midin haTora, not by rabbinic decree.

EMT


     

 And if the beast is not
Shechted properly, some maintain that it is kosher nonetheless. If we argue
that the Ben Pekuah is Parev, there is no indication that our Sages decreed
that out should be treated as though it is meaty.