[Avodah] Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng?

[hankman]

RZS wrote:
> Why not? It has simanei tahara, after all.
> CM responds:
> You are missing the point. The point was that at some point it may not
> be a chaya or beheima and thus these simanim would no longer apply.
RZS reponded:
If it's not a chaya, a beheima, an of, a dag, or a sheretz, then on what
grounds could you forbid its consumption, with *or without* simanim?
Where did the Torah forbid it?

CM speculates:
You assume that all is mutar unless the Torah specifically forbids it. Is 
that really so? Is it not just the opposite?
If you look at Bereishis 1:29 and 8:3 we find that initially all would have 
been asur to eat and thus the Torah needed to write the permit of plants for 
Adam as food. Then the heter achila was expanded for Noach. The Sifsei 
Chachomim explains that initially there was no reason to assume one creation 
of G-d had any more "rights" than any other creation of G-d therefore the 
explicit permission to use plants for food was necessary. But after Noach, 
since it was through his mediation and effort that they all survived the 
Mabul, Noach received the expanded heter. One may therefore logically 
speculate that a new beriah that did not exist yet at that time was not 
included in the heter to Noach and therefore remained under the original 
isur to mankind for use as food.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster