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

Lisa Liel lisa at starways.net
Tue May 1 08:11:27 PDT 2012


On 5/1/2012 8:47 AM, hankman wrote:
> 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.

I don't see that all would have been assur to eat.  On the contrary, 
nothing is forbidden -- ever -- without a prohibition.  Derekh eretz 
kadma l'Torah 26 dorot.  Hashem created all living things with a need to 
eat, so we eat.

Lisa



More information about the Avodah mailing list