In determining whether the chasan gives up his claim to return of sivlonot, the gemara concludes from a baraita that we can learn that the chasan gives up his claim even if he only drinks, and suggests that we can also learn that he gives up his claim if the value is less than a dinar. Rav Ashi suggests that maybe the drink was worth much more because it may have contained a ground-up marganita (which Artscroll translates as a pearl). A pearl is the product of an oyster or other shellfish, which is formed around a parasitic worm. Doesn't this present a kashrut issue??
Jeffrey Levin, Wesley Hills, New York
This is a very interesting question and I have not found that any of the commentaries ask it so I will attempt my own reply. I am going to assume that the pearl is from a forbidden creature (even though it may be possible that there exist pearls that do not originate from living creatures, but I will not try to enter into that question) and will explore the possibility that there may be a permitted way of consuming this. I would stress that my reply is an academic one merely to try and explain the Gemara and obviously no Halachic conclusion should be drawn from it.
1. Firstly I would point out that Rashbam DH Man writes that it is the practice of princes to drink hot liquid with the pearl ground up inside as a cure. I want to suggest that there is a good reason why Rashbam writes that it is drunk for medicinal reasons, namely in order to answer your question about the kashrus issue. Rashbam may be telling us that for a healthy person indeed it is forbidden to drink the powdered marganita but rather the heter is only for a sick person.
2. If the sick person's life is in danger then clearly it is absolutely permiited to drink the pearl if necessary because saving life overrides the prohibition of forbidden foods.
3. However even if the sick person's life is not in danger (he is a "Choleh She-ein Bo Sakana") it may still be permitted to drink the potion. This is based on the Gemara Pesachim 25b which relates that Ravina smeared an ointment made out of olives of "orla" onto his daughter. Even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from fruit in the first three years of the tree, nevertheless the Gemara states (in the second answer there) that since the olives were administered in an unusual way (which is therefore only a Rabbinical prohibition) this is permitted for a non-dangerously ill patient.
4. The Mordechai in Pesachim #544-5 (printed at the back of the Gemara) cites Avi ha-Ezri who derives from this that it is permitted for a sick person to eat any prohibition of the Torah if this is done in an unusual way. An example is eating raw forbidden fats or burning a forbidden insect and consuming the ashes for medical purposes.
5. I therefore suggest that grinding up a pearl and drinking the powder with hot liquid is certainly not the usual usage of a pearl, so this may be why it is permitted for a choleh She-ein Bo Sakana which the Chasan in our Gemara may have been.
6. In addition it may be that the pearl is not considered by the Halachah to be part of the forbidden oyster (to get to the bottom of this question we would have to do further research to find out exactly how the pearl is formed). This may be similar to what the Gemara Bechorot 7b states that the placenta in which a donkey is born (see Rashi DH Or) is permitted to eat. This is because it is "Pirsha b'Alma" - it is waste material that emerges from the donkey and does not possess the same status as the donkey itself. Similarly it may be that the pearl is considered to have undergone a total change since it developed from the oyster. This requires further thought.
Chodesh Tov
Dovid Bloom
I posed your question to a Godol and he answered that it is incorrect to assume that the Marginita originated from a treifa creature. It appears therefore that a Marginita is not in fact a pearl which is the product of an oyster or other shellfish and therefore there would be no Kashrus issue involved in consuming it.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
In determining whether the chasan gives up his claim to return of sivlonot, the gemara concludes from a baraita that we can learn that the chasan gives up his claim even if he only drinks, and suggests that we can also learn that he gives up his claim if the value is less than a dinar. Rav Ashi suggests that maybe the drink was worth much more because it may have contained a ground-up marganita (which Artscroll translates as a pearl). A pearl is the product of an oyster or other shellfish, which is formed around a parasitic worm. Doesn't this present a kashrut issue??
Jeffrey Levin, Wesley Hills, New York
This is a very interesting question and I have not found that any of the commentaries ask it so I will attempt my own reply. I am going to assume that the pearl is from a forbidden creature (even though it may be possible that there exist pearls that do not originate from living creatures, but I will not try to enter into that question) and will explore the possibility that there may be a permitted way of consuming this. I would stress that my reply is an academic one merely to try and explain the Gemara and obviously no Halachic conclusion should be drawn from it.
1. Firstly I would point out that Rashbam DH Man writes that it is the practice of princes to drink hot liquid with the pearl ground up inside as a cure. I want to suggest that there is a good reason why Rashbam writes that it is drunk for medicinal reasons, namely in order to answer your question about the kashrus issue. Rashbam may be telling us that for a healthy person indeed it is forbidden to drink the powdered marganita but rather the heter is only for a sick person.
2. If the sick person's life is in danger then clearly it is absolutely permiited to drink the pearl if necessary because saving life overrides the prohibition of forbidden foods.
3. However even if the sick person's life is not in danger (he is a "Choleh She-ein Bo Sakana") it may still be permitted to drink the potion. This is based on the Gemara Pesachim 25b which relates that Ravina smeared an ointment made out of olives of "orla" onto his daughter. Even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from fruit in the first three years of the tree, nevertheless the Gemara states (in the second answer there) that since the olives were administered in an unusual way (which is therefore only a Rabbinical prohibition) this is permitted for a non-dangerously ill patient.
4. The Mordechai in Pesachim #544-5 (printed at the back of the Gemara) cites Avi ha-Ezri who derives from this that it is permitted for a sick person to eat any prohibition of the Torah if this is done in an unusual way. An example is eating raw forbidden fats or burning a forbidden insect and consuming the ashes for medical purposes.
5. I therefore suggest that grinding up a pearl and drinking the powder with hot liquid is certainly not the usual usage of a pearl, so this may be why it is permitted for a choleh She-ein Bo Sakana which the Chasan in our Gemara may have been.
6. In addition it may be that the pearl is not considered by the Halachah to be part of the forbidden oyster (to get to the bottom of this question we would have to do further research to find out exactly how the pearl is formed). This may be similar to what the Gemara Bechorot 7b states that the placenta in which a donkey is born (see Rashi DH Or) is permitted to eat. This is because it is "Pirsha b'Alma" - it is waste material that emerges from the donkey and does not possess the same status as the donkey itself. Similarly it may be that the pearl is considered to have undergone a total change since it developed from the oyster. This requires further thought.
Chodesh Tov
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
I posed your question to a Godol and he answered that it is incorrect to assume that the Marginita originated from a treifa creature. It appears therefore that a Marginita is not in fact a pearl which is the product of an oyster or other shellfish and therefore there would be no Kashrus issue involved in consuming it.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi Bloom
Regarding your answer regarding using ground pearls as a cure (or other
foods that one would think are non-kosher because they originate in a
non-kosher animal) for a Choleh would make the normally non-permissible,
permissible (and certainly a Choleh she'yesh bo sakanah).
Couldn't we also answer more simply that there are some by-products of non-kosher animals that are 100% kosher? For example, Honey comes from bees.
Perhaps pearls, which are certainly not "ordinary food" could fit in that category - especially when one's health is involved.B'Kavod
Jeff Ram
Jerusalem