5785/2024
Introduction
The pharmaceutical industry commonly packages medicines in gelatin capsules. This presents potential complications in taking many medications since North American Jews for decades follow the stringent rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Aharon Kotler, and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, forbidding gelatin from a non-kosher source. If life is in danger, gel-caps undoubtedly may be taken. The question is whether someone not dangerously ill or experiencing minor discomfort (such as a minor headache) may swallow medicine in a gel cap.
Although we eschew gelatin from a non-kosher source, there is room to be lenient regarding gel caps. First, let us review the great twentieth-century debate regarding the Kashrut of gelatin from a non-kosher source.
Understanding Gelatin
The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology defines gelatin as “a protein extracted after partial hydrolysis of collagenous raw material from the skin, white connective tissue, and bone of animals.” The source of gelatin is almost always non-kosher creatures or kosher animals that have not been slaughtered and salted according to Jewish law dictates. Since in the manufacturing process of gelatin, the raw materials are rendered inedible (as they have been placed in acids and evaporated), perhaps this process renders the resulting product Kosher despite its non-Kosher origin. This question is important because many food products contain gelatin, such as yogurt, ice cream, jello, and marshmallows.
The Halachic Debate
Five major issues surround gelatin’s Halachic status.
1. Since some gelatin is derived from bones, Halachic authorities have focused on the status of bones from non-Kosher sources. On the one hand, the Rambam states (Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 4:18), “One who eats from a non-Kosher source its skin, its bones, its sinews, its horns, its hooves, its nails…even though it is forbidden, he is excused from punishment because they are not fit for consumption.” Rambam indicates that bones are rabbinically forbidden. On the other hand, Tosafot (Avoda Zara 69a s.v. Hahu) questions the commonly accepted Halachic practice of eating bee honey containing bees’ legs. Rabbeinu Tam’s explanation of this practice is that since the bees’ legs are “mere bones,” they are permitted. Rosh (Avoda Zara 5:11) adds that the bee’s legs are “mere dust”; hence, they are not included in the prohibition of eating bees. Thus, Tosafot and the Rosh do not prohibit eating non-Kosher animal bones.
Rav Yechezkel Abramsky (introduction to Rav Eliezer Waldenburg’s fourth volume of Tzitz Eliezer) and Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (Achiezer III:33:5) reconcile these views. They argue that the Rambam believes only “soft bones” are prohibited, while hard bones are permitted. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:27) and Rav Aharon Kotler (Mishnat Rav Aharon 1:16-17) reject this distinction and believe that the Rambam’s prohibition applies even to hard bones. Accordingly, Rav Abramsky and Rav Grodzinski permit gelatin derived from hard non-Kosher bones, but Rav Feinstein and Rav Kotler disagree.
Significantly, Rav Abramsky and Rav Grodzinski’s reasoning does not apply to gelatin derived from pig skin, a very common gelatin source. The Mishna (Chullin 9:2) states that pigskins are edible and are forbidden on a Torah level.
Rav Aharon Kotler (Mishnat Rav Aharon I:16-17) argues that gelatin is biblically prohibited. He asserts that although the Rambam excludes bones from the Neveilah (a Kosher animal not Halachically slaughtered) restriction, they are biblically prohibited because “Yotzei Min Hatamei, Tamei (Bechorot 5b), that which emerges from what is forbidden, is forbidden.” He states that when the bones are not fit to be eaten, there is no biblical prohibition to eat them (Achila Shelo Kederech Hanaatan, see Pesachim 24b and Rambam Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 14:10-11). However, if they are rendered edible, such as in a food product containing bone gelatin, the biblical prohibition of Yotzei Min Ha-tamei, Tamei applies.
2. A second lenient approach is that since gelatin has dramatically changed its form from its original state, it is a new entity (Panim Chadashot). Hence, its previous non-kosher status is no longer relevant and is now kosher. The source for this leniency (in a Kashrut context) is the Rabbeinu Yonah, cited by the Rosh (Berachot 6:38) regarding musk. The Rosh writes, “Rav Zerachia Halevi (the Baal Hamaor) forbade eating musk out of concern it originated from blood, and Rabbeinu Yonah explained that it might be permitted because it is a ‘mere secretion’ (Zei’ah B’alma, see Brachot 38a);\ even though it originally was blood, we are concerned only with its present status.”
In his conclusion, the Rosh expresses reservations about Rabbeinu Yonah’s approach. In addition, Poskim debate the validity of Rabbeinu Yonah’s lenient opinion; see Taz, Orach Chaim 216:2; Magen Avraham 216:3; Chatam Sofer commenting on that Magen Avraham; Yeshuvot Har Zvi, Yoreh Deah 102; Rav Hershel Schachter, Mesorah 1:54-56.
Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (Achiezer 3:33:5), Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 8: Yoreh Deah 11), and Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (first comment to Rav Yechezkel Abramsky’s responsum on gelatin mentioned earlier) apply Rabbeinu Yonah’s ruling to gelatin, because of its dramatic form change. Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, however, rejects using Rabbeinu Yonah’s ruling for gelatin:
Gelatin derived from bones is not a “new creation” that has changed from one form into another by a chemical process. Gelatin is the same product that existed in the bones beforehand. All the chemical means used in the gelatin manufacturing process are used only to separate other bone materials that would negatively impact the gelatin’s quality. Hence, applying Rabbeinu Yonah’s lenient ruling concerning gelatin from non-kosher sources is not appropriate.
The same applies to gelatin derived from animal skin.
3. The third possibility for leniency is gelatin becoming inedible during manufacturing. The Gemara (Pesachim 21a, and 45b, and Avoda Zara 67b-68a) records that non-Kosher foods that become inedible lose their non-Kosher status. Although for Pesach use, food must become inedible even to a dog (Pesachim 45b and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 442:9), regarding other areas, most authorities believe that food unfit for human consumption is no longer non-kosher (Biur Halacha 442:9 s.v. ad she’eino ra’ui and Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim 442:30).
Accordingly, Rama (Yoreh Deah 87:10) cites from the Shibbolei Haleket (2:34) that “the stomach lining that is occasionally salted and dried and becomes likened to a tree and is subsequently filled with milk is permissible since it has dried and become ‘mere wood,’ as it does not retain a drop of meat.”
The Shach (Yoreh Deah 87:33) comments that the same rule applies to dried intestines but should not be initially done (i.e., we permit only after the product’s creation). Acharonim explain that there is concern the product has not become sufficiently dry to be “mere wood” (Teshuvot Rav Akiva Eiger 207 and Teshuvot Chatam Sofer 81). Some authorities contend that this concern is irrelevant when a product is thoroughly evaporated in a modern manufacturing procedure. Rav Grodzinski (Teshuvot Achiezer 3;33:5) argues that the Shach’s ruling does not apply to hard bones.
The Shach (Yoreh Deah 114:21) applies this rule to the general practice of consuming saffron (karkom) produced by non-Jews despite concern the non-Jewish producer introduced non-Kosher dried-out meat to the product. He justifies the approach by stating that “in these lands, the saffron is as dry as wood; therefore, even if a strand of dry meat was introduced to the food, we do not have to be concerned, as the Rama explained in Yoreh Deah 87:10.”
However, debate surrounds the status of non-Kosher food that became dry as wood but later was restored to edibility. Four major authorities have ruled leniently. The Shach indicates that the food does not regain its non-Kosher status. He writes, “Even though occasionally the saffron will contain a moist strand [of meat], this is because it was stored in a cold and wet environment, and perhaps originally it was as dry as wood.”
Rav Yechezkel Landau (Teshuvot Noda Biyehuda, Yoreh Deah 26) endorses the practice of German and Polish Jewry of his time to partake of a drink in which the gullet of a non-Kosher fish is placed to settle the sediments and to make the drink clear. His approval is based mostly on the desiccation of the non-Kosher component thereby losing its non-Kosher status. He is not concerned by the gullet’s rehydration when placed in water.
Pitchei Teshuva (Yoreh Deah 87:20) cites Teshuvot Tiferet Tzvi as permitting desiccated red ants to color drinks.
Finally, the Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah 87:43) rules leniently on this matter. The Ritva (Avoda Zara 39a, s.v. hatam) supports the lenient view.
On the other hand, many prominent authorities rule that “dry as wood” non-Kosher products that become rehydrated regain their former status as non-kosher. Pri Megadim (Yoreh Deah 87, 33, and 103) and Teshuvot Chatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 81) rule strictly.
See the linked doc for footnotes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M8p0no2bN3pxqZpepS8ZmMEbd7HNWn3QYcup4z17BFg/edit?usp=sharing