Introduction
The pharmaceutical industry commonly packages medicines in gelatin
capsules. This presents potential complications in taking many
medications since the practice of Orthodox Jews in North America1 is to
follow the opinions of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Aharon Kotler and Rav
Pinchas Teitz, who rule that gelatin is not Kosher. Of course, if life
is in danger, there is no question that the gel-caps may be taken. The
question is whether someone who is not dangerously ill, such as someone
with a headache, may take aspirin in a gel-cap.
In order to properly answer this question, we must review the extensive
Halachic literature concerning gelatin. We will then review the
decisions of contemporary Halachic authorities regarding the
permissibility of taking gel-caps for those who are not dangerously ill.
The Halachic Status of
Gelatin
The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia
of Science and Technology (1992) 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 animals or animals that have not
been slaughtered according to the dictates of Jewish law. Since in the
manufacturing process of gelatin the raw materials are rendered
inedible (as they have been placed in acids and then evaporated),2
perhaps this process renders the resulting product Kosher, despite its
non-Kosher origin. This question is of major importance because many
food products such as yogurt, ice cream (see Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah
II:32), jello, and marshmallows contain gelatin.
There are five major
issues involved in the question of the Halachic status of gelatin. We
will presently address each of these issues:
1. Since some gelatin is
derived from bones, Halachic authorities have focused on the Kashrut
status of bones from non-Kosher sources. On one hand, Rambam based on
the Torat Kohanim (Leviticus 11:8) 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 forbidden at least
rabbinically.3 On the other hand, Tosafot (Avoda Zara 69a s.v. Hahu)
questions the commonly accepted Halachic practice of the time to eat
bee honey that had bees' legs mixed in. 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," and hence they are not included in the prohibition of eating
bees.4 Apparently, Tosafot and the Rosh believe that there exists no
prohibition to eat bones of non-Kosher animals.
Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky
(in a responsum published in the introduction to the fourth volume of
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenburg's, Tzitz Eliezer) and Rabbi Chaim Ozer
Grodzinski (Achiezer III:33:5) try to reconcile these seemingly
opposing views by maintaining that the Rambam believes that only "soft
bones"5 are prohibited, while hard bones are permitted. However, Rabbi
Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:27-end) and Rabbi Aharon
Kotler (Mishnat Rabbi Aharon 1:16-17) reject this distinction and
believe that the Rambam's prohibition applies even to hard bones.
Accordingly, Rabbi Abramsky and Rabbi Grodzinski (who suggests other
reasons for a lenient ruling) rule that gelatin derived from hard
non-Kosher bones is permissible, and Rabbi Feinstein and Rabbi Kotler
believe it is prohibited.
It should be noted that
according to Kashrut experts, in this country there is no commercially
available gelatin derived from hard bones. In fact, the Halacha
considers pig skins (from which most gelatin is made) to be fit for
human consumption (Chullin 122a).
2. A second lenient
approach is to state that since gelatin has changed its form from its
original state - bones or skin - then it can be said that it is a new
entity (Panim Chadashot) hence, its previous non-kosher status is no
longer relevant and it is now kosher. The source for this leniency is
the opinion of Rabbeinu Yonah, cited by the Rosh (Berachot 6:38)
regarding the status of musk. The Rosh writes, "Rabbi Zerachia Halevi
(the Baal Hamaor) forbade eating musk out of concern that it originated
from blood, and Rabbeinu Yonah explained that it might be permitted
because it is a 'mere secretion;'6 even though it originally was blood
we are not concerned with this, because we are concerned only with its
present status." At the conclusion of his citation, the Rosh expresses
some reservations about the former's lenient approach.7
Rabbi Chaim Ozer
Grodzinski (Achiezer 3:33:5), Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Torah She-Ba'al Peh
5753 pp. 23-25), and Rabbi Eliezer Waldenburg (first comment to Rabbi
Yechezkel Abramsky's responsum on gelatin mentioned earlier) both apply
Rabbeinu Yonah's ruling8 to gelatin because it has changed its form
from its original form of bones and skin. Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky,
however, did not believe Rabbeinu Yonah's lenient ruling could be
applied to the case of gelatin. He writes (at the beginning of his
aforementioned responsum):
It is clear that gelatin derived from bones9 is not a "new creation"
which 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 manufacturing process of gelatin are
used only to separate other materials present in bones that would
negatively impact on the quality of the gelatin. Hence, it is not
appropriate to apply Rabbeinu Yonah's lenient ruling to gelatin derived
from non-kosher sources.10
3. The third possibility
for leniency is that the gelatin becomes inedible during its
manufacturing process. The Talmud records that non-Kosher foods that
become inedible lose their non-Kosher status.11 Although for Passover
use the food must become inedible even to a dog to be considered
permissible,12 regarding other areas of Torah law most authorities
believe that when food becomes inedible for human consumption it is no
longer non-kosher.13 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 any drop of meat."14
The Shach (Yoreh Deah
114:21) applies this rule to the general practice in his time to
consume saffron (Karkom) produced by non-Jews ("those excellent people
who are strict regarding this matter are few," he writes) despite the
concern that the non-Jewish producer introduced some non-Kosher
dried-out meat into the product. He justifies the practice 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."
A major question,
however, is the status of non-Kosher food that becomes as dry as wood
but later becomes edible again. Four major authorities have ruled
leniently on this matter. 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."15
Rabbi Yechezkel Landau
(Noda Biyehuda, Yoreh Deah 26) also indicates that the food does not
regain its previous non-Kosher status when it is rehydrated. He
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 fact that the non-Kosher component is dry and therefore loses
its non-Kosher status. He does not regard the fact that the gullet is
placed in water and thus rehydrated as relevant. Pitchei Teshuva (Yoreh
Deah 87:20) cites Teshuvot Tiferet Tzvi as permitting red ants that are
dried and then used to color drinks.16
Finally, the Aruch
Hashulchan (87:43) rules leniently on this matter. The Ritva (Avoda
Zara 39a, s.v. Hatam) clearly 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 on this matter.17
Contemporary authorities
are divided on how to decide this matter. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski
(Achiezer 2:11 and 3:33:5) and Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank (Har Zvi, Yoreh
Deah 83) rule leniently,18 Rabbi Aharon Kotler (Mishnat Rabbi Aharon
1:17) marshals many talmudic sources to prove that the strict opinion
is correct, and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah I:37 and
II:27) concludes that the matter is in doubt and hence prohibited
because it may not be Kosher (Safek Issur). Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin
(Edut Leyisrael pp. 176-177) decides this issue in an interesting
manner. He writes that bones of non-Kosher animals that are converted
into something edible remain permissible since they were originally
permitted.19 However, Rabbi Henkin believes that the question of edible
non-Kosher food that was rendered inedible but subsequently made edible
has not been resolved, and therefore one should be strict.
Accordingly, four
opinions emerge regarding gelatin that is rendered inedible during its
manufacture. Rabbi Frank believes it is permissible regardless of its
origin, Rabbi Henkin believes it is permissible if it comes from hard
bones,20 Rabbi Feinstein regards gelatin as forbidden because of doubt,
and Rabbi Kotler seems to believe that gelatin derived from non-kosher
sources is certainly forbidden.21
4. Rabbi Kotler advances
the creative and persuasive argument22 that even according to the
opinion that once gelatin has been rendered inedible it remains
permissible even if restored to being edible, gelatin would still be
forbidden because it is analogous to yeast.
Yeast,23 explains the
Chavat Daat (Yoreh Deah 103:1 Biurim), is forbidden even though it is
not fit for human consumption because it can impact upon and improve
other foods. Since "this is its purpose," it is biblically forbidden.
Chavat Daat states that this rule applies not only to yeast, but also
to anything similar.
Hence, argues Rabbi
Kotler, even if gelatin is considered inedible, it is biblically
forbidden, as "its purpose" is to improve other foods. The lenient
opinions would probably reply that the analogy to yeast is inaccurate
because unlike yeast, the purpose of the bones and skins from which the
gelatin is extracted is not to improve other foods. Moreover, the
aforementioned lenient opinions of the Shach and Noda Biyehuda clearly
do not accept the approach of Rabbi Kotler.
5. Rabbi Kotler raises
another reason to forbid consumption of gelatin from a non-Kosher
source: the concept of Achshevai. This refers to the rabbinic24
prohibition against consuming inedible foods. The fact that one
consumes it indicates that he regards it as food.25
Rabbi Grodzinski and
Rabbi Frank rule that Achshevai is not a relevant concern for gelatin
because this principle does not apply if the forbidden inedible object
is mixed with edible Kosher food. It is forbidden only if it is
consumed by itself. By consuming inedible items mixed into food one
does not indicate that he considers them to be food. This would explain
the medieval practice endorsed by Tosafot and the Rosh of eating bees'
honey even if bees' legs were in the mixture because the legs were
inedible. Eating this honey did not constitute a forbidden act of
Achshevai because one did not eat the bees' legs alone.
Rabbi Kotler argues that
Achshevai does apply to gelatin. He writes that the analogy to the
bees' legs case is inaccurate. In that situation, the bees' legs were
not intentionally mixed into the honey. However, in our case, the
gelatin is intentionally added to the food product and thus the
prohibition of Achshevai applies. Note that the previously mentioned
Shach (concerning saffron) and Noda Biyehuda (concerning fish gills)
appear to contradict Rabbi Kotler's thesis. In addition, Rabbi Kotler
does not cite a source to substantiate his assertion.
Conclusion Regarding
Gelatin
We have seen that there are
four opinions regarding gelatin:
1) It is always permitted,26
2) It is permitted when manufactured from hard bones,
3) It is forbidden because of doubt, and
4) It is forbidden because of certainty.
The accepted practice among Orthodox Jews in North America is to
consider gelatin derived from non-Kosher sources as not Kosher.27
Rabbi Yechezkel
Abramsky, who permits gelatin produced from hard bones, nevertheless
adds another reason to forbid consumption of gelatin even if it is
produced from hard bones. He28 notes a public policy concern to forbid
eating a gelatin product:
Since until now (1951) it has been accepted that gelatin is
forbidden…it is not an unwarranted fear that if we will
issue a responsum permitting gelatin, it will strengthen the hand of
those who profess the erroneous view that Halacha is in the hands of
rabbinic decisors, as is clay in the hands of the artist. Regarding an
analogous situation, the Rabbis stated, "Do not strengthen the hand of
the [heretical] Sadducees" (Yoma 40b) who, Rashi explains, claimed that
the Rabbis ruled according to their whims.
The Halachic Status of
Gel-caps
We have seen that food that
is inedible is permitted on a biblical level but forbidden rabbinically
because of Achshevai. However, almost all rabbinic authorities rule29
that Achshevai is not a concern when consuming medicine. When an
individual consumes medicine he does so for healing purposes and does
not regard the medicine as food.
Accordingly, since
gel-caps are tasteless and taken for medicinal purposes, it would
appear to be permissible to ingest them. Moreover, since the gelatin
has not been introduced to food and has become a component of an edible
substance, the opinions that led Rabbi Feinstein to rule stringently do
not apply. Also, two of Rabbi Kotler's primary concerns are not
relevant to gel-caps. The issue of Achshevai is not a concern with
medicine according to almost all authorities, and gel-caps are not
analogous to yeast since their purpose is not to improve other foods.
Therefore, Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin writes30 (Edut Leyisrael p. 177),
"It is common practice to ingest [medicine wrapped in gelatin]
capsules. It appears that what is relied on is the evaporation [of the
gelatin during its production, rendering it inedible] and the fact that
one does not intend to consume [the gel-caps] as food."
Rabbi Hershel Schachter,
Rosh Kollel of Yeshiva University, informed this author that Rabbi
Joseph B. Soloveitchik told him that it is permissible to ingest a
gelatin coated medicine tablet. Rabbi Waldenburg (Tzitz Eliezer
10:25:20 2) also rules permissively. Moreover, Rabbi Schachter believes
that even one who wishes to take medicine for relief from minor pain
(Meichush Be'alma) is permitted to ingest a gel-cap31. Of course, if
one has an alternative, he should avoid the gel-cap in favor of
medicine that does not contain non-Kosher ingredients. One should make
a reasonable effort to seek such an alternative (Rama, Yoreh Deah
155:3).
------------------------------
1. The Israeli Rabbinate follows the opinion of Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank,
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenburg, and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef that gelatin is
permissible. One who plans to move to Israel and wishes to know whether
he may rely on this lenient approach after his move to Israel should
consult a competent Halachic authority.
2. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology describes the
manufacturing process as follows:
Collagen, the precursor of gelatin, is pretreated for 10-30 hours with
a 1-5% mineral acid for type A gelatin production or 35-90 days with a
lime slurry for type B gelatin production. Type A gelatin exhibits the
isoionic point at ph 7.0-9.5, whereas type B gelatin, due to domination
in the liming process, exhibits the isoionic point at
4.8-5.2…. Type A gelatin is manufactured from frozen and
fresh edible-grade pig skins [Rabbi Shimon Eider informs this author
that almost all the gelatin currently produced in the United States is
produced from edible grade pig skins] or from bone ossein. Most of type
B gelatin comes from bones. Most edible gelatin is of type A but type B
gelatin is also used…. The bone pieces are first
demineralized in 4-7% hydrochloric acid for 7-14 days before liming
after pretreatment with either acid (type A) or lime (type B), the
materials are washed and are subjected to four to five 4-8 hour
extractions at increased temperatures of 131?-212?F. The extracts,
containing 3-7% gelatin, are filtered, concentrated in a vacuum
evaporated, chilled and extruded as noodles, and dried at 86?-140?F.
The dry gelatin is then ground and blended to specifications.
It is important to note that there is currently a firm that
manufactures Kosher gelatin from Kosher animals that meets the
standards of both Rabbi Aharon Kotler and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. This
author has been informed that the major Kashrut certifying agencies in
this country will certify gelatin manufactured according to these
standards as Kosher.
3. Rabbi Aharon Kotler (Mishnat Rabbi Aharon I:16-17) seeks to
demonstrate that the prohibition is biblical in nature. He asserts that
even though the Sifra excludes bones from the prohibition of Neveilah
(a Kosher animal that has not been slaughtered in a Halachically proper
manner) they are biblically prohibited because of the principle of
"Yotzei Min Ha-tamei, Tamei" (Bechorot 5b), "That which emerges from
what is forbidden, is forbidden." He states that when the bones are not
fit to be eaten, then there exists 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 fit to be
eaten, such as in a food product containing bone gelatin, the biblical
prohibition of Yotzei Min Ha-tamei, Tamei applies.
4. For Talmudic examples of the principle that when a prohibited
substance is reduced to dust the prohibition ceases to apply, see
Temura 31a and Pesachim 21b.
5. A source for this distinction can be found in the comments of the
Shach, Yoreh Deah 99:1, and the sources cited therein.
6. See Chullin 116b and Bechorot 7b.
7. 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; Har Zvi, Yoreh Deah 102; Rabbi Hershel Schachter,
Mesorah 1:54-56. Also see Mishkenot Yaakov, Yoreh Deah 34, for an
application of this ruling.
8. Rabbi Yosef seeks to demonstrate that Rabbeinu Yonah's ruling is
accepted as normative. In Yechaveh Daat 2:62, he applies Rabbeinu
Yonah's ruling as a consideration to permit the use of citric acid
derived from Chametz for Passover use. He urges one to be strict on
this matter, but this does not contradict his lenient ruling on
gelatin. The reason for this is that Poskim in general are
exceptionally strict regarding Passover laws (Chumrah D'chametz).
Rabbi Grodzinski applies Rabbeinu Yonah's ruling only in a case when
the product became completely dry in the manufacturing process and was
thus rendered "mere dust." This approach is based on the Ran (Avoda
Zara 16b in the pages of the Rif, s.v. Misrach).
9. It is clear that his logic applies equally to gelatin derived from
skin.
10. Rabbi Avraham Rappaport (a rabbinic judge who served on the London
Rabbinic Court) appears to persuasively prove the correctness of Rabbi
Abramsky's assertion, in his essay on gelatin which appears in the
Memorial Volume published in honor of Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky pp.
525-527.
11. Pesachim 2la, and 45b, and Avoda Zara 67b-68a.
12. Pesachim 45b and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 442:9.
13. Biur Halacha 442:9 s.v. Ad She'eino Rauy; Aruch Hashulchan 442:30,
Achiezer 3:31:4, the many authorities cited by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,
Torah Sheba'al Peh 5753 pp. 17-20. See, however, Noda Biyehuda I Yoreh
Deah 26 and Har Zvi, Yoreh Deah 83 who require the food to be rendered
inedible even to a dog.
14. The Shach (Yoreh Deah 87:33) comments on this Rama that the same
rule applies to dried intestines, but initially should not be done
(i.e., it is permitted only after the fact when the product has been
made). The reason given by Acharonim for this limitation is the concern
that the product has not become sufficiently dry to be considered "mere
wood" (see Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 207 and Teshuvot Chatam Sofer
81). Some authorities contend that this concern is not relevant when a
product is thoroughly evaporated in a modern manufacturing procedure.
See also Noda Biyehuda (Yoreh Deah 26) for a discussion of this comment
of the Shach. Rabbi Grodzinski (Achiezer 3;33:5) contends that the
Shach's ruling does not apply to hard bones.
15. It is unclear why the Shach regards the policy to be strict on this
matter as praiseworthy. One possibility is tile concern that perhaps
the meat in the Karkom was not as dry as wood. The other possibility is
that he believes it is best to avoid relying on and extending the
Rama's rule.
16. A contemporary analogy is carmine, an insect product that is
thoroughly dried and then used as a coloring agent. This author was
informed that the major Kashrut agencies in this country have a policy
to rule strictly and not to certify a product containing carmine.
17. Also see Chavat Daat (103: Biurim 1), who distinguishes between a
non-Kosher product that has disintegrated and become inedible and a
non-Kosher product that has become inedible because bitter items are
added to it. In the former case, its non-Kosher status cannot be
restored. However, in the latter case, if the bitter items are
subsequently neutralized and the food becomes edible again, its
non-Kosher status is restored. Rabbi Avraham Rappaport (Memorial Volume
to Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky, p. 527) suggests that since the collagen
and ossein from which the gelatin product is taken are never rendered
inedible by the acid or lime in which the skin or bones are placed, the
manufacturing process of gelatin is analogous to the situation in which
the non-Kosher item did not disintegrate but rather became inedible due
to the bitter item added to it. Hence, according to the Chavat Daat,
gelatin should regain its former non-Kosher status.
18. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Torah Sheba'al Peh 5753, pp. 21-33) endeavors
to demonstrate that the consensus of authorities follow the lenient
opinion. It is important to note that Rabbi Frank's lenient ruling
regarding gelatin explicitly applies even to gelatin derived from
pigskin. Interestingly, Rabbi Frank suggests that a chemist should be
consulted to determine if a food product has become unsuitable for
canine consumption. Other authorities, however, do not mention this
requirement and seem to believe that a layman's judgment is sufficient
in this matter.
19. Rabbi Aharon Kotler strongly rejects this opinion in his essay on
the Halachic status of gelatin.
20. This may to be the opinion of Rabbi Grodzinski, though, because of
differing considerations.
21. At the beginning of Mishnat Rabbi Aharon (1:16) Rav Aharon Kotler
writes, "I have demonstrated that [gelatin] is forbidden according to
most opinions, and even according to the minority opinion there is no
clear manner to permit [gelatin]."
22. Ibid. 1:17.
23. For a summary of the sources regarding yeast see Biur Halacha
442:9, s.v. Chametz Shenitapesh.
24. See Mishna Berura 442:43 and Aruch Hashulchan 442:30, citing Taz
442:8.
25. The Rosh (Pesachim 2:1) articulates this prohibition, and it is
accepted as normative (Mishna Berura 442:43 and Aruch Hashulchan
442:30). However, the Rosh cites opinions that do not believe that
there exists even a rabbinic prohibition to consume inedible objects.
The Talmudic source for this concept is in Shavuot 24b.
26. If in the future, the process to manufacture gelatin changes and
the bones or skins are not rendered inedible, then Rabbi Frank would
say that gelatin is forbidden, but Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Waldenburg
might still believe it permissible because its form has been changed
(Rabbeinu Yonah's lenient ruling).
27. Rabbi Kotler (Mishnat Rabbi Aharon 1:16) rules that gelatin from a
kosher source is considered Pareve and Rabbi Feinstein (Igrot Moshe,
Yoreh Deah I:37 and II:27) rules that gelatin produced from the skin of
a Kosher animal is considered Pareve.
28. This appears in his responsum on gelatin, mentioned earlier. Rabbi
Waldenburg's comments to this responsum are added. He too accepts this
aspect of Rabbi Abramsky's essay, unlike other sections of the
responsum to which he does not hesitate to express his disagreement.
29. Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:92; Chazon Ish Orach Chaim 116:8; Tzitz
Eliezer 6:16, 7:32:8, 10:25:20; Yechaveh Daat 2:60; Rabbi Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo 17 following Rama, Yoreh Deah 155:3 and Yad
Avraham commenting on this text. The opinion of Shaagat Aryeh
(responsum 75) that Achshevai applies even to ingesting medicine
appears to be a lone opinion (although Rabbi Grodzinski does take it
into consideration (Achiezer 3:31)).
Two excellent essays (written in Hebrew) discussing this matter have
been recently published: Rabbi David Heber (Mesorah 7:91-96) and Rabbi
Yoezer Ariel (Techumin 15:348-362).
30. From Rabbi Henkin's writings on this issue (Edut Lcyisrael p. 177)
we see that he was aware that the commercially available gelatin would
be forbidden according to his approach, as it is not derived from hard
bones.
31. Even Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 17), who raises the possibility
that one who suffers only a slight ache might not be permitted to
ingest tasteless non-kosher medicines, might rule leniently regarding
gel-caps. This is because regarding gel-caps, there exist a Sfek
Sfeika, a double doubt. First, perhaps even one who has a slight pain
is permitted to ingest non-kosher medicines. Second, Rabbi Feinstein
regards gelatin as a Safek Issur, something that is forbidden because
of a Halachic doubt. However, according to the approach of Rabbi Kotler
who considers gelatin to be certainly forbidden, it is possible that
gel-caps may not be permitted for someone suffering only a minor degree
of pain.
0 comments Leave a Comment