Shimini 5770: Are Chocolate Covered Crickets Kosher?

It s an odd and silly question,but it once bothered me. Not that I'd ever eat such a thing but as a exercise in rabbinic thinking it was one that came up once during my advanced Hebrew class.

At the time we were translating this weeks portion Shimini. The question arose while translating the following verses:

20. All birds that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you. 21. (K) Yet these may you eat of every flying creeping thing that goes upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap with upon the earth; 22. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, and the bad locust after its kind, and the cricket after his kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.23. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you.[Leviticus 11]

If crickets, locusts and grasshoppers are permitted, the question arose could you have a glass of milk with them? Could you cover them in milk chocolate and eat them? What are they - meat like beef and chicken? Are they pareve, like fish? The Talmud is explicit in saying yes:

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, excepting the flesh of fish and of locusts; and it is also forbidden to place upon the table [flesh] with cheese, excepting the flesh of fish and of locusts.[Hullin 103b]

But why is this so? There are two passages of Talmud and one biblical text that will help here. One is the way chicken is designated as meat. The second is how to eat venison. Finally, how fish gets its status as pareve. There is an argument in the Talmud about the status of chicken as meat, and if it was permissible to eat chicken with dairy products. The sage Yose the Galillean made a simple argument

R. Yose the Galilean says, it is written, “you shall not eat of anything that dies of itself.”[Deuteronomy 14:21] and in the same verse it is written, “you shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk”; therefore whatsoever is prohibited. Under the law of nebelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Now it might be inferred that a fowl, since it is prohibited under the law of nebelah, is also forbidden to be cooked in milk; the verse therefore says. “In its mother's milk”; thus a fowl is excluded since it has no mother's milk.[Hullin 113a]

Since mommy chickens have no milk the biblical rule is not addressing poultry, only mammals. But after several folios the rabbis make a rather elegant argument: Permitted birds and beasts are both animals that could be used for sacrifices. In order to be used for sacrifices they had to be prepared and treated on a specific way. Not treating or preparing them for sacrifice in this way renders the animal invalid or nebelah. Outside of the temple sacrifices the secular eating of the same animals requires the same preparation. It was not the species or whether it did or did not produce milk, but the method of preparation of the meat to be considered acceptable for sacrifice or eating that classified things as meat.

The extension applies to animals that are non sacrificial but fit to eat as well. In Deuteronomy the list of permitted animals for consumption grows to include other split hoove animals that are not sacrificial such as venison, but with the stipulation that these animals are handled the same way the sacrificial animals are such as beef or lamb[Deuteronomy 12:22, 14:5]. Thus all permitted animals must follow the rules of care, slaughter and preparation.

On the other hand we have the permitted seafood which has fins and scales. Both of these are considered pareve, although they are either potential kosher poultry or a living swimming creature. In discussing the permissibility of parasitic worms in seafood versus cattle, the Talmud mentions something interesting.

Cattle are [in a forbidden state until] rendered permitted by slaughtering, and since these maggots had not been rendered fit by slaughtering, they always remain in the forbidden state. Fish, on the other hand, are [always in a permitted state, for they are] permitted by the mere taking up; the maggots therefore generated in a permitted state.[Hulllin 67b]

In short, because fish have no sacrificial preparation step, they are kosher from the time they are caught. By not having those sacrificial steps, they are not considered meat but something that is not meat, and thus they can be mixed with milk. The winged things on fours which are permitted are like fish in this respect. There is no sacrificial procedure that needs to be followed, so they are not meat, but pareve like fish, and thus one could eat them with a milk chocolate coating.

Of course there is a problem to this permission for chocolate covered grasshoppers and crickets. We are not sure of the species permitted, so most modern Ashkenaz authorities, to prevent the consumption of a creeping thing, ban all insects including grasshoppers and locusts, even though the Talmud is explicit on identifying such creatures:

Of locusts: all that have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of the body, [are clean]. R. Jose says, it must also bear the name locust’. [Hullin 59a]

So for those who are getting sick thinking about chocolate covered locusts, you will have a hard time finding them in your local kosher grocery store.