Question: Who knows one hundred nineteen?
-------------------------------

*Please cite/link your sources, if possible. At some point at least twenty-four hours from now, I will:*

* *Upvote all interesting answers.*
* *Accept the best answer.*
* *Go on to the next number.*

Answer: 
Assuming the key *halachik* distinction is that which underlies the difference between *tolesh* and *netilas neshama* in *hilchos shabbos*, as seems plausible, that should depend on whether sponges display some form of sentience (at least basic percepts of pain and/or pleasure, as distinct from the automated motions of machines and plants) . To some degree, modern "science" is somewhat unreliable in this analysis since contemporary scientists' materialistic dogmas interfere with their ability to classify sentience, or even to clearly ascribe it to humans, let alone lower lifeforms. Still, it does seem plausible that some form of centralized nervous system or even a brain should be necessary to say something is alive (חי) in the classical sense (or some comparable system that would mediate some low level of sentient perception). Though according to the *Ri Albo* cited by WFB, it should qualify as *safek treif* in the same sense that a *koy* is a *safek chaya safek behema*. In sum, *tzarich iyun*.
It does not matter if it is an animal or plant since inedible things are kosher

I do not need to bring a source that a sea sponge is not edible until someone claims otherwise

[Gelatin, Kosher](http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/127/Q1/) 

> 
> Now, food which even a dog won't eat loses its status as food. Halachically, it's no different than stones or dirt which are you allowed to eat! 
> 
> 
> 

My edit (Excluding things like vodka that people do eat, but dogs to not (dogs are only a measurement on things that even humans do not eat)). 

[Brushes, Made of Pigs' Hair](http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/123/Q1/)