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: 
[The Yerushalmi (Shabbos 7:2)](http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14141&pgnum=101) mentions sponges (ספוג) in a group of items where cutting them causes them to grow back even more, and therefore declares that someone who does so has performed two categories of work, "reaping" and "planting." These melachos refer to plants, not animals, so I would think that indicates that the sponge is viewed as a plant (probably because it doesn't move around).

That said, I haven't found this Yerushalmi cited as halachah.

Another possible data point, though, might be that in the course of explaining when a sponge may or may not be used on Shabbos, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 320:18) cites Aruch, who explains that the sponge sits atop the head of a large fish (a whale, maybe?) and covers its eyes when it sticks its head out of the water, so that it doesn't see ships and wreck them. Mishnah Berurah there (320:45) alternately describes a sponge as "a wool-like material found on beaches." Both of these descriptions suggest that they saw sponges as inanimate or vegetable matter rather than an independent life-form.
R. Yosef Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim 3:1, writes:

> 
> Coral is intermediate between inanimate matter and plants. **We also
> find the sea sponge, which only has the sense of touch, and is an
> intermediate between plant and animal stages**. We also find the
> monkey to be intermediate between animals and man.
> 
> 
> 

This idea is repeated, for example by R. Moshe Isserles (the Rema) in his commentary מחיר יין, on מגילת אסתר, א:ו, and is ultimately based on Aristotle's classifications. However, this does not resolve the question, because it is not clear how something between animal and plant should be treated (unless we should be machmir a la bein hashmashot according to the view that it is both day and night).

On the other hand, the Arizal (Shulchan Aruch HaArizal, Orach Chaim 167:14) and R. Yaakov Emden (Zoharei Yaavetz, p. 36) write that a sponge is intermediate between inanimate matter (*domem*) and plant (*tzomeach*). If so, it should be kosher.

Support for the idea that a sponge is considered a *domem* can be found in the Raavad (Hil. Tumat Met 20:5). The Rambam rules that the rule of absorbed tumah (tumah beluah) applies only to a living creature. The Raavad asks on this ruling from the Mishnah (Keilim 9:4) which states:

> 
> ספוג שבלע משקין טמאין ונגוב מבחוץ, ונפל לאויר התנור, טמא, שסוף משקה
> לצאת.
> 
> 
> A sponge which absorbed impure liquids, [even if it] is dry on the outside, and fell into an oven, [the oven is] impure, because the liquids will emerge.
> 
> 
> 

According to the Raavad, from the fact that this Mishnah needed to invoke the reason that the liquid will emerge from the sponge, we see that otherwise it would have been tahor. This must be because the rule of tumah beluah applies even to a non-living creature. This proves that the Raavad considers a sponge to be a non-living creature.

Note that the Yerushalmi [cited by](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/3821/are-sea-sponges-kosher/3822#3822) @Alex which states that one who removes a sponge from the water on Shabbat violates the prohibition of kotzer does not prove that the Yerushalmi considers a sponge to be a plant--because the Yerushalmi (ibid.) is of the opinion that one also violates kotzer for removing a fish from water (רבנן דקיסרין אמרין הדן **דצייד כוורא וכל דבר שאתה מבדילו מחיותו חייב משום קוצר**). Obviously, the Yerushalmi maintains that one can violate kotzer even with regard to an animal.