משנה: אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שָׁאַל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדָּרֶךְ מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽסְרוּ גְּבִינוֹת הַגּוֹיִם. אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבָה שֶׁל נְבֵילָה. אָמַר לוֹ וַהֲלֹא קֵיבַת עוֹלָה חֲמוּרָה מִקֵּיבַת נְבֵילָה וְאָֽמְרוּ כֹּהֵן שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ יָפָה שׂוֹרְפָהּ חַיָּה וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוּ אֶלָּא אָֽמְרוּ לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. חָזַר וְאָמַר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבַת עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר לוֹ אִם כֵּן לָמָּה לֹא אֲסָרוּהָ בַהֲנָאָה. הִשִּיאוֹ לְדָבָר אַחֵר אָמַר לוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי הֵיאָךְ אַתָּה קוֹרֵא כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן אוֹ כִּי טוֹבִים דּוֹדַייִךְ. אָמַר לוֹ כִּי טוֹבִים דּוֹדַייִךְ. אָמַר לוֹ אֵין הַדָּבָר כֵּן שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ מְלַמֵּד עָלָיו לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים׃ MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses281They were forbidden in Mishnah 6 for all usufruct without any obvious reason.? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver282The rennet is taken from the stomach contents of cattle killed by Gentiles and therefore automatically have the status of cadavers. Since the rennet causes the milk to curdle, its addition cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore one understands that the cheeses are forbidden as food. Since the rennet is produced from an animal and cheese (including kosher cheese made by Jews) is made by cooking milk with rennet, it could be forbidden for all usufruct as meat cooked in milk following R. Simeon ben Ioḥai (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Masekhta deKaspa20).. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering283An elevation offering is burned completely on the altar. The stomach contents (and the contents of its intestines) are not burned; the innards have to be washed before being put on the altar (Lev. 1:9). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw284The Cohen may eat the stomach contents raw since they are considered excrement; the rennet therefore cannot be considered meat and the Gentile’s cheese should be permitted even as food! For the expression “to burn” for “to slurp” see Note 321.; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct285While the previous statement is essentially correct there is a (customary or rabbinic) rule that it would not be decorous to do so; one refrains from using any part of the animal (except the hide given to the priests, Lev. 7:8) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny286As a rule of biblical law. Therefore Gentiles’ cheese could at most be rabbinically forbidden..
He303R. Joshua. gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He304R. Ismael. retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct289Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.? He303R. Joshua. deflected him to an other subject305As the Babli explains, since it was a new purely rabbinic restriction introduced after the destruction of the Temple, he did not want to disclose the reason. and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine306Cant. 1:2. Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.”? He304R. Ismael. told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He303R. Joshua. answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils307Cant. 1:3. As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you. Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male.
The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant. 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth, it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine.
R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil.
As mentioned in Note 306, any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67)..
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שָׁאַל רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כול׳. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּרַ בַּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מִפְּנֵי עֲגָלִים שֶׁשָּׁם נִשְׁחָטִין לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. שָׁמַע רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וָמַר. יָפֶה לִימְּדָנוּ רִבִּי. שֶׁכֵּן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲפִילוּ פִּירְשָׁהּ אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָעֵי. מָצָא בָהּ טַבַּעַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. טַבַּעַת בְּעֵינָהּ הִיא. פִּירְשָׁהּ גּוּפָהּ הִיא. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most]287Added from the Genizah text, necessary for syntactic reasons. calves there288This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden289Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable290It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.; excrement is part of its body.
רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִין. אֵין מַעֲמִידִין לֹא בְקֵיבַת הַנְּבֵילָה וְלֹא בְקֵיבַת הַגּוֹי. חָֽזְרוּ לוֹמַר. מַעֲמִידִין בְּקֵיבַת הַנְּבֵילָה וְאֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּקֵיבַת הַגּוֹי. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בָּעֵי. זוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. שֶׁרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמַּחֲשֶׁבֶת נָכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָתָא רִבִּי אַסִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִין. מַעֲמִידִין בְּקֵיבַת הַנְּבֵילָה וְלֹא בְקֵיבַת הַגּוֹי. חָֽזְרוּ לוֹמַר. מַעֲמִידִין בֵּין בְּקֵיבַת נְבֵילָה בֵּין בְּקֵיבַת הַגּוֹי. לִישָׁן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי חִייָה בַּרַ בָּא. קֵיבַת הַנָּכְרִי וְשֶׁלַּנְּבֵילָה אֲסוּרָה כְמִשְׁנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. טְרֵיפָה שֶׁיָּֽנְקָה מִן הַכְּשֵׁירָה קֵיבָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת כְּמִשְׁנָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. כְּשֵׁירָה שֶׁיָּֽנְקָה מִן הַטְּרֵיפָה קֵיבָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה כְּמִשְׁנָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. וַאֲפִילוּ דְּיִסְבְּרוּן בֵּית שַׁמַּי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל בַּמִּשְׁנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֲוֵי בֵיצָה גִּידוּלֵי גוּפָהּ. קֵיבָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר בָּאָת. וְאַתְייָא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַעֲשֶׂה בִבְנוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ שֶׁבִּקְעוּ לָהֶן זְאֵיבִים יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת צֹאן. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּ קֵיבוֹתֵיהֶן. אָֽמְרוּ. בֵּיצָה גִּידוּלֵי גוּפָהּ. קֵיבָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר בָּאָת לוֹ. 293For this paragraph there exist two additional witnesses, the Leiden ms. in Beṣah1:1 (60a ll. 39–54, ב) and a Genizah text (Yerushalmi Fragments, pp. 156–157, בּ) of the same. The source clearly is the Beṣah text even though the argument is from Avodah zarah and the reference to Beṣah is a side remark.
“Gentile’s stomach content” naturally means “stomach content of animal slaughtered by a Gentile.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass294An animal which was not slaughtered following the rules of ritual slaughter. whose flesh therefore is forbidden as meat. nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship295The Beṣah text seems better: Does this (i. e., the prohibition of Gentile rennet) follow R. Eliezer (whom practice does not follow in general) since it treats Gentile rennet as more problematic than the one derived from a carcass? Since here practice is said to follow R. Eliezer, the tradition seems questionable; one has to search for parallel traditions either to confirm or to reject.? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa]296The Babylonian form of the name (in parentheses) has to be deleted in favor of the Galilean form used in the three parallel sources [in brackets]. came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither]297To be added by the unanimous testimony of the other three sources and the later arguments. with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.]298The ms. text (in parentheses) is inconsistent. It has to be replaced by the text of the other three sources [in brackets] which is consistent with R. Joḥanan’s statement in both versions since for dietary laws a “torn” animal has the same status as a carcass.
A “torn” animal is one of which a vital organ is impaired or defective, the most common one being tuberculous lesions of the lung. If a cow is known to suffer from a defect which makes it “torn”, its milk is forbidden as drink but as stomach contents it becomes excrement and is no longer forbidden. (Karaites deny the existence of internal ṭerefa and prohibit as torn only the victims of predator attacks as described by the verse, Ex.22:30.) And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside299This now connects the discussion with Mishnah Beṣah1:1 which states that the House of Shammai permit the use on the holiday of an egg laid on that day while the House of Hillel forbid it. The problem is to understand the position of the House of Hillel since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday (Ex. 12:16). According to the Babli and one opinion in the Yerushalmi the prohibition applies only to eggs laid by chickens raised to produce eggs. Then the mother was not food at the start of the holiday. While the egg is food according to everybody, for the House of Hillel it cannot change its character from non-food to food on the holiday. Then the question is raised why milk which is prohibited as food before being ingested by a ruminant becomes permitted by the animal’s stomach. In this question, the revised ruling in matters of rennet would agree with the stance of the House of Shammai. But the answer is that the two cases cannot be compared; the stomach contents of an animal never were part of the animal and do not have the latter’s status.. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s]300The plural is attested to in the three parallel sources and required by the context. of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua301The parallels unanimously state the name as Jehudah ben Shemu`ai without a rabbinic title. that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents302The latter teaching which permits rennet from animals prohibited as meat is confirmed by a ruling in an actual case.. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ כול׳. חֲבֵרַייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. דּוֹדִים דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה וַחֲבִיבִים יוֹתֵר מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְחִכֵּ֕ךְ כְּיֵי֥ן הַטּ֛וֹב. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דּוֹדִים דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה וַחֲבִיבִים יוֹתֵר מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. כִּֽי־טוֹבִ֥ים דּוֹדֶיךָ מִיָּֽיִן׃ רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן בְשֵׁם בַּר פָּזִי. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין חֲבִיבִין יוֹתֵר מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אִילּוּ לֹא קָרָא לֹא הָיָה עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא בַּעֲשֵׂה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל חַייָב מִיתָה. עַל שֵׁם וּפוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר֭ יִשְּׁכֶ֥נּוּ נָחָֽשׁ. “Because they curdle it,” etc. 309This paragraph and the next are from Berakhot 1:7 (Notes 182-191) and Sanhedrin 11:6 (Notes 54-57); Midrash Cant. 1(18). The Geniza fragment ends here on line 2.The colleagues in the name of Rebbi [Joḥanan]: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are (more pleasant than) [pleasant like] the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine310Cant.7:10; Babli 35a.. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friends are better than wine311Mishnah Berakhot 1:7.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Bar Pazi: You may know that the words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon312Cant. 1:2. did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake313Eccl. 10:8..
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אִיסּוּר וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן הֵיתֵר וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן קַלִּין וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן חֲמוּרִין. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִין כּוּלָּן חוֹמֶר. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הָאוֹמֵר. אֵין תְּפִילִּין. לַעֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. פָּטוּר. חָמֵשׁ טוֹטָפוֹת. לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. חַייָב. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בֵּרִבִּי חִייָה. חֲמוּדִין דִּבְרֵי זְקֵינִים מִדִּבְרֵי נְבִיאִים. דִּכְתִיב אַל־תַּטִּיפוּ יַטִּיפ֑וּן. וּכְתִיב אַטִּיף לְךָ֔ לַיַּי֖ן וְלַשֵּׁכָ֑ר. נָבִיא וְזָקֵן לְמָה הֵן דּוֹמִין. לַמֶּלֶך שֶׁשִּׂילַּח שְׁנֵי סֵימָנְטֵירִין שֶׁלּוֹ לִמְדִינָה. עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כָּתַב. אִם אֵינוֹ מַרְאֶה לָכֶם חוֹתָם שֶׁלִּי וְסֵימַנְטֵירִין שֶׁלִּי אַל תַּאֲמִינוּ לוֹ. וְעַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן כַָּתַב. אַף עַל פְּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַרְאֶה לָכֶם חוֹתָם שֶׁלִּי וְסֵימַנְטֵירִין שֶׁלִּי הֶאֱמִינוּ לוֹ. כָּךְ בְּנָבִיא כָתוּב וְנָתַ֥ן אֵלֶי֛ךָ א֖וֹת א֥וֹ מוֹפֵֽת. בְּרַם הָכָא. עַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ. Rebbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe, since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rebbi Ḥanina314With the other two sources read: Ḥinena. in the name of Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, do not preach, they preach315Micha 2:6.. And it is written,I shall preach to you for wine and liquor316Micha 2:11.. The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two seals317As the text shows this is a scribal error. Read with the other sources פלמנטריןdiplomatarii, persons authorized to use the imperial mail. to a province. About one of them he wrote, if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον318Greek “seal”., do not believe him. About the other he wrote, even if he does not show you my seal and σημαντήριον, believe him. So about a prophet is written, he gives you a sign or miracle319Deut. 13:2.. But here it is written, according to the teachings that they will teach you320Deut. 17:11..
רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוּן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹב עֲגָלִים שֶׁשָּׁם נִשְׁחָטִין לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. שָׁמַע רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וָמַר. יָפֶה לִימְּדָנוּ רִבִּי. שֶׁכֵּן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲפִילוּ פִּירְשָׁהּ אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָעֵי. מָצָא בָהּ טַבַּעַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. טַבַּעַת בְּעֵייְנָהּ הִיא. פִּירְשָׁהּ גּוּפָהּ הִיא. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because most calves there288This shows that the Mishnah underlying this Halakhah is not the one given in the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi but the one found in the Babli and Maimonides: R. Meïr declares Bithynian Gentile cheese as forbidden for usufruct. Babli 34b. are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters an animal for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden289Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable290It never was part of the animal and did not become forbidden by its slaughter for idolatry.; excrement is part of its body.
מַה שׂוֹרְפָהּ. גָּמִי לָהּ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בְּכוֹס זוֹהֵם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הַשּׁוֹתֶה בְכוֹס זוֹהֵם לֹא נֶהֱנֶה וְלֹא מוֹעֵל. What means “burns it”? He slurps it321In Midrash Cant. 1(17) גמיע.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in a dirty cup. This implies that one who drinks from a dirty cup neither benefits nor commits larceny322Since he must slurp the contents of the stomach in the Temple it would be a desecration to use a clean Temple vessel for this purpose. A private vessel may not be introduced into the Temple precinct. The priest may use a dirty vessel which nobody else would use for food to eat the disgusting matter..
מִפְּנֵי מַה לֹא גִילָּה לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבְּקָרוֹב אָֽסְרוּם. וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָיָה קָטָן. Why did he not tell him? Because they prohibited it recently and Rebbi Ismael was young323They had to establish the authority of the newly formed Synhedrion at Jabneh; Babli 35a. The story must be dated to the last 20 years of the first Century, after the death of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai (at an unknown date). R. Ismael never appears as member of the Synhedrion..
רִבִּי חוֹנִייָה אָמַר. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא מַקְשֵׁי. אִם לְהַפְלִיגוֹ בִדְבָרִים הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ הָיָה לוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ בֶּחָמֵשׁ הַשִּׂאוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. שְׁאֵת. אָרוּר. מָחָר. מְשׁוּקָּדִים. וְקָם. הֲלֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת אוֹ שְׂאֵת אִם לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב. כִּ֤י בְאַפָּם֙ הָ֣רְגוּ אִ֔ישׁ וּבִרְצֹנָם֭ עִקְּרוּ־שֽׁוֹר אָרוּר אוֹ אָ֤רוּר אַפָּם֙ כִּ֣י עָ֔ז. וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֨עַ֙ צֵא הִלָּחֵ֣ם בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק מָחָ֗ר אוֹ מָחר אָֽנֹכִ֤י נִצָּב֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַגִּבְעָ֔ה. וּבַמְּנוֹרָה אַרְבָּעָ֣ה גְבִיעִ֑ים מְשׁוּקָּדִ֔ים או מְשׁוּקָּדִים כַּפְתֹּרֶ֖יהָ וּפְרָחֶֽיהָ׃ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְי אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה הִנְּךָ֥ שֹׁכֵב֭ עִם־אֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ וְקָם֩ אוֹ וְקָם֩ הָעָ֨ם הַזֶּ֜ה וְזָנָ֣ה. רִבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא מוֹסִיף הָדָא. וּבְנֵ֣י יַֽעֲקֹ֗ב בָּ֤אוּ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה֙ כְּשָׁמְעָ֔ם אוֹ כְּשָׁמְעָ֔ם וַיִּֽתְעַצְּבוּ֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁמַּשִּׁיקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַפֶּה. הֵיכְמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר יִשָּׁקֵ֨ינִי֙ מִנְּשִׁיק֣וֹת פִּ֔יהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. כָּתוּב וְאוֹתִי צִוָּ֤ה יְי. אוֹתִי וְאוֹתִי. נֶאֶמְרוּ לִי דְבָרִים שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ לָכֶם. וְנֶאֶמְרוּ לִי דְבָרִים שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בֵינִי לְבֵין עַצְמִי. Rebbi Onias said, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba raised a difficulty: If he wanted to deflect him to another subject324If R. Joshua’s intention only was to deflect R. Ismael’s inquiry there were many other questions to be asked., he should have removed him to the five indeterminate places in the Torah325In the absence of masoretic accents it may be difficult to parse a sentence. In Babli sources, this is called “verses that have no decision,” i. e., where to place the caesura. In our masoretic texts only Ex. 25:34 remains undecided in this sense. Parallel sources are Babli Yoma52a/b, Gen. rabba80(5) (Theodor-Albeck #957/958, Sokoloff Geniza Fragments p. 170), Midrash Cant. 1(18), Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Amaleq1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai Epstein-Melamed p. 121, Tanḥuma Bešallaḥ26.The list itself is attributed in most sources to Issy ben Jehudah. [A discussion in principle about this subject is found in ש. קוגוט, המקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות, י־ם תשנד; מ. ברויאר, מקראות שאין להם הכרע, לשוננו נח (תשנה) 189־199.], which are the following: “gift, cursed, tomorrow, almond shaped, rise”. Behold if you choose well the gift or the gift if you do not choose well326Gen.4:7. They must have read הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִ֔יב שְׂאֵ֕ת וְאִם֙ לֹא תֵיטִ֔יב but also in the masoretic text הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת there is a stop between תֵּיטִיב֙ and שְׂאֵ֔ת.. For in their rage they killed a man and by their will castrated a cursed ox or cursed be their rage for it is strong327Gen.49:6–7. It is a question whether to read one or two sentences.. Moses said to Joshua . . go fight Amaleq tomorrow or tomorrow I shall stand on top of the hill328Ex. 17:9.. On the candelabra four cups almond shaped or almond shaped their knobs and their flowers329Ex. 25:34..The Eternal said to Moses, you will lie with your fathers and rise or rise will this people and whore330Deut. 31:16.. Rebbi Tanḥuma added the following: Jacob’s sons came from the field when they heard or when they heard the men were offended331Gen. 34:7. Most translations follow the masoretic punctuation in choosing the first alternative but the German translation by Torczyner et al. (Berlin 1934) which opts for the second.. Rebbi La said, there are things about which one kisses the mouth, as it is said, may he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth332This answers R. Ḥama bar Uqba’s question. The verse Cant. 1:2 was chosen because its first part, quoted now, tells R. Ismael to be silent since a person who is kissed on his mouth cannot speak at that time. The first part clearly refers to a male; nevertheless R. Ismael had a point reading the second part as addressing a female since the sentence switches from third to second person, possibly indicating a change of speaker.. Rebbi Isaac said, and me did the Eternal command333Deut. 4:14. Here starts a rather defective Genizah fragment (Ginzberg pp. 276–277.). “Me, and me.” Things were said to me that were said to you. And things were said to me alone334Not everything has to be told to everybody..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חַלְפּוּתָא רִבִּי חַגַּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. כְּבָשִׂ֥ים לִלְבוּשֶׁ֑ךָ וּמְחִ֥יר שָׂ֝דֶ֗ה עַתּוּדִֽים׃ כְּבָשִׁים כְּתִיב. הָא כֵיצַד. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁתַּלְמִידִין קְטַנִּים כְּבוֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. הִגְדִּילוּ וְנַעֲשׂוּ כָעַתּוּדִים גַּלֵּה לָהֶם רָזֵי תוֹרָה. וְדָא מְסַייְעָה לְמַה דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם׃ מָה הַסִּימָה הַזֹּאת אֵינָהּ נִגְלֵית לְכָל־בִּרְייָה כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לְשַׁקֵּעַ אֶת עַצְמָךְ בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּשֵׁירִין. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalfuta, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. Lambs for your clothing; the price of a field are rams335Prov. 27:26.. It is written “suppressings336Identifying שׁ and שׂ for the homily.”. How is this? If the students are young, suppress before them the secrets of the Torah. If they grew and became like rams, reveal to them the secrets of the Torah. This lends support to what Rebbi Simoen ben Ioḥai stated: And these are the laws which you shall put before them337Ex. 21:1.. Just as this putting is not revealed to everybody338The laws in Ex. 21–22 are not to be told to Gentiles nor applied to their suits. so you do have permission to immerse yourself in words of the Torah only before legitimate people.