כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה
Here, with regard to the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel’s comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua before Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction of the assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the stomach contents of an animal carcass. There, with regard to the mishna in Avoda Zara, Shmuel’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua after his retraction of that claim. And although this indicates that the mishna in Ḥullin presents an outdated ruling that was later rescinded, a mishna does not move from its place. In other words, once it has been taught in a certain manner, the tanna will not change the text of a mishna in order to reflect a change of opinion, so as to avoid confusion.
רב מלכיא משמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה אמר מפני שמחליקין פניה בשומן חזיר רב חסדא אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בחומץ רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בשרף הערלה
The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the decree of the Sages. Rav Malkiyya says in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The cheese is prohibited because gentiles smooth its surface with pig fat. Rav Ḥisda says: It is because they curdle it with vinegar produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is because they curdle it with sap that is subject to the prohibition against consuming the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla].
כמאן כי האי תנא (דתניא) ר"א אומר המעמיד בשרף הערלה אסור מפני שהוא פירי
Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav Naḥman’s claim that the cheese of gentiles is prohibited because it is curdled in the sap of orla? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a mishna (Orla 1:7): Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese with the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, because the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.
אפי' תימא ר' יהושע עד כאן לא פליג ר' יהושע עליה דר"א אלא בקטפא דגוזא אבל בקטפא דפירא מודי
The Gemara comments: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of a branch, but with regard to the sap of a fruit Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that it is prohibited as orla. Rav Naḥman’s statement can be understood as referring specifically to the sap of the fruit, which would mean that it is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.
והיינו דתנן א"ר יהושע שמעתי בפירוש שהמעמיד בשרף העלין ובשרף העיקרין מותר בשרף הפגין אסור מפני שהוא פירי
The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with that which we learned in the continuation of that mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that with regard to one who curdles cheese with the sap of the leaves and the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled with the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit.
בין לרב חסדא בין לרב נחמן בר יצחק תתסר בהנאה קשיא
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. According to both Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who maintains that it is prohibited because it is curdled with the sap of orla, one should be prohibited from deriving benefit from the cheese, as one may not derive benefit from either the wine of gentiles or orla. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.
דרש רב נחמן בריה דרב חסדא מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים א, ג) לריח שמניך טובים למה ת"ח דומה לצלוחית של פלייטין מגולה ריחה נודף מכוסה אין ריחה נודף
§ Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Your ointments have a goodly fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:3)? This is a metaphor for a Torah scholar: To what is a Torah scholar comparable? To a flask of pelaitin: When it is exposed, its scent diffuses; when it is covered, its scent does not diffuse.
ולא עוד אלא דברים שמכוסין ממנו מתגלין לו שנאמר (שיר השירים א, ג) עלמות אהבוך קרי ביה עלומות ולא עוד אלא שמלאך המות אוהבו שנא' עלמות אהבוך קרי ביה על מות ולא עוד אלא שנוחל שני עולמות אחד העוה"ז ואחד העוה"ב שנא' עלמות קרי ביה עולמות:
The Gemara remarks: And moreover, when a Torah scholar spreads his knowledge, matters that are generally hidden from him are revealed to him, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You” (Song of Songs 1:3), and one may read into the verse: The hidden [alumot]. And moreover, the Angel of Death loves him, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You,” and one may read into the verse: The one appointed over death [al mot] loves you. And moreover, a Torah scholar inherits two worlds: One is this world, and the other one is the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You,” and one may read into the verse: Worlds [olamot].
מתני׳ ואלו דברים של עובדי כוכבים אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה חלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים ואין ישראל רואהו והפת והשמן שלהן רבי ובית דינו התירו השמן
MISHNA: This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him performing this action, and their bread and oil. The mishna notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely.
והשלקות וכבשין שדרכן לתת לתוכן יין וחומץ וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה כלבית שוטטת בו והחילק וקורט של חלתית ומלח שלקונדית הרי אלו אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה:
The mishna resumes its list: And boiled and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ḥilak, and a sliver of ḥiltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
גמ׳ חלב למאי ניחוש לה אי משום איחלופי טהור חיור טמא ירוק ואי משום איערובי ניקום דאמר מר חלב טהור עומד חלב טמא אינו עומד
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Concerning milk, with regard to what need we be concerned? Why is the milk prohibited? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might exchange the milk of a kosher animal with the milk of a non-kosher animal, this concern is unfounded, as kosher milk is white whereas non-kosher milk has a green tinge to it, and therefore they are easily distinguishable. And if it is prohibited due to the concern that it might be mixed with non-kosher milk, let the Jew curdle the milk obtained from the gentile, as the Master said: Milk from a kosher animal curdles, but milk from a non-kosher animal does not curdle.
אי דקא בעי לגבינה ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן דקא בעי ליה לכמכא
The Gemara answers: If one desires to eat it as cheese, indeed, one can simply curdle it, as the milk of non-kosher animals does not curdle. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one desires to use the milk in kamkha, also known as kutaḥ, a food item that contains milk.
ונשקול מיניה קלי וניקום כיון דבטהור נמי איכא נסיובי דלא קיימי ליכא למיקם עלה דמילתא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in that case, let him take a bit of milk and curdle it, to test whether or not it has been mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal: If it curdles completely, it is kosher; if some milk is left over, it is not. The Gemara explains: Since there is also whey in kosher milk, which does not curdle, there is no way to establish the halakhic matter with regard to it. Even kosher milk will not curdle completely, and therefore this is not a reliable method to determine the halakhic status of the milk.
ואב"א אפי' תימא דקבעי לה לגבינה איכא דקאי ביני אטפי:
The Gemara presents an alternative suggestion: And if you wish, say instead that you may even say that the concern applies where he intends to use the milk to make cheese, as there is milk that remains between the crevices of curdled cheese, and therefore there is a concern that drops of non-kosher milk might be mixed with it.
והפת: א"ר כהנא א"ר יוחנן פת לא הותרה בב"ד מכלל דאיכא מאן דשרי
§ The mishna teaches: And bread belonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Unlike oil, bread was not permitted by a court. The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan states that bread was not permitted in court, can it be inferred that there is a different opinion that claims that a court did permit it?
אין דכי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת יצא רבי לשדה והביא עובד כוכבים לפניו פת פורני מאפה סאה אמר רבי כמה נאה פת זו מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה מה ראו חכמים משום חתנות
The Gemara answers: Yes, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out to the field, and a gentile brought before him a se’a of bread baked in a large baker’s oven [purnei]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How exquisite is this loaf of bread! What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? The Gemara asks, incredulously: What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? It was prohibited due to the concern that Jews might befriend gentiles while breaking bread with them, which could lead to marriage with gentiles.
אלא מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה בשדה כסבורין העם התיר רבי הפת ולא היא רבי לא התיר את הפת
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not asking why bread was prohibited in general. Rather, he asked: What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit bread even in the field, where this concern does not apply? The Gemara notes that upon hearing of this incident the people thought that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the bread of gentiles. But that is not so; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not actually permit such bread. This is why Rabbi Yoḥanan emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court.
רב יוסף ואיתימא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר לא כך היה מעשה אלא אמרו פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד וראה פת דחוק לתלמידים אמר רבי אין כאן פלטר כסבורין העם לומר פלטר עובד כוכבים והוא לא אמר אלא פלטר ישראל
The Gemara records an alternate version of this episode. Rav Yosef, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, says: The incident did not occur in this manner. Rather, they said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to a certain place and saw that bread was scarce for the students in the study hall. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there no baker [palter] here who can prepare bread? Upon hearing of this incident, the people thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, which would indicate that bread baked by a professional baker is permitted, even if he is a gentile. But in reality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his question only in reference to a Jewish baker.
א"ר חלבו אפילו למ"ד פלטר עובד כוכבים לא אמרן אלא דליכא פלטר ישראל אבל במקום דאיכא פלטר ישראל לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפי' למ"ד פלטר עובד כוכבים ה"מ בשדה אבל בעיר לא משום חתנות
The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Even according to the one who thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, we said that the bread is permitted only where there is no Jewish baker, but in a place where there is a Jewish baker, the leniency would certainly not apply. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even according to the one who thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, that statement applies only in the field, but in the city it would not apply, and the bread would still be prohibited due to the possibility of marriage with a gentile.
איבו הוה מנכית ואכיל פת אבי מצרי אמר להו רבא ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק לא תשתעו בהדיה דאיבו דקאכיל לחמא דארמאי:
The Gemara relates: Aivu would bite and eat bread of gentiles at the boundaries of the fields. Rava said to the students in the study hall, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who said to them: Do not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameans in deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree.
והשמן שלהן: שמן רב אמר דניאל גזר עליו ושמואל אמר
§ The mishna teaches: And their oil was originally prohibited but later permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the origin of the prohibition of oil. Rav says: Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited, and Shmuel says: