Explanation: The Gemara concludes that he answered him from the first part of the Pasuk.

Observation: The Yerushalmi states that if he wanted to merely distract him with another issue, he should have raised the issue of the five Pesukim in the Torah that have the acronym MaMaSh AV. These Pesukim include the words: Machar, Meshukadim, Si'eis, Arur, and V'kam (see Yoma 52a).

Observation (cont.): Rebbi Ila says that he wanted to hint to him that regarding some things one must close their lips, as the Pasuk states, "He will kiss me from the kisses of his lips." (This is how the Pnei Moshe understands Rebbi Ila's answer.)

Observation (cont.): Rebbi Shimon bar Chagai says in the name of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini that the Pasuk says, "Kevasim l'Levushecha" - "the shearings of the sheep will be for your clothes" (Mishlei 27:26). The word is written in the same way as the word "Kevashim" - "hidden." This teaches that when your students are young you should hide certain aspects of Torah from them. When they get older and are like "Atudim" - "male goats" (mentioned in the second half of this Pasuk), you should reveal to them the secrets of Torah. The Yerushalmi states that Rebbi Yishmael was a minor at the time of this discussion. (Rebbi Shimon is supporting Rebbi Ila's context. The Pnei Moshe explains he is also stating that this especially applies to minors.)

Observation (cont.): This supports Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai's statement. The Pasuk says, "And these are the laws that you should put before them." (Rebbi Shimon derives that the word "Tasim" is similar to the word "Sima" - "hidden treasure.") Just as this treasure is not revealed to every creature, so too you may only delve deeply into words of Torah before an appropriate person.

Observation (cont.): It appears that this is the reason of our Gemara. The Gemara says later, "when they made a decree in Eretz Yisrael etc." The Yerushalmi, however, does not explain this clearly. (The Tosfos Rabeinu Elchanan explains that the Yerushalmi means to say what our Gemara states from the Pasuk, "He will kiss me etc." It merely does not explain this clearly. See Avodah Berurah for another explanation of Tosfos, which is the opposite of this explanation.)

Observaton (cont.): Rabeinu Elchanan says that this is what the (Rebbi Elazar ) Kalir wrote regarding the red heifer, "One cannot think why it has been issued, as they were all given with a kiss." This refers to the fact that there are some things regarding which one's lips must be closed.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara later concludes that the reason why we need a Jew to oversee a Nochri milking his kosher animal is because we suspect that the Nochri will mix unkosher milk into the kosher milk. Why don't we worry about the fact that the Nochri leaves the milk uncovered? (In the time of the Gemara, it was forbidden to drink most liquids left uncovered and unsupervised due to the suspicion that a snake would put his poison into the liquid.)

Answer: It is possible to say that this indeed is a reason to forbid the milk. However, the Gemara stated a clear reason that when the Jew is not watching, a Nochri is likely to mix in unkosher milk. However, the reason that it was left uncovered does not always apply. For example, this does not apply to a case where the Nochri is seen leaving the milking area with milk in his hand. Being that he is presumed to always hold the milk, there is no reason to suspect a snake tasted from it.

Question: Why did (Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) they forbid milk explicitly due to it being left uncovered anymore than water and even honey [according to the opinion in Chulin (49b) that this prohibition applies to honey as well]? (They did not explicitly say there is a decree that Nochri water is forbidden due to it being uncovered!)

Answer: Even though Nochrim are not careful to ensure that all liquids are covered from the poison of snakes, they have clean standards. However, regarding milk, being that many times it is not eaten as milk and it is strained (and made into all kinds of dairy products), they are not even careful regarding its cleanliness.

Answer (cont.): Straining does not help for poison, as the Gemara says in Bava Kama (115b) that a strainer does not help if the liquid was mixed.

Question: This is difficult. Why don't we say that there should be a decree that old hard cheese should be forbidden due to the new soft cheese (that indeed has reason to be forbidden), as we answer earlier (31b) regarding beer?

Answer: It is possible to answer that there is more reason to make this decree regarding beer, as there is not as much of a noticeable difference between old and new beer as there is between old and new cheese.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that in the creases of the cheese there is still small amounts of milk, which might have been mixed with unkosher milk.

Question#1: This is difficult. If so, the Gemara should have said, "Rather Rebbi Yirmiyah says," being that he is going away from his previous answer. (Tosfos has the text that Rebbi Yirmiyah said the statement about the milk, not Rebbi Chanina. Accordingly, it would be fitting for the Gemara to say, "Ela" - "Rather" as it usually does when someone asks a question on a previous opinion and then gives his own opinion.)

Question#2: Additionally, do we suspect that the Nochri is a fool, and that he will mix in unkosher milk even though he knows that it will not solidify?

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explained that Rebbi Yirmiyah is answering his question that old cheese should be permitted (as opposed to addressing why Nochri cheese is prohibited in general). His answer is that even when it looks old, the poison stays in the moistness of the cheese, between the creases (inside the cheese).

Proof: The Ri proves Rabeinu Tam's explanation from the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi states, why is milk of Nochrim forbidden? It is forbidden due to its being uncovered. Why don't we let it stand (and the poison will separate itself from the dried cheese)? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak says that this is due to the poison that is between the holes (of the cheese).

Proof (cont.): This second question of the Yerushalmi is referring to cheese. In other words, let the cheese that is made be permitted, as the poison will not dry. The Gemara answers that the problem is the poison in the creases of the cheese. This is similar to the answer of our Gemara.

Implied Question: However, one cannot explain like Rabeinu Elchanan that this Yerushalmi is referring to milk, and that the Yerushalmi's question is that they should not have forbade it due to it being uncovered, and instead should let a sample of it sit (in order to know if it has poison in it). The point would be that if it has poison, this sample will not harden. Our Gemara indeed later (35b) asks a similar question regarding unkosher milk (as opposed to poison).

Answer: This is an incorrect explanation, as we never find that milk will not harden due to the poison that is inside of it.

Question: Why should we specifically say that they put the cheese in the stomachs of a Neveilah? Even if it would be slaughtered properly, this would present a problem of mixing meat and milk!

Answer: Shmuel specifically stated Neveilah, as this is a Torah prohibition. However, a slaughtered animal does not present a Torah prohibition against mixing milk and meat, as both the stomach and milk are cold. Even though the enzymes in the stomach make the cheese harden (and they therefore are not considered nullified), the mixture is only prohibited according to Rabbinic law.

Implied Question: The Gemara also could have asked a simple question from the Mishnah in Chulin (116a). (Why didn't it choose to ask from a Mishnah, which is usually the best source from which to ask a question?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara preferred to ask a question from Shmuel on Shmuel.

Question: This is difficult. Rabeinu Tam explained in Chulin (116b) that there is a difference between different types of milk in a stomach. The type that is harder (i.e. thicker) was never prohibited even before they retracted (the decree to forbid stomachs of animals of Nochrim). This is because it is currently considered waste, as it is only fit to let it stay and eventually become cheese.

Question (cont.): However, clear milk which cannot be made into cheese was originally designated as regular milk (and forbidden, though it is unclear why they would forbid this, see Avodah Berurah). They retracted this due to the question that the stomach of an Olah can be "burned" (i.e. eaten) raw by a Kohen. This is despite the fact that it is impossible that the clear milk will not mix with the harder milk.

Question (cont.): According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation, this is difficult. Why didn't our Gemara answer that this is before the retraction? When we discuss the milk staying, we could be referring to it being hard. This is why Shmuel implies that the stomach itself is permitted (as it indeed is if it is being used to harden milk). The second statement of Shmuel could be referring to a stomach that is not being used to turn anything into cheese, such as a case of clear milk. (This would answer the contradiction in Shmuel! Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: While it is true that the clear milk does not harden, the Nochrim are not careful to take it out of the milk that does harden that is sitting in the stomach. Being that Shmuel says that they allow the milk to harden in the skin of the stomach of a Neveilah, the implication is that the stomach itself is permitted, even if some of the clear milk remains in it, as I have explained, being that the Nochrim are not careful to take it out.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that nowadays, we do not have a clear reason to prohibit Nochri cheese. The reason it is prohibited by the Gemara is because we suspect that a snake put poison in it, as stated by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. We always rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, even versus Rebbi Yochanan. We certainly rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi over Shmuel. This is as stated in Eiruvin (47b) that in an argument between Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan, we rule like Rebbi Yochanan. This is also how Rabeinu Chananel rules.

Opinion (cont.): The Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim rules that the law always follows Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, Rav Ada bar Ahava's word are (halachically) insignificant, being that this does not refer to the Rav Ada bar Ahava who is a student of Rava who lived at the end of the period of the Amoraim. This is evident from the fact that his words are mentioned before those of Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak who lived before Rava.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman's statements ended with the Gemara questioning their statements.

Opinion (cont.): There is also no reason to suspect that unkosher milk is mixed into the cheese, as I have explained earlier, unlike the opinion of Rashi. This is because the Nochrim are not fools that they will mix into their cheese unkosher milk, as it does not become hard.

Opinion (cont.): Rather, it must be that the reason is only due to the poison of a snake. Being that we do not commonly have snakes amongst us, we do not worry about things that are left uncovered (and therefore the cheese should be permitted).

Implied Question: There is no reason to say that Nochri cheese should continue being prohibited being that it was already declared forbidden by a number of scholars, which would require another (larger and smarter) group of scholars to permit it. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because it is clear that when they originally decreed that Nochri cheese is forbidden, they only did so regarding places where snakes are commonly found, as I will explain later (57b, DH "l'Afukei").

Observation: Additionally, in many places Nochri cheese is eaten, as it is known that they put the milk to harden in flowers (not stomachs).

Observation (cont.): Additionally, the Gaonim of Narvona permitted cheese in Narvona, because it was put in flowers in order to harden.

Opinion: However, in places where the milk is put into a stomach to harden into cheese, Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Rabeinu Chaim says that there is slight reason to forbid this because they salt the stomach with its flesh. This causes a prohibition of the milk mixing with meat, as salting has the halachic status of boiling. I personally have seen places where they put milk into the stomach of a Neveilah pig after salting it.

Explanation: Orlah of Nochrim is forbidden, as we will explain later (see Tosfos in Kidushin 36b, DH "Kol Mitzvah").

Explanation: This means that people reveal their secrets to him, because they benefit from his advice and resourcefulness, as explained in Avos (6:1).

Explanation: This means that there is a problem to buy milk from a Nochri to make cheese. However, when the Gemara earlier discussed buying cheese from Nochrim there was no suspicion of unkosher milk, being that the Nochri made the cheese for himself. Accordingly, there is no reason to suspect that he would mix in unkosher milk, as it does not harden into cheese.

Observation: Being that the Gemara states that bread was not permitted in Beis Din, this indicates that if they wanted to, they could have permitted it. This must be because the prohibition was not widely accepted (amongst Bnei Yisrael).

Observation (cont.): This is the source of today's custom to eat bread of Nochrim, being that the prohibition was not widely accepted.

Observation (cont.): It is possible to rely upon the words of Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok who say that one should not enact a decree on the public unless most of the public can fulfill the decree.

Proof: Another proof that this is an accepted reason is the Gemara later (37a) that says, "In our days you will even permit bread (of Nochrim)." The Gemara indicates that Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah did not permit this because he would have been called a permissive Beis Din. It must be (based on the fact that this decree has not been upheld by the public) that another Beis Din came later and indeed permitted bread of Nochrim.

Proof (cont.): Indeed, the Yerushalmi explicitly states here and in Shabbos that there was another Beis Din that permitted bread of Nochrim.

Opinion: One who is careful not to eat bread of Nochrim is permitted to eat together with a person who is lenient regarding bread of Nochrim, and he may even share a plate with him. This is even if the taste of the bread of Nochrim mixes into the bread baked by Jews. This is because we do not have to be stringent and forbid such bread in a mixture.

Opinion (cont.): This is as stated in Chulin (6a) that they did not make a decree regarding a mixture of Dmai (grain of an Am ha'Aretz, regarding which there is a doubt whether or not Terumos and Ma'asros were taken). Similarly, bread (text of Bach) of Nochrim is permitted in this fashion as the bread is not clearly here (when it is mixed up into something else). They only made this decree when the bread is clearly identified.

Explanation: Rashi explains this means their emission.

Explanation (cont.): It seems that this emission comes from the oil that was emptied from the forbidden vessel, as stated later (75a), "Or he takes it away with olive water." (The Avodah Berurah explains that Tosfos understands that being that the other option was to boil scald the press with boiling water, and no clear usage of the word boiling is used by olive water, the implication is that the sharpness of the olive water alone is enough to take away the forbidden taste.)

Question: The fact that the term "Ziluf" should mean this is slightly difficult, as we never find Ziluf meaning anything other than pouring, as in "You should do Ziluf" in Pesachim (20b).