(Chevraya citing R. Yochanan): (Discussing the pasuk mentioned above (daf 34-3 (d)-(f))) - 'Your love' refers to the words of the Sages, that they are close to the Written Torah and are beloved like the Written Torah, as the pasuk says (Shir HaShirim 7:10), "And your palate is like the best wine" - the Oral Torah is compared to the palate and the Written Torah to wine. (The palate senses the true taste and 'understanding' of the wine.)

(Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yochanan): 'Your love' refers to the words of the Sages, that they are close to the Written Torah and are even more beloved than the Written Torah, as the pasuk says (Shir HaShirim 1:2), "for your love is better than wine."

(R. Ba bar Kohen citing Bar Pazi): I'll prove that the words of the Sages are even more beloved than the Written Torah, as if R. Tarfon (see Mishnayos Berachos 1:4) would not have read Kerias Shema at all, he would have only negated a positive Mitzvah, but when he transgressed the words of Beis Hillel (by lying down to recite the evening Kerias Shema) he became liable with his life, as the pasuk states (Koheles 10:8), "one who breaks a fence {the words of the Sages} - a snake shall bite him".

Beraisa (R. Yishmael): The Torah has prohibitions and permissions, leniencies and stringencies. But the words of the Sages are all stringent, as the Mishnah teaches (Maseches Sanhedrin Chapter 11), "A Sage who instructs that there is no Mitzvah of Tefilin in the Torah, is exempt from the death penalty for being a Rebellious Sage (Zaken Mamreh). But if he instructed that there must be five sections in the head Tefilin (instead of the four which is known through oral tradition rather than actually written in the Torah), is liable in the death penalty.

(R. Chanina citing R. Idi/ R. Tanchum b'R. Chiya): The words of the Sages are more stringent than the words of the prophets, as the pasuk states in reference to the nation rejecting the words of the true prophet and accepting the words of false prophets (Michah 2:6), "Do not preach, they preach". And the prophet Michah responded to them by saying that even if they refuse to listen to the words of the prophets, they should listen to the words of the Sages who are compared to wine and strong drink as the pasuk states (Michah 2:11), "I will preach to you (to drink) wine and strong drink". This shows that they cherished the words of the Sages more than the words of the prophets.

To what can we compare the role of a prophet and the role of a Sage? To a king that sent two servants to a certain place. About one servant, he wrote in his Book of Laws, "If he does not show you my seal and my sign, do not believe him". About the other servant, he wrote, "Even if he does not show you my seal and my sign, believe him." Similarly, about a prophet the Torah wrote (Devarim 13:2), "and he shall give you a sign or a wonder" - that he must prove himself before you must believe him. However, regarding the Sages, the Torah writes, (Devarim 17:11), "according to the law they instruct you".

(R. Yaakov bar Acha/ R. Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): (Why did R. Meir rule earlier (daf 34-2(a)) that Uniki cheese is prohibited?) Because most calves that are slaughtered there are for idolatry (so that if their stomachs would be used for producing cheese, it prohibits the cheese). (Note: This section (from (g) until (j)) is a repetition of the exact same text that appears at the beginning of the sugya above - daf 34-3(g)-(j)).

R. Yochanan heard this and said, "You have taught us well, Rebbi, as if one slaughters an animal for idolatry, even its excretions are prohibited".

Question (R. Yochanan): If idolaters slaughtered an animal for idolatry and a ring was found in its stomach, is it prohibited to derive benefit from the ring?

Answer (R. Yosi): A ring is different as it is considered separate to the body of the animal; but excretions found in its intestines are prohibited as they are considered part of the animal.

(In the Mishnah earlier (daf 34-3(c)), R. Yishmael said - they said that a Kohen who is not repulsed may 'Sorfah' the stomach (of a burnt offering) raw.) What is the meaning of 'Sorfah'? Gulp it down.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): Why do the Chachamim disagree with R. Yishmael and say that the Kohen may not benefit from the stomach fats but if he did, he is not liable a Meilah offering? It is as if a person drank non-sanctified wine from a used consecrated cup. This shows that a person may not drink from such a cup, but if he did, he is not liable for Meilah.

Question: Why didn't R. Yehoshua reveal to R. Yishmael the real reason for prohibiting cheese of idolaters?

Answer (R. Yochanan): Because they had recently prohibited it (and the Chachamim did not reveal the reasons for a decree within the first 12 months, except to the great scholars) and at that time, R. Yishmael was still considered a junior scholar.

Question (R. Chunia/ R. Chama bar Ukva): (In the Mishnah (daf 34-3(d)), R. Yehoshua changed the subject instead of answering R. Yishmael's question) If that was his intention, why didn't R. Yehoshua discuss the five pesukim in the Torah that have no resolution as to the correct place to put the syntax, (meaning to which side of the sentence a certain word is connected)? They are as follows - Se'es, Arur, Machar, Meshukadim and Kum....

Se'es - Should the pasuk in Bereishis 4:7 be read, "If you do well, it will be carried (forgiven)[Se'es]..." or "...your sin will be carried (by you)(Se'es] if you do not do well"?

Arur - Should the pasuk in Bereishis 49:7 be read, "And in their anger, they killed man and in their will, they cut off a cursed [Arur] ox..." or "...cursed [Arur] is their anger because it was fierce"?

Machar - Should the pasuk in Shemos 17:9 be read, "And Moshe said to Yehoshua, 'Go out and battle Amelek tomorrow [Machar]...'" or " '...tomorrow [Machar] I will stand on the top of the hill'"?

Meshukadim - Should the pasuk in Shemos 25:34 be read, "And the Menorah, four goblets like almond blossoms [Meshukadim]..." or "Made like almond blossoms [Meshukadim](shall be) its knobs and its flowers?

Kum - Should the pasuk in Devarim 31:16 be read, "And Hash-m said to Moshe, 'Behold you are (about to) lie with your fathers and rise up [VeKam]...'" or "...and this people will rise up [VeKam] and go astray"?

R. Tanchuma added this one - should the pasuk in Bereishis 34:7 be read, "And the sons of Yaakov came from the field when they heard [KeShamam]" or "When they heard [KeShamam], the men stood"?

Answer (R. Ila): He instead discussed with him the pasuk (Shir HaShirim 1:2), "Kiss me with the kisses of your lips" - there are things that should not be revealed and should leave the lips closed (in this case referring to the real reason behind the decree against cheese of idolaters.)

(R. Yitzchak): The pasuk states (Devarim 4:14), "And Hash-m commanded me (to teach you...)". It should say 'Osi' (me) and not 'VeOsi' (and...me) - The extra letter 'Vav' teaches that there were some things that were told to me to teach to you and there were some things that were told to me to be kept secret and not reveal.

(R. Shimon ben Chalafta/ R. Chagai citing R. Shmuel bar Nachman): The pasuk (Mishlei 27:26) states, "there will be lambs (Kevasim) for your clothing, and he-goats are the value of the field". (Surely it is lambs-wool or lambs skin that is four your clothing?) The word Kevasim is read as Kevashim, meaning covered.

How is this? When the Torah students are young, cover the words of Torah under your garments and refrain from teaching them things that are beyond their comprehension. When they are older and become like he-goats (in their fluency in learning), reveal to them the secrets of Torah (like a field open to all).

This is a support for that which R. Shimon ben Yochai taught - the pasuk states (Shemos 21:1), "And these are the ordinances that you shall place before them". (The word Tasim (you shall place) is understood here to mean a treasure house. Just as a treasure house is not revealed to just anyone, so you may only teach Torah to upstanding people.

(Mishnah): The following items of idolaters are prohibited to consume but not prohibited to derive benefit -

Milk that was milked by an idolater without a Jew present; their bread and their oil, [although R. Yehuda the Nasi (grandson of Rebbi) and his Beis Din permitted their oil]; their boiled foods and pickled foods into which it is usual to add wine or vinegar; diced Tiryas (a Kasher fish), brine (unless the Kilbis fish swims in it), Chilek (fish that are late to grow fins and scales), a Koret (cut piece) of Chiltis (a spice), and Selonkaris salt.

(Gemara) Question: Why is milk that was milked by an idolater (unsupervised) prohibited?

Answer (R. Ba bar Rav Yehuda/ R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): It is because they are not careful to refrain from leaving it uncovered (Gilui - and there is a concern that a snake came and drank from it and put his venom into it.)

Question: Why not ferment the milk (to make cheese, as milk containing venom will not congeal)?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Because of the venom that might remain between the holes of the cheese.

Support (Beraisa): There are three types of venom; one floats, one sinks and one rises to near the top.

Once there were laborers in a field. A jug of water was left uncovered. The first group of laborers that drank from it did not die, but the second group of laborers who drank from it died. I say that because it was the venom of a young snake, it sank to the bottom of the jug, so it did not damage the first laborers.

In the days of R. Yirmiyah, a barrel of water of the Beis HaMidrash HaGadol was left uncovered. The earlier people that drank from it did not die, but the later ones died. I say that it was because it was venom that sinks (from a young snake).

Support (Tosefta in Maseches Terumos): (To support the law that if an item was left uncovered and people ate/drank from it and were not damaged, it is still prohibited to eat/drink from it after that - ) If a watermelon was found to have a hole (and there is concern that a snake left his venom in it) and ten people ate from it and were not damaged; similarly, if wine was left uncovered and ten people drank from it and were not damaged, it is prohibited to eat and drink from the remainders, as I am concerned that it was venom that sinks.

(R. Yirmiyah): (Disagreeing with (e) above) Why is milk from an idolater prohibited? Because he might have mixed it with milk from a non-Kasher animal.

Support (Tosefta): If a Jew sits at a distance, an idolater may milk and bring him the milk (to drink) without concern (as he can see if there is a non-Kasher animal there.) (If the reason for the prohibition is that it might have been left uncovered, it would be prohibited since the Jew cannot see if it was left uncovered.)

(R. Yaakov bar Acha citing R. Yonasan): (Concerning the bread of idolaters that was prohibited) The permission to eat an idolater's bread came with Imum (confusion). What was the conclusion of the Sages in this matter? When a Jew's bread is available, one should not buy an idolater's bread, but the Sages then permitted it;

Or is it that when there is no Jew's bread available, idolater's bread should be permitted, but they then prohibited it...?

Question (R. Mana): Is there such a thing as Imum that prohibits? (The term is only ever used to mean that they permitted it!)

Answer: Doesn't bread have the same rules as Tavshilei Nochrim (foods cooked by gentiles) - do we say that in a place where foods cooked by Jews are not available, the foods cooked by gentiles are permitted? And in a state of confusion, they prohibited it. (So we do find that Imum can prohibit!) (Note: Several words were added to the text here by the Pnei Moshe, from Maseches Shabbos.)

Rather, when Jewish baked bread is not available, the bread of gentiles should be prohibited, but in a state of Imum, they permitted it because of the concern for starvation.

(Rabbanan of Kisarin citing R. Yaakov bar Acha): We follow the lenient opinion, as long it is bakers' bread (rather than a private individual's bread, who might have used non-Kasher ingredients); but the people do not follow this limitation.

(Beraisa said before R. Chiya the Great): R. Shimon ben Yochai said - the pasuk states concerning the children of Esav (Devarim 2:6), "You shall buy food from them with money, that you may eat (and also water you shall buy from them with money, that you may drink). Just as water, that does not change through heating with fire, may be consumed if heated by the gentiles; so too any food that does not change through heating with fire, may be consumed if heated by gentiles.

Question (R. Chiya the Great from a Tosefta): 'Parsley, flax and fenugreek seeds that are soaked in lukewarm water; caper flowers, leeks, roasted wheat grains and their hot water are all permitted for a Jew to consume.' All of these cases are understandable, as the gentile's cooking is not significant since one could soak them in water and they would return to the way they were before cooking. However, as for the roasted wheat grains, why are they permitted (if their roasting is irreversible)?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Rav): Any food that is eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by a gentile (if it is cooked).

Something that is eaten with bread is included in the prohibition.

Question: How does R. Chiya the Great (who did not agree with the interpretation of R. Shimon ben Yochai above) understand the pasuk (Devarim 2:6), "You shall buy food from them..."? If you can appease the children of Esav by feeding them, you should do so, and if they still have bad intentions against you, appease them with money.

They said that R. Yonasan would do this - whenever he saw a senior official arriving in the city, he would send him a gift to honor him, so that if a case involving an orphan or widow would come before the official, R. Yonasan would then be able to appease him.