Avodah Zarah 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

By inference

you learn that the status of excrement is not the same as that of the animal itself,

in the case of items prohibited for benefit,

such as a burnt-offering and an ox sentenced to be stoned, which are prohibited for benefit,

their excrement is permitted.

Its excrement is permitted!

2. And the prohibition for benefit of the excrement in the stomach of a calf used for idolatry is learned from this:

And from the fact that he said to him,

from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael that the reason for the prohibition of gentile cheese is

because they curdle it

with the stomachs of calves used for idolatry, and he replied to him

and Rabbi Yishmael answered him—

If so, why did they not prohibit it for benefit

but only for consumption?

By inference

we learn from Rabbi Yishmael’s question

that in the case of idolatry—

its excrement is prohibited;

its excrement is prohibited, and indeed it should be prohibited for benefit!

The Gemara now discusses their dispute:

And let him reply to him:

Why did Rabbi Yehoshua not answer him that the reason they did not prohibit it for benefit is

because the prohibited substance is not present as such,

as the prohibited substance is neither extant nor recognizable?

For

indeed,

fish-brine, according to

the opinion of

the Sages, who did not prohibit it for benefit—

what is the reason

that they did not prohibit it— is it not

because the prohibited substance is not present as such,

that is, because the prohibition—meaning the gentile wine mixed into the fish-brine—is not present as such? And likewise here, since the prohibited substance—meaning the excrement contained in the stomach of the animal carcass—is not present as such, but has become mixed with the cheese, should it not therefore be permitted?

They said

in explanation:

Here,

here,

since it serves to effect the curdling,

as the excrement causes the cheese to set and curdle, its trace is recognizable,

it is considered

to be considered

as though the prohibited substance is present as such,

as though the prohibited substance remains extant. Therefore, this excrement is to be prohibited for benefit, like idolatry.

The Gemara continues by bringing and discussing the continuation of our Mishna:

He directed him

Rabbi Yehoshua

to another matter,

and asked him: How do you interpret the verse (Song of Songs 1:2), “For your love is better than wine”?

The Gemara discusses this:

What

is the meaning of the verse

“For your love is better than wine”?

And it explains:

When

when

Rav Dimi

came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the Universe, the words of your beloved ones

the words of the Sages and scribes

are more pleasing to me

than the essence

of the Torah

written in the Written Torah.” This is the interpretation of the verse.

The Gemara asks:

What is different

what distinction is there concerning

this verse

this verse

that he asked him about it,

that Rabbi Yehoshua asked him specifically about it?

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say

and some say that

Rabbi Shimon bar Ami

said this:

He said it to him from the beginning of the verse.

From the beginning of that verse, Rabbi Yehoshua intended to convey his message to Rabbi Yishmael. And this is what he said to him:

It is stated (Song of Songs 1:2):

“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth,

for your love is better than wine.”

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him:

Rabbi Yishmael,

my brother, press

tightly

your lips together, and do not hasten to answer;

do not begin raising objections!

What is the reason

that Rabbi Yehoshua said this to him?

Ulla said, and some say

that Rav Shmuel bar Abba said this:

It is a new decree

to prohibit gentile cheese,

and one does not question it.

The Gemara explains:

What is the decree?

For what reason was the decree enacted to prohibit gentile cheese?

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

The reason for the decree is

because of

the concern of

snakebite,

that perhaps a snake bit this cheese.

But if so,

let him say to him

Rabbi Yehoshua should have said to Rabbi Yishmael that the reason for the prohibition of the cheese is

because of snakebite.

The answer is: The reason Rabbi Yehoshua did not explain the reason for the decree is

as Ulla said.

For Ulla said: When they enacted decrees in the West,

when they enacted a decree in Eretz Yisrael,

they did not reveal its reason

they would not reveal its reason

until twelve months had passed,

until twelve months of the year had elapsed from the time the decree was enacted, because

perhaps there is someone who does not accept the reason,

perhaps there are people who do not accept the reasoning of the decree,

and they will come

and might

treat it lightly

by treating

it

with contempt.

He disparaged it

Rabbi Yirmeya raised the following objection:

If so,

since the reason for the enactment is concern that a snake may have bitten gentile cheese,

let dry cheese be permitted

let it be permitted,

and likewise

aged

old cheese—

let it be permitted

let it be permitted?

Because

Rabbi Ḥanina said:

An item that was exposed, and concerning which there is concern that a snake may have eaten from it and injected its venom into it, if it becomes

dry, it is permitted

for consumption. For if there were venom in it,

the venom would not

the venom

allow it to become dry.

And since it became dry, it is evident that it never contained venom.

Likewise, wine or beer that was

aged

and had been exposed when it was new is

permitted

to drink. For the venom

does not allow it

the wine

to age

to mature, but spoils it.

Accordingly, dry or aged cheese should be permitted, since there is no concern of snakebite in its case?!

Rabbi Ḥanina said:

Because it is impossible

for cheese

without

there being among the cavities of the cheese

traces of milk,

residue from the milk. And it is possible that while preparing the cheese, the gentile mixed impure milk into it, which did not curdle and is what remains in it. Therefore, gentile cheese is prohibited.

And Shmuel said:

The reason gentile cheese is prohibited is

because they curdle it with the hide of the stomach of an animal carcass.

The hide of the stomach is not excrement; rather, it is part of the body of the carcass, and it curdles the milk placed inside it into cheese.

Tosafot raised the difficulty: Even if they curdled it not with the stomach of an animal carcass but with the stomach of a properly slaughtered kosher animal, should the cheese not be prohibited because of meat and milk? They answered that in this manner, the prohibition of meat and milk is only rabbinic, since both the cheese and the stomach are cold. The Torah prohibition applies only through hot cooking. By contrast, curdling cheese with the stomach of an animal carcass involves a Torah prohibition. Therefore, the Mishna specifically states that they curdle it with the stomach of a carcass (and the Ritva likewise cited this answer in the name of the Raavad). Rabbi Yosef Migash answered (as cited by the early authorities; see Sefer HaMaor and others) that the prohibition of meat and milk applies only when the meat imparts flavor to the milk. If it does not impart flavor, they are not considered to have become mixed with one another. The Gemara proves from here, according to Shmuel:

This

the contents of

the stomach itself,

that is, the milk contained inside it,

is permitted

and permitted. Since according to Shmuel the only way it becomes prohibited is when the cheese is curdled with the stomach hide,

the Gemara is astonished:

But did

does

Shmuel say this,

that the milk contained in the stomach is permitted, and is merely an excretion and therefore permitted?

But we learned

we learned in tractate Hullin (116a):

The stomach of a gentile, and

the stomach

of an animal carcass—this is prohibited.

And we discussed it: Is it so

that the stomach

of a gentile is not itself a carcass?

And

concerning this

Shmuel said:

This does not state two separate laws; rather,

one

law

is taught

here, namely:

The stomach

of an animal slaughtered by

the slaughter of a gentile

the stomach is

a carcass

and

prohibited.

If so, we see that according to Shmuel the stomach of a carcass is prohibited. How, then, did Shmuel permit it here?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult: