The Eddie D. Sitt Edition is an audio series dedicated to the study of the תלמוד בבלי, specifically focusing on דף ל"ה. Today's daf is being studied לעילוי נשמת אברהם בן אסתר, and we pray that רוח השם תניחנו בגן עדן. Additionally, we dedicate this study for the רפואה שלמה of ניקי בן ג'יימי, asking אל נא רפא נא לו for both the healing of the soul and the body.
As we delve into today's daf, we begin with the discussion on the phrase “וליהדר ליה.” This section appears in the context of the תודות, and we are positioned about five lines down from the top of the page. Previously, we learned that the משנה states that גבינת גויים is אסור due to the use of the stomach of calves that were used for עבודה זרה. Since עבודה זרה is אסור בהנאה, the cheese made from the קיבה of this עבודה זרה is also forbidden. This foundational reason brings us to a question posed by רבי ישמעאל. He inquires why the משנה only states that it is forbidden to eat, rather than also declaring it אסור בהנאה. If the prohibition stems from עבודה זרה, it should extend to all forms of benefit.
Rabi Yehoshua does not provide an answer, indicating that he accepts the challenge posed by רבי ישמעאל. The גמרא then asks, “וליהדר ליה,” suggesting that he should respond to the question regarding the absence of an איסור בהנאה. The reason given is that the איסור is not evident; when one looks at a piece of cheese, the קיבה of the עבודה זרה is not visible. This leads to a precedent that when an איסור is not visible, the רבנן did not impose a prohibition.
For example, the מוריס fish, which was used by the עובדי כוכבים, contained wine, yet the רבנן prohibited it only from eating and not from benefit, as the wine was not apparent. The same reasoning applies to גבינת גויים; since the קיבה is mixed into the cheese, it is not visible, and therefore, the prohibition should not extend to benefit. Rabi Yehoshua could have simply stated that the איסור only applies when the forbidden item is evident, but since the matter is דרבנן, even the איסור הנאה of עבודה זרה could be limited to situations where the forbidden element is visible.
However, the גמרא articulates a distinction. It states that since the קיבה serves as a congealing agent, it is considered as if it is present in the cheese. When the cheese is made, the קיבה is integral to its formation; thus, it is treated as if it is visible. Consequently, Rabi Yehoshua could not dismiss the concern that it is not אסור בהנאה.
This leads to a significant shift in the conversation. Rabi Yehoshua, avoiding the direct question, diverts to a discussion about שיר השירים. He asks רבי ישמעאל about a verse, “כי טובים דודיך מיין,” and engages him in a different topic altogether. This change suggests that he did not want to divulge the true reason for the prohibition of גבינת גויים. The גמרא then seeks to understand why he shifted the discussion and why he refrained from explaining the prohibition.
The גמרא notes that Rabi Yehoshua’s diversion relates to a verse that emphasizes the sweetness of the words of the sages over even the wine of the תורה. This reflects the value placed on the תקנות of the חכמים, which serve to protect the laws of the תורה. The sweetness of the words of the חכמים is likened to the preservation of wine, ensuring that the laws do not become spoiled or neglected.
Ultimately, the גמרא raises the question of why Rabi Yehoshua chose this particular verse as a diversion. The answer given is that he was initially addressing the sweetness of the Torah and the importance of the wisdom of the חכמים. By emphasizing this sweetness, he underscores the value of the תקנות, which are meant to safeguard the integrity of the תורה.
As the discussion unfolds, the גמרא explores various reasons for the prohibition of גבינת גויים. One reason offered is the concern of ניקור, where the cheese is left uncovered, potentially allowing a snake to introduce its venom into the mixture. The גמרא later questions why Rabi Yehoshua did not simply state this reason when pressed by רבי ישמעאל. The answer suggests that it was a new גזירה, and the rationale for a new prohibition should not be disclosed to the public until it has been firmly established.
In conclusion, the complexities surrounding the prohibition of גבינת גויים highlight the intricate balance between halachic rulings and the wisdom of the sages. The discussions reflect a deep engagement with the text and a commitment to preserving the integrity of Jewish law. As we reflect on these teachings, we recognize the importance of both the explicit laws and the protective measures instituted by the חכמים to ensure the sanctity of our practices.