Midrash su Salmi 119:11

“…for your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). We learned there (Mishna Avoda Zara 2:5): Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua as they were walking on the way: ‘Why did [the Sages] prohibit the cheese of the gentiles?’ [Rabbi Yehoshua] said to him: ‘Because they curdle it with the stomach contents of an animal carcass.’ He said to [Rabbi Yehoshua]: ‘But are the stomach contents of a burnt offering not more stringent than the stomach contents of an animal carcass, yet they said that a priest who is broad minded¹⁰⁹He is not particular about what he eats. swallows it raw.’ What is, swallows it raw? He gulps it down. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They rendered it like a tainted cup; he may not benefit, but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated items.¹¹⁰Thus, if one eats the stomach contents of a consecrated animal, one is not liable for misuse of a consecrated item. This proves that it is not considered a food item, therefore its consumption is not a normal act of eating. Similarly, the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass should not be considered a food item, and should not render the cheese non-kosher. [Rabbi Yishmael] said to him:¹¹¹In the mishna, this is stated as a response to a second explanation given by Rabbi Yehoshua for the prohibition of eating the cheese of gentiles: They curdle it in the stomach contents of animals that have been slaughtered as an idolatrous sacrifice. ‘If so, why did they not prohibit benefit from it?’ [Rabbi Yehoshua] diverted his attention to another matter. He said to him: ‘Yishmael, my brother, how do you read it? For Your love [dodekha] is better than wine, or your love [dodayikh] [is better] than wine?’¹¹²Do you think that the term “your love” is stated in the masculine form [dodekha], indicating that it is being stated by the woman, representing Israel, to the man, representing God, or is it stated in the feminine form [dodayikh], indicating that it is stated by the man, representing God, to the woman, representing Israel. Rabbi Yishmael answered that it is vocalized dodayikh, in the feminine. He said to him: ‘The matter is not so, as its counterpart teaches in its regard: “Your oils [shemanekha] have a goodly fragrance”’ (Song of Songs 1:3).¹¹³Just as this verse is in the masculine, so, too, the previous verse, which is the verse under discussion, is also in the masculine.
Why did he not reveal it to him?¹¹⁴Why did he divert his attention rather than answering his question? Rabbi Yonatan said: It is because they had prohibited it only recently,¹¹⁵When the Sages issue a decree, for the first year they do not reveal the reason behind it, so that people will accept the decree without questioning its rationale. and Rabbi Yishmael was young. Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta and Rabbi Ḥagai in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman [said]: It is written: “Lambs [kevasim] will be for your garments” (Proverbs 27:26). Kevashim, concealed items, is written.¹¹⁶The word, as written, can be read either kevasim or kevashim. When your students are young, conceal matters of Torah from them. When they grow and become Torah scholars, reveal the secrets of Torah to them. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai taught: “These are the ordinances that you shall place [tasim] before them” (Exodus 21:1), just as this treasure [sima] is not revealed to every person, the same is true of matters of Torah.
Rav Huna raised a question and Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva posed a difficulty:¹¹⁷Some suggest that the text should read: Rav Huna, citing Rabbi Hama bar Ukva, posed a difficulty (Etz Yosef). If he sought to divert him, he should have diverted him from the five verses in the Torah that require resolution.¹¹⁸In each of these cases there are two phrases, and it is unclear whether a particular word which appears at the border of the two belongs to the first or second phrase. These are they: “se’et” (Genesis 4:7); “cursed” (Genesis 49:7);¹¹⁹Does “cursed” belong to the previous verse: “And with their will they hamstrung an ox that is cursed” or does it belong to the beginning of this verse: “Cursed is their wrath, as it is fierce”? “tomorrow” (Exodus 17:9);¹²⁰Is it “Go out and battle Amalek tomorrow” or is it “Tomorrow I will stand at the top of the hill”? “crafted like almonds” (Exodus 25:34);¹²¹Is it “four cups crafted like almonds,” or is it “like almonds are its knobs and flowers”? “arise” (Deuteronomy 31:16).¹²²Is it “you will lie with your ancestors and arise,” or is it “this people will arise and it will stray”? Is it, “if you do well you will receive forgiveness [se’et],” or is it “you will bear your sin [se’et] if you do not do well”? Rabbi Tanḥuma said: I have another: “The sons of Jacob came from the field when they heard” or “when they heard [the men were saddened] and they came from the field” (Genesis 34:7). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: It is written: “And the Lord commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:14); there are matters that He said to me myself, and there are matters that He told me to say to my children.¹²³Some matters of Torah are meant to publicized to all, and others are meant to be communicated only to those who are worthy. Rabbi Eila said: There are matters that one seals [meshikin]¹²⁴This is derived from yishakeni. Rabbi Yehoshua raised this verse to Rabbi Yishmael in order to allude to the fact that not everything is meant to be publicized (Matnot Kehuna). in one’s mouth.
How so? One verse says: “I store Your saying in my heart, so as not to sin against You” (Psalms 119:11), and one verse says: “With My lips I have recounted all the ordinances of Your mouth” (Psalms 119:13). In what sense can both these verses coexist? Rather, as long as Ira HaYa’iri, David’s mentor, was alive, “I store Your saying in my heart”; when he departed, “with my lips I have recounted.”¹²⁵David did not publicize halakhic matters during the lifetime of his teacher because a disciple is prohibited from issuing halakhic rulings in the presence of his teacher (Eruvin 63a).

(Fol. 63a) Rabina, while sitting before R. Ashi observed a man tying an ass to a tree on the Sabbath. Rabina admonished the man but the latter paid no attention to him, whereupon Rabina said: "Thou art under ban for this." Rabina then said to R. Ashi: "Can this action of mine be regarded as disgraceful?" [Because I have done it in the presence of you, my teacher.] R. Ashi answered: "There us no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord (Pr. 21, 30), i.e., whenever the desecration of the name of the Lord is threatened, no regard must be paid to a teacher." Raba said: "In the presence of his teacher, it is prohibited [for a disciple to decide a legal question] and it involves capital punishment; but in the absence of his teacher [if a disciple does so] it is, of course, prohibited but no capital punishment is involved." And in the absence of his teacher, you say, it does not involve capital punishment. Behold! It is taught that R. Elazar says: "The sons of Aaron did not die for any other sin than that they decided questions of law in the presence of their teacher, Moses. What verse did they interpret? [without asking Moses their teacher:] And the sons of Aaron the priest, shall put fire upon the latter (Lev. 1, 7). Thus they said to themselves: 'Although fire is to descend from heaven [upon the altar], it is nevertheless, a virtuous act to bring common fire.'" There was a disciple of R. Elazar. who decided legal questions in the presence of the latter. Whereupon R. Elazar said unto Ema Salmon, his wife: "I wonder if this disciple will live through this year." And the disciple died within that year. So his wife said to R. Elazar: "Art thou a prophet?" "Neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet," was his answer, "but I have a tradition that whoever decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher is guilty of capital punishment." And Rabba b. Chana said that this disciple was Juda b. Guriah and he was three miles away from his teacher, R. Elazar. [Hence it shows that even in the absence of his teacher, deciding legal questions involves capital punishment.'] It was in his teacher's presence. But R. Jachanan said he was three miles away from his teacher! And according to your own opinion [is there not an objection to be raised]? Wherefore was it necessary to state the disciple's name and his father's name? We must say (that these names are given) that we should not construe the above story as a mere parable. [Therefore it stated all the facts and it was indeed decided in the presence of R. Elazar.] R. Chiya b. Abba, in the name of R. Jochanan, said: "Whoever decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher, deserves to be bitten by a serpent, for it is said (Job 32, 6.) And Elihu, the son of Barachel, the Buzite, commenced, and said: 'Young am I in days, and ye are very old; therefore I hesitated and feared to show you what I Icnoiv.' It is written here vachalei (I feared). and it is written there (Deu. 32. 24.) With the power of serpents (Zochalei) that crawl in the dust." R. Zera said in the name of R. Chanina: "He is to be called sinner, as it is said (Ps. 119, 11.) In my heart have I treasured up thy saying, in order that I may not sin against thee." R. Humnuna raised the following contradictory point: "It is written (Ib.) In my heart, have I treasured up thy saying, and it is written (Ib. 40, 10.) I announce Thy righteousness in the great assembly"; and he himself explained it: "The former was said when Ira, the Yairite [his teacher], was living, [therefore David did not teach others]; and the latter refers to the time when Ira, the Yairite, was dead." R. Abba b. Zabda said: "He who sends his [priestly] gifts unto one priest will bring a famine into the world, for it is said (II Sam. 20, 26.) and Ira, the Yairite, was a priest unto David, etc. Was he a priest unto David only? Behold he was a priest unto all Israel also! We must therefore say that it means 'All the priestly gifts were given unto him by David, and immediately following this it is written (Ib. 21, 1.) And there was a famine for three years in the days of David." R. Elazar said: "He [who decides a legal question in the presence of his teacher] will be deposed from his honorable position, as it is said (Num. 31, 21.) And Elazar, the priest, said unto the men of the army," etc. And although he said that the law was taught to his uncle and not to him, still he was deposed from his honorable position, as it is written (Ib. 27, 28.) And before Elazar, the priest, shall he (Joshua) stand and he shall ask of him after the Judgment of the Urim before the Lord, etc. We, however, do not find an instance where Joshua ever availed himself of Elazar's help."