Talmud sobre Cantares 1:3

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses²⁸¹They were forbidden in Mishnah 6 for all usufruct without any obvious reason.? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver²⁸²The rennet is taken from the stomach contents of cattle killed by Gentiles and therefore automatically have the status of cadavers. Since the rennet causes the milk to curdle, its addition cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore one understands that the cheeses are forbidden as food. Since the rennet is produced from an animal and cheese (including kosher cheese made by Jews) is made by cooking milk with rennet, it could be forbidden for all usufruct as meat cooked in milk following R. Simeon ben Ioḥai (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Masekhta deKaspa20).. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering²⁸³An elevation offering is burned completely on the altar. The stomach contents (and the contents of its intestines) are not burned; the innards have to be washed before being put on the altar (Lev. 1:9). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw²⁸⁴The Cohen may eat the stomach contents raw since they are considered excrement; the rennet therefore cannot be considered meat and the Gentile’s cheese should be permitted even as food! For the expression “to burn” for “to slurp” see Note 321.; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct²⁸⁵While the previous statement is essentially correct there is a (customary or rabbinic) rule that it would not be decorous to do so; one refrains from using any part of the animal (except the hide given to the priests, Lev. 7:8) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny²⁸⁶As a rule of biblical law. Therefore Gentiles’ cheese could at most be rabbinically forbidden..
He³⁰³R. Joshua. gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He³⁰⁴R. Ismael. retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct²⁸⁹Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.? He³⁰³R. Joshua. deflected him to an other subject³⁰⁵As the Babli explains, since it was a new purely rabbinic restriction introduced after the destruction of the Temple, he did not want to disclose the reason. and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine³⁰⁶Cant. 1:2. Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.”? He³⁰⁴R. Ismael. told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He³⁰³R. Joshua. answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils³⁰⁷Cant. 1:3. As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you. Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male.
The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant. 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth, it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine.
R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil.
As mentioned in Note 306, any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67)..