The Gemara elaborates: But isn’t it taught in the baraita, as it was interpreted above: Like the signs of bird eggs, so are the signs of fish roe? Apparently, the baraita assumes that non-kosher fish roe exists. The Gemara answers: Didn’t you yourself find it necessary to explain and reinterpret the baraita, as it cannot be understood according to its straightforward meaning? Rabbi Dostai can also explain the baraita so that it effectively reads: Like the signs of bird eggs, so are the signs of fish intestines. Accordingly, the baraita never actually mentions fish roe at all.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But where do you find that one of the signs of fish intestines is that they must be round and pointed? The Gemara answers: You find this with regard to the swim bladder of a fish, which is considered to be kosher if it is shaped like a kosher egg.

The Gemara asks: If there is no expert there, and one cannot determine whether or not the fish roe is kosher, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda says that once the seller says: I salted the fish from which this roe came and they were kosher, the roe is permitted. Rav Naḥman says: The roe is prohibited until the seller shows kosher fish to the buyer and says: These are the fish, and these are their intestines. That is, the roe is permitted only if the seller can present the fish that produced it. The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda instructed Adda, his attendant: Once the seller says: I salted them, they are permitted.

§ The mishna teaches: And the leaf of a ḥiltit plant is permitted. The Gemara asks: Since the previous mishna (35b) prohibited a sliver of ḥiltit only due to the concern that it might have been sliced with a non-kosher knife, isn’t it obvious that a leaf, which has not been sliced, is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this only with regard to the slivers of ḥiltit that might be found on the leaf, lest you say that one should be concerned that perhaps a gentile might bring slivers sliced with a non-kosher knife and mix it with the slivers on the leaf. The mishna therefore teaches us that it is assumed that the slivers on the leaf had stuck to it and came off with the plant when it was pulled from the ground.

§ The mishna teaches: And rolled olive cakes. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that these are permitted? For what reason might they be prohibited? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they are permitted even though they are very soft. Lest you say that there is a concern that they softened because a gentile placed wine in them, the mishna therefore teaches us that these olives have softened due to the oil they possess.

§ The mishna further teaches: And Rabbi Yosei says: Overripe olives are prohibited. The Gemara asks: What are overripe olives like? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: This is referring to any olive that if one grasps it in his hand, its pit slips out, due to the softness of the olive.

§ The mishna teaches: Locusts that come from a salesman’s basket are prohibited while those that come from the storeroom are permitted. The Sages taught in a baraita: Locusts, and caper buds, and leeks [kaflotot] that come from the storehouse, and from the storeroom, and from a gentile’s ship are all permitted. Those that are sold in the market [bekatluza] from baskets that are in front of the storekeeper are prohibited, because it is assumed that the gentile storekeeper sprinkles wine upon them. And similarly, with regard to apple wine that belongs to gentiles: Those that come from the storehouse or from the storeroom or from a salesman’s basket are permitted. Apple wine that is sold in the market is prohibited, because they mix grape wine of gentiles in it.

The Gemara cites a relevant incident: The Sages taught: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi felt discomfort in his stomach and knew that apple wine would alleviate it. He said: Isn’t there any person who knows whether apple wine of gentiles is prohibited or permitted? Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei said before him: Once my father felt discomfort in his stomach and they brought him apple wine of gentiles that was seventy years old, and he drank it and was cured. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You had so much knowledge in your hand that could have relieved me, and yet you caused me to suffer by withholding it until now.

They checked and found one gentile who had three hundred large jugs of apple wine that was seventy years old, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi drank from it and was cured. He said: Blessed is the Omnipresent who delivered His universe to keepers. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi thanked God for causing the gentile to keep the wine for seventy years so that it could be used to heal him.

§ The mishna further teaches: And likewise with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: And likewise with regard to teruma? Rav Sheshet says: This means: And likewise the same halakha applies to a priest who is suspected of selling teruma, which is less expensive, as non-sacred food. It is only when the food is in front of the priest that it is prohibited; but food that comes from the storehouse or from the storeroom or from a salesman’s basket is permitted. The reason is that the priest is fearful, because he thinks to himself: If I sell teruma in public, the Sages will hear of it and deprive me of all my wares.

May we return to you chapter “One may not place”

MISHNA: All statues are forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from them, because they are worshipped at least once a year; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The only type of statue that is forbidden is any statue that has in its hand a staff, or a bird, or an orb, as these are indications that this statue is designated for idolatry. If the statue is holding a different item, it may be assumed that the statue was fashioned for ornamental purposes and not for worship. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is prohibited to derive benefit even from any statue that has any item whatsoever in its hand.

GEMARA: If it is true that the statues to which Rabbi Meir is referring are worshipped at least once a year, what is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit deriving benefit from them? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In Rabbi Meir’s locale, people would worship statues once a year. And therefore, Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one must be concerned for a minority occurrence (see Yevamot 61b), issued a decree that statues are forbidden even in other places, due to that locale where people would worship statues. And the Rabbis, by contrast, who do not maintain that one must be concerned for a minority occurrence, did not issue a decree that statues are forbidden even in other places due to that locale.

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: We learned that this dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to the statues [be’andartei] of kings. Rabbi Meir decreed that they are forbidden as perhaps they were designated for worship. The Rabbis assumed that they were designed for ornamental purposes, not for worship. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And furthermore, we learned that the dispute is only with regard to statues that stand at the entrance to the region. Since these statues were erected in an important location, there is concern that they are worshipped.