We come to the seventh mishnah of the second chapter of Maseches Avodah Zarah, the final mishnah of the chapter. After the previous mishnayos listed items that the Sages prohibited, our mishnah lists items that one might have thought were included in the decree, and nevertheless "eilu mutarin ba'achilah" - these are permitted to be eaten, and there is no rabbinic prohibition upon them.
The permitted items listed in the mishnah:
"chalav shechalavo oved kochavim v'Yisrael ro'ehu" - milk that a non-Jew milked from a cow, a goat or a sheep, while a Jew stood nearby and could have seen him had he wanted to. That is enough for the milk to be considered kosher, and there is no concern here of chalav akum.
"v'hadvash" - bee honey, as the term means throughout the mishnah. One might have been concerned about bishul akum, since in order to extract and refine the honey the non-Jews would cook the honey or the honeycomb in a pot. However, the law of bishul akum does not apply to a food that is eaten raw as it is, and honey is eaten raw and requires no cooking. And even if flavors from the pot were absorbed into it, those flavors impart a spoiled taste, and they are not enough to prohibit it.
"v'hadivyos, af al pi shemenatfin" - the Bartenura brings two explanations here:
Honeycombs, and even though honey drips from them, we are not concerned that wine of non-Jews became mixed into them.
Grapes that ripened excessively, with juice dripping from them. One might have been concerned about this liquid on account of yayin nesech, since grape juice too is included in the prohibition. However, this is not actual wine, but rather a sort of juice dripping from the grapes, which has not yet reached the stage of production at which it is considered wine fit to be poured as a libation to idolatry. Therefore the grapes and the juice dripping from them are permitted.
"Ein bahen mishum hechsher mashkeh":
Here the mishnah adds an incidental note: the liquid that drips, whether from the grapes or from the beehive, does not render the fruit susceptible to tumah. In brief: for a food to become susceptible to tumah, it must be moistened by one of the seven liquids (the mnemonic: yud-dalet, shin-ches-tes, dalet-mem), and one of them is wine - the yud of "yad". But there is a condition, in the language of the verse "v'chi yutan", that the moistening be with the owner's consent: either that he placed them there intentionally, or that he is pleased that they became wet. But if he does not want this moistening, it is not considered a moistening that renders the food susceptible.
And since the juice dripping from the grapes is not to a person's liking - he wants the grapes to remain as juicy as possible, or at the very least that the juice be collected for making wine - this dripping is not included in "v'chi yutan", and therefore the grapes are not rendered susceptible to tumah. That is the end of the incidental note.
The continuation of the permitted items in the laws of kashrus:
"uchvashin she'ein darkan la'asos l'sochan yayin v'chometz" - pickled foods: carrots, onions, cucumbers, tomatoes and the like. As long as the recipe does not normally call for adding wine or vinegar in the pickling process - and sometimes they pickle in salt water alone - there is no reason to assume that vinegar was added, which comes from wine and would disqualify the food. And since we have no indication of this before us, the pickled produce may be eaten, even though it was pickled by a non-Jew.
"v'taris she'einah t'rufah" - the previous mishnah taught about taris t'rufah, that is, fish cut into small pieces. Taris is a type of fish, and when it is chopped up there is a concern that pieces of non-kosher fish, unrecognizable to the eye, became mixed in among the pieces. But when the pieces are large and not chopped, and the head and the spine are recognizable, one can identify it as taris, and taris is kosher. And even though the fins and scales are not visible, it is enough that the fish is recognizable without them - similar to salmon in our times, whose form is distinctive and which can be identified even without the skin that bears the scales and fins.
"v'tzir sheyesh bah dagah" - tzir is the liquid that comes out of fish. The previous mishnah mentioned the kilbis fish, which normally survives in brine only when the brine comes from kosher fish, whereas brine of non-kosher fish kills it. It turns out that a kilbis swimming in the brine serves as a sign and a detector of its kosher status, and therefore the brine may be eaten.
"v'aleh shel chiltis" - one that has not been cut. Chiltis is a spice, and it can be obtained even nowadays; it is used in Mediterranean cooking and in Yemenite cooking, and it is sharp. Because of its sharpness, when it is cut there is a concern of absorption, as explained in the previous mishnah. But with a whole piece that was not cut there is no room for this concern, and therefore one may accept it from a non-Jew and eat it.
"v'zeisim gluskaos hamegulgalin" - the expression refers to clumps of olives pressed together in order to soften them and extract their oil. A "gluska" is a sort of roll, a baked good, and "megulgalin" means that they were rolled together until they softened. One might have thought that their great softness came from wine that was added to them, and if the non-Jew did this, there is a concern of yayin nesech. The mishnah says that there is no need for this concern: the olives softened on their own, from having stood for a long time and beginning to break down, until they can be pressed.
"Rabbi Yosei omer: hashluchin asurin" - if the olives are so soft that the pits slip and slide out of them ("shluchin" from the root meaning sending out or expelling), one must wonder how they became so soft, and be concerned that it was done by means of wine. According to Rabbi Yosei, then, these olives are prohibited.
"Hachagavim haba'im min hasulalah asurin, min hahefsek mutarin":
There are kosher species of locusts, and although we have no tradition identifying them, by strict law they may be purchased and eaten, and locusts for eating are sold in markets even today. The concern is this: in order to make the locusts look fresh, moist and plump, the non-Jewish seller is liable to add some of his wine to them.
Therefore the mishnah distinguished: those that come from the "sulalah", the small basket in which the seller keeps a quantity sufficient for a single day's sales, are prohibited - for we must be concerned that he added wine to them to plump them up. But those that come "min hahefsek", from the large storehouse where thousands of locusts are kept, are permitted: a merchant does not add wine to a large quantity sitting in storage, since over time it would grow moldy, become foul and spoil. And since there is no concern that wine was added to a large quantity, one may buy locusts from the place where they are kept in large quantities.
"V'chein liTerumah":
This case is entirely different: it deals with a kohen who is not upright, who is suspected of selling Terumah while passing it off as ordinary produce. The kohen receives the Terumah for free, but on the open market it is not worth much, since the demand is small - only a kohen may buy it. If he sells it as ordinary produce, everyone will come to buy it and it will fetch the full market price. But the severity of the matter is great, for a non-kohen who eats Terumah is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, and in this respect Terumah is more stringent even than pork.
The Sages therefore imposed a penalty on kohanim who are not upright: the entire stock of food that such a kohen sells while claiming it is ordinary produce - the court has the power to declare it ownerless, under the principle that a declaration of the court renders property ownerless, and in effect his whole stock is confiscated. Accordingly, with a small quantity the kohen may be willing to take the risk, since if he is caught his loss is minimal, and therefore one may not buy from him and rely on his claim that the food is ordinary produce. But when he sells from a large stock, he can be believed: were he to be caught and it became clear that he had sold Terumah, his entire enormous stock would be declared ownerless and lost to him, a loss far too great to risk. It emerges that with Terumah the rule is reversed: from a small quantity one may not buy, while from sources that hold large quantities it is permitted.