According to the one who says that when a gentile learns Torah he is stealing, what has he actually stolen from anyone?

Rav Yaakov Emden (Yaavetz): The Gemara is discussing a gentile who expounds the Torah and reveals previously unclear insights. Since these insights were intended to be revealed through a Jew, but the gentile revealed them before the Jew had the opportunity to do so, he is viewed as having taken something that was designated for Yisrael and is therefore considered a thief.

HaGriz Soloveitchik cited in 'Pirurim MiShulchan Gavoah' Parshas VeZos haBrachah (33:4): There is a conceptual difference between the prohibition of theft for a Jew and for a gentile. For a Jew, theft means taking property away from another person - i.e. a Cheftza-based (object-focused) infringement, in classic Brisker terminology. For a gentile in this context, the focus is not on the stolen object itself, but on the Gavra (the person/act): the act of using something in a way defined as prohibited, even without any loss to another person.

What is the significance of the Gemara's comparison between a gentile who studies Torah and a Kohen Gadol?

Margaliyos haYam: The Gemara is highlighting the greatness of Torah study by contrasting two extremes of spiritual status. The Kohen Gadol represents the highest level of sanctity, since he serves in the Beis HaMikdash, enters the Kodesh haKodashim and may not even leave Yerushalayim unless absolutely necessary. An Am haAretz (ignoramus) should really not even enter Yerushalayim (Avos D'Rebbi Nasan Ch. 12). A non-Jew may not dwell permanently in Yerushalayim and may only enter up to the Chail of the Beis haMikdash (Keilim 1:8). By placing these two extremes alongside the Kohen Gadol, the Gemara creates a deliberate contrast to emphasize the power of Torah study. Even someone who begins at the lowest levels of spiritual standing - whether an Am haAretz or a non-Jew - can, through Torah learning, attain a level described as comparable to or even greater than the Kohen Gadol.

Why was meat prohibited to Adam but permitted to Noach?

Ramban, Sifsei Chachamim (on Bereishis 9:3), Iyun Yaakov: Originally, man and animal were all equal, in that Hash-m created them all from the ground. However, at the time of the flood, all flesh (man and animal alike) became corrupted and the animals were only saved in the merit of Noach. As a result, mankind attained a higher status relative to the animal kingdom and was therefore permitted to eat meat.

Ohr haChaim (on Bereishis 9:3): Noach merited the permission to eat meat for three reasons: (1) through him the world survived the Flood and life was preserved; (2) he labored tirelessly in the Teivah to feed and care for the animals; and (3) after leaving the Teivah, he offered sacrifices that found favor before Hash-m, resulting in the Divine promise never again to destroy the world through a flood.

Kli Yakar (on Bereishis 9:3): Creation exists in four levels - mineral, vegetation, animal, and human - each sustained by the one beneath it. The proper order is that man, as the highest level, consumes the animal kingdom. However, this is only when man fulfills his identity as an "Adam" through Torah and spiritual refinement. When he abandons this, he is described in Tehillim (49) as being comparable to an animal, and in such a state there is no justification for granting him superiority over animals through permission to eat them.

Why did R. Shimon ben Menasya use the word 'חבל' - 'it is a shame' for the loss of the 'great attendant'?

Ben Yehoyada: When the Torah refers to something precious, beneficial, and of great value, it uses the term "חלב" ("fat" - symbolizing the choicest or best portion). For example, in Bereishis 45:18, Yosef tells his brothers that they would "eat the חלב of the land," meaning its finest produce and blessings. Conversely, when such a great benefit is lost, the expression "חבל" is used - a term denoting regret or loss. The word חבל is a rearrangement of the letters of חלב, alluding to the loss of that great goodness and advantage.

Why did R. Shimon ben Menasya first speak about the great benefit of serpents bringing precious stones and only afterwards add the more minor benefit of tilling the land? One might have expected them to be listed in reverse order?

Ner LaMeor (by Rav M.E. Rabinovitz of Wasilkow, Intro - letter 14): If people would become very wealthy, there would be nobody to work the land and thereby provide food, so the blessing would actually become a curse.

Why would the person send the serpent specifically to the north and south rather than to the east and west?

Maharsha: Human settlement naturally spreads east and west, but not into the extreme north or south because of the severe cold and heat found there. Therefore, had the serpent not sinned, a person would have sent it specifically to those distant regions, since they are places that humans themselves cannot easily inhabit or travel to.

Why would one serpent not be enough to serve man?

Ben Yehoyada: The Gemara stated that the serpent would travel both north and south. It is known that the southern polar region (Antarctica) is significantly colder than the northern polar region (the Arctic), and that Antarctica (as well as the Arctic) contains abundant deposits of gold and precious stones. It is also known that the male serpent has a warmer body temperature than the female. Accordingly, Adam would have sent the male serpent to Antarctica, since it could better withstand the extreme cold (while the female serpent would have been sent to the north).

After R. Shimon ben Chalafta prayed, why did two thighs descend from Heaven rather than just one?

Maharsha: Hash-m sent down two pieces of Heavenly meat to serve two separate purposes simultaneously. One piece physically fed the starving lions, while the second piece effectively saved R. Shimon from becoming their prey. This dual purpose explains the plural wording in the Pasuk (אכלם), which hints at the simultaneous nourishment of the lions and the salvation of R. Shimon.