פסחים 45 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Because a nazirite and a sin-offering are two verses with the same teaching, and they do not illumine [other cases]. ‘A nazirite’, that which we have stated. What is the reference to the sin-offering? — For it was taught: whatsoever shall touch in the flesh thereof shall be holy: you might think, even if it did not absorb [of the flesh of the sin-offering]; therefore it is stated, ‘in the flesh thereof’. Only when it absorbs in the flesh? ‘Shall be holy’, to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] becomes unfit; while if it is fit, that may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies. any thing that dieth of itself (nebelah); thou mayest give it unto the stranger. Hence whatever is fit for a stranger is designated nebelah, but what is unfit is not designated nebelah, in the sense that if it imparts a deteriorating flavour it does not render the food forbidden. Then, according to the Rabbis too, let a nazirite and a sin-offering be two verses with the same teaching and they do not illumine [other cases]? — They can answer: these are indeed [both] necessary. And R. Akiba? How are they [both] necessary? It is well [to say] that if the Merciful One wrote it in respect to a sin-offering, [the case of] a nazirite could not be derived from it, because we cannot derive hullin from sacred sacrifices. But let the Merciful One write it in respect to a nazirite, and then the sin-offering would come and be derived from it, seeing that all the prohibitions of the Torah are learnt from a nazirite. But the Rabbis can answer you: they [both] are indeed required; the sin-offering, to [show that] the permitted combines with the forbidden, while hullin cannot be deduced from sacred sacrifices; and ‘an infusion’, to intimate that the taste is as the substance itself, and from this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah. But R. Akiba maintains: both [are required] for [teaching] that the permitted combines with the forbidden, so that they are two verses with the same teaching, and all [instances of] two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [other cases]. R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: Then as to what was taught, [All the days of his Naziriteship shall he eat] nothing that is made of the grape vine, from the husks to the kernels: this teaches concerning a nazirite's prohibited commodities, that they combine with each other; — seeing that according to R. Akiba [even] the forbidden with the permitted combine, is it necessary [to state] the forbidden with the forbidden? — Said he to him: The forbidden with the permitted [combine only when eaten] together; the forbidden with the forbidden, [even when eaten] consecutively. which absorbs some of it. — Thus here too the permitted flesh combines with the forbidden, and all is regarded as forbidden. MISHNAH. [WITH REGARD TO] THE DOUGH IN THE CRACKS OF THE KNEADING TROUGH, IF THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE IN ONE PLACE, HE IS BOUND TO REMOVE [IT]; BUT IF NOT, IT IS NULLIFIED THROUGH THE SMALLNESS OF ITS QUANTITY. AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN THE MATTER OF UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES; BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE A KNEADING-TROUGH. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learned this only of a place where it [the dough] does not serve for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is not bound to remove it. Hence it follows that [where there is] less than an olive, even if it does serve for reinforcing [it], he is not obliged to remove it. Others recite it in reference to the second clause: BUT IF NOT, IT IS NULLIFIED THROUGH THE SMALLNESS OF ITS QUANTITY. Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: They learned this only where it serves for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it does not serve for reinforcing [it], he is bound to remove it. Whence it follows that if there is as much as an olive, even where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is bound to remove it. It was taught as the former version; It was taught as the latter version. It was taught as the former version: Dough in the cracks of the kneading trough, where it serves for reinforcing, it does not interpose, and he [its owner] does not transgress. But [if it is] in a place where it does not serve for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. When is this said? Where there is as much as an olive. But if there is less than an olive, even where it does not serve for reinforcing, it does not interpose, and he does not transgress. Again, it was taught as the latter version: Dough in the cracks of a kneading trough, where it serves for reinforcing,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘which come as one’.
^ᵇnote:V. Supra p. 119, n. 2.
^ᶜnote:Lev. VI, 20. ‘Holy’ means ‘forbidden’, in the sense that any other flesh which touches this flesh of the sin-offering becomes subject to the same laws and limitations as those to which the sin-offering is subject.
^ᵈnote:Literal translation. I.e., it is forbidden only if it absorbs some of the sin-offering within itself.
^ᵉnote:[The text of cur. edd. is difficult. A better reading is preserved in the Sifra a.l. ‘till it absorbs’, omitting the words ‘in the flesh’, and the deduction being from the word ‘thereof’.]
^ᶠnote:A sin-offering must be eaten within the sacred precincts, by male priests, and for one day and night only; similarly the food
^ᵍnote:And where that is so, they do illuminate other cases, since neither could be deduced from the other.
^ʰnote:Does he not admit this?
^ⁱnote:The latter being naturally more stringent. Hence the fact that there the permitted combines with the forbidden does not prove that it will also do so in the case of hullin, where the interdicted food is not sacred.
^ʲnote:Num. VI, 4.
^ᵏnote:Surely it is obvious; why then is the verse required?
^ˡnote:For further notes on the whole discussion beginning with R. Abbahu's dictum in the name of R. Johanan on page 43b, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed. pp. 128ff.
^ᵐnote:I.e., he has abandoned the normal use of the dough in flavour of the trough.
^ⁿnote:V. infra n. 8; if he objects to it, it is regarded as a foreign body.
^ᵒnote:I.e., he wants the dough to be there to close the crack.
^ᵖnote:And it does not interpose.
^ᵠnote:That if there is as much as an olive in one place it must be removed.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘it is not made for’.
^ˢnote:E.g., if the crack is at the bottom of the trough, and the dough fills it and so prevents the water from running out. It is then regarded as part of the trough, not as dough, and therefore it need not be removed. But if the crack is high up, it does not serve this purpose and must be removed.
^ᵗnote:When a utensil is ritually unclean and cleansed in a ritual bath, nothing must interpose between the utensil and the water of the bath (called a mikweh); otherwise the ablution is invalid. This dough, since it reinforces the trough, is counted as part of itself and not as a foreign body, and therefore it is not an interposition between the trough and the water; hence the ablution is valid.
^ᵘnote:The law of Passover by leaving it there and not removing it.

²it does not interpose, and he does not transgress; [if it is] in a place where it does not serve for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. When is this said? When there is less than an olive; but if there is as much as an olive, even in a place where it serves for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. Then these are contradictory? — Said R. Huna: Delete the more lenient [Baraitha] in favour of the more stringent. R. Joseph said: You quote Tannaim at random! This is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught: If a loaf went mouldy, he is bound to remove it, because it is fit to crumble and leaven many other doughs with it. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: When is this said? If it is kept for eating. But a mass of se'or which he put aside for sitting, he has nullified it. Now, since R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, ‘He has nullified it’, it follows that the first Tanna holds that he has not nullified it. This proves that he holds, wherever there is as much as an olive, even if he nullifies it, it is not nullified. Said Abaye to him: You have reconciled it where there is as much as an olive; [yet] have you reconciled it [where there is] less than an olive? Rather both the one and the other are [the rulings of] R. Simeon b. Eleazar, yet there is no difficulty: one [is taught where it is] in the place of kneading; the other, where it is not in the place of kneading. R. Ashi said: Do not assume that ‘not in the place of kneading’ means on the back of the trough [only], but [it means even] on the [upper] rim of the trough. That is obvious? — You might say, it sometimes splashes up and reaches there: hence he informs us [otherwise]. R. Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Yet that is not so, for R. Isaac b. Ashi said in Rab's name: If he plastered its surface with clay, he has nullified it. [Thus,] only if he plastered it, but not if he did not plaster it? He who recited this did not recite that. Others state, R. Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is not as R. Simeon b. Eleazar, for R. Isaac b. Ashi said in Rab's name: If he plastered its surface with clay, he has nullified it etc. R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: [If there are] two half olives and a thread of dough joining them, we see: wherever if the thread were taken up these would be carried with it, he is bound to remove [them]; but if not, he is not bound to remove [them]. Said ‘Ulla: This was said only of [dough in] a kneading trough; but [if they are] in the house, he is bound to remove [them]. What is the reason? Because he may sometimes sweep them and they will fall together. ‘Ulla said: They asked in the West [Palestine]: What of a room and an upper storey; what of a room and the [entrance] hall; what of two rooms, one within the other? The questions stand. Our Rabbis taught: If a loaf went mouldy and it became unfit for human consumption, yet a dog can eat it, it can be defiled with the uncleanness of eatables, if the size of an egg, and it may be burnt together with an unclean [loaf] on Passover. In R. Nathan's name it was ruled: It cannot be defiled [as an eatable]. With whom agrees the following which we learned: A general principle was stated in respect to the laws of [ritual] cleanness: Whatever is set aside for human consumption is unclean, until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat? With whom [does this agree]? It is not in accordance with R. Nathan. Our Rabbis taught: [With regard to] the trough of tanners into which he put flour, [if] within three days [before Passover], he is bound to remove it; [if] before three days, he is not bound to remove it. Said R. Nathan: When is this said? If he did not put hides into it; but if he put hides into it, even [if it is] within three days, he is not bound to remove [the flour]. Raba said: The halachah is as R. Nathan, even [if it is] one day, and even one hour [before Passover]. AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES; BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE THE KNEADING-TROUGH. How compare: there the matter is dependent on the quantity [of the dough], [whereas] here the matter is dependent on [his] objecting [to it]? Said Rab Judah, Say: But in respect to uncleanness it is not so. Said Abaye to him, But he states, AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS? Rather, said Abaye, He means it thus: AND IT IS LIKEWISE^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘before’.
^ʷnote:There is no reason for assuming that both Baraithas represent the view of the same Tanna.
^ˣnote:Kopeth really means a low seat or block.
^ʸnote:I.e., he gave up the nominal use of it as se'or and hence it no longer counts as leaven.
^ᶻnote:in the second Baraitha, ‘where it does not serve for reinforcing’, refers only to a place where no kneading is done at all, e.g at the upper edge; but dough in the cracks at the sides is regarded as reinforcing the trough, and hence it must be removed. But the first Baraitha holds that even in the latter case it does not reinforce it, though kneading is done there, while ‘where it serves for reinforcing’ refers to the bottom only. Hence this is what the first Tanna states: Where it serves for reinforcing, e.g., at the bottom, he does not transgress even if there is as much as an olive. Where it does not serve for reinforcing (i.e., to support the water), e.g., in the sides, which is a place for kneading yet not a place for the water, if there is as much as an olive, it interposes, and he transgresses. But if there is less than an olive, even if it is in the sides it does not interpose, for since it does help somewhat to support the dough which is kneaded there (viz., that it should not sink into the crack), it is nullified. But this Tanna does not discuss dough which is not in the place of kneading, viz., at the upper rim, and he would admit in that case that even if there is less than an olive it is not nullified. While the second Tanna rules thus: If it is in the place where it affords support to the dough, i.e., in the sides, if there is less than an olive it does not interpose; if there is as much as an olive, it interposes, and this is the view of the first Tanna too. While where it is not made for reinforcing (or, supporting), i.e., at the upper rim, even less than an olive interposes, and this too agrees with the first Tanna.
^ᵃᵃnote:So that the rim is regarded as a place of kneading and must be removed, even if less than an olive. [MS.M. omits ‘and reaches there’. V. also Rashi.]
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc. that of the mass of se'or which he set aside for sitting.
^ᵃᶜnote:Whereas R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds that it is nullified in any case.
^ᵃᵈnote:There are two opposing views on Rab's ruling.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., two pieces of dough, each the size of half an olive. — The reference is to the cracks in the kneading trough.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘between’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Because it is all one.
^ᵃʰnote:Even if they are not thus united by a thread of dough.
^ᵃⁱnote:Bayith in the Talmud often has the meaning of a room in a house.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., if there is half an olive in one and half in the other: do we fear here too that they may be swept together?
^ᵃᵏnote:V. supra 15b.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., subject to defilement as an eatable.
^ᵃᵐnote:Into which they put hides for tanning.
^ᵃⁿnote:Which is used in the tanning process.
^ᵃᵒnote:Because it is still regarded as flour, and of course it is leaven.
^ᵃᵖnote:Because by Passover it will be so spoiled through the odour of the trough, even if there are no hides in it, that it will not be regarded as flour.
^ᵃᵠnote:Because the hides utterly spoil it.