Pesachim

Because a nazirite and a sin-offering are two verses with the same teaching,1 and they do not illumine [other cases].2 ‘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:3 you might think, even if it did not absorb [of the flesh of the sin-offering]; therefore it is stated, ‘in the flesh thereof’.4 Only when it absorbs in the flesh?5 ‘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.6 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.7 And R. Akiba?8 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.9 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:10 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?11 — Said he to him: The forbidden with the permitted [combine only when eaten] together; the forbidden with the forbidden, [even when eaten] consecutively. 12 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.13 AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN THE MATTER OF UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES;14 BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION,15 IT IS LIKE A KNEADING-TROUGH.16 GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learned this17 only of a place where it [the dough] does not serve18 for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is not bound to remove it.19 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,20 and he [its owner] does not transgress.21 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, becomes subject to the same laws and limitations as those to which the sin-offering is subject. the flesh’, and the deduction being from the word ‘thereof’.] the food not prove that it will also do so in the case of hullin, where the interdicted food is not sacred. 43b, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed. pp. 128ff. 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. 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.