Pesachim 45a — the Talmud in English

Because it was stated with regard to a nazirite and with regard to a sin-offering, two verses that come as one.

For also with regard to a sin-offering it is stated that the permissibility joins with the prohibition. And whenever there are two verses that come as one,

they do not teach.

And the Gemara explains:

A nazirite—

we derive it from “the steeped one,” that the permissible joins with the prohibited, as

in that which we said

above.

What is the sin-offering—

what is the exposition that is learned from it? — As

it was taught:

It is written with regard to a sin-offering,

“Whatever touches its flesh

[of the sin-offering]

shall become sacred,”

and so on!

For if it swallowed unconsecrated meat or peace-offering meat from the meat of the sin-offering, it becomes sacred like it. And all the laws of eating the sin-offering apply to it as well.

One might have thought even

if the piece of meat touched the sin-offering and

did not swallow

from it, it should also become sacred like it, since it is written, “touches”?

The verse therefore says: “its flesh”—

until it swallows

from it

into the flesh

that touches it. For only then

“shall become sacred”

to become like it.

For if

the sin-offering

is invalid

and was prohibited for eating, even the piece that swallows from it

becomes invalid,

and it goes to the place of burning.

And if

the sin-offering

is valid, it shall be eaten

the piece that swallows

according to

the law of the

more stringent of them.

For if it is peace-offering meat, it now has two sanctities: one, the sanctity of a peace-offering, and the other, the sanctity of a sin-offering. Therefore, the stringencies of a sin-offering are applied to it: it may be eaten only for a day and a night, by male members of the priesthood, and inside the curtains [within the boundaries of the Temple courtyard].

And although the portion swallowed from the meat of the sin-offering into the peace-offering meat is not enough for the measure of an olive-bulk of eating, it joins and the peace-offering meat completes the measure to an olive-bulk, and gives this the status of eating.

And infer from this that “the permissible joins with the prohibited” with regard to a sin-offering.

And since the Torah revealed with regard to a sin-offering and a nazirite that the permissible joins with the prohibited, infer from this that specifically in these two places is the law so, and not throughout the Torah.

For since we could have learned it for the entire Torah by an av binyan from a nazirite, for what purpose did the Torah repeat and write this novelty also with regard to a sin-offering? Rather, to teach you that only with these two does the law of the permissible joining with the prohibited apply, and not in other places.

And we raise an objection:

And the Rabbis,

who derive from “the steeped one” of a nazirite the law that taste is like the essence,

also—

let a nazirite and a sin-offering be two verses that come as one

to teach the law that taste is like the essence. For “the steeped one,” written with regard to a nazirite, comes to establish taste as the essence. And from the sin-offering too we learn that whatever touches it and swallows from its taste becomes prohibited like it. And this too is “taste is like the essence.”

And

since they are two verses,

they do not

teach

to teach

the entire Torah that taste is like the essence.

And we answer:

They say

the Sages in the study hall, to resolve it:

Those

two verses—

are both necessary,

and therefore they do teach.

For only where the second verse is superfluous do they not teach.

For the basis of the matter that two verses that come as one do not teach is founded on this: the fact that the Torah repeated and wrote a matter that we could have learned by an av binyan from the first verse proves that one may not learn for the entire Torah from that verse; therefore the Torah repeated and wrote the second verse, to teach you that this law applies only in these two verses.

But if there is any necessity for the second verse, we no longer have proof that one may not learn from here by an av binyan for the entire Torah. And shortly it will be explained why both are necessary.

And the Gemara explains the view of Rabbi Akiva:

And Rabbi Akiva

will say to you:

What

is the reason

are necessary

both verses?

Granted, if the Merciful One had written with regard to a sin-offering

alone that the permissible joins with the prohibited,

he could not

have

derived

to learn

a nazirite from it

that the permissible would also join with the prohibited in it, because

we do not derive unconsecrated matters from sacrificial matters,

since sacrificial matters are more stringent than unconsecrated matters.

Rather,

but

let the Merciful One write with regard to a nazirite

alone that the permissible joins with the prohibited.

And let

it come

and let the sin-offering derive

and learn

from it

that the permissible joins with the prohibited.

For all the prohibitions of the Torah are derived from a nazirite,

and all the more so a sin-offering, since it is sacrificial matter.

And from the fact that the Torah needed to repeat the law that the permissible joins with the prohibited with regard to a sin-offering, it is proven that “the steeped one,” which is written with regard to a nazirite, applies only to a nazirite and a sin-offering, and they are two verses that come as one; therefore it is impossible to learn from them.

And the Rabbis will say to you:

Both

are necessary. “

Whatever touches it shall become sacred,” which is written with regard to

a sin-offering,

is necessary

to

teach us the law of

the permissible joining with the prohibited.

And in a manner in which one cannot obligate him on account of “taste is like the essence.”

For example, where the taste of the sin-offering was not absorbed into the entire olive-bulk of the permissible meat, but only into part of it, and in order to obligate him for eating an olive-bulk it is necessary to join with it the eating of an additional portion of permissible meat into which no meat of the sin-offering was absorbed.

And even if he eats half an olive-bulk of pigul and half an olive-bulk of permissible matter that are not mixed together, he becomes liable by the law that the permissible joins with the prohibited.

And we do not derive unconsecrated matters from sacrificial matters,

and therefore we do not derive from a sin-offering for the entire Torah.

And

in

“the steeped one”

which is written with regard to a nazirite, the law of “the permissible joins with the prohibited” is not written in it at all. Rather, it comes

to establish taste as the essence.

And from here you learn for all the prohibitions of the Torah

the law of taste as the essence, for these are not two verses that come as one, but one verse.

And Rabbi Akiva

held that taste as the essence is not learned from a nazirite. Rather, it comes from the purging of gentile vessels. And if so,

both

[the nazirite and the sin-offering] came

for the permissible joining with the prohibited.

Therefore,

they are two verses that come as one. And whenever there are two verses that come as one, they do not teach.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But then, with regard to that which was taught:

It is written with regard to a nazirite,

“From whatever is made from the grapevine, from grape seeds to grape skin

he shall not eat.”

And from the fact that the verse included grape seeds together with grape skin in one eating,

it taught

thereby

concerning the prohibitions of a nazirite, that

they

join with one another

for the measure of an olive-bulk.

For if he ate half an olive-bulk of grape seeds together with half an olive-bulk of grape skin, he is lashed on account of “he shall not eat.”

And according to what was said, why was a verse necessary for this?

Now, according to Rabbi Akiva, the prohibited and the permissible join

with one another for the measure of an olive-bulk. And

with regard to prohibited and prohibited is it necessary

for the verse to say that they join?

He said to him,

Rav Kahana:

Prohibited and permissible

join to complete the measure of an olive-bulk specifically where he ate them

at one time.

But the verse “from grape seeds to grape skin” comes to teach that half an olive-bulk of

one prohibition

and

a

half an olive-bulk of

another prohibition

join to an olive-bulk even if he ate them

one

after the other

within the time of eating a half-loaf.

Mishna:

Dough

of leaven

that

is stuck

in

the interior of

the cracks of a kneading trough

[a bowl],

if there is

in it

an olive-bulk in one place,

it is

obligated to be removed

before Passover.

And if not—

rather, that olive-bulk of dough is scattered in several places in the trough—

it is nullified by its small quantity,

and he is not obligated to remove it.

And likewise with regard to impurity.

If there was a trough to which dough was stuck,

if

he

is particular about it,

and intends to remove it from there, it

interposes.

And if

he

wants it to remain,

as he intends to leave it there permanently,

it

is considered

as

the body of

the trough

itself, and it does not interpose.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what “and likewise” is and what the matter of the interposition is.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If there is an olive-bulk in one place, he is obligated to remove it.

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: We said

so

only

when that dough was found

in a place that is not made

for the dough

to strengthen

the walls of the trough. For it does not need to be there in order to prevent the water placed in the trough from leaking. For example, the dough was placed in the upper part of its walls, where the water poured into it does not reach.

And since there is no need there to seal the cracks with this dough, it is not nullified to the trough. Therefore, even while it is there, it still has the status of leaven, and he is obligated to remove it.

But

if the olive-bulk of dough was found

in a place that is made to strengthen

its walls , such as in the cracks at the bottom of the trough, at the place where water is poured in, where it is placed between the cracks to prevent them from leaking outward, and it is impossible to use the trough without this sealing—

he is not obligated to remove it.

For since the dough is needed by the trough, presumably its owners nullified it with regard to it. And it is like mere wood, and the law of leaven does not apply to it.

And we infer from the fact that Samuel established the Mishna as referring to a place that is not made to strengthen:

By inference

you learn from his words

that

if there is

less than an olive-bulk

in one place,

even in a place that is not

the dough

made to strengthen,

also

he is not obligated to remove it!

And so it teaches in the Mishna: “And if not—it is nullified by its small quantity.” And although there are several half-olive-bulks scattered in several places in the trough, since they are not in one place they are not significant, and the owners nullify them with regard to the trough.

Some recite it

this statement of Samuel in relation to that which is taught

at the end: And if not

[that there is no olive-bulk in one place]—

it is nullified by its small quantity!

And concerning this

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: We said

so

only in a place where

the dough

is made to strengthen,

such as at the bottom of the trough, where it is nullified to it.

But in a place that is not made to strengthen,

such as at the height of the walls, it

is obligated to be removed,

for since the trough does not need it, it is not nullified with regard to it.

And we infer: Since Samuel establishes the Mishna as referring to a place made to strengthen,

by inference, that

if there is

an olive-bulk

in one place,

even in a place made to strengthen—

he is obligated to remove it!

And although in this place his intention is certainly to nullify the leaven, nevertheless, since it contains an olive-bulk, it is significant and is not nullified to the trough.

It was taught according to the first formulation.

And

it was taught according to the latter formulation.

It was taught according to the first formulation: Dough in the cracks of a kneading trough—

if it is

in a place made to strengthen,

it is nullified to the trough. Therefore,

it does not interpose

before immersion.

And

likewise

he does not transgress

on account of it on Passover.

And if it is

in a place that is not made to strengthen,

it is not nullified to the trough. Therefore, it

interposes

before immersion.

And

likewise

he transgresses

on account of it on Passover.

When are these words said? With regard to

that which has

an olive-bulk

in one place.

But

if in one place it contains only

less than an olive-bulk

even

if it is in a

place that is not made to strengthen,

it is nullified to the vessel.

And it does not interpose

against it. For if the trough became impure, and one came to immerse it, the dough does not interpose between it and the waters of the ritual bath. And its immersion was properly effective while the dough remained stuck to it.

And

likewise

he does not transgress

on account of it on Passover.