Pesachim 45b — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in accordance with the latter formulation: dough that is in the cracks of a kneading trough -

in a place made to strengthen it,

it is nullified with respect to the vessel.

and it does not interpose

during immersion.

And one does not transgress

with regard to it on Passover.

And if it is

in a place not made to strengthen it,

it is not nullified with respect to the vessel. Rather, it

interposes

during immersion.

And one transgresses

with regard to it on Passover.

When are these words said? With regard to less than an olive-bulk.

For if there is not an olive-bulk in one place, it is nullified with respect to the vessel when it is in a place made to strengthen it.

But if

there is

an olive-bulk

in one place, it is never nullified with respect to the vessel.

And even in a place made to strengthen it,

it

interposes, and one transgresses

with regard to it on Passover.

And we raise a difficulty:

They are difficult

—these two beraitot contradict

one another.

For according to the first beraita, anything that is in a place made to strengthen it is always nullified with respect to the vessel. And the distinction between an olive-bulk and less than an olive-bulk was stated only concerning a place not made to strengthen it. Whereas according to the latter beraita, anything that is in a place not made to strengthen it is never nullified with respect to the vessel.

Rav Huna said: Erase [delete]

the first beraita, which is

lenient [which is lenient and permits forever in a place made to strengthen it], since it must be rejected

that permits it in a place made to reinforce the vessel in every case, since it must be rejected

before

the latter beraita, which is

stringent [which is stringent and forbids forever in a place not made to strengthen it].

that prohibits it in every case when it is in a place not made to reinforce the vessel.

And the latter is authoritative.

Rav Yosef said:

But

have you removed conditions from the world?

Can you say that the words of the tannaim in one beraita are rejected because of its fellow?!

Surely both were certainly taught in the beit-midrash, and neither one may be erased. Rather, it is a dispute of

tannaim

elsewhere.

As it was taught: Bread that has become moldy

and has become unfit for human consumption,

one is obligated to remove

it on Passover

because it is fit to grind it and leaven [to make leaven]

other doughs

with it several other doughs.

And it is like “leaven,” which the Torah prohibited for consumption like leavened bread, even though it is unfit for consumption.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When are these words said,

that this bread is obligated in removal—

when it is maintained for eating [to leaven other doughs].

to leaven other doughs.

But a lump of leaven [

raw leaven whose form has not been completed]

that one designated for sitting is nullified:

the status of leaven is removed from it, and one does not transgress with regard to it. And we infer:

Since Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said “is nullified,” by inference the first tanna holds

that even though one designated it for sitting,

it is not nullified

from the status of food.

Evidently he holds: Any

food that contains

an olive-bulk, even though one nullifies

it from the status of food,

is not nullified.

And also the latter beraita, which teaches, “But in the case of an olive-bulk—even in a place made to strengthen it, one transgresses,” follows the first tanna. And the first beraita, which teaches that in a place made to strengthen it one does not transgress even for an olive-bulk, follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef: You have resolved only the contradiction between the beraitot concerning an olive-bulk in a place made to strengthen it. For that can properly depend on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the first tanna. But the contradiction concerning

less than an olive-bulk

in a place not made to strengthen it—

have you resolved it?

For we have heard Rabbi Shimon to be lenient only with regard to something not maintained for eating. But in a place not made to strengthen it, it is maintained for eating. And from where would it follow that less than an olive-bulk is insignificant and nullified?

Rather,

Abaye said:

Both [

the two beraitot]

follow Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And they do not contradict

one another.

That

which the first beraita teaches, “a place not made to strengthen it,” is referring

to the kneading place!

And although it is at the height of the walls and does not hold the water, it is nevertheless the place inside which the dough is kneaded. And the dough in its cracks is somewhat useful for holding the dough when it is rubbed and kneaded there. Therefore, when it is less than an olive-bulk, it is nullified with respect to the vessel because of the slight improvement it provides. But when it contains an olive-bulk and is thus more significant, it is not nullified, since there is not such great need for it.

And “a place made to strengthen it” means the bottom of the trough, for there it holds the water. And the dough in the cracks there is greatly needed, since without it one cannot use it at all. Therefore, even when it contains an olive-bulk, it is nullified with respect to the trough.

And

that

which the latter beraita teaches, “a place not made to strengthen it,” means a part of the vessel

that is not

found at all

in the kneading place.

And the crack there interferes in no way with the use of the trough. Therefore the dough lying there is not nullified with respect to the vessel in any manner, even when it does not contain an olive-bulk.

And “a place made to strengthen it,” which the latter beraita teaches, means the height of the vessel’s walls, which is not the place where the water is put. Nevertheless, it is the kneading place, and there is some need there for sealing with dough. Therefore, if it does not contain an olive-bulk, it is nullified with respect to the vessel. And if it contains an olive-bulk, it is significant and is not nullified.

Three distinctions emerge in this law.

A. If the dough is found at the bottom of the trough, it is always nullified there, even when it contains an olive-bulk.

B. If it is at the height of the walls, when it is less than an olive-bulk it is nullified there, and there is no obligation to remove it. But if it contains an olive-bulk, there is an obligation to remove it.

C. And if it is at the upper rim of the vessel, there is an obligation to remove it even when it does not contain an olive-bulk.

Rav Ashi said,

to explain Abaye’s words:

Do not say that

“not in the kneading place” means

specifically

on the back of the trough [

the outer side of the vessel’s wall].

Rather,

even

on the rim of the trough [the upper edge of the vessel], it is also considered not in the kneading place.

it is considered not to be in the place where kneading is done.

And we ask:

Is it obvious

that this is so? For even there there is no need at all for sealing the cracks.

And we answer:

Lest you say, sometimes the dough floats [

sometimes it rises and overflows]

and reaches there [

the upper edge of the vessel], and there is some need even there for sealing the cracks.

It teaches us

that this is not so. Rather, even when it is less than an olive-bulk, the dough is not nullified there.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rav: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

And a lump of leaven that one designated for sitting is nullified from the status of food, and one does not transgress with regard to it on Passover.

And we object:

Is that so? And

did Rav not hold like him? For

Rav Yitzhak bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: If one coats

the

surface

of the lump of leaven

with clay, it is nullified

from the status of leaven.

And it implies: if he

coats

its surface,

yes [it is indeed nullified]. But if he

it is indeed nullified. But if one

does not coat it, it is not

nullified. And although he designated it for sitting, mere thought is not sufficient to nullify it.

And we answer:

The one who teaches

in the name of Rav

this

statement

does not teach that

other statement [that the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar] in his name; and it is a dispute among amoraim concerning Rav’s view.

Some say: Rav Nahman said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

And in accordance with what

Rav Yitzhak bar Ashi

said in the name of Rav:

specifically if one

coats its surface with clay, it is nullified.

But without coating its surface, it is not nullified merely through designation.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: Two half-olive-bulks

of leavened bread found in the cracks of a trough in two separate places,

and a strand of dough

connects

between them—

one examines them, and

sees.

If, were the strand to be taken away,

the two pieces would still remain attached to it,

and

would be

taken together with

it, their status is like that of a single piece of an olive-bulk in one place, which is significant and is not nullified. Therefore,

one is obligated to remove

them.

But if not—

rather, if the strand is taken away, the pieces will detach from it and will not rise with it—they are like two separate pieces, neither of which contains an olive-bulk. Therefore,

one is not obligated to remove

them.

Ulla said: We said

that when there are two half-olive-bulks that are not joined together, one is not obligated to remove them

only

when they are

in a trough.

Since they are fixed and stuck in its cracks, we are not concerned that they will join one another.

But

two half-olive-bulks found in two different places

in the house require removal.

Even though they do not contain an olive-bulk in one place.

And we explain:

What is the reason?—

Sometimes

one sweeps the house and

gathers [

collects]

them

together in one place,

and they fall one upon the other,

and they will join one another. And once they combine into an olive-bulk, one will transgress with regard to them by “it shall not be seen.” Therefore, they obligated him to remove them.

Ulla said: In the West they asked:

if he has half a kezayit of leaven in the

house, and

another half a kezayit

in the upper room—

what is the law?

Do we fear that perhaps he will gather them together and they will join to form a kezayit, and he will transgress because of them? Therefore, he is obligated to remove them.

Or perhaps we do not fear this; rather, when the two halves are in the house. But not when one is in the house and one is in the upper room, because even if the leaven falls from the upper room into the house, it is not common for it to fall precisely upon the leaven that is in the house.

And if you say that when one is in the house and one is in the upper room we do not fear that perhaps he will gather them, there is still room to inquire about half a kezayit in the

house and

half a kezayit

in the portico: what is the law?

Do we fear that perhaps he will sweep the house and the portico together, and the two halves will join one another, or not?

And if you say that when one is in the house and one is in the portico we fear that perhaps he will gather them together, since one always enters the house through the portico, and there are no complete partitions between them, and they are considered like one room, there is still room to inquire about two half-kezayit portions found

in two houses

[rooms]

one within the other,

and one enters the inner house through the outer one—

what is the law?

Do we fear that perhaps he will sweep them together and the two half-kezayit portions will join together? Or perhaps, since this is not similar to a house and a portico, and the two are not used regularly together, we do not fear this.

And we conclude:

teyku!

The Sages taught: Bread that has become moldy and has become unfit to be eaten

[to eat]

by a person, and

still

a dog can eat it, —

the status of food has still not departed from it.

And if it became impure, it

imparts food impurity with an egg-bulk.

According to the law of impure foods, which impart impurity to others with an egg-bulk.

And

if it is bread of pure teruma, it is

burned

with

the

impure teruma on Passover.

And although at the time of its burning it becomes impure through contact with the impurity, and it is forbidden to render pure teruma impure, there is no concern for this. Since in any event it is unfit for human consumption, it is permitted to render it impure by hand.

In the name of Rabbi Natan they said:

Anything that has become unfit for human consumption, even though it is still fit for a dog to eat,

does not impart

food impurity.

And we raised an objection to it:

According to whom does this accord, that which we learned: A general principle they stated concerning purities. Anything that from the outset was

designated for

human food,

it is

impure until it becomes unfit to be eaten by a dog.

And although it is already unfit for human consumption, the designation of food that took effect in it at the outset has not departed from it as long as it is fit for a dog.

And we answered: According to whom

does this Mishna

accord?—

Not

according to Rabbi Natan,

who says that bread that has become moldy does not impart food impurity, even though it is still fit for a dog. Rather, it is according to the first Tanna, who says: “It imparts food impurity with an egg-bulk.”

The Sages taught: The tanners’ trough [

used by tanners, in which they place the hides]

into which flour was placed,

if he placed it

within three days

before Passover and it became leavened there, it is

obligated to be removed

. For until three days the flour does not spoil in it. It follows that when Passover arrived, the status of leaven had still not departed from it.

But if he placed the flour into it

before three days

before Passover,

he is not obligated to remove it!

For after three days have passed, it spoils because of the odor of the trough. And when Passover arrives, it no longer has the status of leaven.

Rabbi Natan said: When are these words applicable,

that within three days he is obligated to remove it? Specifically

when he did not place hides into it.

Since it does not contain the odor of the hides, the flour does not spoil until three days have passed.

But

if

he placed hides into it

while the flour was in it, even if he placed the flour within three days before Passover,

he is not

obligated to

remove it.

For placing the hides into the flour removes from it the status of leaven.

Rava said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Natan!

And if he placed hides into the flour, its status of leaven is nullified

even

within

one day, and even

within

one hour

from the placing of the hides.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise concerning impurity.

As for dough in the cracks of the trough—

if he is particular about it,

it is

a barrier. But if he wants it to remain, it is like the trough.

And it is now understood that this is speaking concerning immersion. For any vessel that became impure and requires immersion, if something about which the owners are particular is attached to it, it forms a barrier between the vessel and the waters of the ritual bath, and its immersion is not effective.

And we objected: How can it teach, “And likewise concerning impurity”? Is it indeed

comparable

to leaven on Passover? For

there,

concerning leaven,

the matter depends on the measure.

If there is a kezayit in one place, he transgresses because of it; and with less than a kezayit he does not transgress. But

here,

concerning immersion,

the matter depends on being particular,

and not on the measure. Anything about which he is particular and which he will eventually remove from there forms a barrier. And it makes no difference whether it contains a kezayit or not.

Rav Yehuda said: Say

that this is what the Mishna is saying:

And concerning impurity it is not so!

And it is not like leaven, which depends on the measure of a kezayit; rather, it depends only on being particular.

Abaye said to him: It teaches

“And likewise concerning impurity”

!

This indicates that its law is like that of leaven.

Rather, Abaye said:

It did not teach this with regard to immersion.

And the words of the Tanna are divided into two matters:

At first the Tanna said, “And likewise concerning impurity,” meaning that also concerning impurity there is a distinction between whether there is a kezayit or less than a kezayit in the cracks of the trough. And afterward the Tanna made this dependent on being particular, and not on the measure of a kezayit.

And

this is what he is saying: