Pesachim 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

And it is taught in accordance with the latter formulation: Dough in the crevices of a kneading trough -

in a place intended to reinforce it,

it is nullified with respect to the utensil. ")

and it does not constitute an interposition

during immersion.

And one does not violate the prohibition of possessing it

on its account during Passover.

And if it is

in a place not intended to reinforce it,

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

constitutes an interposition

during immersion.

And one violates the prohibition of possessing it

on its account during Passover.

In what case is this statement 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 utensil when it is in a place intended to reinforce it.

But

if there is

an olive-bulk

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

And even when it is in a place intended to reinforce it,

it

constitutes an interposition, and one violates the prohibition of possessing it

on its account during Passover.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

They are difficult

these two baraitot, and they contradict

each other.

For according to the first baraita, anything that is in a place intended to reinforce the utensil is always nullified with respect to it. The distinction between an olive-bulk and less than an olive-bulk was stated only with regard to a place not intended to reinforce it. Whereas according to the latter baraita, anything in a place not intended to reinforce the utensil is never nullified with respect to it.

Rav Huna said: Delete

[delete] the first baraita, which is

lenient

[which is lenient and permits it always when it is in a place intended to reinforce the utensil], since it can be rejected

in favor of

the latter baraita, which is

stringent

[which is stringent and prohibits it always when it is in a place not intended to reinforce the utensil].

And the latter baraita is authoritative.

Rav Yosef said:

And have you

removed two tannaitic statements from the world?

Can you say that the words of the tannaim in one baraita are rejected because of the other?!

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

tannaim

elsewhere.

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to bread that has become moldy

and is no longer fit for human consumption,

one is obligated to remove

it on Passover

because it is fit to grind it and use it to leaven

[to make leaven]

other batches of dough.

It is therefore like leavening, which the Torah prohibited for consumption like chametz , even though it is unfit for consumption.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In what case is this statement said

that this bread requires removal? —

When it is retained for consumption

[that is, for leavening other batches of dough].

But a lump of leavening

[raw leavening whose form has not been completed] that

one designated for sitting, is nullified

and the status of leavening is removed from it, and one does not violate the prohibition of possessing it. And we infer:

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

that even though one designated it for sitting,

it is not nullified

with regard to its status as food.

Apparently, he maintains that anything

that is food and contains

an olive-bulk, even though one nullifies

it with regard to its status as food,

is not nullified.

And the latter baraita, which teaches: “But in the case of an olive-bulk—even when it is in a place intended to reinforce the utensil, one violates the prohibition,” follows the view of the first tanna. And the first baraita, which teaches that when it is in a place intended to reinforce the utensil one does not violate the prohibition even when it is an olive-bulk, follows the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef: You have resolved only the contradiction between the baraitot with regard to an olive-bulk in a place intended to reinforce the utensil. That can indeed 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 intended to reinforce the utensil—

have you resolved that as well?

For we have heard that Rabbi Shimon is lenient only with regard to something that is not retained for consumption. But when it is in a place not intended to reinforce the utensil, it is retained for consumption. From where would it follow that less than an olive-bulk is insignificant and is nullified?

Rather,

Abaye said:

Both

[the two baraitot]

are the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and they do not conflict

with one another.

The

case taught in the first baraita, “a place not intended to reinforce the utensil,” refers to

a place of kneading!

Even though 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 crevices contributes somewhat to holding the dough together when it is rubbed and kneaded there. Therefore, when it is less than an olive-bulk, it is nullified with respect to the utensil because of the slight improvement it provides. But when it is an olive-bulk and is therefore more significant, it is not nullified, since there is not so great a need for it.

And “a place intended to reinforce the utensil” refers to the bottom of the trough, where it holds the water. The dough in the crevices there is greatly needed, for without it the trough cannot be used at all. Therefore, even when it is an olive-bulk, it is nullified with respect to the trough.

And

the

case taught in the latter baraita, “a place not intended to reinforce the utensil,” refers to the part of the utensil

that is not

found at all

in a place of kneading. The crevice there does not interfere in any way with the use of the trough. Therefore, the dough situated there is never nullified with respect to the utensil, even when it is not an olive-bulk.

And “a place intended to reinforce the utensil,” as taught in the latter baraita, refers to the height of the utensil’s walls, which is not the place where the water is put. Nevertheless, it is a place of kneading, and sealing the crevice with dough is somewhat necessary there. Therefore, if it is not an olive-bulk, it is nullified with respect to the utensil. But if it is an olive-bulk, it is significant and is not nullified.

And “a place made to reinforce the vessel,” as stated in the latter beraita, means the height of the vessel’s walls, which is not the place where water is put. Nevertheless, it is the place where kneading is done, and sealing the cracks with dough is somewhat useful there. Therefore, if it does not contain an olive-bulk, it is considered part of the vessel. But if it contains an olive-bulk, it is significant and is not considered part of the vessel.

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 is 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 one is not obligated to remove it. But if it is an olive-bulk, one is obligated to remove it.

C. And if it is on the upper rim of the utensil, one is obligated to remove it even when it is not an olive-bulk.

Rav Ashi said,

explaining Abaye’s words:

Do not say that

“not in a place of kneading” means

specifically

on the outer side of the wall of the trough

[the outer side of the utensil’s wall].

Rather,

even

on the rim of the trough

[the upper rim of the utensil], it is likewise considered not to be in a place of kneading.

The Gemara asks:

Isn’t it obvious

that this is so? For there too there is no need at all to seal the crevices.

And we answer:

Lest you say, sometimes the dough rises

[it sometimes floats] and rises

and reaches there

[the upper rim of the utensil], and there is some need even there to seal the crevices;

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 Naḥman said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

And a lump of leavening that one designated for sitting is nullified with regard to its status as food, and one does not violate the prohibition of possessing it on Passover.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? And

did Rav not hold accordingly? For

Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: If one smears

the

surface

of the lump of leavening

with clay, it is nullified

with regard to its status as leavening.

And it follows that if he

smears

its surface,

yes

[it is indeed nullified]. But if he

does not smear it, it is not

nullified. And even if he designated it for sitting, mere thought is insufficient to nullify it.

And we answer:

The one who teaches

this statement in the name of Rav

does

teach this dictum,

but does not teach the other

dictum [that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar] in his name. It is a dispute among the amoraim concerning Rav’s view.

Some say: Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rav: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

And this is like what

Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashi said

in the name of Rav:

only if one

smears its surface with clay is it nullified.

But if he did not smear its surface, it is not nullified merely by designating it for sitting.

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

of chametz found in the crevices of a trough in two separate places,

and a strand of dough

connecting

them—

one examines them and

sees.

If, were the strand to be removed,

the two pieces would still remain attached to it,

and

would be

removed together with

it, their status is that of a single piece containing 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 removed, the pieces will become detached from it and will not be lifted with it—they have the status of two separate pieces, neither of which contains an olive-bulk. Therefore,

one is not obligated to remove

them.

Ulla said: We said

that when two half-olive-bulks are not connected to one another, one is not obligated to remove them

only

when they are

in a trough.

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

But

two half-olive-bulks found in two different places

in a house must be removed.

Even though there is no olive-bulk in one place.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Sometimes

he sweeps the house and

gathers

[them]

together

in one place,

and they fall one upon the other,

and will join one another. And once they combine to form an olive-bulk, he will violate the prohibition of “it shall not be seen” with regard to them. Therefore, the Sages obligated him to remove them.

Ulla said: In the West they raised the following dilemma:

if one has half an olive-bulk of leaven in the

house, and

another half olive-bulk

in the upper room—

what is the law?

Do we suspect that he might gather them together and they would combine to form an olive-bulk, thereby causing him to transgress for their sake? Therefore, he is obligated to remove them.

Or perhaps we do not suspect this, but only when the two halves are in the house. However, when one is in the house and the other in the upper room, we do not suspect this, because even if the leaven falls from the upper room into the house, it is not common for it to fall precisely onto the leaven in the house.

And if you say that when one half is in the house and the other in the upper room we do not suspect that he might gather them together, there is still room to raise a dilemma concerning half an olive-bulk in the

house and

half an olive-bulk

in the portico: what is the law?

Do we suspect that he might sweep the house and the portico together, causing the two halves to join one another, or not?

And if you say that when one half is in the house and the other in the portico we do suspect that he might gather them together, since one always enters the house through the portico, and there are no complete partitions between them, so they are considered like a single room, there is still room to raise a dilemma concerning two half-olive-bulks located

in two houses

(rooms)

one within the other,

with the inner house entered through the outer one—

what is the law?

Do we suspect that he might sweep them together and the two half-olive-bulks would join one another? Or perhaps, since this is not comparable to a house and a portico, and the two are not used regularly together, we do not suspect this.

And we conclude:

The dilemma remains unresolved!

The Sages taught: With regard to bread that has become moldy and is no longer fit to be eaten

[to be eaten]

by a person, but

still

can be eaten by a dog, —

it has not yet lost the status of food.

And if it became impure, it

transmits food impurity through an egg-bulk.

This is the law of impure foods, which transmit impurity to others through an egg-bulk.

And

if it is bread of pure teruma, it

is burned

with

the

impure teruma on Passover.

Although at the time of its burning it becomes impure through contact with the impurity, and it is prohibited to render pure teruma impure, there is no concern here. Since in any event it is unfit for human consumption, it is permitted to render it impure directly.

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 transmit

food impurity.

And we raise a difficulty:

In accordance with whom is that which we learned in a Mishna: A general principle was stated with regard to matters of purity. Anything

that was initially

designated for human consumption,

it is

impure until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat?

Although it is no longer fit for human consumption, it does not lose the status of food that took effect upon it initially, as long as it remains fit for a dog.

And we answer: In accordance with whom

is this Mishna

in accord?—

Not

with Rabbi Natan,

who says that moldy bread does not transmit food impurity, despite its still being fit for a dog. Rather, it is in accordance with the first tanna, who says: “It transmits food impurity through an egg-bulk.”

The Sages taught: The vat of the tanners

[used by tanners, in which they place the hides]

into which flour was placed,

if it was placed

within three days

immediately preceding Passover and became leavened there, it

must be removed

. For during three days the flour does not spoil in it. Consequently, when Passover arrives, it still retains the status of leaven.

But if he placed the flour into it

before the three days

immediately preceding Passover,

he is not obligated to remove it!

Because after three days it spoils due to the odor of the vat, and when Passover arrives it no longer has the status of leaven.

Rabbi Natan said: When are these words applicable,

that when it was placed within three days one is obligated to remove it? Specifically

when he did not place hides into it.

Since it contains no odor of 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.

Because placing the hides into the flour causes it to lose the status of leaven.

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Natan!

And if he placed hides into the flour, it loses the status of leaven

even

within

one day, and even

within

one hour

of the hides being placed there.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise with regard to impurity.

With regard to dough in the cracks of the vat—

if he objects to it,

it

constitutes an interposition. But if he wants to retain it, it is considered part of the vat.

It is now understood that this is referring to immersion. Any vessel that became impure and requires immersion: If something to which its owner objects is attached to it, it constitutes an interposition between the vessel and the waters of the mikveh, and the immersion is ineffective.

And we question this: How can it teach, “And likewise with regard to impurity”? Is it indeed

comparable

to leaven on Passover?

There,

with regard to leaven,

the matter depends on the measure.

If there is an olive-bulk in one place, he transgresses for it; if there is less than an olive-bulk, he does not transgress. But

here,

with regard to immersion,

the matter depends on whether he objects to it,

and not on its measure. Anything to which he objects and which he will eventually remove constitutes an interposition. There is no difference whether it is an olive-bulk or not.

Rav Yehuda said: Say

that this is what the Mishna

is saying: And with regard to impurity, this is not so!

It is not like leaven, which depends on the measure of an olive-bulk; rather, it depends solely on whether he objects to it.

Abaye said to him: But it

teaches, “And likewise with regard to impurity,”

does it not?

This indicates that its law is like that of leaven.

Rather, Abaye said:

It is not referring here to immersion.

The tanna’s words are divided into two matters:

First, the tanna said, “And likewise with regard to impurity,” meaning that with regard to impurity too there is a distinction between an olive-bulk and less than an olive-bulk in the cracks of a vat. Then the tanna linked this to whether one objects to it, and not to the measure of an olive-bulk.

And

this is what he is saying: