Pesachim 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

a.

And so

it is

with regard to the combination of impurity on Passover.

For it is established for us that food renders other food impure only if it contains the measure of an egg.

And that dough in the crevices of a kneading trough, if this occurred on Passover and it contains an olive-bulk, combines with other food to reach the measure of an egg and thereby render other food impure.

But if it does not contain an olive-bulk, it does not combine.

However,

during the rest of the year,

the matter does not depend on the measure of an olive-bulk. Rather,

there is a dispute

[a distinction] depending on whether one is particular about the dough, not wanting to leave it in the crevices of the trough but intending to remove it, or whether one is not particular about removing it and does not mind if the dough becomes nullified to the trough.

And it makes no difference whether it contains an olive-bulk or not.

And

what are the circumstances?

For example, when there is

before us

less than the measure of an egg

of

food

other than the dough.

And they touched

those foods

this dough

that is attached in the crevices of the trough, and together with it they combined to reach the measure of an egg. Impurity then touched them while they were still joined to one another, and they became impure; afterward they touched other foods.

On Passover—

if this dough contains an olive-bulk, then although its owner is not particular about removing it, it is not nullified to the utensil, because

its prohibition

in an olive-bulk, on account of hametz on Passover, makes it something

significant

in its own right, which is not nullified to the utensil, even though the owner is not particular about removing it.

And this is as we find in the first clause: dough containing an olive-bulk of hametz in the crevices of a trough is significant with regard to the prohibition of hametz on Passover, for dough of an olive-bulk is not nullified with regard to the trough.

Therefore, it

combines

with the foods that joined with it to reach the measure of an egg, in order to render other foods impure.

But if it does not contain an olive-bulk, and therefore lacks the significance of the prohibition of hametz in an olive-bulk, and one is not particular about removing it, it is not significant enough to combine and convey food impurity, since it becomes nullified to the utensil.

But

during the rest of the year,

when the matter does not depend on a measure, since there is no prohibition of hametz here to make it significant,

rather,

the matter depends on being particular—

then specifically

if one is particular about it

and intends to remove it, and it is considered food since ultimately he will remove it, it

combines

with other food to reach the measure of an egg with regard to food impurity.

But

if

he

wants it to remain

in the crevices of the trough—

it is like the trough.

The status of food is removed from it, and it does not combine with other food to complete it to the measure of an egg, even when it contains an olive-bulk.

Rava challenged

Abaye: Is it really so that

does the Mishna state

“if one is particular about it,

it combines”?

But it states: “If one is particular about it,

it constitutes a separation,”

it states!

Rather, said Rava:

The Mishna is indeed speaking about a separation with regard to immersion.

And this is what it is saying:

And likewise, to restore purity to the trough.

For if the dough in the crevices of the trough contains an olive-bulk, it constitutes a separation.

And

what are the circumstances?

For example, the trough became impure and one wishes to immerse it.

On Passover—

since

because of

its

prohibition

it is

significant,

for he is necessarily required to remove it from there, then even though he is not particular about removing it, it

constitutes a separation

during immersion, since it is not considered part of the utensil.

But if it does not contain an olive-bulk, since there is no need to remove it and he is not particular about it, it does not constitute a separation.

But

during the rest of the year,

the matter does not depend on an olive-bulk. Rather,

the matter depends on being particular.

If one is particular about it

and intends to remove it, it

constitutes a separation.

And if

he

wants it to remain

and intends to leave it permanently in the crevices of the trough,

it is like the trough,

and it does not constitute a separation.

Rav Pappa challenged

Rava: Is it really so that

does the Mishna state

“and likewise with regard to purity”?

But it states: “And likewise

with regard to impurity,”

it states!

Rather, said Rav Pappa:

This is what it is saying:

And likewise with regard to removing impurity from the trough,

and he proceeds to explain.

What are the circumstances?

For example, a creeping creature touched this dough,

but did not touch the trough itself.

As long as the dough is significant as an independent entity, the creeping creature is not considered to have touched the trough itself, and it does not become impure on account of it.

Therefore,

on Passover—

if it contains an olive-bulk,

because

on account of

its

prohibition

it is

significant

as something destined to be removed from the trough, it is not nullified to the trough even when one is not particular about it. Therefore, it

constitutes a separation

from the impurity of the creeping creature,

and

impurity does not descend to the trough.

But if it does not contain an olive-bulk, since there is no need to remove it and one is not particular about it, it is nullified to the trough and does not separate it from the creeping creature. Once the creeping creature touched it, it is considered as though it touched the body of the trough, and it renders it impure.

But

during the rest of the year,

when the matter does not depend on a measure, rather

the matter depends on being particular.

Thus, even when it contains an olive-bulk, specifically

if one is particular about it, it

constitutes a separation

between the creeping creature and the trough, preventing impurity from the creeping creature.

But

if

he

wants it to remain, it is like the trough.

And if the creeping creature touched it, this is as though it touched the trough.

Mishna:

With regard to ordinary dough, the Sages gave signs indicating the stages of leavening, in order to know whether it has leavened or not—for example, its surface has turned pale, or cracks the size of locust horns have formed in it, or its cracks have intermingled with one another, as detailed in the Mishna below.

However, at times it is impossible to determine the nature of the dough and to recognize whether these signs have appeared in it. It is then called “deaf dough,” because it is unusual like a deaf person, who has ears but it is not apparent whether he hears or not.

Deaf dough—

how does one know whether it has leavened or not?

If there is

another dough

like it,

which was kneaded together with it at the same time, it is judged according to the other dough. If the other dough is recognized by its signs

as having leavened, then

this deaf dough

is forbidden.

For they were kneaded at the same time, and once the second one has leavened, this is an indication that the time required for them to leaven has already elapsed.

Gemara:

We raise the following question:

If there is no

other hametz

like it—

what is the ruling?

How do we know whether it has leavened or not?

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

If a period of time has elapsed sufficient for a person

to walk from Migdal Nunaya to Tiberias,

it is certain that it has leavened. And this is the measure of walking one

mil.

We raise the following question:

Let Rabbi Abbahu

say “the time required to walk

a mil”?

And we answer: By Rabbi Abbahu’s use of this expression,

he teaches us that the measure of a mil

is

the

distance

from Migdal Nunaya to Tiberias.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: For a kneader

[a worker who kneads dough], four mil!

That is, if a person hired another to knead his dough for payment, and gave him impure utensils in which to knead the dough, the kneader is obligated to take the trouble to walk as far as four mil in order to immerse them in a mikve, so that he can knead the dough in purity.

And likewise for prayer—

if a person is traveling and the time has come to lodge, and there is a synagogue four mil away, he must walk an additional four mil ahead of him in order to pray with the congregation. And he should lodge there.

And

likewise

for washing the hands

for a meal—if water is available ahead of him within a distance of

four mil,

he must take the trouble to walk there in order to wash his hands.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Aivu stated

this teaching. And he did not state only three matters; rather,

he stated four matters

[concerning walking four mil].

And one of them

[the matter additional to the three mentioned]

is

“processing

the hide.”

The ordinary hide of an animal carcass is tough and is not considered flesh; therefore it does not convey the impurity of a carcass like flesh. But there are soft hides that are ordinarily eaten like flesh, and those hides convey carcass impurity like the flesh itself.

And we learned: “And all of them”

[all the soft hides that convey impurity like flesh], if it happened

that he processed them

in the usual manner of processing hides,

or that he

spread out their hides and

walked on them

until he trod on them

for

the measure of

processing

[working the hide, for treading is the beginning of processing]—the status of flesh is removed from them.

And they are

pure

from conveying the impurity of a carcass.

Except for human skin,

whose status remains that of flesh even after it has been processed. It still conveys impurity from a corpse.

And

we raise the following question:

how much

walking is there that contains

the measure of processing?

Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The measure of walking four mil.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

With regard to the fact that we trouble him to walk four mil for prayer and for washing the hands,

they taught

this

only

when the synagogue or the water is

ahead of him,

in the direction in which he is traveling.

But

if they are

behind him,

he need not turn back for them. Rather,

even

a distance of

one mil, he does not turn back.

Rabbi Aḥa said: And from it [

from the words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina] we learn that it is specifically when the distance is

a mil that he does not return.

This implies:

if the synagogue or the water is located at a distance from him

of less than a mil,

he

returns

for their sake, even after it has become prohibited for him to return.

Mishna:

All labors that are needed for food preparation, such as cooking and baking, are permitted on a Festival. But anything that is not fit for eating because of its prohibition may not be baked on a Festival, since it cannot be described as “food preparation.”

Consequently, one who comes to bake impure dough on the Festival of Passover encounters a problem concerning the separation of ḥalla. For if he separates the ḥalla before baking, he will then no longer be able to bake it, since impure ḥalla is prohibited for consumption, and it is not permitted to bake it as “food preparation.”

And if he leaves it without baking it, it will come to leavening, and he will violate the prohibition of “it shall not be seen.”

Even to burn it or feed it to dogs before it leavens is prohibited, because the burning or disposal of consecrated offerings does not override a Festival.

If so,

how does one separate ḥalla on the Festival

of Passover

when it is impure [from impure dough]?

[when the dough is impure]?

Rabbi Eliezer says: He should not designate it as ḥalla

from the dough

until it has been baked,

the entire dough.

Rather, he bakes from the dough loaves, loaves of matza, without separating ḥalla. It is permitted to bake all the loaves, because the baking of all of them is food preparation. For after baking, each loaf will be fit for eating, by separating a small amount from it as ḥalla.

Therefore, since at the time of baking each loaf was fit for the needs of the day, if he wishes, he may separate one entire loaf after baking for all of them, as explained in the Gemara.

Ben Beteira says:

He should separate ḥalla before baking,

and place [they should place] the ḥalla

[they should place] the challah

in cold water.

The cold water prevents it from leavening. At the conclusion of the Festival, they should burn the ḥalla, as required for impure ḥalla.