## Pesachim Daf 45a

###### Pesachim 45a:1
[Pesachim 45a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:1)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה נָזִיר וְחַטָּאת שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**due to** the fact that the *halakhot* of **a nazirite** and those of **a sin-offering** are **two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same principle, and two verses that teach the same principle **do not teach** that principle by analogy.


###### Pesachim 45a:2
[Pesachim 45a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:2)

נָזִיר, הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. חַטָּאת מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ לֹא בָּלְעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ (יִקְדָּשׁ)״ — עַד שֶׁיִּבָּלַע בְּבָשָׂר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The derivation that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance in the case of **a nazirite** is **that which we stated** above. With regard to **a sin-offering, what is** the derivation that permitted material combines with prohibited material? **As it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“Anything that touches in its flesh shall become consecrated”** (Leviticus 6:20). I **might** have thought that non-sacred meat that touched any part of a sin-offering is rendered prohibited **even if it did not absorb** the taste of the sin-offering it touched. Therefore, **the verse states: In its flesh shall become consecrated,** to teach that this meat is not consecrated **until** the taste of the sin-offering **is absorbed within its flesh.**


###### Pesachim 45a:3
[Pesachim 45a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:3)

״יִקְדָּשׁ״ — לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ, שֶׁאִם פְּסוּלָה הִיא — תִּיפָּסֵל, וְאִם כְּשֵׁירָה הִיא — תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Shall become consecrated** means that **its** legal status **becomes like** that of the sin-offering itself; **that** is, **if** the sin-offering **is disqualified,** this meat **will** also **be disqualified. And if** the sin-offering **is valid,** the meat that touched it may **be eaten in accordance with the more stringent** standards **of** a sin-offering as far as when and where it may be eaten. The principle that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance applies in the case of a sin-offering as well. Therefore, the principle cannot be extended to the entire Torah, as a *halakha* stated in two cases is not applied elsewhere.


###### Pesachim 45a:4
[Pesachim 45a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:4)

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, נִיהְוֵי נָזִיר וְחַטָּאת שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the Rabbis as well, let** the cases of **a nazirite and a sin-offering** be considered **two verses that come as one and they do not teach** the principle that the legal status of taste is like that of the substance with regard to the entire Torah.


###### Pesachim 45a:5
[Pesachim 45a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:5)

אָמְרִי: הָנְהוּ מִיצְרָיךְ צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the Rabbis **say:** Both of **these** cases **are necessary** as they could not have been derived from each other. Therefore, they are not two verses that come as one and it is possible to derive a principle from these two *halakhot*.


###### Pesachim 45a:6
[Pesachim 45a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:6)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַאי צְרִיכִי? בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטָּאת, לָא גָּמַר נָזִיר מִינַּהּ — דְּחוּלִּין מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא גָּמְרִינַן. אֶלָּא, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּנָזִיר, וְתֵיתֵי חַטָּאת וְתִגְמוֹר מִינֵּיהּ, דְּהָא כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה קָא גָמַר מִנָּזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Akiva,** who does not derive a general principle from these verses, would respond by asking: In **what** way **are** they **necessary? Granted, if the Merciful One had written** this principle only with regard **to a sin-offering,** one would **not derive** the *halakha* of **a nazirite from it,** as **we do not derive** *halakhot* of **non-sacred** objects **from** those of **consecrated** objects. Certain stringencies and strictures apply only to consecrated property. **However, let the Merciful One write** this principle **with regard to a nazirite, and you** could **bring** the case of the **sin-offering and derive** it from the case of a nazirite, just **as** the application of this principle to **all prohibitions in the Torah is derived from** the *halakha* of **a nazirite.** Since this principle is stated in both cases unnecessarily, these are two verses that come as one, and one cannot derive a principle from them.


###### Pesachim 45a:7
[Pesachim 45a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:7)

וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לָךְ, מִיצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי: חַטָּאת לְהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר, וְחוּלִּין מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא גָּמַר, וּ״מִשְׁרַת״ — לִיתֵּן טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר, וּמִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** as they maintain that the principle that the legal status of the taste of a prohibited substance is like that of the substance itself is not limited to these two cases, they would **say to you** that both sources **are necessary.** The case of the **sin-offering** is necessary **to** derive the principle **that a permitted** substance **joins together with a prohibited** substance, as **one cannot derive** the *halakhot* of **non-sacred** food **from consecrated** property. **And** the term **soaked,** which appears in the context of the *halakhot* of a nazirite, **teaches** the principle that the legal status of **taste is like** that of the **substance.** Since both examples are necessary, they are not considered two verses that come as one, and it is therefore possible to derive a principle from them. **And** consequently **from here you derive** the *halakha* with regard **to all of the Torah in its entirety.**


###### Pesachim 45a:8
[Pesachim 45a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:8)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how could **Rabbi Akiva** respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva would say that **both** cases teach the principle that **a permitted** substance **joins together with a prohibited** substance, **and they are** indeed **two verses that come as one,** to teach about the same issue. **And** the rule is that **any two verses that come as one do not teach** overarching principles.


###### Pesachim 45a:9
[Pesachim 45a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג״ — לִימֵּד עַל אִיסּוּרֵי נָזִיר שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִים זֶה עִם זֶה. הַשְׁתָּא: לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אִיסּוּר וְהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרְפִין, אִיסּוּר וְאִיסּוּר מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But** with regard to **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse: “He shall eat **nothing that is made of the grapevine, from the grape skins to the grape seed”** (Numbers 6:4), **taught with regard to prohibitions of a nazirite that** these substances **join together.** If the nazirite ate only a small amount of each substance that when joined together constitute the measure that determines liability, he is liable. **Now** the following question arises: **According to Rabbi Akiva,** who maintains that **prohibited and permitted** substances **join together, is it necessary** to teach that one **prohibited** substance **joins together with** another **prohibited** substance? Apparently, according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, this derivation is unnecessary.


###### Pesachim 45a:10
[Pesachim 45a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיסּוּר וְהֶיתֵּר בְּבַת אַחַת, אִיסּוּר וְאִיסּוּר בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana **said to him** that this derivation is necessary because the two cases are not identical: Whereas **prohibited and permitted** substances combine only when they are eaten **simultaneously, prohibited and** other **prohibited** substances join together even when eaten **one after the other.** In other words, if a nazirite eats half an olive-bulk of grape skins and then eats half an olive-bulk of grape seeds, he is liable according to Rabbi Akiva.


###### Pesachim 45a:11
[Pesachim 45a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** בָּצֵק שֶׁבְּסִידְקֵי עֲרֵיבָה, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר, וְאִם (לֹא) — בָּטֵל בְּמִיעוּטוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **dough that is in the cracks of a** kneading **bowl, if there is an olive-bulk** of dough **in one place,** one **is obligated to remove** it. **And if** the dough does **not** add up to this amount, **it is nullified due to its insignificance.**


###### Pesachim 45a:12
[Pesachim 45a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:12)

וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוּמְאָה, אִם מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו — חוֹצֵץ, וְאִם רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא כַּעֲרֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, with regard to** the *halakhot* of immersion to purify the bowl from **ritual impurity, if one is particular about** the dough that is stuck in the cracks and he plans to remove it and use it, **it** is a foreign substance that **interposes** between the kneading bowl and the water of the ritual bath, and invalidates the immersion of the bowl, leaving it ritually impure. **And if he wants** the dough **to remain** in place, **its** status **is like** that **of the** kneading **bowl** itself and is not an interposition.


###### Pesachim 45a:13
[Pesachim 45a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִין לְחַזֵּק, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִין לְחַזֵּק — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: They taught** that one is obligated to remove a combined olive-bulk of leaven **only in a case where the** pieces of dough **are not** in a position where they **serve to reinforce** the kneading bowl. **However, in a case where they serve to reinforce** the bowl and they will remain there for this purpose, **he is not obligated to remove** them; he may simply render them null and void.


###### Pesachim 45a:14
[Pesachim 45a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:14)

מִכְלָל דְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת — אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: This proves **by inference** that with regard to **less than an olive-bulk, even in a place where it does not serve to reinforce** the bowl, **one is not obligated to remove** it.


###### Pesachim 45a:15
[Pesachim 45a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:15)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: ״וְאִם לָאו בָּטֵל בְּמִיעוּטוֹ״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם הֶעָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר, מִכְּלָל דִּכְזַיִת — אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם הֶעָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some teach** the statement of Rav Yehuda with regard **to the latter clause** of the mishna: **And if** the dough is **not** an olive-bulk, **it is nullified due to its insignificance. Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: They taught** that one is obligated to remove less than an olive-bulk of dough in one place **only in a place where it serves to reinforce** the bowl; **however, in a place where it does not serve to reinforce** the bowl, **one is obligated to remove it.** This proves **by inference that** if there is **an olive-bulk** of dough in one place, **even in a place where it serves to reinforce** the bowl, **one is obligated to remove it.**


###### Pesachim 45a:16
[Pesachim 45a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:16)

תַּנְיָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא, תַּנְיָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא. תַּנְיָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא: בָּצֵק שֶׁבְּסִידְקֵי עֲרֵיבָה, בִּמְקוֹם הֶעָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק — אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק — חוֹצֵץ וְעוֹבֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּכְזַיִת, אֲבָל בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת — אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק, אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **was taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with the first version** of Rav Yehuda’s statement, and it **was taught** in a different *baraita* **in accordance with the latter version** of his statement. The Gemara elaborates: It **was taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with the first version** of Rav Yehuda’s statement: With regard to **dough that is in the cracks of a** kneading **bowl in a place where it is serves to reinforce** the bowl, it **does not interpose** and invalidate the immersion for ritual impurity, **and one does not violate** the prohibition against having leaven in his possession during Passover. **And in a case where it does not serve to reinforce** the bowl, **it interposes, and one violates** the prohibition against having leaven in his possession on Passover. **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **in** the case of **an olive-bulk** of dough; **however,** in a case where there is **less than olive-bulk, even in a case where it does not serve to reinforce** the bowl, **it does not interpose and** one **does not violate** a prohibition by having it in his possession.


###### Pesachim 45a:17
[Pesachim 45a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45a:17)

וְתַנְיָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא: בָּצֵק שֶׁבְּסִידְקֵי עֲרֵיבָה, בִּמְקוֹם הֶעָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it **was taught** in a different *baraita* **in accordance with the latter version** of Rav Yehuda’s statement: With regard to **dough that is in the cracks of a** kneading **bowl, in a place where it serves to reinforce** the bowl,