## Pesachim Daf 45b

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

אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק — חוֹצֵץ וְעוֹבֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, אֲבָל בִּכְזַיִת — אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם הֶעָשׂוּי לְחַזֵּק חוֹצֵץ וְעוֹבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**it does not interpose** in the immersion **and one does not violate** the prohibition against having leaven in his possession during Passover. **In a case where** the dough **does not serve to reinforce** the bowl, **it interposes** in the immersion **and one violates** the prohibition against owning leaven on Passover. **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **in** a case where the dough is **less than an olive-bulk. However, if it is an olive-bulk, even in a case where it serves to reinforce** the bowl **it interposes** in the immersion **and one violates** a prohibition by having it in his possession during the Festival.


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

קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: סְמִי קִילְּתָא מִקַּמֵּי חֲמִירְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In any case, these *baraitot* **contradict each other. Rav Huna said: Delete the** first, **lenient** *baraita* **from before the stringent one.**


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

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: תַּנָּאֵי שָׁקְלַתְּ מֵעָלְמָא?! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הַפַּת שֶׁעִיפְּשָׁה — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרָאוּי לְשׁוֹחְקָהּ וּלְחַמֵּעַ בָּהּ כַּמָּה עִיסּוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: Have you removed the *tanna’im* from the world? It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** The *baraita* is in accordance with the ruling of another Sage and is not the result of a flawed *baraita*, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **bread that grew moldy** and is no longer edible, **one is obligated to remove** it, **due to** the fact that **it is suitable to be ground and to leaven other dough.** Apparently, one is obligated to remove even inedible leaven.


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְקוּיֶּימֶת לַאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל כּוֹפֶת שְׂאוֹר שֶׁיִּיחֲדָהּ לִישִׁיבָה — בָּטְלָה. מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בָּטְלָה, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לֹא בָּטְלָה, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: כׇּל כְּזַיִת, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְבַטֵּל — לָא בְּטִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In what** case **is this statement said?** In a case **where** the bread was **maintained for consumption; however, a mass of** hardened **leaven that one designated for** the purpose of **sitting** upon it, not for consumption, **is nullified.** Rav Yosef infers from the *baraita*: **From** the fact **that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said** that this leaven **is nullified,** this proves **by inference** that **the first *tanna* maintains** that in that case, the leaven **is not nullified. Apparently,** the first *tanna* **maintains** that with regard to **any olive-bulk** of leaven, **even though one renders** it **null and void,** it **is not nullified.** The respective opinions of these two Sages are presented in the two conflicting *baraitot* with regard to dough in a bowl.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תָּרֵצְתְּ בִּכְזַיִת. פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת מִי תָּרֵצְתְּ? אֶלָּא הָא וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בִּמְקוֹם לִישָׁה, הָא — שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם לִישָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: You resolved** the contradiction between the *baraitot* **with regard to an olive-bulk** of leaven by establishing it as a tannaitic dispute. According to the first *tanna*, an olive-bulk of leaven cannot be nullified at all, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar maintains that it can be nullified. However, **did you resolve** the contradiction with regard to **less than an olive-bulk** of leaven? **Rather,** both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and** nevertheless it is **not difficult. This** *baraita*, where he prohibits the dough in a crack of the bowl, refers to a situation where the dough **is in** the **place** in the bowl where **kneading** takes place, as any dough he later inserts into the bowl will come into contact with the dough in the crack. However, in **that** case, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar rules leniently, as the dough **is not in** the **place** in the bowl where **kneading** takes place.


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם לִישָׁה — אַגַּבַּהּ דְאַגָּנָא, אֶלָּא אַשִּׂיפְתָּא דְאַגָּנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Do not say** that dough **not in** the **place** in the bowl where **kneading** takes place, refers only to the area **on** the **back of,** i.e., outside **the basin; rather,** it also refers to the area **on the edge of the basin,** as dough does not come into contact with that part of the bowl.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא זִמְנָא דְּאָטֵיף וּמָטֵי לְהָתָם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This is **obvious;** why was it necessary to make that statement? The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi’s statement is necessary **lest you say** that dough **sometimes drips there** and it should therefore be considered the place in the bowl where kneading takes place. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the case, and one is not obligated to remove leavened dough from that part of the bowl.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar** that a mass of leaven designated for the purpose of sitting upon is nullified.


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

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: אִם טָח פָּנֶיהָ בְּטִיט — בָּטְלָה. טָח אִין, לֹא טָח — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashi say** that **Rav said: If one covered the surface** of a mass of leaven **with mortar,** the leaven **is nullified?** The Gemara infers: If **he covered** it with mortar, **yes,** it is nullified; however, if he did **not cover** it with mortar, **no,** it is **not** nullified. In this statement, Rav states that a mass of leaven is nullified only if it is covered with mortar.


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

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי הָא לָא מַתְנֵי הָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He who teaches this** statement **does not teach that** statement, as there is a dispute between *amora’im* with regard to Rav’s opinion.


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: אִם טָח פָּנֶיהָ בְּטִיט — בָּטְלָה וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** an alternative version of the above statement. **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashi said** that **Rav said: If one covered the surface** of a mass of leaven **with mortar, it is nullified.** This ruling indicates that if one did not cover the surface with mortar, the leavened dough is not nullified, in accordance with the opinion of the first *tanna*.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים וְחוּט שֶׁל בָּצֵק בֵּינֵיהֶן, רוֹאִין: כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ יִנָּטֵל הַחוּט וְנִיטָּלִין עִמּוֹ — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר. וְאִם לָאו — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **two half-olive-bulk** portions of leavened dough **with a string of dough** connecting **between them, one observes:** In **any** case **that were the string taken and** the portions are **taken with it, one is obligated to remove** the dough, as the string unites them into an olive-bulk of leaven. **And if** the portions are **not** taken with it, **one is not obligated to remove** them.


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

אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בַּעֲרֵיבָה, אֲבָל בַּבַּיִת — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said: We stated** this leniency that it is not necessary to remove half-olive-bulk portions of leavened dough **only** when the segments are **in a** kneading **bowl,** stuck separately to the sides of the bowl. **However,** if they are located **in a house, one is obligated to remove** them even in the absence of a string of dough connecting the two pieces.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא, דְּזִימְנִין דְּכָנֵישׁ לְהוּ וְנָפְלִי גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this? It is **because** a person **will sometimes gather them** when cleaning his house **and they will fall** adjacent **to each other.** If this occurs, the two portions will form an olive-bulk of leavened dough.


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

אָמַר עוּלָּא: בָּעוּ בְּמַעְרְבָא, בַּיִת וַעֲלִיָּיה מַהוּ? בַּיִת וְאַכְסַדְרָא מַהוּ? שְׁנֵי בָתִּים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** The Sages **raise a dilemma in the West,** Eretz Yisrael: If one piece of leavened bread was in the main area of a **house and** the other piece was **in the upper** story, **what is** the *halakha*? If one piece is in **the house** and the other is in **a portico, what is** the *halakha*? Similarly, if the two segments are in **two houses, one inside the other, what is** the *halakha*?


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

תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Let** these dilemmas **stand** unresolved.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַפַּת שֶׁעִיפְּשָׁה וְנִפְסְלָה מִלֶּאֱכוֹל לָאָדָם, וְהַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְאוֹכְלָהּ — מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין בִּכְבֵיצָה, וְנִשְׂרֶפֶת עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בַּפֶּסַח. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** With regard to **bread that grew moldy and was rendered inedible for consumption by a person, but a dog can eat it,** it **can become impure** with the **ritual impurity of foods in** the measure **of an egg-bulk** in size, as it is still considered food. If the moldy bread was ritually pure *teruma*, **it** may **be burned with ritually impure** *teruma* **on Passover.** Once the bread is no longer fit for human consumption, the prohibition against actively rendering it impure no longer applies. **They said in the name of Rabbi Natan: It cannot become ritually impure.**


###### Pesachim 45b:18
[Pesachim 45b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:18)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בִּטְהָרוֹת: כׇּל הַמְיוּחָד לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם — טָמֵא עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵל מִלֶּאֱכוֹל לְכֶלֶב. כְּמַאן — דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is that which we learned** in a mishna: The Sages **stated** a **principle with regard to ritual purity: Any** food **that is designated as food for a person** that becomes impure remains **ritually impure until it is rendered unfit to be consumed by a dog.** The Gemara reiterates: **In accordance with whose** opinion is that statement? The Gemara answers: It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan,** as his statement indicates that food designated as food for a person is rendered ritually pure as soon as it becomes unfit to be eaten by a person.


###### Pesachim 45b:19
[Pesachim 45b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֲרֵיבַת הָעַבְּדָנִין שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָהּ קֶמַח, תּוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר. קוֹדֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לְתוֹכָהּ עוֹרוֹת, אֲבָל נָתַן לְתוֹכָהּ עוֹרוֹת — אֲפִילּוּ תּוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** With regard to **tanners’ bowls into which** one **placed flour** in the production process of leather, if the flour was placed **within three days** of the start of Passover, **one is obligated to remove** it, as it is still considered edible leaven. However, if one added the flour **prior to three days** before Passover, **one is not obligated to remove** the contents of the bowl, as the flour will have already been rendered inedible by the odor of the vessel before the beginning of Passover, and is no longer considered edible. **Rabbi Natan said: In what** case **is this statement said?** In a case **where one did not place** animal **hides into** the bowl; **however,** if **one placed hides into** the bowl, **even** if Passover is **within three** days of when he placed the flour in the bowl, **he is not obligated to remove** the flour. Once the foul-smelling hides are placed in the bowl, the flour is certainly no longer edible.


###### Pesachim 45b:20
[Pesachim 45b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:20)

אָמַר רָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם אֶחָד וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan** with regard to this issue. Consequently, there is no set time at which the flour is considered spoiled, as it is considered inedible **even one day or even one hour** after hides were added to the bowl.


###### Pesachim 45b:21
[Pesachim 45b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:21)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **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 45b:22
[Pesachim 45b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:22)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — בְּשִׁיעוּרָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא. הָכָא — בִּקְפִידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is it comparable?** How can the mishna compare the *halakhot* of leaven on Passover to the *halakhot* of interpositions that invalidate an immersion to purify from ritual impurity? **There,** with regard to leaven, **the matter is contingent upon the measure** of the dough, as an olive-bulk of leaven is prohibited. **Here,** with regard to interpositions that invalidate an immersion, **the matter is contingent upon** whether or not one is **particular** about the presence of the dough. In other words, with regard to interpositions it is the attitude of the owner of the bowl that is the decisive factor, not the quantity of the dough.


###### Pesachim 45b:23
[Pesachim 45b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:23)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אֵימָא: וּלְעִנְיַן הַטּוּמְאָה אֵינוֹ כֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rav Yehuda said: Say** that the mishna should be read: **And with regard to** interpositions that invalidate an immersion to purify from **ritual impurity, it is not so,** as it is not the quantity of the dough but the particularity of the owner that is the decisive factor.


###### Pesachim 45b:24
[Pesachim 45b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/45b:24)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הָא ״וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכֵן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: Doesn’t** the mishna **teach: And similarly with regard to ritual impurity.** The text of the mishna cannot be so drastically emended merely to resolve a difficulty. **Rather, Abaye said: This is** what the mishna **is saying: And similarly**