Pesachim 89

משום דהוה נזיר וחטאת שני כתובין הבאין כאחד ואין מלמדין

Because a nazirite and a sin-offering are two verses with the same teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which come as one'.');">¹</span> and they do not illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 119, n. 2.');">²</span>

נזיר הא דאמרן חטאת מאי היא דתניא (ויקרא ו, כ) כל אשר יגע בבשרה יקדש וגו' יכול אפילו לא בלעה ת"ל בבשרה (יקדש) עד שיבלע בבשר

'A nazirite', that which we have stated. What is the reference to the sin-offering? - For it was taught whatsoever shall touch in the flesh thereof shall be holy:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20. 'Holy' means 'forbidden', in the sense that any other flesh which touches this flesh of the sin-offering becomes subject to the same laws and limitations as those to which the sin-offering is subject.');">³</span>

יקדש להיות כמוה שאם פסולה היא תיפסל ואם כשירה היא תאכל כחמור שבה

you might think, even if it did not absorb [of the flesh of the sin-offering]; therefore it is stated, 'in the flesh thereof'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Literal translation. I.e., it is forbidden only if it absorbs some of the sin-offering within itself.');">⁴</span> Only when it absorbs in the flesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text of cur. edd. is difficult. A better reading is preserved in the Sifra a.l. 'till it absorbs', omitting the words 'in the flesh', and the deduction being from the word 'thereof'.]');">⁵</span>

ורבנן נמי ניהוי נזיר וחטאת שני כתובין הבאין כאחד ואין מלמדין

'Shall be holy', to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] becomes unfit; whi is fit, that may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering must be eaten within the sacred precincts, by male priests, and for one day and night only; similarly the food');">⁶</span> any thing that dieth of itself (nebelah) ; thou mayest give it unto the stranger.

אמרי הנהו מיצריך צריכי

Hence whatever is fit for a stranger is designated nebelah, but what is unfit is not designated nebelah, in the sense that if it imparts a deteriorating flavour it does not render the food forbidden. Then, according to the Rabbis too, let a nazirite and a sin-offering be two verses with the same teaching and they do not illumine [other cases]? - They can answer: these are indeed [both] necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where that is so, they do illuminate other cases, since neither could be deduced from the other.');">⁷</span>

ור"ע מאי צריכי בשלמא אי כתב רחמנא בחטאת לא גמר נזיר מינה דחולין מקדשים לא גמרינן אלא לכתוב רחמנא בנזיר ותיתי חטאת ותגמור מיניה דהא כל איסורין שבתורה קא גמר מנזיר

And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not admit this?');">⁸</span> How are they [both] necessary?

ורבנן אמרי לך מיצרך צריכי חטאת להיתר מצטרף לאיסור וחולין מקדשים לא גמר ומשרת ליתן טעם כעיקר ומכאן אתה דן לכל התורה כולה

It is well [to say] that if the Merciful One wrote it in respect to a sin-offering, [the case of] a nazirite could not be derived fr it, because we cannot derive hullin from sacred sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter being naturally more stringent. Hence the fact that there the permitted combines with the forbidden does not prove that it will also do so in the case of hullin, where the interdicted food is not sacred.');">⁹</span> But let the Merciful One write it in respect to a nazirite, and then the sin-offering would come and be derived from it, seeing that all the prohibitions of the Torah are learnt from a nazirite.

ור' עקיבא תרוייהו להיתר מצטרף לאיסור והוו להו שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

But the Rabbis can answer you: they [both] are indeed required; the sin-offering, to [show that] the permitted combines with the forbidden, while hullin cannot be deduced from sacred sacrifices; and 'an infusion', to intimate that the taste is as the substance itself, and from this you m draw a conclusion for the whole Torah. But R'Akiba maintains: both [are required] for [teaching] that the permitted combines with the forbidden, so that they are two verses with the same teaching, and all [instances of] two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [other cases].

א"ל רב אשי לרב כהנא אלא הא דתניא (במדבר ו, ד) מכל אשר יעשה מגפן היין מחרצנים ועד זג לימד על איסורי נזיר שמצטרפים זה עם זה השתא לר"ע איסור והיתר מצטרפין איסור ואיסור מיבעיא

R'Ashi said to R'Kahana: Then as to what was taught, [All the days of his Naziriteship shall he eat] nothing that is made of the grape vine, from the husks to the kernels:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 4.');">¹⁰</span> this teaches concerning a nazirite's prohibited commodities, that they combine with each other; - seeing that according to R'Akiba [even] the forbidden with the permitted combine, is it necessary [to state] the forbidden with the forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it is obvious; why then is the verse required?');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה איסור והיתר בבת אחת איסור ואיסור בזה אחר זה:

- Said he to him: The forbidden with the permitted [combine only when eaten] together; the forbidden with the forbidden, [even when eaten] consecutively.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For further notes on the whole discussion beginning with R. Abbahu's dictum in the name of R. Johanan on page 43b, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed. pp. 128ff.');">¹²</span> which absorbs some of it.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בצק שבסידקי עריבה אם יש כזית במקום אחד חייב לבער ואם (לא) בטל במיעוטו

- Thus here too the permitted flesh combines with the forbidden, and all is regarded as forbidden. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[WITH REGARD TO] THE DOUGH IN THE CRACKS OF THE KNEADING TROUGH, IF THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE IN ONE PLACE, HE IS BOUND TO REMOVE [IT]; BUT IF NOT, IT IS NULLIFIED THROUGH THE SMALLNESS OF ITS QUANTITY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he has abandoned the normal use of the dough in flavour of the trough.');">¹³</span>

וכן לענין הטומאה אם מקפיד עליו חוצץ ואם רוצה בקיומו הרי הוא כעריבה:

AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN THE MATTER OF UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra n. 8; if he objects to it, it is regarded as a foreign body.');">¹⁴</span> BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he wants the dough to be there to close the crack.');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא במקום שאין עשויין לחזק אבל במקום שעשויין לחזק אינו חייב לבער

IT IS LIKE A KNEADING-TROUGH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it does not interpose.');">¹⁶</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learned this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if there is as much as an olive in one place it must be removed.');">¹⁷</span>

מכלל דפחות מכזית אפי' במקום שאין עשוי לחזק אינו חייב לבער

only of a place where it [the dough] does not serve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not made for'.');">¹⁸</span> for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is not bound to remove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the crack is at the bottom of the trough, and the dough fills it and so prevents the water from running out. It is then regarded as part of the trough, not as dough, and therefore it need not be removed. But if the crack is high up, it does not serve this purpose and must be removed.');">¹⁹</span>

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא ואם לאו בטל במיעוטו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא במקום העשוי לחזק אבל במקום שאין עשוי לחזק חייב לבער מכלל דכזית אפילו במקום העשוי לחזק חייב לבער

Hence it follows that [where there is] less than an olive, even if it does serve for reinforcing [ he is not obliged to remove it. Others recite it in reference to the second clause: BUT IF NOT, IT IS NULLIFIED THROUGH THE SMALLNESS OF ITS QUANTITY.

תניא כלישנא קמא תניא כלישנא בתרא תניא כלישנא קמא בצק שבסידקי עריבה במקום העשוי לחזק אינו חוצץ ואינו עובר ובמקום שאין עשוי לחזק חוצץ ועובר במה דברים אמורים בכזית אבל בפחות מכזית אפילו במקום שאין עשוי לחזק אינו חוצץ ואינו עובר

Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: They learned this only where it serves for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it does not serve for reinforcing [it] he is bound to remove it. Whence it follows that if there is as much as an olive, even where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is bound to remove it.

ותניא כלישנא בתרא בצק שבסידקי עריבה במקום העשוי לחזק

It was taught as the former version; It was taught as the latter version. It was taught as the former versio Dough in the cracks of the kneading trough, where it serves for reinforcing, it does not interpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a utensil is ritually unclean and cleansed in a ritual bath, nothing must interpose between the utensil and the water of the bath (called a mikweh) ; otherwise the ablution is invalid. This dough, since it reinforces the trough, is counted as part of itself and not as a foreign body, and therefore it is not an interposition between the trough and the water; hence the ablution is valid.');">²⁰</span> and he [its owner] does not transgress.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of Passover by leaving it there and not removing it.');">²¹</span> But [if it is] in a place where it does not serve for reinforcing, it interpo and he transgresses. When is this said? Where there is as much as an olive. But if there is less than an olive, even where it does not serve for reinforcing, it does not interpose, and he does not transgress. Again, it was taught as the latter version: Dough in the cracks of a kneading trough, where it serves for reinforcing,