Pesachim 90

אינו חוצץ ואינו עובר במקום שאין עשוי לחזק חוצץ ועובר במה דברים אמורים בפחות מכזית אבל בכזית אפילו במקום העשוי לחזק חוצץ ועובר

it does not interpose, and he does not transgress; [if it is] in a place where it does not serve for reinforcing interposes, and he transgresses. When is this said?

קשיין אהדדי אמר רב הונא סמי קילתא מקמי חמירתא

When there is less than an olive; but if there is as much as an olive, even in a place where it serves for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. Then these are contradictory? - Said R'Huna: Delete the more lenient [Baraitha] in favour of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'before'.');">¹</span>

רב יוסף אמר תנאי שקלת מעלמא תנאי היא דתניא הפת שעיפשה חייב לבער מפני שראוי לשוחקה ולחמע בה כמה עיסות אחרות

the more stringent. R'Joseph said: You quote Tannaim at random!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no reason for assuming that both Baraithas represent the view of the same Tanna.');">²</span>

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר במה דברים אמורים במקויימת לאכילה אבל כופת שאור שייחדה לישיבה בטלה מדאמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר בטלה מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לא בטלה אלמא קסבר כל כזית אע"ג דמבטל לא בטיל

This is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught: If a loaf went mouldy, he is bound to remove it, because it is fit to crumble and leaven many other doughs with it.

אמר ליה אביי תרצת בכזית פחות מכזית מי תרצת אלא הא והא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר היא ולא קשיא הא במקום לישה הא שלא במקום לישה

R'Simeon B'Eleazar said: When is this said? If it is kept for eating.

אמר רב אשי לא תימא שלא במקום לישה אגבה דאגנא אלא אשיפתא דאגנא

But a mass<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kopeth really means a low seat or block.');">³</span> of se'or which he put aside for sitting, he has nullified it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he gave up the nominal use of it as se'or and hence it no longer counts as leaven.');">⁴</span>

פשיטא מהו דתימא זמנא דאטיף ומטי להתם קא משמע לן

Now, since R'Simeon B'Eleazar said, 'He has nullified it', it follows that the fi Tanna holds that he has not nullified it. This proves that he holds, wherever there is as much as an olive, even if he nullifies it, it is not nullified.

א"ר נחמן אמר רב הלכה כר' שמעון בן אלעזר

Said Abaye to him: You have reconciled it where there is as much a an olive; [yet] have you reconciled it [where there is] less than an olive? Rather both the one and the other are [the rulings of] R'Simeon B'Eleazar, yet there is no difficulty: one [is taught where it is] in the place kneading; the other, where it is not in the place of kneading.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in the second Baraitha, 'where it does not serve for reinforcing', refers only to a place where no kneading is done at all, e.g at the upper edge; but dough in the cracks at the sides is regarded as reinforcing the trough, and hence it must be removed. But the first Baraitha holds that even in the latter case it does not reinforce it, though kneading is done there, while 'where it serves for reinforcing' refers to the bottom only. Hence this is what the first Tanna states: Where it serves for reinforcing, e.g., at the bottom, he does not transgress even if there is as much as an olive. Where it does not serve for reinforcing (i.e., to support the water) , e.g., in the sides, which is a place for kneading yet not a place for the water, if there is as much as an olive, it interposes, and he transgresses. But if there is less than an olive, even if it is in the sides it does not interpose, for since it does help somewhat to support the dough which is kneaded there (viz., that it should not sink into the crack) , it is nullified. But this Tanna does not discuss dough which is not in the place of kneading, viz., at the upper rim, and he would admit in that case that even if there is less than an olive it is not nullified. While the second Tanna rules thus: If it is in the place where it affords support to the dough, i.e., in the sides, if there is less than an olive it does not interpose; if there is as much as an olive, it interposes, and this is the view of the first Tanna too. While where it is not made for reinforcing (or, supporting) , i.e., at the upper rim, even less than an olive interposes, and this too agrees with the first Tanna.');">⁵</span>

איני והאמר רב יצחק בר אשי אמר רב אם טח פניה בטיט בטלה טח אין לא טח לא

R'Ashi said: Do not assume that 'not in the place of kneading' means on the back of the trough [only], but [it means even] on the [upper] rim of the trough. That is obvious? - You might say, it sometimes splashes up and reaches there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the rim is regarded as a place of kneading and must be removed, even if less than an olive. [MS.M. omits 'and reaches there'. V. also Rashi.]');">⁶</span>

מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא

hence he informs us [otherwise]. R'Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R'Simeon B'Eleazar.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן אמר רב אין הלכה כר' שמעון בן אלעזר דאמר רב יצחק בר אשי אמר רב אם טח פניה בטיט בטלה וכו'

Yet that is not so, for R'Isaac B'Ashi said in Rab's name: If he plastered its surface<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that of the mass of se'or which he set aside for sitting.');">⁷</span> with clay, he has nullified it.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל שני חצאי זיתים וחוט של בצק ביניהן רואין כל שאילו ינטל החוט וניטלין עמו חייב לבער ואם לאו אינו חייב לבער

[Thus,] only if he plaster it, but not if he did not plaster it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds that it is nullified in any case.');">⁸</span> He who recited this did not recite that.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are two opposing views on Rab's ruling.');">⁹</span>

אמר עולא לא אמרן אלא בעריבה אבל בבית חייב לבער

Others state, R'Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is not as R'Simeon B'Eleazar, for R'Isaac B'Ashi said in Rab's name: If he plastered its surface with clay, he has nullified it etc. R'Nahman said in Samuel's name: [If there are] two half olives<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., two pieces of dough, each the size of half an olive. - The reference is to the cracks in the kneading trough.');">¹⁰</span> and a thread of dough joining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'between'.');">¹¹</span>

מאי טעמא דזימנין דכניש להו ונפלי גבי הדדי

them, we see: wherever if the thread were taken up these would be carried with it, he is bound to remove [them];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is all one.');">¹²</span> but if not, he is not bound to remove [them].

אמר עולא בעו במערבא בית ועלייה מהו בית ואכסדרא מהו שני בתים זה לפנים מזה מהו

Said 'Ulla: This was said only of [dough in] a kneading trough; but [if they are] in the house, he is bound to remove [them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if they are not thus united by a thread of dough.');">¹³</span> What is the reason?

תיקו

Because he may sometimes sweep them and they will fall together.' Ulla said: They asked in the West [Palestine]: What of a room<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bayith in the Talmud often has the meaning of a room in a house.');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ר הפת שעיפשה ונפסלה מלאכול לאדם והכלב יכול לאוכלה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין בכביצה ונשרפת עם הטמאה בפסח משום ר' נתן אמרו אינה מטמאה

and an upper storey; what of a room and the [entrance] hall; what of two rooms, one within the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if there is half an olive in one and half in the other: do we fear here too that they may be swept together?');">¹⁵</span> The questions stand.

כמאן אזלא הא דתנן כלל אמרו בטהרות כל המיוחד לאוכל אדם טמא עד שיפסל מלאכול לכלב כמאן דלא כר' נתן

Our Rabbis taught: If a loaf went mouldy and it became unfit for human consumption, yet a dog can eat it, it can be defiled with the uncleanness of eatables, if the size of an egg, and it may be burnt together with an unclean [loaf] on Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 15b.');">¹⁶</span> In R'Nathan's name it was ruled: It cannot be defiled [as an eatable].

תנו רבנן עריבת העבדנין שנתן לתוכה קמח תוך שלשה ימים חייב לבער קודם שלשה ימים אינו חייב לבער אמר ר' נתן במה דברים אמורים שלא נתן לתוכה עורות אבל נתן לתוכה עורות אפילו תוך שלשה אין חייב לבער

With whom agrees the following which we learned: A general principle was stated in respect to the laws of [ritual] cleanness: Whatever is set aside for human consumption is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., subject to defilement as an eatable.');">¹⁷</span> until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat?

אמר רבא הלכה כר' נתן אפילו יום אחד ואפילו שעה אחת:

With whom [does this agree]? It is not in accordance with R'Nathan.

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

Our Rabbis taught: [With regard to] the trough of tanners<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into which they put hides for tanning.');">¹⁸</span> into which he put flour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is used in the tanning process.');">¹⁹</span>

מי דמי התם בשיעורא תליא מילתא הכא בקפידא תליא מילתא

[if] within three days [before Passover], he is bound to remove it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is still regarded as flour, and of course it is leaven.');">²⁰</span> [if] before three days, he is not bound to remove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because by Passover it will be so spoiled through the odour of the trough, even if there are no hides in it, that it will not be regarded as flour.');">²¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אימא ולענין הטומאה אינו כן

Said R'Nathan: When is this said? If he did not put hides into it; but if he put hides into it, even [if it is] within three days, he is not bound to remove [the flour].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the hides utterly spoil it.');">²²</span>

א"ל אביי הא וכן לענין טומאה קתני אלא אמר אביי הכי קאמר וכן

Raba said: The halachah is as R'Nathan, even [if it is] one day, and even one hour [before Passover]. AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES; BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE THE KNEADING-TROUGH. How compare: there the matter is dependent on the quantity [of the dough], [whereas] here the matter is dependent on [his] objecting [to it]? Said Rab Judah, Say: But in respect to uncleanness it is not so. Said Abaye to him, But he states, AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS? Rather, said Abaye, He means it thus: AND IT IS LIKEWISE