Study Pesachim folio 45B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
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 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.
קשיין אהדדי. אמר רב הונא: סמי קילתא מקמי חמירתא.
The Talmud asks: In any case, these baraitot contradict each other. Rav Huna said: Delete the first, lenient baraita from before the stringent one.
רב יוסף אמר: תנאי שקלת מעלמא?! תנאי היא. דתניא: הפת שעיפשה — חייב לבער, מפני שראוי לשוחקה ולחמע בה כמה עיסות אחרות.
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.
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: במה דברים אמורים — במקויימת לאכילה, אבל כופת שאור שייחדה לישיבה — בטלה. מדאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בטלה, מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לא בטלה, אלמא קסבר: כל כזית, אף על גב דמבטל — לא בטיל.
R' 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 R' 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 rabbis are presented in the two conflicting baraitot with regard to dough in a bowl.