Daf 42

1) These are the items that you're Oyver [Rashi explains: i.e., transgress, that you transgress the Lav of Baal Yirah. Tosfos in the name of the Riva explains 'Oyver': remove, i.e., you need to remove from the world, (i.e., you need to destroy it). However, R' Tam says that all these items we learn are forbidden from the Pasuk "all what makes Chametz, you can't eat," which implies that there is only a prohibition to eat, but not to leave around. Rather, R' Tam explains: these are removed from the table.] The milky dip 'Kutach' from Bavel, beer from Madai (since they're made from barley), vinegar from Edom (that they need to place barley in the wine to turn it into vinegar), the Egyptian 'Zeysim' (made of a third grain, a third 'Kurtumi,' and a third salt), the 'Zomen' of dyers (liquid extracted from bran to dye leather red), doughs of butchers (that were placed on pots of meat to absorb the froth), the scribe's glue (to glue papers together to make a book). R' Eliezer says: even a certain beauty treatment that's plastered on unsightly hairs that grow prematurely on young girls before they hit puberty.

2) We find an argument by making Temed (i.e., pouring water over the leftovers of grape product after it was squeezed to remove the juice, if the liquid comes out has the status of wine or water). If the new liquid is the same quantity of the water poured on it, the Tanna Kama says it has a status of water and you don't need to separate Maasar from it. R' Yehuda holds that it's wine and is obligated in Maasar. The Gemara qualifies the argument: it's only when the water was poured over sediment that has actual wine in it, but if it was poured over grape seeds and you wait until it ferments (to receive the taste of the grape), R' Yehuda agrees that it's exempt from Maasar.

Daf 43

3) We find that R' Meir holds that Chametz Nuksha, (hardened Chametz) is a Lav, and R' Eliezer held that a mixture of Chametz is a Lav. Rav held that a mixture of Chametz is worse than Nuksha. Therefore, R' Meir who holds that there is a Lav for Nuksha, of course agrees that there is a Lav for a mixture. However, R' Eliezer who holds the Lav is on the mixture implies, but not on the Nuksha that is more lenient. R' Nachman holds the opposite, and Nuksha is worse than a mixture. Therefore, R' Eliezer who holds the Lav is on the mixture, of course holds there's a Lav for Nuksha. However, R' Meir who holds that there is a Lav for Nuksha implies, but not on the mixture that is more lenient. We have a Braisa supporting Rav.

4) [Tosfos says: it seems here that Nuksha is only considered like Chametz regarding Pesach because of a Drasha. Although we Pasul it as Chametz for the loaves of a Todah, we must say that we have some Drasha by Todah to invalidate Nuksha too. Granted we say that you can't use apples to make all Menachos Chametz, which is only Nuksha; that's only L'chatchila, but it's Kosher B'dieved.]

5) We have a Hekish from the prohibition to eat Chametz on Pesach to the Mitzvah of eating Matzah. Therefore, if we find someone is obligated in one of those Mitzvos, he's obligated in the other. If we find he's exempt from one of them, he must be exempt from the other. Therefore, the Gemara thought that, since women are exempt from eating Matzah, since it's a positive command that's time based, they should be exempt from eating Chametz too. [Tosfos says: however, we didn't want to say the opposite, they should be obligated in Matzah since they're obligated in Chametz, since usually the end of the Pasuk comes to explain the beginning of the Pasuk. I.e., the Pasuk is saying, who's obligated not to eat Chametz, those who are obligated in Matzah. Alternatively, since we have a Gezeira Shava of "Tes Vuv, Tes Vuv" from Sukka, we'll assume they're exempt from Matzah like they're exempt from Sukka.] However we have a Drasha to include women in the prohibition of Chametz. Therefore, since they're obligated not to eat Chametz, they're obligated to eat Matzah. [Tosfos concludes with a question: why are women obligated to not wear Shatnez, but not obligated in Tzitzis? After all, we have a Hekish from Shatnez to Tzitzis. So, whoever, is obligated in one should be obligated in the other, and viceversa.]

6) To define Chametz Nuksha: R' Meir says; when the surface of the dough turns white. R' Yehuda says that it's only if it also forms cracks in the dough. Therefore, R' Yehuda holds that dough that reaches R' Meir's definition of Nuksha may be fed to your dogs on Pesach [Tosfos explains: since it's only a rabbinical prohibition to eat it, since it's not Nuksha from the Torah.]

7) There is a prohibition to burn anything sourdough on the Mizbeach. This applies whether you burn all of it, part of it, or when it's in a mixture. [Tosfos says: Abaya in Menachos explains that "all of it" is a Kazayis of the sourdough. "part of it" is a half a Kazayis." Although we see later that all burnings on the Mizbeach needs to be a Kazayis, as R' Yehoshua says that you can't sprinkle the blood of a Korban unless there is a Kazayis meat left to eat, and a Kazayis of fats to burn on the Mizbeach; still, since Abaya held that a Kemitza is less than two Kazaysim, half of it is less than a Kazayis, and there is no other way to explain the Drasha but with less than a Kazayis. However, Rava there held that a Kemitza is no less than two Kazaysim, so "part of it" is a Kazayis.]

8) We don't say by all prohibitions, when it's with Heter, that the volume of the Heter combines to the volume of the prohibition for the Shiur to be Chayiv except vine derivatives for a Nazir. [Tosfos: also, a Chatos according to R' Yochanan, as we'll say later.] Also, Chametz on Pesach according to R' Eliezer. Another exception is burning sourdough on the Mizbeach according to R' Eleizer [Rashi says: even if they're not mixed together, but just eaten together. Tosfos says: it's only if it's mixed together, as we see later regarding Chatos.] However, this is not like Abaya, since he holds that you don't need a Shiur to transgress burning sourdough on the Mizbeach (so, you never need a combination of Heter to transgress it, since any amount burning gets Malkos).

Daf 44

9) We have a Braisa: if you have a dip made from Chulin, but has garlic and oil mixed in it that's Trumah, if a T'vul Yom touches it, it only Pasuls the area he touched. (However, if it was Trumah with Chulin garlic and oil, if the T'vul Yom touches it, the whole dip is Tamai.) The Gemara asks on the first case: why isn't the Trumah Batul since it's mixed into mostly Chulin? [Rashi explains: since the Trumah is totally mixed in, it's only rabbinically forbidden (to a non-Kohein). Tosfos disagrees. If it's completely mixed in, it should be either completely Tamai, or completely Tahor, as the Mishna brings this as an argument in Mesechta T'vul Yom regarding a dough that had Trumah mixed in. Rather, Tosfos explains like R' Tam: the garlic and oil is recognizable in the dip. This fits well for the end of the Braisa that qualifies: we only say this when the garlic or oil is in one place, but if they were spread out, it's Tahor. However, our Gemara's question is: since there isn't an egg's worth of garlic in one place, then the Tumah can only be rabbinic, so why don't we say that it's secondary to the rest of the dip?]

10) The Gemara says that you don't need to answer: since we say that the Heter combines to the Issur by all prohibitions, (and not only by the prohibitions listed earlier) and it's as the surrounding Heter is like the garlic is also Trumah. Rather, we can answer: we refer to a case where there is a Kazayis of prohibition spread within a Pras (three or four eggs' worth) of the prohibition. [Tosfos says: even though we say in Chulin that dips don't have a Kazayis of garlic within a Pras; we must say that we refer to the unusual case where it has more than a Kazayis within a Pras. However, it fits well according to R' Tam who explains our case that the garlics are solid pieces, we can say that there was a Kazayis within a Pras in that area that was touched.]

11) Although R' Eliezer and his Rabanan argue about the Babylonian Kutach dip which contains a Kazayis within a Pras; it's not a proof that this concentrated mixture is not better than other mixtures [Tosfos: and R' Eliezer and Rabanan will argue whether the Heter combines to the prohibition, like R' Akiva and his Rabanan argue]. Rather, the reason Kutach is different since people don't eat it straight, and the intent of anyone who eats it straight is Batul to whatever all others considered normal [Rashi: and you won't be Chayiv for this abnormal eating.] If you eat in normally by dipping food into it, you won't have a Kazayis of the Trumah within eating a Pras.

12) If you have two pots before you, one Chulin and one Trumah, that has spices fall into both of them, one Trumah and one Chulin, and you don't know which one fell into which pot, you can assume that the Trumah fell into the Trumah and the Chulin in the Chulin (since it's only a rabbinical mixture). Even though there is a Kazayis within a Pras (which should make the mixture enough to forbid from the Torah); we can be lenient since Trumah on spices is only rabbinically obligated. [Tosfos asks: if so, why do we say that a T'vul Yom touching the dip makes that area Tamai, since that doesn't apply if it's only rabbinical, as it implies earlier, and we say here that the whole concept of Trumah by it is rabbinic. However, there is a differentiation that could be made.]

13) We also see that, if you have two baskets, one of Trumah and one of Chulin, that a Saah of produce fell into each, one of Trumah and one of Chulin, you can assume the Trumah fell into Trumah and Chulin into Chulin even though there is a Kazayis within a Pras of the mixture. [Tosfos; although, even according to R' Yochanan in Yevamos who says it doesn't only apply when there is more Heter than the possible Issur, but even when there is an even amount of Heter and possible Issur; that's only by a rabbinical Issur, but for a Issur Torah, it only applies when there are more Heter in the basket that the potential Issur that fell in, and that should make the Issur Batul in the majority of the Heter from the Torah when it's the same type of food; we must say that we're referring to a different type of food, like when barley flour falls into wheat flour.] The Gemara answers: we refer to Trumah in these days (after the Beis Hamikdash's destruction) which is only rabbinically obligated.

14) The Gemara says that only R' Akiva holds that the Pasuk by Nazir comes to say that the Heter combines to the Issur, since we don't need the Pasuk to forbid the taste of an Issur like the Issur itself since we generally learned that from the fact the Torah requires Hagalah for utensils owned by non-Jews. [Tosfos explains: we assume that the Pasuk also includes doing Hagalah on utensils that absorbed grape derivatives for a Nazir, even though it's a lighter Issur than others (and we don't say that the Pasuk only requires the Hagalah for the stricter Issurim); since there were probably utensils that they got by Midyan that absorbed wine that needed Hagalah for a Nazir.] However, the Rabanan held that you can't learn that the taste of an Issur is like the Issur from Hagalah on utensils since it's a Chiddush, since the absorbed Issurim give bad taste into the other food. (Even if it absorbed within the day, it's still has a slightly worse taste. However, R' Akiva holds that the Torah only forbade utensils that absorbed within the day and holds that those absorptions doesn't get ruined at all.) Therefore, the Rabanan need the Pasuk by Nazir to forbid the taste of the Issur like the Issur itself, and from there, we learn that the taste all other Issurim that are stricter than Nazir are also forbidden from a Kal V'chomer. After all, we see that Klayim is stricter than Nazir since it's always prohibited, it's forbidden to have pleasure from it, and there is no Heter to its Issur. Arlah is stricter than Nazir in two of those three aspects. [Tosfos has two explanations which one is not included by Arlah: either there is a Heter to what was Assur, since, on the fourth year, the produce can become permitted when you redeem it. Or it's not forbidden forever, since it's permitted what grows after three years.]

15) [Tosfos brings from the Gemara in Avoda Zara that R' Meir forbids even if the Issur taste bad since he extrapolates from Hagalah, since he holds that it has bad taste even within the day. Although the Rabanan allow if it has bad taste, and they consider Hagalah as a Chiddush and an exception; that's because they held the Torah permitted Neveila that's not fit for a non-Jew to eat, so bad tasting Issur is not forbidden. This contradicts what the Torah requires Hagalah, so they say that Hagalah is a Chiddush and you can't extrapolate from it. However, R' Meir holds that the Torah only permits Neveila that was disgusting from its outset, but not one that was good, and only rotted later. Thus, Neveila doesn't contradict Hagalah, so we can learn from there that bad taste is always forbidden.]

Daf 45

16) The reason R' Akiva holds that we don't extrapolate from Nazir that, by all Issurim, Heter combines to the Issur: since we have a Pasuk by Chatos to tell us that too, and we say that we can never extrapolate from two P'sukim with the same Halacha (if it was not necessary to write both). Although the Pasuk can't just write Chatos and extrapolate all other Issurim since you can't extrapolate Chulin from Kodshim; still, the Pasuk could have just written Nazir and we could extrapolate the other Issurim from it without writing it by Chatos.

However, the Rabanan hold that they're not two P'sukim saying the same thing (and we shouldn't extrapolate to other Issurim that the taste is like the Issur); since they hold the Pasuk by Chatos is not saying that the taste is like the Issur, but that the Heter combines to the Issur. The reason why they don't extrapolate from there that Heter combines to all other Issurim since we can't extrapolate Chulin from Kodshim. [However, Tosfos brings the Sugya in Nazir that explains the Rabanan: both P'sukim teaches us that the taste is like the Issur. It couldn't have just written Nazir by itself and extrapolate it to all other Issurim since it's a Chiddush of a prohibition sice the Torah even forbids eating the grape seeds. It also couldn't have written Chatos by itself, since you can't extrapolate from it to Chulin.]

17) R' Akiva has a Drasha "from the pits to the peels" to teach us that all the prohibited parts of the vine combines to the Shiur. Although R' Akiva holds that even Heter combines to the Issur, that's only when they're eaten together. However, when they're eaten one after the other, they only combine if it's all Issur.

18) If you have dough in the cracks of a kneading trough, if there is a Kazayis in one place, you're obligated to destroy it, but you don't need to destroy it if it's less than a Kazayis.

19) In the first version: Shmuel explains: you don't need to destroy a Kazayis if it's not in a place that strengthens it. This implies, if it's less than a Kazayis, you don't need to destroy it even in a place where it doesn't strengthen it. [Rashi explains: "the place of strengthening" refers to the bottom of the trough which holds the dough.] According to the second version: Shmuel says that you only don't need to destroy less than a Kazayis when it's in "the place of strengthening," which implies that you need to destroy a Kazayis even when it's in "the place of strengthening." We have Braisos supporting both opinions. Therefore, R' Huna says that you should remove the lenient Braisa (assuming it to be wrong) and accept the stringent Braisa.

20) R' Yosef says that you don't need to scrap on of the Braisos since we can say that they argue. We can say the argument is dependant on the argument between the Rabanan who not only holds you need to get rid of moldy bread before Pesach (since it can leaven other doughs), but you must get rid of a basket of sourdough that you designated to be used as a chair; and R' Shimon b. Elazar who permits when it's designated to be used for sitting. The Gemara rejects this. After all, I understand that this will explain the argument whether you can keep a Kazayis of dough that's made to strengthen, but how does it explain the argument whether you can keep less than a Kazayis that's not made for strengthening?

21) Therefore, [according to Rashi], Abaya explains: both Braisos agree with R' Shimon b. Elazar (and the Braisa that allows it refers to it sticking in the place where you knead it). Therefore, in the place where it's strengthens (i.e., on the bottom), it's permitted with a Kazayis. In the place where it doesn't strengthen (i.e., on the sides of the trough), it's only permitted if it's less than a Kazayis. (The Braisa that is strict refers to the area that's not usually used to knead on.) Therefore, in a place which strengthens it (i.e., that the dough is held in), it's permitted with less than a Kazayis. However, if it's not made to strengthen (i.e., that it's by the rim {even if the dough sometimes reaches it}, and of course, if it's on the outside), it's forbidden even if it's less than a Kazayis.

22) [However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, the Gemara later differentiates between finding the half of Kazayis in the trough to a half of Kazayis in a house where it can be swept together, and the Gemara could have said better that, in a house, you can't have a comparative "place of kneading" to permit. Rather, we'll define 'strengthening' as where it strengthens the utensil (from breaking). Therefore, if it's not in a place where they knead it, you can be completely lenient with less than a Kazayis even if it's not holding the utensil together, since it's not Chashuv at all. You can even be lenient there when it's a Kazayis that's holding the utensil together, since it becomes Batul to the utensil. However, if it's in the place where you knead, and you need to be careful that the dough doesn't touch it since some of the Chametz might come off on it, or it might give taste, therefore, if there is a reason for it to be there, like when it's holding it together, you can be lenient with less than a Kazayis since you can avoid it, but not with a Kazayis since it's hard to avoid. However, if it's not there for a reason like to hold it together, they didn't allow you to be lenient even with less than a Kazayis.]

23) According to the first version, there is an Amaraic argument if Rav Paskined like R' Shimon b. Elazar, or against him and he doesn't permit until you smear the side of it with plaster. The second version is that everyone agrees that Rav Paskined not like R' Shimon b. Elazar, and he needed that the side to be plastered. [Tosfos says it seems that R' Shimon b. Elazar's rationale is that the dough becomes a utensil, and is no longer food. Therefore, it seems that the argument between the Rabanan who say that a utensil only loses its status of being a utensil is if you make a change in it, but any change will do, and R' Yehuda who holds that it only loses the status if the change ruins the utensil, would apply here. (See Mahrsha- the same way an item can become a utensil by designating it for sitting, so the sourdough is permitted as soon as it's designated. It can't lose its status of a chair (and would revert back to being Chametz) until, according to the Rabanan, you make a physical change in it, or according to R' Yehuda, if that change ruined it.)

24) If you have two halves of a Kazayis that's connected by a 'thread' of dough; if, when you lift the thread, both half Kazaysim rise with it; they're connected and you need to get rid of it. However, if they don't rise with it, you don't need to destroy them.

25) You only don't need to destroy them when they're in a trough, but if they're in a house, you need to destroy them. Although they're only half Kazaysim, but they might be swept together to make a full Kazayis. There are unresolved inquiries if there is a half Kazayis in the house, and another one in the second floor, or if the second half is out on a porch, or if it's in another house that's open inside the other house; if you need to worry that they'll get swept together.

26) If you have moldy bread that's no longer fit for human consumption, but is still fit for dogs to eat, the Tanna Kama holds it is still susceptible to Tumah for being food. (However, if it's Trumah Tehorah, you can burn it together with Tamai Chametz Erev Pesach even according to R' Yossi who regularly forbids burning Trumah Tehorah with Tamai. Since it's not edible to humans, he's not as concerned.) However, R' Nosson holds that it's no longer susceptible to Tumah for being food if it's not edible for humans.

27) If you put flour in tanning troughs, if Erev Pesach is within three days of putting it there, it's not inedible at that time, and you would still need to destroy it. However, after three days, it's inedible and you don't need to destroy it. However, this is only before you put the hides in, but once you put the hides in, the flour becomes inedible immediately and you never need to destroy it Erev Pesach.

Daf 46

28) Therefore, during Pesach, if the dough is a Kazayis in the kneading trough, even if it's in a place that strengthens the trough, since it needs to be destroyed, it's not considered as part of the trough. Therefore, if a Sheretz touches the dough, it's not like it touched the trough, and it's still Tahor. However, during the rest of the year it depends. After all, if you want it there, it's considered part of the trough and doesn't protect it from Tumah. If you don't want it there, it separates the Sheretz from the trough, and it's Tahor.

29) If you have a dough, and you can't tell if it became Chametz or not; if another dough was made at the same time and it became Chametz, you can assume the same happened with the original dough. However, if another dough wasn't made with it, you only assume it's Chametz if enough time passed that you could walk a Mil (i.e., two thousand Amos).

30) We find similar Halachas; for kneading dough and Davening (explained later) and for getting water to wash Netilas Yadayim, you should wait four Mil.

31) [Rashi explains 'kneading' as; if you're hired to knead someone else's dough, but his trough is Tamai, you should walk four Mil to Toivel it. Tosfos quotes the Aruch: if you're careful to have your bread Tahor, if there is a professional dough kneader that's Tahor four Mil down the road, you should wait to knead your bread until then. This fits in well, since it's also applicable to explain (what we say later) that you should walk "less than a Mil" if he's not heading in that direction by 'kneading' as well as Davening and washing Netilas Yadayim. (However, according to Rashi, the kneader is not traveling, and he still needs to walk four Mil to Toivel the trough.)]

32) [Rashi explains Davening as: if you're on the way and you want to encamp for the night, if there is a Shul to Daven within four Mil down the road, he shouldn't encamp until he gets to the Shul. Tosfos agrees and says that you can't say it refers to finding water to wash your hands for Davening. After all, if the time of Shachris came, you shouldn't search for water since you might miss the time for Davening. If it's not yet time to Daven, you should go even further to find water.]

32a) That's only if you're heading in that direction. However, if it's not in the direction you're heading, you only need to go if it's less than a Mil away.

33) We find another similar Halacha, if you have soft hide (which is edible and is susceptible to Tumah for being food until it's tanned) it doesn't lose its Tumah until someone works it out by trampling on it for four Mil. (The exception is by human skin.)

34) If you're separating Challah from a Tamai dough on Yom Tov; R' Eleizer says that you should wait from separating it until after baking. [Tosfos explains: for, if you separate before baking, you can't bake it afterwards on Yom Tov (since it's not edible for anyone), nor burn it before it becomes Chametz. After all, we don't allow burning Trumah Tamai on Yom Tov. Granted you can have pleasure from burning it, and it should be permitted on Yom Tov since your burning it to cook food; but since the main burning is done for the Mitzvah, as we see it's forbidden to use it for all other pleasures besides burning, we consider the burning not to be done for your eating, but you only get to use the fire afterwards as "a gift from Hashem's table." This is the reason why we forbid voluntary Korbanos on Yom Tov even if you will end up eating from it. Alternatively, even if you don't consider it as just "a gift from Hashem's table" and it's done mainly for your food; still, we forbid it since you might end up burning it for no reason.

This is only a problem when baking it over coals, for if they're baked in an oven, you can bake the Tamai Challah with the rest since it makes the rest of the edible loaves bake evenly. Although you might say that you can't bake it anyway after you separated it as Challah since it's Muktza, but at least, when baked before separating it for Challah, you don't need to come onto the logic of 'since' you have the ability to pick any one of them for your food in order to permit baking them all.

However, this is only for Challah in Eretz Yisrael, but it's not a problem to bake Tamai Challah in Chutz L'aretz since you can give it to a minor Kohein, since it's only forbidden to Kohanim that Tumah emits from themselves (i.e., if they emit semen). Also, you may give it to an adult Kohein if it's mixed in other food, and you can mix it L'chatchila in other foods so that they can eat it.]

35) Ben Beseira says that you can separate it and throw it in cold water to prevent it from becoming Chametz. [Tosfos says that R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua agree to him that it prevents the dough from becoming Chametz. Therefore, if, B'dieved, it was already separated before you bake it, you throw it in cold water to prevent it from becomeing Chametz.]

36) R' Yehoshua says there's no problem separating before it's baked, since the Trumah doesn't belong to you.

37) We don't need to say that the argument between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua is dependant whether it's considered yours since you have the benefit to give it to whoever you want (and you can get paid from a Kohein's relative to give it to his relative), or not. Rather, we can say that everyone agrees that it's not considered yours for having the benefit to give it to whoever you like. R' Eliezer holds that it's considered yours 'since' (you have the ability) to ask a Chachum to annul your Challah separation, and it will be no longer Trumah. R' Yehoshua doesn't consider it yours because of 'since' you have the ability to make it yours.

38) [Rashi says: the reason why R' Eliezer doesn't allow to bake it after you separated it as Challah 'since' (you have the ability) to make it edible if you ask a Chachum to annul the separation; because you have a procedure to do it in a permitted way without coming on to the logic of "since (you have the ability)," we rather not rely on the logic of 'since.' Tosfos asks: if so, why does R' Eliezer allow to bake all the loaves before taking Challah 'since' you have the ability) to eat any given loaf, (although you can't eat all of them), if he has a different way to get out of it, to throw the Challah in cold water? Tosfos answers: since we're afraid that you wouldn't be careful and it will become Chametz before you throw it in. Alternatively, the reason we don't rely to bake the Challah 'since' you have the ability to get a Chachum to annul it, because asking a Chachum to annul the separation is not common, so we won't rely on it in a lenient fashion, but only when it's a stringency. (This is also the reason we don't say later by the Lechem Hapanim and Shnei Halechem that we should allow baking them on Yom Tov since you might be able to eat them if you redeem them, since redeeming them is uncommon.]

39) [Tosfos quotes Rashba who explains the reason why we can't rely on 'since' to separate Challah before baking; since even if you didn't separate before baking, we only can allow because of the logic of 'since.' After all, you can't bake all of them if you know that one of the loaves won't be eaten. The only reason we allow it is since you have the ability to remove a little Challah from each loaf (and you would eat from every loaf). (Although we say that, if a non-Jew has a share in the dough, you can't bake the whole loaf, but the Jew needs to take off his share and then bake it, (the reason we don't say here that you need to separate the share for Challah beforehand too); you only need to remove the non-Jew's share as a rabbinical enactment, but they didn't want to enact it regarding separating Challah.) Therefore, if you would separate the Challah before the baking, you'll have to come onto two 'sinces;' since you have the ability to have the Challah annulled, and even then, it would only be permitted with another 'since,' since you have the ability to take a little Challah off each loaf. Therefore, we don't rely on two 'sinces.'

Although, according to this, since you can take off a little Challah from each loaf, we shouldn't allow taking one loaf off for Challah since we try to avoid relying on 'since' if we have another way to do it; the rabbis didn't want to make it too much of a bother when someone separates Challah.]

40) [Tosfos asks: we say that someone's not Yoitza Matza if he ate Maasar Sheini according to R' Meir who holds it to be Hekdesh's money, since it's not "your Matzah," and we don't say that he should be Yoitza if he asks a Chachum to annul its separation as Maasar Sheini. Also, we say that you don't transgress Baal Yirah for Hekdesh's Chametz, and we don't say that it's yours since you can ask a Chachum to annul the Hekdesh. Tosfos answers: since the Torah calls Maasar Sheini and Hekdesh "for Hashem," that they're considered Hashem's even though, by default, there is a 'since' that can make it yours. Also, once Hekdesh gets to the hand of the treasurer, you can't annul the Hekdesh anymore. Also, even though you have the ability to redeem it, we don't consider it yours the same way we don't consider non-Jew's Chametz as yours just because you can buy it. Also, once it becomes Chametz, no Jew would ever redeem it.]

41) The reason for R' Eliezer who allows to bake it before separating is because; since each loaf is fit for you to eat at this point, since the one that's for Challah wasn't chosen yet. However, R' Yehoshua doesn't hold of the logic of 'since,' so he doesn't allow baking all the loaves if one of them will be eventually inedible.

42) If someone baked on Yom Tov for the weekday; R' Chisda says that you give him Malkos, and Rabbah holds that you don't give him Malkos, even if he's finished his meal and doesn't need to eat anymore today, 'since' it's fit if guests show up that didn't eat yet. [Tosfos says: we see that R' Eleizer says that you get Malkos for removing a honeycomb on Yom Tov (and the Rabanan only exempt him from Malkos because they hold that honeycombs are not considered as attached to the ground); even though it's needed for food, according to R' Chisda, we can say he's Chayiv if it's not needed for Yom Tov. However, according to Rabbah who exempts even when it's not needed for Yom Tov; we must say that it refers to spoiled honey that's not edible (but can only be used medicinally). Alternatively, we refer to removing it so close to sunset that it can't be served to guest before nightfall even if they show up. This also answers why Rabbah holds that the Torah prohibits preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbos even though it should be permitted since it could be used on Yom Tov itself if guest show up, that we refer only to Malachos done so close to sunset that can't be served to guests before nightfall.

Tosfos concludes: we don't permit all Melachos on Shabbos since it would be fit if you find a sick person whose life is in danger that needs that Melacha, since it's extremely uncommon to find such a deathly ill person.]

43) We don't need to say that the argument between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua is dependant on this argument between R' Chisda and Rabbah (whether we hold of the logic of 'since'). After all, perhaps R' Eliezer only allows it when any given loaf is fit for you to eat, but in the case where he already ate and can't eat any of it, he would agree that it's forbidden. Also, perhaps R' Yehoshua doesn't hold it's permitted in that case where we know that one loaf will not be fit to eat, but in the case where you already ate, where all the cooked food will be fit to guests that might show up, he may agree that it's permitted.

44) Rebbi Paskins like R' Eliezer, and R' Yitzchok Paskins like Ben Beseira. [Tosfos quotes R' Yosef: it seems that the Halacha is like R' Eliezer since the Halacha is like Rebbi when he argues with a colleague. However, Ri rejects this since later Amoraim, Rabah and R' Chisda, argue who to Paskin like, we don't necessarily Paskin like Rebbi. (This seems difficult since we concluded that Rabbah and R' Chisda's argument is not the same as R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua's argument.)]

45) Although R' Chisda doesn't agree with the concept of 'since,' the reason we can cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos is because he holds, from the Torah, you may prepare food on Yom Tov for Shabbos. The only reason the rabbis needed people to make an Eiruv Tavshilin is in order to make a distinction that it's only permitted in this case when cooking for Shabbos, but not when cooking for the weekday.

46) we see that you can Shecht a dying animal right before the end of Yom Tov (since you're afraid that it will die if you wait until after Yom Tov), as long as you eat a Kazayis of meat during Yom Tov. According to Rabbah who holds of the Heter of 'since,' he doesn't actually need to eat the Kazayis, but 'since' you're able to eat a Kazayis, it's permitted. However, according to R' Chisda, you actually need to eat the Kazayis, and you make up your mind to eat the Kazayis (even though you're not hungry) in order to prevent a loss, and since you can't eat a Kazayis without Shecthing, it gives you the Heter to Shecht it on Yom Tov.

Daf 47

47) We don't bake Lechem Hapanim on Friday that falls out on Yom Tov, but we bake it on Thursday. If the two days of Rosh Hashana is Thursday and Friday, then you need to bake it on Wednesday. [Tosfos explains: this is only if witnesses didn't come to Mekadesh the month from after Mincha on Thursday, when we no longer accept witnesses, and they kept both days Kodesh. However, if witnesses came before, then Friday is not Rosh Hashana and you need to bake other loaves for the Lechem Hapanim and redeem the loaves you baked on Wednesday on the possibility that Friday will be Rosh Hashana.] From here, it seems that you can't bake it Friday, and you can't do on Yom Tov what's needed on Shabbos. [Tosfos explains:we feel at this time that the reason we would allow it is not because we consider them as one long Kedusha. After all, later we'll say that you can't bake Shnei Halechem on Yom Tov for Yom Tov even though it is one Kedusha. Rather, since anything that, if you don't do it on Yom Tov, you won't be able to fulfil the Mitzvah for Shabbos, it's upon you on Yom Tov to make sure that the Mitzvos for Shabbos are fulfilled. Therefore, fulfilling your obligation is akin to the Heter of doing it for your food.] The Gemara pushes off the proof. After all, even if it's permitted from the Torah, the rabbis still forbade it. Granted that there is no rabbinical prohibitions in the Mikdash; but that's only for obligations that are immediate, but not those that are not obligated until the next week. However, R' Shimon b. Gamliel who permits to bake it on Yom Tov, but not on Yom Kippur, holds that they didn't enact rabbinical prohibitions in the Mikdash for even obligations that aren't applicable until much later.

48) We see that baking the Shnei Halechem doesn't supercede the Yom Tov of Shvuos, nor Shabbos that fell out Erev Yom Tov, and you need to bake it on the closest weekday. Although we said that the needs of Shabbos can be done on Yom Tov and, of course, the needs of Yom Tov could be done on Yom Tov; we must say that this Tanna holds like those who Darshen that "the Melachos can be done for you" only. Therefore, [Tosfos: besides excluding that you can't do them for non-Jews, it also excludes that] you can't do them for Hekdesh. However, R' Shimon b. Gamliel only holds the Drasha excludes doing Melacha for non-Jews, but allows doing it for Hekdesh.

49) If you plow Klai Kerem on Yom Tov, you get two Malkos; the reason we don't say that you shouldn't get Malkos because of 'since;' that, since if there would be fowl blood there, you can use the dirt to fulfil the Mitzvah of covering its blood (which supersedes the Lav), because we refer to plowing in moist ground that doesn't fall apart into dirt, but just rejoins and sticks to the rest of the ground. [Tosfos points out that this would have only been difficult by Klai Kerem since it's only a Lav, so we can say the Asei of covering blood supersedes it, but not for Yom Tov that also has an Asei (to rest), and an Asei doesn't supersede a Lav and an Asei. (The Gemara could have answered that, since it wouldn't supersede the Yom Tov, we wouldn't allow it to cover the blood, but the Gemara went on a different way to answer it in order to "bring greatness to Torah and to beautify it.") We also must say that the blood would have dried in the meanwhile if you would try to find other dirt to cover with it, and you wouldn't be able to scrape up the blood afterwards to cover it, or else we don't say that an Asei supersedes a Lav unless it's impossible to fulfil the Asei in any other way.]

50) We see that, if someone cooks Gid Hanashe in milk on Yom Tov and eats it receives five Malkos. You get two for cooking and for eating milk and meat. You got a third one for eating Gid. You get a fourth and fifth one for making a fire and cooking Gid on Yom Tov, (which you're only allowed to do Melacha for Kosher food that you're allowed to eat). [Tosfos brings the Gemara in Beitza that says that this is not like Beis Hillel since he holds that just like you may do Melachos for the need of making food, you can do them when you're not making food either. Although it needs to have some use for Yom Tov, it's considered as somewhat for Yom Tov even though you can only eat it by transgressing a prohibition.] According to Rabbah, the Gemara asks: why are you Chayiv for kindling a fire 'since' it would be permitted if you cook Kosher food with it? [Tosfos points out: since the above Braisa is like Beis Shammai, we must say that Rabbah holds the logic of 'since' helps even according to Beis Shammai.] The Gemara answers: that we shouldn't anyhow count kindling as one of the Malkos since you can't get two Malkos for two Av Melachos on Yom Tov, although you're Chayiv two Chatos for two Av Melachos on Shabbos.

51) However, we can't substitute it with transgressing Muktza (by kindling with Muktza wood). After all, it's also a Yom Tov prohibition, which you can anyhow only get one Malkos for. Also, it's only rabbinically prohibited. This is the reason why we don't exclude Muktza Nesachim from the Pasuk "what Jews drink" (that all sacrifices must be Kosher) since it's Kosher from the Torah, and we only exclude Nesachim that are Tevel, which is forbidden from the Torah. Rather, we should substitute burning Hekdesh's wood, which the Lav is "(destroy the idol's sanctuaries), but don't do that to Hashem your G-d."

Daf 48

52) The amount of dough that you can knead at a time that you can be careful that it won't be Chametz: R' Yochanna b. Broka says, if it's fine grain, two Kavim of wheat and three Kavim of barley. If it's not too high quality, then three Kavim of wheat and four Kavim of barley. R' Eliezer holds the opposite since he holds that barley is easier to become Chametz.

53) Rav permits to knead the Shiur of Challah, which is five Lugim. [Rashi says that we shouldn't have the text say "and a little more," since five Lugim is the exact Shiur of dough that they had in the desert (of Mon, which is a tenth of an Eifa). Tosfos says that we can have "and a little more" in the text, since it could be R' Yossi's opinion since he requires the dough to have the amount of the "dough in the desert" left in the dough after you remove the Challah.]

54) R' Yosef says that the women in his days were careful not to knead with more than three Lugim dough. Even though it's less than the Shiur Challah, and this stringency regarding Matzah (of using a very small dough) will turn out to be a big leniency (since you're exempting it from Challah); we must say that they did like R' Eliezer who holds that the baked loaves can combine in a basket to make it obligated in Challah, (since Shmuel Paskins like R' Eliezer). They are also doing this like R' Chanina who says they combine if they're thin long loaves that didn't stick to each other while baking. (This is not like R' Yehoshua b. Levi who says that they only combine when they stick together.)

55) There's an unresolved inquiry if a tablet combines loaves on top of it for Challah, or not. Do we say since there is no inside to the utensil, they don't combine, or since it's in the airspace above the utensil, it's enough.

56) We learned: R' Eliezer says that a basket combines loaves to a Shiur Challah. R' Yehoshua says that even an oven (where they're all baking in) combines them. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that they don't combine unless they stick together during baking.

57) R' Gamliel says that three women can knead their doughs at the same time, and then bake them in the same oven one after another, and you don't need to worry that it will become Chametz. The Chachumim say that they should take turns, one starts off kneading. when she finishes kneading and starts wetting it with cold water, her friend kneads. When she puts it in the oven, then her friend wets the dough with cold water and the third one starts kneading. They continue in this pattern until all that's needed to be baked is baked. After all, whenever someone is busy working on the dough, it won't become Chametz.

58) R' Akiva said to R' Gamliel: how can you allow three women universally bake like this? After all, sometimes they'll be lazy, the oven may not be that hot, the wood may be still moist (and these factors may cause it to become Chametz). Rather, you should have this rule; if you see the dough about to rise, put some cold water on it an cool it down.

59) If the dough gets to the status of 'Seior' (that didn't leaven much), you need to burn it, but you don't get Kareis if you eat it. However, if it got to the status of 'Siduk,' (i.e., cracked), you get Kareis for eating it. R' Yehuda says that Seior is when it starts getting cracks that are far from each other resembling the antennas of a grasshopper. Siduk is when the cracks touch each other. R' Meir holds that even the crack resembling the antennas of a grasshopper is Siduk since there must be more cracks below the surface that are touching. Rather, Seior is when the surface of the dough turns white.

Daf 49

60) If the fourteenth of Nissan falls out on Shabbos; R' Meir says that you need to destroy all your Chametz before Shabbos (except for what you need for Shabbos). The Chachumim say that you can destroy them all on Shabbos in its proper time. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says you should destroy the Trumah from before Shabbos, but you may keep Chulin for Shabbos (even if you don't need it for yourself) since you may find many people who may need it.

61) If you went to Shecht your Korban Pesach and to give your son a Mila, and on the way, you remembered that you didn't burn your Chametz; if you can return, burn the Chametz, and make it on time to your Mitzvah, you should do that. However, if you can't, you just Mevatel the Chametz in your heart and it's enough. However, you can't do it if your just going to an optional resting place. [Rashi explains that you encamped at the end of the T'chum to acquire your resting place for Shabbos there in order to go on Shabbos past the T'chum for an optional, non-Mitzvah activity. Tosfos disagrees since it doesn't fit well to the opinions that you can only make an Eiruv for a Mitzvah. Rather, Tosfos explains: he's traveling to stay by a friend or relative for Pesach.]

62) By the Seuda made to celebrate a Kedushin, everyone agrees that the first meal is a Seudas Mitzvah. If it's the second meal marking when the groom sends supplies to his bride; R' Yehuda says it's not a Seudas Mitzvah, and R' Yossi holds that it is.

63) R' Shimon says that any feast that's not a Seudas Mitzvah, a Talmid Chachum can't partake in. This includes a wedding of a Talmid Chachum's daughter to an Am Ha'aretz, and a Kohein's daughter to a regular Yisrael who's an Am Ha'aretz. However, if the Yisrael is a Talmid Chachum, it's good.

64) A person should sell all that he has to marry a Talmid Chachum's daughter. After all, if he would die or go into exile, his children will turn out to be Talmidei Chachumim. However, if he marries an Am Ha'aretz's daughter, if he dies or goes into exile, his children will turn out to be ignorant.

65) If you can't marry a Talmid Chachum's daughter, you should marry a great person of the generation's daughter (i.e., righteous people who do great deeds). If you can't even marry this, marry the daughter of the heads of the Shul. If not, the daughter of the Tzadaka's administrators. If not, marry the daughter of a Rebbi of children. However, you should never marry an Am Ha'aretz's daughter.

66) You never entrust an Am Ha'aretz to watch something so he can testify, nor do Beis Din ever accepts testimony from them. You never trust them with secrets, and you don't appoint them as an orphans' caregiver or as a Tzedaka's administrator. You don't travel with him on the way. After all, if he doesn't care about his own life, (since Torah is our life), how will he care about your life? Some say that you don't announce that you found his lost object [Tosfos explains: like when it falls from a caravan of Am Haaratzim, or, how else would you know that it fell from an Am Haratz?] However, the Tanna Kama held that you announce it since he might have good children that will eventually inherit and use it.

67) [Tosfos explains: we only allow not announcing his lost object, but we don't allow to steal from him, and definitely that we can't kill him. This, that the Gemara says] that you may cut an Am Ha'aretz's back with a knife like you do when cutting a fish, even on Yom Kippur that falls out on Shabbos, [that only refers to someone who you know who spitefully denies Hashem and he's suspected to kill people. After all, how else do we allow you to desecrate Shabbos and Yom Kippur if it's not a danger to people's lives.

That, which we accept testimony nowadays from an Am Ha'aretz, it's like R' Yosssi's opinion in Chagiga who allows it because, if we push them away from society, they'll break off from Klal Yisrael and make their own Beis Hamikdash.]

68) The same applies if someone left Yerushalayim and remembers that he still has Kodesh meat on him. He may burn it in its place if he passed 'Tzofem [Rashi: a place. Tosfos disagrees, or else they should have said "or its distance in all directions." Rather, it means if you can still see Yerushalayim.] However, if he didn't pass Tzofem, you need to return and burn it before the Bira [Tosfos: it's an argument in Zevachim if it's a place in the Mikdash, or the whole Mikdash is called Bira] with the wood that's designated to burn on the Mizbeach. [Rashi explains: the reason you need to return is because of the Pasuk "in the Kodesh, you should burn it in a fire." You need to burn it where you can eat it. However, Tosfos says that it can't be a Torah law, since you would need to return even if you pass Tzofem. Rather, the Pasuk only refers to Kodshei Kodshim, or the limbs of Kodshim Kalim that goes on the Mizbeach. However, you don't need to burn the meat of Kodshei Kalim that could be eaten by non-Kohanim from the Torah, but only from a rabbinical enactment so that you won't come to burn even Kodshei Kodshim outside the Mikdash.]

69) The amount of food needed to remain in your possession in order to obligate you to return; R' Meir says that, for both Chametz and Kodshim, you need to have the size of an egg. R' Yehuda says that the size for both is a Kazayis. The Gemara asks: this is the opposite of their opinions regarding Bentching. As R' Meir says that you Bentch after eating a Kazayis, and R' Yehuda says that you Bentch after eating a Beitza. R' Yochanan says that you need to switch their opinions here to parallel their opinions there. Abaya says not to switch their opinions . Rather, by Bentching, they argue how to explain the Pasuk "you should eat and be satiated." As R' Meir Darshens "you should eat" a Kazayis "and be satiated," you need to drink. R' Yehuda Darshens, you need to eat enough to be satiated, which is an egg's worth. However, by Chametz and Kodshim, R' Meir says to follow the amount that they're susceptible to Tumah, which is an egg's worth, and R' Yehuda follows the Shiur of Chiyuv for eating those prohibitions.

[Tosfos points out: that Drasha by Bentching is an Asmachta since those Shiurim are only rabbinic. Rashi also explains that in the Sugya in Brachos of a child being Moitzie his father Bentching if the father only ate an amount that's only rabbinically obligated. Rashi explains that amount as a Kazayis or an egg's worth. However, from the Torah you need to be actually satiated completely. However, we only say that someone with a rabbinical obligation can't be Moitzie someone with a Torah obligation if he was never commanded by the Torah to Bentch, like by a minor child. However, if one man ate a Kazayis he can be Moitzie someone who ate until satiation. After all, since he's commanded in the Mitzvah, from the Torah, he can be Moitzie someone without eating anything (and only the rabbis require him to eat a Kazayis to be able to be Moitzie others.)]

70) However, the Chachumim say that you return for Kodesh meat with a Kazayis, and Chametz with an egg's worth. [Tosfos explains from the Yerushalmi: they hold that Chametz is more lenient since there is a way out to get rid of the prohibition, i.e., through Bitul.]