Pesachim 45a, b

In 45(a), the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva debate about a past learning.  Nazirites must not eat anything from the vine, and we question how to determine whether or not they have done so if it is combined with a permitted substance.  In Leviticus 6:20, we learn that "Anything that touches in its flesh shall become consecrated", and we question how to determine what is absorbed into the flesh.

• Most rabbis agree that when two cases in the Torah are used to create one halacha, we cannot rely on a principle based on that halacha (such a ruling would be an exception)
• Competing ideas: one substance can absorb the taste of another substance; permitted materials can join with prohibited materials
• halacha: food or a vessel that touch a sin-offering share the legal status of the sin-offering
• how can we generalize about non-sacred food from halachot on consecrated foods?
• can "two verses that come as one" teach overarching principles?

The complexity regarding joining of prohibited and permitted substances is complex.  Further, because all of the nazirites prohibitions are part of of one larger prohibition, its halacha is also complex.  These points intertwine rabbinical thoughts about larger principles together with arguments about specific circumstances and halachot.  I am not certain whether or not it might be easier to understand both the principles and the cases at hand if they were presented separately.  

A new mishna tells us that anything less that an olive-bulk of dough that is stuck in the crack of a kneading pot is considered nullified.  When purifying that bowl, one can choose to remove the dough and use it or to leave it there as part of the bowl.  If it is removed, it is considered to be a foreign substance that intercedes between the bowl and the purifying water, thus the bowl is disqualified from immersion. 

The Gemara tells us that the rabbis argue about the implications of this mishna.  Surely it is only permitted to leave ANY dough in the bowl if that dough is helping to hold the bowl together!  And of course this would only apply if the crack runs right through the bowl!  We are taught that Rav Huna tells us to delete the baraita that taught any leniencies.  The rabbis believed that that tanna'im sometimes erred in reciting those baraitot in the course of oral recounting.  How amazing to be able to use our logic to discount the authorities upon which our logic is based... perhaps that is exactly what I am doing as I critique.

Rav Yosef, however, counters with, "Have you removed the tanna'im from the world?"   He suggests that it is better to remember all sides of a debate rather than to record only the 'winning' voice.  Rav Yosef's words are incredibly valuable; part of what makes the Talmud such a unique document is that it records so many disputing voices.  If our mainstream culture could hear the voices of disputants, we might live in a very different society.  Then again, the rabbis valuing of many different voices did not stop them from continuing practices of slavery, ownership of women and children, or other similarly hierarchical practices.

The rabbis continue to debate about the permissibility (over Pesach) of a kneading bowl where dough is stuck in a crack.  They wonder whether the bowl might be used if mortar were covering the dough.  They wonder about two balls of dough, each one half of an olive bulk, that are attached by a string of dough.  Similarly they ask this question when the circumstances are slightly different: if these balls of dough were located somewhere else in the house, would they have to be removed for Pesach?  (On first read, I wondered if the dough might be holding the house together, too!)  What if one of these balls of dough was on one floor and the other was on another floor of this house?  Here the rabbis look at 'joining together' substances.

The rabbis wonder about mouldy bread.  How mouldy must the bread be to render it permitted on Pesach?  First off, it would have to be turned down by a dog.  A principle is taught: Any food that is meant as food for people and becomes ritually impure remains in that state  until it is rendered unfit to be consumed by a dog.  The rabbis look at rules regarding tanner's bowls, as flour was used in some of the preliminary processes in the creation of leather and parchment.  The rabbis are unclear as to whether ritually impure, leavened terumah must be burned.

At the end of today's daf, we learn about the role of particularity.  If a bowl's owner is bothered by the dough, the immersion is effective.  If the bowl's owner does not mind these small pieces of dough, they are considered nullified.

I wonder if I might be reading this incorrectly, as most halachot do not allow the opinions of Jews to determine permissibility.