Chullin 105a — the Talmud in English

Let us say: Beit Shammai say, “Wipes”

his mouth,

but does not require rinsing,

to wash his mouth with water,

and because they hold that wiping the mouth is preferable to rinsing the mouth.

And Beit Hillel say, “Rinses”

his mouth with water,

but does not require wiping,

since he has washed his mouth.

It is not possible to say so, for:

Rather, that which Rabbi Zeira said: “There is no wiping of the mouth”

that is effective to permit eating meat after cheese,

unless

he wiped it

with bread,

for only eating bread between cheese and meat is effective for cleaning the mouth of the remnants of the cheese.

According to whom

did Rabbi Zeira say that wiping with bread is effective—is he saying this

according to Beit Shammai

and not according to the halakha? For according to Beit Hillel, only washing the mouth is effective, whereas wiping is not effective.

And we explain:

Rather,

this is what he must say:

Beit Shammai say: “Wipes”

his mouth, and that is sufficient,

but does not require rinsing.

He does not need to wash his mouth.

And Beit Hillel say

that wiping the mouth is not sufficient, but he must also require

also rinsing.

He must also wash his mouth in addition to wiping. And concerning this Rabbi Zeira said that both according to Beit Shammai and according to Beit Hillel, the wiping is specifically by means of bread.

And we reject this: If so,

it would be

this law

one of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel.

For according to Beit Shammai, wiping is sufficient, while according to Beit Hillel, rinsing and wiping are required;

and let it be taught

in tractate Eduyot

among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel.

For in tractate Eduyot, all the places in which Beit Shammai followed a lenient position and Beit Hillel a stringent position were taught. Since this law was not taught there, it follows that this is not the explanation of the words of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

And we explain:

Rather,

this is what he must say:

Beit Shammai say: “Wipes”

his mouth,

and the same applies to rinsing,

for both are required—both wiping and washing.

And Beit Hillel say: “Rinses”

his mouth,

and the same applies to wiping,

and according to their words as well, both are required. Rather—

one

—Beit Shammai—

stated one

and his intention was both things;

and one

—Beit Hillel—

stated one,

and his intention was both things, and each one stated his words separately;

and they do not disagree.

For this is not a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and both hold that wiping and rinsing are required between eating cheese and eating meat.

The matter itself: Rabbi Zeira said, “There is no wiping

of the mouth that is effective

except with bread,”

by chewing the bread.

And these words

that it is effective

with wheat bread,

with bread made from wheat.

But with barley bread, no!

For with bread made from barley, this is not wiping, because it crumbles inside the mouth and cannot wipe and clean the remnants of food that had previously been in the mouth.

And with wheat bread,

and with wheat bread,

we likewise stated

that wiping is effective

only with cold bread,

with cold bread.

But with hot bread,

with hot bread, it is not effective for wiping, because

it sheds flakes!

Since it softens, it sticks to the mouth, and remnants of it remain inside the mouth, so it does not clean it.

And these words—

that wiping with cold wheat bread is effective—

with soft bread,

with soft bread,

but with hard bread,

with extremely hard bread,

not

is it effective. Since the bread is hard, it crumbles like barley bread and cannot wipe the mouth.

And the halakha is:

with regard to everything, it is wiping, except

for

flour,

flour,

dates,

dates,

and vegetables,

vegetables. Since they are soft, they adhere to the gums near the teeth, and therefore they do not clean the remnants of the preceding food.

Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan:

How much

time

shall he wait between

eating

meat and

eating

cheese?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

“Nothing!”

He may eat cheese immediately after eating meat, and he does not need to wait for an interval of time between them.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rav Hisda said: “One who ate meat”—

is forbidden to eat cheese

immediately afterward, because meat releases fat and its taste lingers in the mouth for a long time.

But if he ate

cheese,

he is permitted to eat

after it

meat

without an interval of time [provided that he wipes and rinses his mouth].

And we answer:

Rather,

this was his question:

How long shall he wait between

eating

cheese and

eating

meat?

And concerning this

he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

“Nothing!”

He does not need an interval of time between eating cheese and meat.

The matter itself: Rav Hisda said: “One who ate meat”—

is forbidden to eat cheese

immediately afterward. If he ate

cheese,

he is permitted to eat meat.

Rav Aha bar Yosef said to Rav Hisda: Meat that

remained

between the teeth —

what is its status?

Is it considered meat, and is it forbidden to eat cheese with it until he removes it from between his teeth, or is it no longer called meat?

Rav Hisda applied to it

the verse: “

The meat was still between their teeth,”

and it follows that the verse calls meat that remains between the teeth by the name “meat.” Therefore, it is forbidden to eat cheese so long as it is between the teeth.

Mar Ukva said: “As for me, with regard to this matter”

of refraining from eating cheese after meat, I am considered like

vinegar the son of wine,

like vinegar the son of wine,

with regard to my father.

For whereas my father, when he would eat meat today,

when my father would eat meat at a certain time of day,

would not eat cheese—

until tomorrow, for now

until tomorrow at this same time, until a period of a full day had passed from the time he ate the meat.

But as for me,

I practice only that

at this meal

at which I ate meat,

I do not eat

cheese. But

at another meal,

after the period of another meal—

I eat,

I eat cheese. And the early authorities disagreed whether six hours are required between eating meat and eating cheese, or whether removing the table and reciting Grace after Meals is sufficient.

Shmuel said: “As for me, with regard to this matter,”

as it is explained—

vinegar the son of wine,

like vinegar the son of wine,

with regard to my father.

For whereas my father would inspect

he would examine

his property

his property and lands

twice a day,

twice a day.

But I,

and I

do not inspect

I do not examine them

except

only

once,

once a day.

Shmuel

follows

his own teaching, for Shmuel said: “One who inspects his property every day”

everyone who examines his property every day

finds a coin!”

finds a coin, meaning he gains money, because he corrects in them what requires correction.

Abaye would inspect his property every single day. One day, he encountered his tenant farmer

whom he met working his fields,

who was carrying a load of wood,

as he was carrying a load of wood with the intention of stealing it.

He said to him,

Abaye,

“These”

wood—

where

are you taking them?

He said to him,

the tenant farmer,

“My heart, master!”

To bring the wood for his honor!

He said to him,

Abaye to his tenant farmer:

“The Sages have already preceded you!”

For they said that a person should look at and examine his property every day, and by my having fulfilled their words, I saved my property.

Rav Asi would inspect his property every day,

examining his property every day.

He said: “Where are

where are

all these coins of Master Shmuel?”

Where are those coins that Shmuel said a person finds when he inspects his property every day? And what benefit is there in inspecting the property every day?

One day,

when he was inspecting his property,

he saw a stream of water breaking through in his land.

He saw water flowing beyond its banks and coming to wash away his fields through a breach in the bank of the irrigation channel.

He took his cloak,

he took his garment,

wrapped it, and placed it inside,

and placed it inside the breach to prevent the water from entering.

He raised his voice,

he raised his voice and shouted.

People came,

people came,

and they blocked it,

and they sealed the breach.

And then

Rav Asi said:

Rav Asi:

“I have found them,”

I have found

all the coins

all the coins

of Master Shmuel.

For he said that everyone who inspects his property every day finds profit.

Since we spoke about washing the hands in the middle of the meal, the Gemara explains the laws of handwashing connected with the meal.

First waters: These are the waters with which a person washes his hands before eating bread, or something whose dipping is in liquids.

Middle waters: These are the waters with which one washes the hands between eating one cooked dish and another, in the middle of the meal.

Last waters: These are the waters with which a person washes his hands at the end of the meal.

Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzhak bar Ashyan said: “First waters”—

a mitzva!

For it is a mitzva to heed the words of the Sages, who instituted washing with first waters. [And below it explains why they instituted this].

And

water

last waters -

obligatory!

for this is more stringent than a mitzva. [And below it explains why they are obligatory].

They raise an objection from a source: First and last waters

obligatory.

And

intermediate

waters, which one takes between one cooked dish and another -

optional! And it follows that first waters too are obligatory, and this is difficult for Rav Idi bar Avin, who said that first waters are a mitzva and not obligatory.

This indicates that first waters are also mandatory, which is difficult for Rav Idi bar Avin, who said that first waters are a mitzva and not mandatory.

And we answer: It is indeed correct that first waters are a mitzva. Why, then, did the tanna call them mandatory?

the mitzva

of first waters

in relation to

intermediate waters, which are

optional -

he called it obligatory

! The importance of a mitzva in comparison with something optional is like the status of something mandatory in comparison with something optional.

The matter itself: First waters and last waters are obligatory; intermediate waters are optional.

Water

first waters -

one takes them either in a vessel

, into a vessel that will receive the water,

or upon the ground.

But water

last waters -

one takes them only in a vessel

, into a vessel.

And some say,

and there are those who say that

one does not take

them

upon the ground. [And below we explain that an evil spirit rests upon last waters when they are upon the ground].

The Gemara explains below that an evil spirit rests upon last waters when they are on the ground].

And we explain:

What is the difference between them

, between these two formulations, for according to the words of both, one does not take them upon the ground?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them -

a kinsa.

If one placed pieces of wood and twigs, and took the last waters upon them. According to the one who says that a vessel is required, these are not considered a vessel, and it is forbidden to take last waters upon them. But according to the one who says that one does not take them upon the ground, this is acceptable, since he takes them upon wood; this is not considered taking them upon the ground.

First waters -

one takes

them

either with hot water

, if they are hot,

or with cold water

, whether they are cold.

Water

last waters -

one takes them only with cold water

, with cold water,

because

water

hot water softens

the hands

and does not remove the filth

that adhered to them during the meal; rather, they cause the filth to be absorbed into the hands.

We learned in a beraita:

First waters are taken either with hot water or with cold water.

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yannai said: They taught only

that one takes first waters

but

with hot water

whose heat does not make the hand recoil

, burn

it.