Chullin 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

The House of Shammai say: He wipes

his mouth,

and he need not rinse

his mouth with water,

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

And the House of Hillel say: He rinses

his mouth with water,

and he need not wipe,

since he has rinsed his mouth.

This cannot be said,

but what of that which Rabbi Zeira said: Wiping the mouth

is not effective to permit eating meat after cheese,

unless

he wiped it

with bread,

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

In accordance with whom

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

in accordance with the House of Shammai

and not in accordance with the halakha? For according to the House of Hillel, only rinsing the mouth is effective, whereas wiping is not effective.

And we explain:

Rather,

this is what one must say:

The House of Shammai say: He wipes

his mouth, and this suffices,

and he need not rinse.

He does not need to rinse his mouth.

And the House of Hillel say

that wiping the mouth alone does not suffice; rather, he also needs

to rinse.

He must also rinse his mouth in addition to wiping it. And concerning this Rabbi Zeira said that according to both the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, wiping is specifically performed with bread.

And we reject this: If so,

this would be

this law

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

For according to the House of Shammai, wiping suffices, whereas according to the House of Hillel, rinsing and wiping are required.

And let it be taught

in tractate Eduyot

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

For in tractate Eduyot all the cases in which the House of Shammai ruled leniently and the House of Hillel stringently are taught. Since this law was not taught there, it follows that this is not the explanation of the statements of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

And we explain:

Rather,

this is what one must say:

The House of Shammai say: He wipes

his mouth,

and the same applies to rinsing;

he requires both—wiping and rinsing.

And the House of Hillel say: He rinses

his mouth,

and the same applies to wiping;

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

one master—

the House of Shammai—

stated one.

His intention was both matters.

And one master

the House of Hillel—

stated one,

and his intention was both matters; each one stated one of the requirements separately,

and they do not disagree.

For this is not a dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel; both hold that wiping and rinsing are required between eating cheese and eating meat.

With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Zeira said: Wiping

the mouth is effective

only with bread,

by chewing bread.

And this applies

when it is effective

with wheat bread,

bread made from wheat.

But with barley bread, no!

For bread made from barley does not constitute wiping, because it crumbles inside the mouth and cannot wipe away and clean the remnants of food that were previously in the mouth.

And with wheat bread,

and with wheat bread,

we said as well

that wiping is effective

only when it is cold,

with cold bread,

but with hot bread,

with hot bread, wiping is not effective, because

it sheds flakes!

Once it softens, it adheres to the mouth, and remnants of it remain in the mouth; therefore, it does not clean it.

And this applies—

that wiping with cold wheat bread is effective—

when it is soft,

with soft bread,

but with very hard bread,

with extremely hard bread,

it does not

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

And the halakha is—

with regard to all things, they constitute 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 away remnants of the previous food.

Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan:

How much

time

should he wait between

eating

meat and

eating

cheese?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Nothing!

He may eat cheese immediately after eating meat; he need not wait any interval between them.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rav Ḥisda said: One who ate meat—

is prohibited from eating cheese

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

But if he ate

cheese—

he is permitted to eat

after it

meat

without waiting any interval [provided that he wipes and rinses his mouth].

And we answer:

Rather,

this was his question:

How much time should he wait between

eating

cheese and

eating

meat?

And concerning this

he said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Nothing!

He need not wait any interval between eating cheese and meat.

With regard to the matter itself, Rav Ḥisda said: One who ate meat—

is prohibited from eating cheese

immediately afterward. One who ate

cheese—

is permitted to eat meat.

Rav Aḥa bar Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: Meat that

remained

between the teeth —

what is its status?

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

He cited concerning it

Rav Ḥisda the verse,

“The meat was still between their teeth,”

indicating that the verse calls meat that remains between the teeth “meat.” Therefore, it is prohibited to eat cheese as long as it remains between the teeth.

Mar Ukva said: As for me, regarding this matter

of refraining from eating cheese after meat, I am considered

like vinegar, the son of wine,

like vinegar derived from wine,

in comparison with my father.

For my father, when he would eat meat today,

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

he would not eat cheese—

until the next day, at this time,

until the following day at that same time, after an entire twenty-four-hour period had passed from the time he ate the meat.

But as for me,

I practice only that

at this meal

in which I ate meat,

I do not eat

cheese. But

at another meal,

after the interval of another meal—

I eat,

I eat cheese. And the early authorities disagree whether six hours are required between eating meat and eating cheese, or whether clearing the table and reciting Birkat HaMazon suffice.

Shmuel said: As for me, regarding this matter

as he explains it—

vinegar, the son of wine,

like vinegar derived from wine,

in comparison with my father.

For my father would inspect

he would examine

his property

his possessions and lands

twice a day

twice daily.

But I,

while I

do not inspect

them

except

only

once,

once a day.

Shmuel

does not

follow his own teaching, for Shmuel said: Whoever inspects his property every day

whoever examines his property daily

finds a coin!

He finds a coin, meaning that he profits, because he corrects whatever requires correction.

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

who worked his fields,

carrying a load of wood,

with the intention of stealing it.

He said to him,

Abaye,

these

pieces of wood—

where

are you taking them?

He said to him,

the sharecropper,

“My heart, master!”

“I am bringing the wood for your honor!”

He said to him,

Abaye to his sharecropper:

“The Sages preceded you!”

They said that a person should observe and inspect his possessions every day, and by following their words I saved my property.

Rav Asi would inspect his property every day,

examining his possessions daily.

He said: Where are

where are

all those 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 one’s property every day?

One day,

when he was inspecting his property,

he saw a breach in the irrigation channel on his land.

He saw water overflowing its banks and coming to flood his fields through a breach in the side 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,

and shouted.

People came,

people came,

and sealed it,

and closed the breach.

And then

said

Rav Asi:

“I have found them,

I have found

all the coins

all the coins

of Master Shmuel.”

For Shmuel had said that anyone who inspects his property every day finds profit.

Since we discussed washing the hands in the middle of a meal, the Gemara explains the laws of washing the hands that pertain to a meal.

First waters: These are the water with which a person washes his hands before eating bread or something dipped in liquids.

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

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

Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: First waters—

are a mitzva!

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

And

waters

latter—

obligatory!

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

Meytivi: First and latter waters—

obligatory.

And

intermediate waters,

which are taken between one cooked dish and another—

optional! This indicates that first waters are also obligatory, which is difficult for Rav Idi bar Avin, who said that first waters are a mitzva but not an obligation.

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

mitzva

of

the first waters

relative to

intermediate waters, which are

optional—

the tanna called it obligatory, since the importance of a mitzva in comparison with an optional practice is like an obligation in comparison with an optional practice.

The Gemara returns to the matter itself: First and latter waters are obligatory; intermediate waters are optional.

Waters

first—

one may take them either with a utensil

into a utensil that will receive the water, or

on the ground.

But waters

latter—

one may take them only with a utensil,

into a utensil.

And some say—

and there are those who say that

one may not take

them

on the ground.

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

And we explain:

What is the difference between them

between these two formulations? After all, according to both of them, one may not take them on the ground.

And we answer:

There is a difference between them—

kinsa.

If one placed pieces of wood and twigs and took the latter waters upon them: According to the one who says that a utensil is required, these are not considered a utensil, and it is prohibited to take latter waters upon them. But according to the one who says that one may not take them on the ground, this is acceptable, since he takes them upon wood; it is not considered that he is taking them on the ground.

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 the water may not be taken onto the ground, this is acceptable, since one takes it upon wood; it is not considered taking it onto the ground.

First waters—

one may take

them

either with hot water,

if they are hot,

or with cold water,

if they are cold.

Waters

latter—

one may take them only with cold water,

with cold water,

because

hot water

softens

the hands,

and does not remove the filth,

that adhered to them during the meal; on the contrary, it causes the filth to become absorbed into the hands.

We learned in a beraita:

First waters may be taken either with hot water or with cold water.

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yannai said: This was taught

that one may take first waters

only

with hot water

that is not hot enough to scald the hand

to be burned

by it.