Chullin 106a — the Talmud in English

He saw them,

the shed saw the members of Rav Pappa’s household

pouring water from the mouth of the jug,

for before they drank from the jug they poured a little water onto the ground.

He said

to them, that same shed:

If I had known that you were accustomed

if I had known that you were accustomed

to do this,

to pour a little water before drinking—

I would not have delayed!

I would not have needed to delay before drawing the water, for since you pour a little water from the jug, there is no concern about harmful creatures.

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel, he brought with him a beraita and

said:

Once it happened that

the first waters,

which a person had not taken before the meal—

they fed him pig meat.

For there was a Jewish shopkeeper who sold slaughtered kosher meat to Jews, but when a gentile entered his shop, he would feed him pig meat and carcasses. Once a Jew entered his shop and sat down to eat without washing his hands before eating, and the shopkeeper thought that he was a gentile and fed him pig meat. [And the commentators explained how he was permitted to sell pig meat].

And it likewise happened that, with regard to the waters,

the latter ones drove the woman out from her husband.

As it is related in tractate Yoma: Once Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yehuda lodged with an innkeeper, and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda deposited their money with him for safekeeping. The next day, when they came to ask for their money, the innkeeper said to them that nothing of the sort had ever happened. They enticed him and drew him to a shop, gave him wine to drink, and saw that lentils were stuck to his mustache. They said to his wife that her husband had told them to give them their money. So that she would believe them that they had come as her husband’s agents, they gave her a sign: that on that day her husband had eaten lentils. She gave them their money. When her husband heard this, after he awoke from his wine, he divorced her from his house. Had that man been careful with the latter waters, this incident would not have occurred, for those who take the latter waters are accustomed to wipe their mustaches with their wet hands, and it would not have been recognizable that he had eaten lentils, and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda would not have been able to give his wife a sign.

When Ravin came

from the Land of Israel,

he said:

The waters

first,

which the eater had not taken,

they fed

him

carcass meat.

The waters

latter,

which the eater had not taken after the meal—

they killed a person!

For he had the version of that incident in tractate Yoma that, after her husband heard of the incident, he killed her [and did not drive her out from his house].

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your sign is

so that you will know which of the two said that the latter waters drove a woman out from her husband, and which said that they killed a person:

Rav Dimi came—

“He drove her out”; Ravin came—

“He killed her.”

And this means: Make for yourself a sign as though these two things occurred to the same woman: they both drove her out from her husband and killed her. The first, who was Rav Dimi, said that they drove her out from her husband. The second, who was Ravin, said that they killed her. [

And it is impossible to say the reverse—that the first said “they killed a person,” and the second said “they drove her out from her husband”—for after they killed her, it is not applicable to say that they drove her out from her husband’s house.]

And they knew that Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia before Ravin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia. Therefore they knew how to distinguish that Rav Dimi, who was the first to come to Babylonia, said, “The latter waters drove a woman out from her husband,” whereas Ravin, who came after him, said, “The latter waters killed a person.”

We have learned that there were two versions of how the incident occurred:

With the first waters: they fed him a carcass, or they fed him pig meat. And with the latter waters: they drove a woman out from her husband, meaning that her husband divorced her, or they killed her.

Rabbi Abba teaches one of these

two versions concerning the first waters,

and one of these

two versions concerning the latter waters.

And in both of them he taught

stringently.

In the first clause he taught that the first waters resulted in feeding pig meat, which is more severe than carcass meat because it contains two prohibitions, since it is also a carcass.

And in the final clause he taught that the latter waters killed a person.

It was stated: Hot waters,

water heated by fire—

Hezekiah said: One does not take from them

the first waters

for the hands. [There is a dispute among the rishonim whether Hezekiah disputes what we learned above, on 105a: the first waters are taken both with hot water and with cold water.]

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One takes from them

the first waters

for the hands.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I asked Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabbi,

whether one takes water heated by fire,

and he was

one who ate pure foods,

and was therefore careful in the laws of washing hands.

And he said to me: All the great men of the Galilee do so,

that is, they take water heated by fire.

The hot waters of Tiberias—

Hezekiah said: One does not take from them

the first waters

for the hands.

But one immerses the hands in them

when there are forty seah of water. [For immersion in a ritual bath is effective for washing hands, and not only washing from a vessel.]

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When

all his body became impure,

he immerses in them

it,

for they are suitable for immersion of his entire body to become pure,

but not his face, his hands, and his feet.

For the hot waters of Tiberias are suitable for immersion of his body, but not for immersion of the hands for eating. [The face and feet do not require immersion; they were mentioned along with the hands.]

And we challenge this: Does immersion of the hands for eating not provide greater efficacy than washing of the hands, as we learned in tractate Hagigah, that for non-sacred food washing of the hands is sufficient, while for tithe and sacrificial food immersion of the hands is required? And

now, if his entire body immerses in them

in the hot waters of Tiberias, immersion of

his face, his hands, and his feet is not all the more so

effective

!?

Rav Pappa said: To immerse in the hot waters of Tiberias

in their place,

when they are connected to the spring—

everyone agrees that it is permitted

to immerse his hands in them, like all springs and ritual baths.

To take some of them in a vessel,

to take water from them in a vessel and wash his hands with them—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

And the hot waters of Tiberias are inferior to ordinary water heated by fire, with which one does take the hands, since they never had a time of fitness, for from the moment they came into the world they were hot.

When they disagree

Hezekiah and Rabbi Yoḥanan,

it is

when they diverted them into a side channel,

when he made a small trench in the ground and the water flowed there. In that place there is not a measure of forty seah [which is the measure of a ritual bath], but the water in it is connected to a ritual bath.

For the one who said—

Rabbi Yoḥanan

held: We decree concerning a side channel because of a vessel!

We are concerned lest he not pay attention to the water’s connection to the ritual bath and say that just as it is permitted to immerse hands in them, so it is permitted to take the hands from them in a vessel. And in a vessel it is certainly forbidden to take the hands from them, as was explained.

And the one who said—

Hezekiah

held: We do not decree

concerning a side channel out of concern that he will take the water in a vessel, and it is permitted to immerse his hands in a side channel.

As a dispute among tannaim,

the dispute between Hezekiah and Rabbi Yoḥanan depends upon a dispute among tannaim.

As it is taught in the Tosefta of tractate Yadayim:

Water that has become unfit for the drinking of an animal,

such as water that has spoiled, or the hot waters of Tiberias, when they are

in vessels,

they are

unfit

for washing the hands. For water that has become unfit for the drinking of an animal is not valid for washing the hands.

But to immerse his hands

in the ground

in those waters, they are

valid.

For these waters have the fitness of a ritual bath, despite the fact that they are unfit for an animal’s drinking; only for washing the hands is water fit for an animal’s drinking required.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even in the ground,

only

does he immerse his entire body in them

[wherever he needs to immerse his body],

but not

does he immerse

his face, his hands, and his feet in them.

For immersion of the hands is not effective in water that has become unfit for the drinking of an animal.

And we considered it:

Now, if his entire body immerses in them

when he is impure and requires immersion,

is it not all the more so his face, his hands, and his feet

that he can immerse in them? And why did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say that one does not immerse his hands in them!?

And we answer:

Rather, is it not so

that the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagree concerning a case

when they diverted them into a side channel,

when he made a trench in the ground and the water flowed there?

And the case is when they do not contain forty seah, but they are connected to a ritual bath.

And in this they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

For the one who said,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

held

that

we decree concerning a side channel because of a vessel,

and if we permit him to immerse his hands in a side channel, he will also come to wash his hands with water in a vessel, even where it is not fit for an animal’s drinking.

And the one who said,

the first tanna,

held: We do not decree

concerning a side channel out of concern that he will take these waters in a vessel.

And this is the dispute between Hezekiah and Rabbi Yoḥanan. Hezekiah held like the first tanna, that one immerses hands in a side channel. And Rabbi Yoḥanan held like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that one does not immerse hands in a side channel.

Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan:

The reason the Sages required

washing of the hands for non-sacred food

is

because of the association with teruma.

And this means that the Sages enacted that “ordinary hands” are impure as “second-degree impurity,” and required the priests to wash their hands before eating teruma, so that they would not invalidate it through contact with their hands.

Therefore they also enacted washing of the hands for every person, even for eating non-sacred food, so that through this the priests would become accustomed to washing their hands and would not invalidate the teruma.

And additionally,

there is a reason for washing the hands—

because of a mitzva!

And we explain:

What is “a mitzva”?

Abaye said: It is a mitzva to heed the words of the Sages,

who enacted it.

Rava said: It is a mitzva

that has support from the Torah, for there is

an obligation to heed the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh!

who expounded the verse.

As it is written

in the section concerning one with a discharge: “

And whatever the one with the discharge touches, and he has not rinsed his hands in water—he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be impure until evening.”

Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh said—

From here the Sages based the washing of the hands upon the Torah.

And as he explains below.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What

how

is understood

from this verse as a law concerning washing the hands!?

As it is written

concerning one with a discharge: “

And he has not rinsed his hands in water,”

and the meaning of the verse is—

if he has rinsed

the one with the discharge his hands in water, he is

pure,

but this matter is not correct, for

immersion

of his entire body in a ritual bath

he

requires,

and washing his hands does not help him.

Rather, this is what the verse says: One who touches a person with a discharge,

and

likewise another person

who is not

a person with a discharge, but

has not rinsed

and washed his hands in water, he is

impure. [It is merely a scriptural support. Rashi.] It follows that there are impurities that become pure through washing the hands.

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: They said

that one requires

washing of the hands for fruit only because of cleanliness.

They understood from this that there is no obligation

to wash the hands for fruit,

but there is a mitzva,

rabbinically,

there is.

Rava said to them: There is no obligation

in it,

and there is no mitzva

in it,

but it is merely permitted

.

And

Rava’s words

disagree

with those of

Rav Naḥman,

for Rav Naḥman said: One who washes his hands for fruit—

is nothing but one of the arrogant!

And it is forbidden to behave arrogantly, because the matter appears as an arrogant practice, that he is more stringent than other people. Only where he knows that his hands are not clean must he wash his hands. [Rabbeinu Yonah in Berakhot.]

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was standing

I was standing

before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. They brought before them

they brought before them

a basket of fruit

a basket of fruit,

and they ate.

And they did not wash

and did not take

their hands

before they ate the fruit.

And they did not give me anything

to eat, so that I could join them for the zimmun.

And each one blessed separately

, for each of them recited the blessing for himself.

Learn from it

from this incident

three

three things:

a.

Learn from it: There is no washing of the hands for fruit,

and therefore Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not wash their hands.

b.

And learn from it: One does not recite a zimmun over fruit,

for the mitzva of zimmun does not apply to three who ate fruit. Therefore Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not give Rabba bar bar Ḥana anything to eat so that he could join them for the zimmun.

c.

And learn from it

from the fact that each one recited the later blessing separately, and one did not exempt his fellow with the later blessing, it is proven that

when two ate, it is a mitzva to separate

and each one should recite a blessing separately, since there are not three here who are fit to join for a zimmun.

It was also taught so: Two who ate—

it is a mitzva to separate

and each one should recite a blessing separately.

When are these words applicable—

when both of them are “readers”,

who know how to recite a blessing each for himself.

But

when

one

of the eaters is

a reader, and one

of the eaters is

an ignoramus,

who does not know how to recite a blessing, then the

reader recites the blessing and the ignoramus fulfills

his obligation, by the principle of hearing is like answering.

The palm of a person’s hand is divided into four sections:

Into three joints found in the fingers [the first joint is at the beginning of the fingers, where the fingernails are. The second joint is in the middle of the fingers. The third joint is at the end of the fingers, at the place where the fingers join the palm of the hand], and into a fourth joint, which is at the end of the palm, where the palm joins the forearm.

And the Gemara disagreed concerning how far the obligation of washing the hands extends.

The Sages taught: The washing of the hands

that is required

for non-sacred food

is

up to the joint

the second one, which is in the middle of the fingers. Since the obligation of washing is because of the association with teruma, it is sufficient if he washes the place that he is accustomed to touch the food, namely, the tips of the fingers.

to the joint

in the middle of the fingers. Since the obligation of washing is because of the association with teruma, it is sufficient to wash the place that one normally touches when handling food, namely, the fingertips.