Chullin 106a (קו.) — the Talmud in English

He saw them:

the demon saw the members of Rav Pappa’s household

pouring water from the mouth of the jug,

as they would pour a little water onto the ground before drinking from the jug.

He said

to them, that demon:

If I had known that you were accustomed

to do so

in this manner,

to pour a little water before drinking—

I would not have delayed!

I would not have needed to wait before drawing the water. Since you pour a little water from the jug, there is no concern that harmful spirits are present.

When Rav Dimi arrived

from Eretz Yisrael, he brought a beraita with him and

said:

Once it happened that

the first waters,

which a person had not washed before the meal,

caused him to be fed pig meat.

The shopkeeper was a Jewish man who sold properly slaughtered kosher meat to Jews, but when a gentile entered his shop, he would feed him pig meat and animal carcasses. Once a Jew entered his shop and sat down to eat without washing his hands beforehand, and the shopkeeper thought he was a gentile and fed him pig meat. [The commentators explain how he was permitted to sell pig meat .

And it likewise happened that the last waters

caused a woman to be removed from her husband.

As it is recounted in tractate Yoma: Once Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yehuda lodged with an innkeeper. 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 told them that no such thing had ever happened. They plied him with wine and led him to a shop, where they gave him wine to drink, and they saw lentils stuck to his mustache. They told his wife that her husband had said that she should give them their money. To make her believe that they had come as her husband’s agents, they gave her a sign: on that day her husband had eaten lentils. She gave them their money. When her husband heard this, after recovering from his wine, he divorced her and sent her from his home. Had that man been careful about the last waters, this incident would not have occurred, since those who take the last waters customarily wipe their mustaches with their wet hands. It would not have been apparent that he had eaten lentils, and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda would not have been able to give his wife a sign.

When Ravin arrived

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said:

The

first waters,

which the one eating had not washed,

caused

him

to be fed carrion.

The

last waters,

which the person eating had not taken after the meal—

killed a person!

In his version of the incident in tractate Yoma, after her husband heard what had happened, he killed her [rather than removing her from his home].

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is

so that you will know which of the two said that the last waters caused a woman to be removed from her husband, and which said that they killed a person:

Rav Dimi came—

“he removed her”; Ravin came—

“he killed her.”

That is, make yourself a mnemonic as though both events occurred to the same woman: she was both removed from her husband and killed. The first, Rav Dimi, said that they caused her to be removed from her husband. The second, Ravin, said that they caused her to be killed.

[It is impossible to say the reverse—that the first said “they killed a person,” and the second said “they removed her from her husband”—because once they had killed her, it would not be appropriate to say that they removed her from her husband’s home.]

They knew that Rav Dimi had come from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia before Ravin had come from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. Therefore, they could distinguish that Rav Dimi, who was the first to come to Babylonia, said, “The last waters caused a woman to be removed from her husband,” whereas Ravin, who came after him, said, “The last waters killed a person.”

We learn from this that there were two versions of how the incident occurred:

Regarding the first waters: either the person was fed carrion or he was fed pig meat. And regarding the last waters: either a woman was removed from her husband, meaning that her husband divorced her, or she was killed.

Rabbi Abba taught one of these

two versions regarding the first waters,

and one of these

two versions regarding the last waters.

In both cases he taught the version

that is more stringent.

In the first case, he taught that the first waters led to the man being fed pig meat, which is more severe than carrion because it involves two prohibitions, as it is also carrion.

And in the latter case, he taught that the last waters killed a person.

It was stated: Water heated by fire,

water heated by means of fire—

Ḥizkiyya said: One may not take from it

the first waters

for the hands.

[The early authorities disagreed whether Ḥizkiyya disputes what we learned above, on 105a: The first waters may be taken with either hot or cold water.]

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may take from it

the first waters

for the hands.

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

whether one may take water that had been heated by fire,

and he ate teruma

and was therefore careful regarding the laws of washing the hands.

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

as they wash with water heated by fire.

The hot springs of Tiberias—

Ḥizkiyya said: One may not take from them

the first waters

for the hands.

But one may immerse the hands in them

when the water contains forty se’a. [For washing the hands, immersion in a mikveh is effective, and not only washing from a vessel.]

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

When

his entire body

has become impure, he

may immerse in them,

as they are fit for immersing his entire body in order to become pure,

but not his face, hands, and feet.

This is because the hot springs of Tiberias are fit for immersing the body, but not for immersing the hands for eating. [The face and feet do not require immersion; they were mentioned incidentally along with the hands.]

And we challenge this: Does immersion of the hands for eating not have greater efficacy than washing the hands, as we learned in tractate Ḥagiga, that for ordinary food washing the hands is sufficient, whereas for ma’aser and consecrated food immersion of the hands is required?

Now, if one’s entire body may be immersed in them

—in the hot springs of Tiberias—would immersion of

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

be effective?!

Rav Pappa said:

Regarding immersion in the hot springs of Tiberias

in their place,

when they are connected to the spring—

everyone agrees that it is permitted

to immerse one’s hands in them, like all springs and mikvaot.

Taking some of them in a vessel,

drawing water from them into a vessel and washing one’s hands with it—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

The hot springs of Tiberias are inferior to ordinary water heated by fire, with which one may wash the hands, because they never had a period when they were fit for this purpose; from the moment they came into existence, they were hot.

They disagree

—Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan—

when the water was diverted into a channel,

when a small trench was made in the ground and the water flows into it. In that place there is not a measure of forty se’a [which is the measure of a mikveh], but the water there is connected to a mikveh.

The one who said—

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

held that we decree regarding a channel on account of a vessel!

We are concerned that he may not take note of the water’s connection to the mikveh and say that just as it is permitted to immerse the hands in it, so too it is permitted to wash the hands from it using a vessel. Washing from it using a vessel is certainly forbidden, as explained.

And the one who said—

Ḥizkiyya—

held that we do not decree

regarding a channel lest one wash from it in a vessel; it is permitted to immerse one’s hands in the channel.

It is subject to a dispute between tanna’im,

the dispute between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan being dependent on a dispute between tanna’im.

As it is taught in the Tosefta of tractate Yadayim:

Water that has become unfit for drinking by an animal,

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

in vessels,

are

invalid

for washing the hands. Water that has become unfit for drinking by an animal is not valid for washing the hands.

But to immerse one’s hands

in the ground

in that water, it is

valid.

This is because these waters have the status of a mikveh, even though they are unfit for an animal to drink; only for washing the hands is water fit for an animal to drink required.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even in the ground,

only

one’s entire body may be immersed in them

[where he needs to immerse his body],

but not

his

face, hands, and feet.

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

And we analyze this:

Now, if one’s entire body may be immersed in them,

when he is impure and requires immersion,

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

be capable of being immersed in them? Why, then, did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say that one may not immerse his hands in them?!

And we answer:

Rather, is it not so that the Sages and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagree regarding a case in which

the water was

diverted into a channel,

a trench having been made in the ground into which the water flows?

This is referring to a case in which the channel does not contain forty se’a, but is connected to a mikveh.

And this is the point of their disagreement,

the disagreement between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

The one who said,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

held

that

we decree regarding a channel on account of a vessel,

and if we permit him to immerse his hands in the channel, he will also come to wash his hands with water in a vessel, even where the water is unfit for an animal to drink.

And the one who said,

the first tanna,

held that we do not decree

regarding a channel out of concern that he will wash with this water in a vessel.

This is the dispute between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan. Ḥizkiyya held like the first tanna, that one may immerse the hands in a channel. Rabbi Yoḥanan held like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that one may not immerse the hands in a channel.

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

The reason the Sages required

washing the hands for ordinary food

is

because of the association with teruma.

That is, the Sages instituted that “ordinary hands” be considered impure as a “secondary degree of impurity,” and they obligated the priests to wash their hands before eating teruma, so that they would not invalidate it through contact with their hands.

Therefore, they also instituted washing the hands for everyone, even for eating ordinary food, so that the priests would become accustomed to washing their hands and would not invalidate the teruma.

And furthermore,

there is another reason for washing the hands—

because of a mitzva!

And we explain:

What is meant by “mitzva”?

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

who instituted it.

Rava said: It is a mitzva

that has a support in 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 passage concerning a man with a discharge: “

And anyone whom the man with the discharge touches, and his hands have not been rinsed in water

—he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and remain impure until evening.”

Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh said—

From here the Sages derived support in the Torah for washing the hands.

And the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What

is the manner in which

is it inferred

from this verse that there is a law requiring the washing of the hands?!

As it is written

regarding the man with the discharge: “

and his hands have not been rinsed in water,”

and the implication of the verse is—

if he rinsed

the man with the discharge his hands in water, he would be

pure.

But this is not correct, because

immersion

of his entire body in a mikveh

is required,

and washing his hands is of no benefit to him.

Rather, this is what the verse is saying: One who touches a man with a discharge,

but merely permission

and

likewise another

person

who is not a man with a discharge, but

has not rinsed

his hands in water, has thereby washed them, is

impure. [This is merely an allusion. Rashi.] It follows that there are forms of impurity that are removed through washing the hands.

is merely one of the arrogant!

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

that one requires

washing 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,

by rabbinic decree,

to do so.

Rava said to them: It is not an obligation

and

it is not a mitzva

either;

rather, it is optional

.

And

Rava’s words

disagree

with those of

Rav Naḥman,

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

is nothing other than one of the arrogant!

It is forbidden to act arrogantly, because this appears to be a form of pride, as though one is more stringent than everyone else. Only when he knows that his hands are not clean must he wash them. [Rabbenu Yona in Berakhot.]

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I was standing

before

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. They brought before them

—

a basket of fruit—

a basket of fruit—

and they ate.

And they did not wash

or take

their hands

before eating the fruit.

And they did not give me anything

to eat, so that I could join them in zimmun.

And each one recited a blessing separately,

as each of them recited the blessing for himself.

Conclude from this

incident

three

things:

a.

Conclude from this that there is no washing of the hands for fruit,

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

b.

And conclude from this that one does not recite zimmun over fruit,

as 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 food to eat so that he could join them in zimmun.

c.

And conclude from this

—from the fact that each of them recited the final blessing separately, and one did not discharge the other’s obligation with the final blessing—it is proven that

when two people eat, it is a mitzva for them to separate

and each recite the blessing individually, since there are not three who are fit to join for zimmun.

It was taught likewise: When two people ate—

it is a mitzva for them to separate

and each recite the blessing individually.

When are these words said—

when both were “readers”,

meaning that each knew how to recite the blessing individually?

But

when

one

of those eating is

a reader, and one

of those eating is

an ignoramus,

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

reader recites the blessing and the ignoramus fulfills

his obligation, by the principle that one who hears is like one who recites.

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 tips of the fingers, where the fingernails are located. The second joint is in the middle of the fingers. The third joint is at the base of the fingers, where the fingers join the palm], and a fourth joint, which is at the end of the palm, where the palm joins the forearm.

The Gemara discusses how far the obligation of washing the hands extends.

The Sages taught: The washing of the hands

that is required

for ordinary food

extends

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.