Chullin 107a (קז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Avina said to the people of

the valley of Aravot

the valley of the country called Aravot, where water was not readily available in that country.

For example, you—

you—

since water is not readily available to you—

as you do not have sufficient water—

wash your hands—

wash your hands—

in the morning—

from the morning—

and stipulate concerning them for the entire day—

and stipulate that the morning washing should be effective for you for the entire day, so that you will not need to wash your hands during the day.

Some say:

specifically

in a time of distress—

yes,

it is permitted to make such a stipulation. However,

when it is not a time of distress

and, for example, in a place where water is readily available,

no,

a stipulation is not effective.

And this disagrees

Rabbi Avina disagrees with

Rav,

who permitted making such a stipulation in every circumstance, even when it is not a time of distress.

And some say: Even when it is not a time of distress as well

Rabbi Avina permitted making such a stipulation,

and that is the opinion of Rav.

And this statement that Rabbi Avina said his words to the people of the valley of Aravot was good advice that he offered them, since water was not readily available to them.

The practice of the farmers was to draw water from the rivers in buckets and pour the water from the buckets into channels, from which the water flowed to the fields to irrigate them.

Rav Pappa said: This channel—

a channel that conveys water from the river—

of those who draw water—

who draw water from the river with a bucket and pour it from the bucket into the channel—

one may not wash his hands from it.

One may not insert his hands into the channel so that the water will pass over his hands and the act will be considered washing of the hands, since

the water does not come

upon his hands

through human force.

Rather, the water flows and arrives on its own, since he washes his hands at a distance from the person pouring, and it follows that the force of the person has already ended. Washing of the hands requires human force.

[Nor is there immersion of the hands here, since the water in the channel does not contain the measure of a mikveh.]

And if he is close to the drawer

and the person washing his hands places them near the place where the water is poured from the bucket into the channel,

so that they come

then the water comes upon his hands

through human force—

one may wash his hands from it,

since this is washing that comes through human force, namely, through the force of the person pouring the water into the channel.

And if the bucket has a hole of the measure of “that which admits liquid”,

that is, there is a hole in the bucket with which they draw water from the river, and the hole is of the measure called “that which admits liquid” [meaning that if the bucket were submerged in the river, water would enter the bucket from the river through the hole], and at the time he pours the water from the bucket into the channel, the water in the bucket pours in a stream [that is visible] into the river through that hole—

it joins the waters.

The water in the channel becomes connected to the water in the river through the water flowing from the hole in the bucket,

and he may immerse in it

in the channel

his hands,

just as he may immerse them in the river itself.

[Although for the interconnection of mikvaot one ordinarily requires a hole the size of the opening of a wineskin, here a small connection is sufficient, since this is not a complete immersion.]

And Rava said: A vessel that has been perforated,

and the size of the hole is

that which admits liquid

[so that liquid can enter from outside through the crack in the hole]—

one may not wash his hands from it.

It no longer has the status of a vessel, and the Sages ordained that washing of the hands must specifically be performed with a vessel.

And Rava said: A vessel that does not contain

an amount of

a revi'it

of water—

one may not wash his hands from it.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Is that so? But Rava said: A vessel that does not hold

within its receptacle

a revi'it

of water—

one may not wash his hands from it.

And it follows

that

if the vessel

holds

a revi'it,

even though it does not contain

a revi'it at present, one may wash from it. This implies that a revi'it of water is not required for washing the hands; it is sufficient that the vessel be capable of holding a revi'it.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

statement, which implies that a revi'it of water is required, refers

to one

person who comes to wash his hands.

And

this statement, which implies that a revi'it of water is not required, refers

to two

people.

That is, there was a revi'it of water in the vessel, and one person had already washed from the vessel. Therefore, even though at the time the second person washed there was no longer a revi'it in the vessel, it is effective, since the remnant of water that remained in the vessel came from a vessel that had contained a revi'it, and from the outset they intended to wash one after the other.

[Some explain that this refers to a situation in which the stream of the first person's water did not stop. That is, the second person placed his hands beneath the first person's hands, and the stream of the first continued and washed the second person's hands.]

As we learned

in tractate Yadayim:

The water of a revi'it—

one may wash

from it

the hands of one person, and even of two.

And it follows that a revi'it is effective for two people who wash their hands.

Rav Sheshet said to Ameimar:

Do you

insist on a vessel?

Do you insist on an intact vessel for washing the hands?

He said to him,

Ameimar:

Yes!

On appearance—

do you insist that the water retain the appearance of water, without its appearance changing?

He said to him,

Ameimar:

Yes!

On the measure—

do you insist on the measure of a revi'it for washing the hands?

He said to him,

Ameimar,

Yes!

Some say that this is what he said to him,

Ameimar:

With regard to the vessel and its appearance,

concerning a valid vessel and the appearance of water, indeed

we insist. But

with regard to

the measure,

the measure of a revi'it—

we do not insist!

As we learned: The water of a revi'it may be used to wash the hands of one person, and even of two.

And it follows that a revi'it of water is not required, since the second person who washes his hands does not have a revi'it of water.

And we reject this:

That is not so!

There is no proof from the beraita, because

there it is different:

the fact that the beraita validates a revi'it even for two people is

because they come

the second person's water

from the remnants of purity.

Since initially there was a revi'it in the vessel, this is sufficient even for the second person who washes, although he does not have a revi'it. But initially, when a person comes to wash his hands from a vessel, there certainly must be a revi'it of water in the vessel.

Rab Ya'akov of Nehar Pekod established—

he made—

a nitle,

a glass washing vessel,

of a revi'it.

It contained the measure of a revi'it, and he kept it so that anyone who wished to make a vessel for washing the hands could measure its size and ascertain whether it contained a revi'it by comparing it to that nitle.

Rav Ashi established in Hutzal a kuza,

a washing vessel made of earthenware,

of a revi'it,

which contained the measure of a revi'it, so that other washing vessels could be measured against it for the measure of a revi'it.

And Rava said: The lid of a barrel—

the cover that covers the barrel—

that one repaired,

that he hollowed out its inner side so that it would have a receptacle and be able to hold a revi'it of water—

one may wash his hands from it.

It is considered a vessel with regard to washing of the hands. Although initially it was not made for use of its inner side, but was intended to close the barrel, nevertheless, once he hollowed it out, it is considered a vessel and one may wash his hands from it.

[Some explain that it initially had a receptacle, but could not stand on the ground without being supported by something else. Later, he repaired it so that it could stand even without support.]

It was also taught likewise: The lid of a barrel that one repaired—

one may wash his hands from it.

A wineskin and a kefisha,

leather flasks,

that one repaired—

one may wash his hands from them.

A sack and a basket,

which ordinarily are not intended to hold water,

even though they hold

water, for example, when they have been coated with pitch and the water does not leak from them,

one may not wash his hands from them!

Since they were not made to hold water, they do not have the status of a vessel for washing the hands.

They raised a dilemma before them:

One who has not washed his hands—

what is the law regarding eating with a cloth? Do we fear that perhaps he will touch the food, or not

do we fear it?

May he spread a cloth over his hands so that he will not touch the food, and will be permitted to eat even without washing his hands?

Come and hear:

It is stated in a Mishna in Sukkah:

And when they gave Rabbi Tzadok food less than the size of an egg—

he took it with a cloth

and ate it without washing his hands.

And he ate it outside the sukka,

since for less than the size of an egg there is no obligation of sukka, as this is not a fixed meal.

And he did not recite a blessing after it,

the Grace after Meals, because he held that an amount that brings satiety is required.

And we infer:

What, is it not

from the fact that the Mishna states “less than an egg-bulk,” it follows that

this

if he was eating

an egg-bulk—

he requires the washing of hands.

[And it follows that wrapping a cloth around his hands is not sufficient; and the reason he wrapped his hands in a cloth when he ate less than an egg-bulk was for reasons of cleanliness].

And we reject this:

Perhaps

the fact that the Mishna states “less than an egg-bulk” is not intended to teach us that if he was eating an egg-bulk, he would wash his hands rather than wrap them in a cloth. Rather, the Mishna comes to teach us and to infer:

this

if he was eating

an egg-bulk, he requires

eating in a

sukkah, and requires a blessing

afterward.

Come and hear: Shmuel found

found

Rav eating with a cloth

[and without washing his hands].