Chullin 107a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Avina said to the people of

exact page location")

the valley of Aravot [the valley of the country whose name is Aravot], where water was not found there in that country.

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

For example, you,

you,

for you do not have water readily available,

that you do not have sufficient water,

wash your hands

wash your hands

from the morning,

from the morning,

and stipulate concerning them for the entire day

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

There are those who say:

specifically

in a time of pressing circumstances—

yes,

it is permitted to stipulate. But

not in a time of pressing circumstances,

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

no,

a stipulation is effective.

And it disagrees

Rabbi Avina disagrees with

that of Rav,

who permitted stipulating in every case, and even not in a time of pressing circumstances.

And there are those who say: even not in a time of pressing circumstances as well

Rabbi Avina permitted stipulating,

and this is that of Rav.

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

The practice of those who irrigated the fields was to draw water from the canals with buckets and pour the water from the buckets into pipes, and from there the water would flow to the fields to water them.

Rav Pappa said: This irrigation channel,

a pipe that conveys water from the canal,

from which they draw,

for they drew water from the canal with a bucket and poured it from the bucket into the pipe—

one may not wash his hands from it.

One may not place his hands into the pipe so that the water will pass over the hands and the matter will be considered washing the hands for him, since

the water does not come

the water onto his hands

through human agency

but rather they flow and come on their own, since he washes his hands at a place distant from the person pouring, and it follows that the person’s force has already ended. And for washing the hands, human agency is required. [וטבילת ידים גם כן אין כאן, שאין כאן שעור מקוה במים שבצינור]And there is likewise no dipping of the hands here, since there is no measure of a ritual bath in the water in the pipe.

[There is also no immersion of the hands here, since the water in the channel does not contain the required measure of a ritual bath.]

And if he is brought close to the bucket

and if the one washing his hands places them close to the place where the water is poured from the bucket into the pipe,

so that they come

so that the water then comes onto his hands

through human agency—

one may wash his hands from it,

for here there is washing of the hands that comes through human agency, namely through the force of the one pouring the water into the pipe.

And if the bucket has a hole of the measure of “admitting liquid,”

that there is a hole in the bucket from which they draw the water from the canal, and the size of the hole is the measure of “admitting liquid” [meaning, that if they submerge the bucket in the canal, water from the canal will enter the bucket through the hole], and at the time that he pours the water from the bucket into the pipe, the water in the bucket pours [in a recognizable stream] into the canal through that hole—

it is joined to the other.

The water in the pipe becomes connected to the water in the canal through the water pouring from the hole in the bucket,

and he may dip in it

in the pipe

the hands,

just as he can dip in the canal itself. [ואף על פי שתמיד צריך לעירוב מקואות נקב בשיעור של שפופרת הנוד. כאן מספיק חיבור קטן, שאין זו טבילה גמורה]And although for the joining of ritual baths one always requires a hole the measure of the opening of a wineskin, here a small connection is sufficient, since this is not a complete dipping.

[Although, for the joining of ritual baths, a hole the width of the opening of a leather flask is always required, here a smaller connection is sufficient, since this is not a complete immersion.]

And Rava said: A vessel that was perforated,

and the size of the hole is

of the measure “admitting liquid” [שמשקה יכול להכנס מבחוץ דרך סדק הנקב]through which liquid can enter from outside through the crack of the hole—

—

one may not wash his hands from it.

For it does not have the status of a vessel, and the Sages ordained that the washing of the hands be specifically in a vessel.

And Rava said: A vessel that does not contain

an amount of

a quarter-log

of water—

one may not wash his hands from it.

And we raise it

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

its receptacle

a quarter-log

of water—

one may not wash his hands from it.

And it follows,

this

if the vessel

holds

a quarter-log,

even though it does not have in it

at present a quarter-log, one may wash from it. And it follows that a quarter-log of water is not required for washing the hands; rather, it is sufficient that the vessel be able to hold a quarter-log.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

which implies that a quarter-log of water is required is

for one

person who comes to wash his hands. And

this

which implies that a quarter-log of water is not required is

for two

people.

That is, there was a quarter-log of water in the vessel, and one person had already washed from the vessel. Therefore, even though at the time of the second person’s washing there was no longer a quarter-log of water in the vessel, it is effective, since those remnants of water that remained in the vessel came from a vessel that contained a quarter-log of water, and from the outset they intended to wash one after the other. [ויש מפרשים שמדובר באופן שלא פסק הקלוח של הראשון. דהיינו, שהשני שם את ידיו מתחת ידי הראשון והקילוח של הראשון ממשיך, ונוטל את ידיו של השני]And there are those who explain that the matter concerns a case in which the stream of the first did not stop. That is, the second placed his hands beneath the hands of the first, and the stream of the first continued and washed the hands of the second.

[Some explain that this refers to a case in which the stream of water used by the first person did not stop: the second person placed his hands beneath the first person’s hands, and the first person’s stream continued and washed the second person’s hands.]

For we learned

in tractate Yadayim:

Water of a quarter-log—

one may wash

from it

the hands of one person, and even of two. And it follows that a quarter-log is effective for two people who wash their hands.

This implies that a quarter-log 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 have the appearance of water, that its appearance not change?

He said to him,

Ameimar:

Yes!

On the measure—

do you insist on the measure of a quarter-log for washing the hands?

He said to him,

Ameimar,

Yes!

There are those who say: this is what he said to him,

Ameimar:

“On the vessel and on the appearance,

on a valid vessel and on the appearance of water, indeed

we insist.

But

on the measure,

on the measure of a quarter-log—

we do not insist!

For we learned: water of a quarter-log, one may wash from it the hands of one person, and even of two.

And it follows that a quarter-log of water is not required, since for the second person who washes his hands there is not a quarter-log of water.

And we reject this:

But it is not so!

There is no proof from the Mishna. For

there it is different,

the reason the Mishna validated a quarter-log even for two is

because they come

the waters of the second

from remnants of purity.

Since initially there was a quarter-log in the vessel, this is sufficient even for the second person washing, even though he does not have a quarter-log. But initially, when one comes to wash his hands from a vessel, certainly a quarter-log of water is required in the vessel.

Rav Yaakov established

he made

Rav Yaakov of Nehar Pekod, a נטלה

a glass washing vessel

containing a quarter-log.

It contained the measure of a quarter-log, and he kept it so that anyone who came to make a vessel for washing the hands could measure its size and check whether it contained a quarter-log, by comparing it to the washing vessel.

Rav Ashi established in Huzal a kuza

a washing vessel made of earthenware

containing a quarter-log,

which contained the measure of a quarter-log, so that other washing vessels could be measured by it to the measure of a quarter-log.

And Rava said: A cover of a barrel

a covering that covers the barrel

that he repaired,

for he carved on its inner side so that it would have a receptacle and be able to hold a quarter-log of water—

one may wash his hands from it.

For it is considered a vessel with regard to washing the hands. And although initially it was not made in order to use its inner side, but was intended for the use of closing the barrel, nevertheless, after he carved it, it is considered a vessel and one may wash his hands from it. [ויש מפרשים שמתחילה היה לה בית קבול אלא שלא היתה יכולה לעמוד על הקרקע בלי שיסמכו אותה על משהו אחר. ואחר כך תקנה שתוכל לעמוד אפילו בלי סמיכה]And there are those who explain that initially it had a receptacle, but it could not stand on the ground without being supported by something else. And afterward he repaired it so that it could stand even without support.

[Some explain that initially it already had a receptacle, but it could not stand on the ground unless it was supported by something else. He later repaired it so that it could stand even without support.]

It was taught likewise: A cover of a barrel that he repaired—

one may wash his hands from it.

A leather flask and a leather bottle,

leather flasks,

that he repaired—

one may wash his hands from them.

A sack and a basket,

which ordinarily are not intended to receive water, nevertheless

even though they contain

water, for example, when they are smeared with pitch and the water does not spill from them,

one may not wash his hands from them!

For they are not made for receiving water, and therefore they do not have the status of a vessel for washing the hands.

They raised a question before them:

one who has not washed his hands—

what is the law as to eating with a cloth? Do we fear lest he touch, or not

do we fear?

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

Come and hear:

it is stated in a Mishna in tractate Sukkah:

And when they gave Rabbi Zadok 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,

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

And he does not recite a blessing after it,

the Grace after Meals, because he held that an eating that contains satiety is required.

And we infer precisely:

Is it not

from the fact that the Mishna said “less than an egg-bulk” that it means

this

if he was eating

an egg-bulk—

he requires washing of the hands.

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

And we reject this:

perhaps

the fact that the Mishna said “less than an egg-bulk” is not intended to teach us that if he was eating an egg-bulk he would wash his hands and not 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

sukka, and requires a blessing

afterward.

Come and hear: Shmuel encountered him

and found

Rav eating with a cloth [

and without washing of the hands].