Chullin 107b — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

Samuel, and is this so?

Do they act in this manner!?

And do they thus act, eating without washing the hands?

He said to him:

Rav:

My mind is short upon me!

I am fastidious, and therefore, even though I washed my hands, I cannot eat with my hands without a cloth.

When Rabbi Zeira ascended

to the Land of Israel,

he found them

he found

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi eating

who were eating and wrapping their hands

in worn Babylonian cloths.

In worn cloths [a type of vessel], and without washing the hands.

Rabbi Zeira said

to them:

Two great men such as you—

two great men such as you—

should err regarding Rav and Samuel

and think that Rav ate with his hands wrapped in a cloth and without washing the hands!?

And

this

Rav—

“My mind is short,” he said!

That is to say, he washed his hands, and nevertheless wrapped his hands in a cloth because he was fastidious. And he never permitted eating without washing the hands!?

And we say:

It escaped him

it escaped Rabbi Zeira,

that which Rav Tahlifa bar Avimi said in the name of Samuel: They permitted

eating by means of a

cloth

without washing the hands

for

kohanim, who are

eaters of teruma

and are vigilant, and are not concerned lest they touch the food with their hands;

but they did not permit

eating by means of a

cloth for eaters of pure foods,

for Israelites who eat non-sacred food in purity, who are not accustomed to be as careful as the kohanim, and are concerned lest they touch the food with their hands.

And Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

who ate with their hands wrapped in a cloth without washing the hands—

they were kohanim,

and it was permitted for them to eat by means of wrapping their hands in a cloth.

They raised a dilemma before them:

A person who

eats by means of one who feeds him,

that is, he eats by means of another feeding him, who inserts the food into his mouth—does he

need

the person who eats

washing of the hands, or

perhaps, since he does not touch the food with his hands,

he does not

need washing?

Come and hear: For Rav Huna bar Sakhora was standing before Rav Hamnuna.

He fed him

Rav Huna fed Rav Hamnuna

a piece of meat

he cut him a piece of meat, with bread together with it,

and he ate.

He said to him

Rav Huna said to Rav Hamnuna:

Were you not Rav Hamnuna, I would not feed you!

I would not give you to eat without washing the hands.

And we explain: What is the virtue of Rav Hamnuna, on account of which Rav Huna gave him to eat without washing the hands?

What is the reason—is it not

certainly

because he is vigilant

Rav Hamnuna

and did not touch

and he knows to be careful and not to touch the food with his hands? And it is proved from this that where there is no concern that he will touch the food with his hands, it is permitted to eat without washing the hands. And the same applies to one who eats by means of one who feeds him: it is permitted for him to eat without washing the hands, since there is no concern lest he touch the food with his hands.

And we reject this:

No!

This is not the reason why Rav Huna gave Rav Hamnuna to eat. Rather, Rav Huna knew

that he is vigilant,

that Rav Hamnuna sees what is to come and

hurries and washes his hands,

and had washed his hands beforehand. And therefore Rav Huna gave him to eat. But there is no proof that one who eats by means of one who feeds him does not need washing.

Come and hear: For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: A person may not place a piece

of bread

into the mouth of a servant, unless he knows of him

of the servant

that he washed his hands!

And the servant,

who serves at the meal,

recites a blessing over each and every cup

of wine that he drinks. Since he does not know whether they will give him another cup to drink, after each drinking he diverts his attention, and therefore over the new drinking he must recite a blessing.

But he does not recite a blessing over each and every piece

that he eats at the meal, for he is certain that they will not withhold bread from him, and therefore he does not divert his attention from eating.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: He recites a blessing

the servant

over each and every piece.

And Rav Pappa said: Granted, the statement of Rav,

who said that he does not recite a blessing over each piece,

and [the statement of] Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that he recites a blessing over each piece,

are not difficult

and it is possible to reconcile them, so that their statements do not contradict one another.

For

this

which Rav said, that he does not recite a blessing over each piece, refers

to a case where there is an important person

at the meal, and the servant is certain that he will see to it that they give him more bread, and therefore he does not divert his attention from eating more.

And likewise,

this

which Rabbi Yohanan said, that he recites a blessing over each piece, refers

to a case where there is no important person,

for he is not certain that they will give him more to eat, and therefore he diverts his attention from eating more.

In any event, he said

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav, that a person may not place a piece into the mouth of a servant

unless he knows that he washed his hands.

And it is proved that although the servant does not touch the piece, but rather the host places it into his mouth, nevertheless it is forbidden for him to eat without washing the hands. And the dilemma of the Gemara is resolved.

And we reject this:

A servant is different,

and therefore they do not give him [food] without his washing his hands beforehand, because

he is occupied

with serving those reclining at the meal, and is liable to forget that he did not wash his hands, and come to touch and eat without washing the hands. But with regard to another person who is not occupied, perhaps it is permitted to give him to eat without washing the hands when someone else feeds him. And we are not concerned lest he touch the food [and the fact that the servant constantly touches food when serving those reclining at the meal is not a touch that requires washing. Only one who touches and eats is required to wash].

The Sages taught: A person may not give

who is a guest at his fellow’s home

a piece to the servant

without the permission of the host while the cup is in his hand—

whether the cup is in his hand,

of the servant,

or whether the cup is in the hand of the host, lest something untoward occur at the meal.

Perhaps the host will become angry while drinking because the guest gave [the piece] to the servant, and the wine may harm him, and he may choke. And even apart from this, we are concerned lest the host set his eyes upon what the guest gives to the servant, and he may spill the cup. And likewise, when the cup is in the servant’s hand, we are concerned lest, because he is occupied with taking the piece, he spill the cup on the table and there be disorder at the meal.

And a servant who did not wash his hands—

it is forbidden to place a piece into his mouth.

They raised a dilemma before them: The

one who feeds

his fellow, while he himself does not eat—does the one who feeds

need washing of the hands,

since he inserts [the food] into the mouth of the one who eats,

or

perhaps, since he himself does not eat,

he does not need

washing of the hands?

Come and hear: For the school of Manasseh taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman

who must feed her young son on the Day of Atonement

washes her hand

the

one in water and gives bread to her young son.

And although washing the hands is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, for the purpose of feeding her son they permitted her to do so.

They said concerning Shammai the Elder that he did not wish

to wash even his one hand and

to feed with his one hand

the infant on the Day of Atonement,

and they decreed that he feed with both his hands

after he washed them.

And we see from this that one who feeds, even though he does not eat, needs washing of the hands.

And we reject this:

Abaye said: There,

what they required him to wash his hands—

was because of shivta.

An evil spirit that rests upon hands that were not washed in the morning. But if he had washed his hands in the morning, it is possible to say that even if he had not guarded his hands [and they would not have been considered hands that had been washed], he would likewise not need to wash his hands before coming to feed his fellow. For the Sages did not institute washing for one who feeds his fellow.

Come and hear: For Samuel’s father found him

found

Samuel crying

while he was crying.

He said to him

his father

“Why are you crying?”

why are you crying?

Samuel said to his father,

“My teacher struck me,”

my teacher struck me, and his father asked him

“Why?”

why did he strike you? And Samuel answered

“For he said to me,”

he accused me— -

“You were feeding my son and did not wash your hands.”

For his anger was because I fed his son and did not wash my hands.

Samuel’s father said to Samuel:

“And why did you not wash?”

Why indeed did you not wash your hands?

He said to him,

Samuel said to his father: Is it that

he,

Rabbi’s son,

eats,

he ate,

“and I should wash!?”

Do I need to wash my hands!? But I myself did not eat; rather, I only fed him!

He said to him,

Samuel’s father said to him:

“Is it not enough for him,”

it is not enough for your teacher that

“he does not know,”

that he is not expert in the halakha that one who feeds does not need to wash his hands, but even

“he also strikes!?”

he also struck you!?

And the halakha is:

The

one who eats by means of one who feeds him—

needs

the person who eats

washing of the hands,

even though he does not touch the food.

One who feeds

his fellow and does not eat himself—the one who feeds

does not need washing of the hands.

Mishna:

A person may wrap

[rice]

meat and cheese in one cloth. Provided that they should not be

touching, the meat and the cheese,

one another,

and the Gemara explains the reason why it matters to us that they touch one another.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two lodgers,

guests at an inn,

may eat at one table, this one meat and this one cheese, and they need not be concerned

lest one eat from that of his fellow.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that it is permitted to wrap cheese and meat, provided that they do not touch one another.

And we raise an objection to this:

And if this touches that,

the cheese touches the meat,

what is there?

What is the concern? Is it not

cold with cold

and they do not cause one another to absorb?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Granted that peeling

each one of them,

is not required,

since they do not absorb from one another,

washing

to wash each one of them at the place of their contact—

is this not required!?

And therefore the Mishna said that they should not touch one another, lest he come to eat them before washing.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two lodgers may eat at one table, and so on.

Rav Hanan bar Ami said in the name of Samuel: They taught not

that it is permitted for two lodgers to eat meat and cheese at one table

unless they do not know one another.

But

if

they know

the lodgers

one another—

it is forbidden.

For we are concerned lest one give his fellow from his own food while his fellow is eating his food, and he is found eating meat with milk.

It was taught likewise: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two lodgers who stayed at one inn,

when

this one came from the north and this one came from the south,

and when

this one came with his piece

with a piece of meat

and this one came with his cheese,

they may

eat at one table—

this one meat and this one cheese—

and they need not be concerned

lest one give [food] to his fellow.

Thus, it is evident that only where they do not know one another—this one came from the north and this one came from the south—only there did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permit them to eat together at the same table.

And they did not prohibit

two people from eating meat and cheese at one table

except in one grasp,

when they eat in one “bundle,” a shared eating close beside one another.

And we wonder: Is

“in one grasp” conceivable?

But even without one table, it is likewise forbidden for them to eat a shared meal in which the foods touch one another!? And why did the beraita say that it is forbidden specifically at one table?

And we answer:

Rather,

what the beraita prohibited is

“like one grasp,”

when they know one another, and therefore it is forbidden to eat at one table.

Rav Yemar bar Shelamya said to Abaye: Two brothers

who know one another but

are strict with one another,

for one does not eat from his fellow’s food—

what is [the law]?

Do we say that since they are strict with one another, they are considered like “those who do not know one another,” or perhaps, since in the end they know one another, they were not permitted to eat at one table?

He said to him,

Abaye: [We learned in tractate Pesaḥim: One may not make “sarikin,” decorated matzot, on Passover. Since one lingers in making them, they may become leavened. Beitoseus ben Zunin asked the Sages: Is it not possible to make the sarikin in a mold, in which case one does not linger in making them? They said to him]—

“They will say: All sarikin are forbidden, but the sarikei of Beitoseus are permitted!?”

That is to say, the Sages did not differentiate in their enactment, and since they prohibited making sarikin from matza, they prohibited them in every manner, lest people not know how to distinguish between ordinary sarikin and the sarikei of Beitoseus. If so, here too, in our matter, they did not distinguish between brothers who are not strict and brothers who are strict. And since they prohibited ordinary brothers from eating at one table, they also prohibited brothers who are strict.