Chullin 107b (קז:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

Shmuel, what!

Do they act this way!?

Do they really eat in this manner, without washing their hands?

He said to him:

Rav:

I am overly sensitive!

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

When Rabbi Zeira ascended

to Eretz Yisrael,

he found

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

eating

while wrapping their hands

in worn leather flasks.

In worn flasks [a type of utensil], and without washing their hands.

Rabbi Zeira

said to them:

Two great men such as you

—two great men like you—

could err regarding Rav and Shmuel

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

And

this

Rav—

“I am overly sensitive,” he said!

That is, he washed his hands, and nevertheless wrapped his hands in a cloth because he was an istanis. He never permitted eating without washing one’s hands!?

And we say:

It escaped him—

it had slipped Rabbi Zeira’s mind—

that which Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: They permitted

eating by means of a

cloth

without washing one’s hands

for

the

eaters of teruma

—as they are diligent and are not concerned that they might touch the food with their hands—

but they did not permit

eating with a

cloth for those who eat pure foods

—Israelites who eat non-sacred food in a state of purity, who are not accustomed to taking precautions like the priests and are concerned that they might touch the food with their hands.

And Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

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

were priests,

and they were permitted to eat by means of wrapping their hands in a cloth.

They raised a dilemma before them: A person

who

eats through the agency of another,

that is, he eats because someone else feeds him by placing the food in his mouth—does

the person

who is eating

need

to wash his hands,

or

perhaps, since he does not touch the food with his hands, he does not need to wash them?

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

Rav Huna placed

before Rav Hamnuna

a piece of meat

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

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 have allowed you to eat without washing your hands.

And we explain: What was Rav Hamnuna’s distinction, on account of which Rav Huna allowed him to eat without washing his hands?

What, is it not

certainly

because he is careful,

Rav Hamnuna,

and does not touch

the food with his hands? He knows to take care not to touch the food with his hands. It follows that wherever there is no concern that he will touch the food with his hands, it is permitted to eat without washing one’s hands. The same applies to one who eats through the agency of another: it is permitted for him to eat without washing his hands, since there is no concern that he might touch the food with his hands.

And we reject this:

No!

That was not the reason Rav Huna allowed Rav Hamnuna to eat. Rather, Rav Huna knew

that he was diligent

—Rav Hamnuna anticipated what was to come and

had washed his hands beforehand

—he had washed his hands earlier. Therefore Rav Huna gave him food to eat. There is no proof that one who eats through the agency of another does not need to wash his hands.

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

of bread

into the mouth of an attendant unless he knows that

the attendant

washed his hands!

And the attendant,

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 drink he diverts his attention from the matter; therefore, for the new drink he must recite a blessing.

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

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

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He recites a blessing

the attendant

over each and every piece.

And Rav Pappa said: Granted, Rav’s

opinion, which states that he does not recite a blessing over each piece,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s

opinion, which states 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

statement of Rav, that he does not recite a blessing over each piece, is referring to a case

where there is an important person

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

And similarly,

this

statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that he recites a blessing over each piece, is referring to a case

where there is no important person

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

Nevertheless, he said this

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav: A person may not place a piece into the attendant’s mouth

unless he knows that he washed his hands.

It is evident that although the attendant does not touch the piece, but rather the host places it into his mouth, nevertheless he is forbidden to eat without washing his hands. The dilemma of the Gemara is thus resolved.

And we reject this:

An attendant is different,

and that is why they do not give him food before he washes his hands, because

he is preoccupied

with serving those reclining at the meal. He may forget that he did not wash his hands and come to touch and eat without washing them. But as for another person who is not preoccupied, perhaps it is permitted to feed him without his washing his hands when someone else feeds him. There is no concern that he will touch the food. [The attendant is constantly touching food when serving those at the meal, but this is not the type of contact that requires washing. Only one who touches food and eats it must wash.]

The Sages taught: A person may not give

one who is a guest at another’s home

a piece to the attendant

without the host’s permission while the cup is in his hand—

whether the cup is in the attendant’s hand

or

whether the cup is in the host’s hand, lest something go wrong at the meal.

Perhaps the host will become angry while drinking because the guest gave the attendant food, and the wine may harm him and cause him to choke. Even aside from this, there is concern that the host may focus his attention on what the guest is giving the attendant and consequently spill the cup. And when the cup is in the attendant’s hand, there is concern that, because he is preoccupied with taking the piece, he will spill the cup onto the table and disrupt the meal.

And an attendant who has not washed his hands—

it is forbidden to place a piece into his mouth.

They raised a dilemma before them: If one

feeds

his fellow while he himself does not eat, does the one feeding

need to wash his hands,

since he places the food into the mouth of the one eating,

or

perhaps, since he himself does not eat,

he does not need

to wash his hands?

Come and hear: The school of Menashe taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman

who needs to feed her young son on Yom Kippur

washes one hand

with water

and gives bread to her young son.

Although washing the hands is prohibited on Yom Kippur, it was permitted for her for the purpose of feeding her son.

It was said about Shammai the Elder that he did not wish

to wash even one of his hands and

feed with one hand

the infant on Yom Kippur;

and they decreed that he feed him with both hands

after washing them.

It is evident from this that one who feeds another, even though he himself is not eating, must wash his hands.

And we reject this:

Abaye said: There,

the reason they required him to wash his hands

was because of shibta.

This is 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 did not safeguard his hands [so that they would no longer be considered washed hands], he would still not need to wash them before feeding his fellow. The Sages did not institute handwashing for one who feeds another.

Come and hear: Shmuel’s father found him

—he found

Shmuel crying

while he was crying.

He said to him,

his father

“Why are you crying?”

—why are you crying?

Shmuel said to his father

“My teacher struck me”

—my teacher struck me. His father asked him

“Why?”

—why did he strike you? And Shmuel replied

“Because he said to me”,

accusing me: -

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

He was angry that I had fed his son without washing my hands.

Shmuel’s father said to Shmuel:

“And why did you not wash them?”

Why indeed did you not wash your hands?

He said to him,

Shmuel said to his father: Is

he,

Rabbi’s son,

eating

—he ate—

and I should wash my hands!?

Do I really need to wash my hands? I myself did not eat; I merely fed him!

He said to him,

Shmuel’s father said:

“Was it not enough

that your teacher

does not know

the halakha that one who feeds another need not wash his hands, but he even

struck you as well!?”

He went so far as to strike you!?

And the halakha is:

One who

eats through the agency of another

must

wash the hands of the person who is eating

even though he does not touch the food.

One who feeds

his fellow and does not himself eat—the one feeding

does not need to wash his hands.

Mishna:

A person may wrap

rice,

meat and cheese in a single cloth, provided that

the meat and cheese do not touch

one another.

The Gemara explains why it matters if they touch one another.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two lodgers,

guests staying at an inn,

may eat at one table, one meat and the other cheese, and need not be concerned

that one may eat from the portion of the other.

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 inquire about this:

And if they do touch one another,

the cheese and the meat,

what of it?

What is the concern? After all,

it is cold food touching cold food,

and they do not cause one another to absorb flavor.

And we answer:

Abaye said: Granted that peeling

each of them

is not required,

since they do not absorb flavor from one another,

rinsing

each of them at the place where they touched

is it not required!?

Therefore the Mishna stated that they should not touch one another, lest one come to eat them before rinsing them.

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 Shmuel: They taught

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

only when they do not know one another.

But

if

they know

the lodgers

one another—

it is forbidden.

There is concern that one may give the other some of his food while the other is eating his own food, and he will thereby eat meat with milk.

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

when

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

and when

one came with his piece

of meat

and the other came with his cheese,

they may

eat at one table—

one meat and the other cheese—

and need not be concerned

that one may give some to the other.

It is evident that only when they do not know one another—one came from the north and the other from the south—did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permit them to eat together at the same table.

And they prohibited

two people from eating meat and cheese at one table

only in one grouping,

when they eat in one “bundle,” that is, together and close to one another.

And we are astonished:

Can it enter your mind that it is one grouping?

After all, even without one table they are likewise forbidden to eat together when the foods touch one another!? Why did the beraita state that it is forbidden specifically at one table?

And we answer:

Rather,

what the beraita prohibited is

something resembling one grouping—

when they know one another; therefore, they are forbidden to eat at one table.

Rav Yeimar bar Shelemya said to Abaye: Two brothers,

who know one another but

are particular with one another,

so that neither eats from the other’s portion—

what is the halakha?

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

He said to him,

Abaye said: [We learned in tractate Pesaḥim that one may not make decorated serikin, matza cakes, on Pesaḥ, because the time spent making them may cause them to become leavened. Baitos ben Zunin asked the Sages: Is it not possible to make the serikin in a mold, in which case one would not spend time making them? They said to him:]

“Will people say: All serikin are forbidden, but the serikei of Baitos are permitted!?”

That is, the Sages did not distinguish in their enactment. Once they prohibited making decorated serikin from matza, they prohibited them in every case, because people would not know how to distinguish between ordinary serikin and the serikei of Baitos. Accordingly, in our case as well, they did not distinguish between brothers who are not particular with one another and brothers who are particular with one another. Since they prohibited ordinary brothers from eating at one table, they also prohibited brothers who are particular with one another.