Previous daf

1)

(a) When, after arriving from Eretz Yisrael, Rav Dimi related how ...

1. ... Mayim Rishonim fed someone Basar Chazir - he was referring to the inn-keeper, who once served a Jewish client, Chazir, because the latter did not wash for bread, and it was his custom to serve his Jewish clients (whom he recognized from the fact that they washed Netilas Yadayim before the meal) Kasher meat, and his Nochri customers, T'reif. Why the story ends with Basar Chazir (and not Basar Neveilah, with which it begins) see Maharsha.
2. ... Mayim Acharonim caused a man to divorce his wife, he was referring to 'Reuven', who saw 'Shimon', after having eaten a meal of lentils, deposit a purse-full of coins with his wife, before leaving the house without washing Mayim Acharonim. After waiting a while, he approached the wife and told her that Shimon had sent him to fetch the purse. When she asked for a Siman, he told her that they had eaten lentils, which he learned from the remains of the meal that surrounded Shimon's mouth, upon which she handed him the purse. Note, that Mayim Acharonim is also meant to wash the remains the meal from around the mouth. When her husband returned home and discovered what had happened, he divorced her.

(b) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he told over the same stories, but each with a different ending. In the first episode, the inn-keeper served his Jewish customer Neveilah, and not Basar Chazir. According to him, the story of Mayim Acharonim ended - with Shimon, not divorcing his wife, but killing her.

(c) To remember who said what in this latter case, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak gives the Siman - 'Asa Rav Dimi, Afkah; Asa Ravin Katlah' ('When Rav Dimi came, he drove her out; when Ravina came, he killed her.

(d) Rebbi Aba learned one of each le'Chumra, by which he means - that he learns 'Katlah' by Mayim Acharonim (like Ravin), but 'Chazir' by Mayim Rishonim (like Rav Dimi). What makes Chazir more Chamur than Neveilah is - the fact that for eating a dead Chazir, one is Chayav for Neveilah as well (if one holds 'Isur Chal al Isur').

(a) According to Chizkiyah, one may not wash Mayim Rishonim using boiled water (like the first Lashon on top of the previous Amud). Rebbi Yochanan - permits it (like the second Lashon there, see Tosfos DH 'Chamei ha'Or').

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan asked Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi this very question, he replied - that all the Gedolei Galil actually used to use it.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan described Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi as - one who ate his Chulin be'Taharah.

(a) Chizkiyah considers Chamei Teverya ineligible for Netilas Yadayim - but not for Tevilas Yadayim, which is permitted, provided it is in a Mikveh of forty Sa'ah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan permits Toveling one's entire body in Chamei Teverya, but not one's hands, face and feet. Hands and feet - have no Halachic significance here at all, and Rebbi Yochanan only mentions them because that is what people normally do.

(c) The problem with this is - that whatever is Kasher for Tevilas ha'Guf, is Kasher for Tevilas Yadayim.

(a) Rav Papa answers the Kashya. Both Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan will agree, that in a case where one Toveled one's hands in ...

1. ... the water whilst it is still attached to the spring - the Tevilah is Kasher.
2. ... in a cupful of water that has been detached from the spring - it is not.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Chamei Teverya is worse than Chamei ha'Or in this regard - because whereas Chamei ha'Or were originally permitted, Chamei Teverya were not.

(c) And they argue in a case - where some of the Chamei Teverya had been diverted into a short ditch, which did not contain forty Sa'ah of the water, but which was still attached to the Mikveh ...

(d) ... and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether the Chachamim decreed on account of where the water was drawn into a vessel (Rebbi Yochanan) or not (Chizkiyah).

(a) We cite a Beraisa which disqualifies water that is unfit for an animal to drink from Netilas Yadayim (if it is in a K'li), but not from Tevilas Yadayim (if it is still on the ground). By 'water that is unfit for an animal to drink', the Tana means - either that it emits a foul smell, or Chamei Teverya.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits Toveling one's entire body in water that still on the ground, but not one's hands ... . We establish Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - by bas Biers (like we just established Rebbi Yochanan) ...

(c) ... and he and the Tana Kama (whose opinion Chizkiyah subscribes to) argue over whether the Chachamim decreed bas Biers on account of water in a K'li (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) or not (the Tana Kama).

(a) When Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi'an ascribes the Mitzvah of Netilas Yadayim to 'S'rach Terumah', he means - that the Chachamim instituted the Takanah of Netilas Yadayim so that the Kohanim's hands would be Tahor when they ate Terumah.

(b) They did not institute it because of those who eat Chulin - because, seeing as hands can only become Sheniyim le'Tum'ah (mi'de'Rabbanan), there would be no point in washing them, since there is not such thing as a Shelishi by Chulin (only by Terumah).

(c) The second reason that he adds for the obligation to wash Mayim Rishonim is - because it is a Mitzvah.

(d) Abaye explains this to mean 'Mitzvah Lishmo'a Divrei Chachamim'. According to Rava - it is a Mitzvah to listen to the words of Rebbi Elazar ben Arach (as we will now explain).

(a) The problem does Rebbi Elazar ben Arach have with the Pasuk "ve'Chol Asher Yiga bo ha'Zav ve'Yadav Lo Shataf ba'Mayim, Yitma" is - that a Zav needs to Tovel his whole body in a spring (not just his hands).

(b) Rava (according to Rebbi ben Arach) therefore interprets the Pasuk to mean - that a Zav remains Tamei as long as he has not Toveled in a Mikveh, and there is also a case of person remaining Tamei as long as he has not Toveled his hand in water (even though this is really only an Asmachta).

(c) The basic difference between the explanations of Abaye and Rava is - that according to Abaye, the Mitzvah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas according to Rava, it is a Mitzvah d'Oraysa (even though it is only an Asmachta, as we just explained).

(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya attributes washing one's hands before eating fruit to - cleanliness.

(b) Initially, we thought that it is not an obligation, but a Mitzvah, until Rava explained - that it is not even a Mitzvah either, only Reshus.

(c) This does not however, conform with the opinion of Rav Nachman - who rules that someone who washes his hands for fruit is conceited (in which case it is not even Reshus).

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah related how Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi neither washed their hands over the basket of fruit that was brought before them, nor did they offer him any of it - from which he learned that the Din of 'Mezuman' (that applies to three people who ate bread together) does not extend to fruit.

(b) When they had finished eating - they each recited the B'rachah Acharonah independently, from which he learned that it is not correct for one person to be Motzi another with regard to Birchos ha'Nehenin (see Tosfos DH 'u'Sh'ma Minah').

(c) This third ruling is supported by a Beraisa. However, the Tana qualifies the ruling - by restricting it to two Talmidei-Chachamim. Where the second person is a Bur (who is unable to recite the B'rachah on his own), then it is permitted for the Talmid-Chacham to be Motzi him with the B'rachah Acharonah.

10)

(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa states ...

1. ... 'Netilas Yadayim le'Chulin ad ha'Perek', he means - up to the second (middle) joint of the four fingers of the hand, which will suffice, seeing as this is only a safeguard for Terumah (which is itself only mi'de'Rabbanan.
2. ... 'Netilas Yadayim li'Terumah ad ha'Perek', he means - up to the third joint (where the fingers are joined to the palm).
3. ... Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim ba'Mikdash ad ha'Perek', he means - up to the end of the hand, where it is joined to the wrist

(b) The Tana also rules that whatever is a Chatzitzah regarding Tevilah - is also a Chatzitzah regarding Tevilas Yadayim and Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim.

(a) Rav used to demonstrate on his hand according to the Shi'urim given by the Beraisa. So did Shmuel, only with one difference - in that he demonstrated the same Shi'ur for Chulin as for Terumah (le'Chumra).

(b) Rav Sheishes too, did like Shmuel, only with one major difference - inasmuch as he compared the Shi'ur Terumah to the Shi'ur Chulin (le'Kula).

(c) bar Hedya cites Rebbi Ami like Shmuel, adding 'bein le'Chulin bein li'Terumah' - but not, he adds, because Rebbi Ami happened to be a Kohen who ate a lot of Terumah ...

(d) ... in which case - the Chumra would not even have extended to other Kohanim, let alone to Yisre'elim, all of whom would only have had to wash to the end of the second joint of their fingers, like Rav.