חולין 107 — parallel

107:1

the valley of ‘Araboth: People like you that have not much water, may wash the hands in the morning and stipulate that it shall serve the whole day long. Some say: This is allowed only in a time of need but not at ordinary times, hence it is at variance with Rab's view; others say: This is allowed even at ordinary times, and so it corresponds with Rab's view. R. Papa said: A person may not wash the hands in a dike used for irrigation, because [the water] here does not run directly from the human act; if, however, he is quite close to the bucket he may wash his hands [in the dike], because there it runs directly from the human act. If the bucket was cracked so that liquid could filter in, the waters are then considered as connected and he may immerse the hands [in the dike]. Raba said: A vessel which has a hole in it so that liquid can filter into it, may not be Used for washing the hands. Raba also said: A vessel in which there is not a quarter [log of water] may not be used for washing the hands. But this surely cannot be, for Raba has said: A vessel which cannot hold a quarter [log] may not be used for washing the hands. Now it follows that if it can hold [a quarter log] even though there is not [that much] in it [it may be used]! — This is no difficulty, for the one passage refers to one person and the other to two persons. and we have learnt: A quarter log of water [is sufficient] for washing the hands of one person or even of two persons. R. Shesheth asked Amemar: Are you particular about the vessel used? He replied: Yes. About the colour [of the water used]? — He replied. Yes. About the amount [of water used]?He replied: Yes. Others report that he replied thus: We are particular about the vessel and the colour [of the water], but we are not particular about the amount [of water used], for we have learnt: A quarter log of water [is sufficient] for washing the hands of one person or even of two persons. This, however, is not correct, for it is different in that case since it is the residue of [what was the proper amount for] purification. R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod had a standard washing vessel made that contained a quarter [log]. R. Ashi had a standard jug made in Huzal that contained a quarter [log]. Raba also said: If the stopper of a jar was fashioned [into a vessel], it may be used for washing the hands. It has also been taught to the same effect, viz., If the stopper of a jar was fashioned [into a vessel], it may be used for washing the hands. If a waterskin or a [leather] bottle was fashioned [into a vessel], it may be used for washing the hands. A sack or a basket, even though they were made to hold water, may not be used for washing the hands. The question was raised: May one eat with a cloth [wrapped round the hand] or not? Must we apprehend lest [the bare hand] touch [the food] or not? — Come and hear: But when they gave R. Zadok less than an egg's bulk of food to eat, the took it with a cloth, ate it outside the Sukkah, and did not say the Grace after it. Now presumably if it was as large as an egg's bulk it would have been necessary to wash the hands! — No, perhaps the only inference is, if it was as large as an egg's bulk it would have been necessary to eat it in the Sukkah and to say the Grace after it. Come and hear [from the following incident]. Samuel once found Rab eating with a cloth and said to him,

—

107:2

Is it right to do so? And Rab replied. I am very sensitive. When R. Zera went up [to Palestine] he found R. Ammi and R. Assi eating food with leather rags around their hands; he exclaimed, ‘Two great men like you to be in error about the incident of Rab and Samuel! Did not Rab reply. "I am very sensitive"’ ? — In truth he [R. Zera] had forgotten the statement of R. Tahlifa b. Abimi in the name of Samuel, viz., They permitted those that eat terumah the use of a cloth, but they did not permit those that eat [common food] in conditions of cleanness the use of a cloth. And R. Ammi and R. Assi were priests. The question was raised: Must he that is being fed by another wash his hands or not? — Come and hear. R. Huna b. Sehora once was standing before R. Hamnuna and put some meat into R. Hamnuna's mouth which he ate. Said [R. Huna]. If you were not R. Hamnuna I would not have fed you. Now what was the reason [for the exception in R. Hamnuna's case]? Was it not because he was very careful not to touch [the food]? — No, it was because he was most scrupulous and had certainly washed his hands previously. Come and hear. R. Zera said in the name of Rab: One should not put a piece [of bread] into the mouth of the waiter unless one knows that he has washed his hands. The waiter must say a Benediction for each cup [of wine that he receives], but does not say a Benediction for each piece [of bread]. R. Johanan said: He must also say a Benediction for each piece [of bread]. And R. Papa said: In fact there is no contradiction [between Rab and R. Johanan], for one refers to the case where a notable person [is sitting at the table] and the other to a case where there was no notable person [at the table]. Nevertheless it expressly says. ‘Unless one knows that he has washed his hands’! — In the case of a waiter it is different because he is kept busy. Our Rabbis taught: A man should not give any bread to the waiter while the cup [of wine] is in the hand [of the waiter] or in his host's hand, lest there occur a mishap at the table. If the waiter has not washed his hands, one may not put bread into his mouth. The question was raised: Must he that feeds another wash his hands or not? — Come and hear: It was taught in the school of Manasseh: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says. A woman may wash one hand in water and give some bread to her small child. It was said of Shammai the Elder that he would not feed a child even with one hand, and the Sages ordered him that he feed it with both hands! — Abaye answered: There it was on account of evil spirits. Come and hear [from the following incident]. The father of Samuel once found Samuel crying and asked him, ‘Why are you crying’? ‘Because my teacher beat me’. ‘But why’? ‘Because he said to me, "You were feeding my son and you did not wash your hands before doing so"’.’ And why did you not wash’? [He replied:] ‘It was he that was eating, so why should I wash’? Said [the father of Samuel:] ‘It is not enough that he [your teacher] is ignorant [of the law], but he must also beat you’! The law is: He that is fed by another must wash his hands; he that feeds another need not wash his hands. MISHNAH. A PERSON MAY WRAP UP FLESH AND CHEESE IN ONE CLOTH, PROVIDED THEY DO NOT TOUCH ONE ANOTHER. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: TWO PEOPLE AT AN INN MAY EAT AT THE SAME TABLE, THE ONE FLESH AND THE OTHER CHEESE, WITHOUT HESITATION. GEMARA. And what does it matter if they do touch one another? It is only cold [food] with cold [food]? — Abaye answered: I grant you that it is not necessary to scrape away the surface, but surely each must be washed. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: TWO PEOPLE AT AN INN MAY EAT AT THE SAME TABLE etc. R. Hanan b. Ammi said in the name of Samuel: This is permitted only if they do not know each other, but if they know each other it is forbidden. It has also been taught to the same effect: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says. If two guests stay at the same inn, one having come from the north and the other from the south, the one with his piece of flesh and the other with his cheese, they may eat at the same table, the one flesh and the other cheese, without hesitation. They only forbade it where the two eat from one parcel. ‘From one parcel’! You surely cannot mean that! — It means, if it appears as [though they are eating from] one parcel. R. Yemar b. Shelemya asked Abaye: What is the law in the case of two brothers who are particular with each other! — He replied, Then people will say: All cakes are forbidden but the cakes of Boethius are permitted. Then according to your argument, what of the statement of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan viz.: One who possesses only one shirt may wash it on the intermediate days of the festival! There, too, people will say:

—