Chullin

he saw them pouring off [a little water] from the mouth of the jug; he exclaimed. ‘Had I known that you were in the habit of doing this I would not have been away so long’. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported. The omission to wash the hands before the meal caused one to eat swine's flesh,1 and the omission to wash the hands after the meal caused a separation of a wife from her husband.2 When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported. The omission to wash before the meal caused one to eat nebelah.3 and the omission to wash after the meal caused a murder.2 R. Nahman b. Isaac said, [In order to remember the statements of each bear in mind] the following mnemonic: ‘R. Dimi came [first] and separated her, and then Rabin came and killed her’.4 R. Abba reported the graver result in each case. 5 It was stated: As regards water heated by fire, Hezekiah says: One may not wash the hands therewith;6 but R. Johanan says: One may wash the hands therewith. R. Johanan related: I enquired of R. Gamaliel the son of Rabbi, who used to eat all his food in conditions of levitical purity, and he told me that all the great men of Galilee did so.7 As regards the hot springs of Tiberias, Hezekiah says: One may not wash the hands therewith, but one may immerse the hands therein.8 R. Johanan says. One may immerse the body therein, but not the face, hands or feet.9 But surely, if one may immerse therein the whole body, how much more so the face, hands or feet!10 — R. Papa said: At the source there is no dispute at all that it is permitted;11 moreover, to take some away in a vessel, there is no dispute at all that it is forbidden.12 They disagree only in the case where the water [from the spring] was run off into a channel;13 one holds that we must forbid the case of a channel on account of a vessel,14 the other holds we do not impose this precautionary measure. Tannaim differ on this point. [It was taught:] Water which is unfit for cattle to drink,15 if it is in a vessel, is invalid [for the immersion of the hands], but if it is on the ground it is valid. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Even if it is on the ground one may immerse therein the whole body, but not the face, hands or feet. But surely if one may immerse therein the whole body, how much more so the face, hands or feet! This therefore must be a case where the water was run off into a channel, and they differ in this: one16 is of the opinion that we must forbid a channel on account of a vessel, and the other is of the opinion that we do not impose this precautionary measure. R. Idi b. Abin said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: The washing of the hands for common food was ordained only in order to acquire the habit with regard to terumah;17 moreover, it is a meritorious act.18 What is this meritorious act? — Abaye answered: It is a meritorious act to hearken to the words of the Sages. Raba answered: It is a meritorious act to hearken to the words of R. Eleazar b. ‘Arach. [For It was taught:] It is written: And whomsoever he that hath the issue toucheth, without having rinsed his hands in water:19 herein, said R. Eleazar b. ‘Arach, the Sages found a Biblical support for the law of washing the hands. Raba asked R. Nahman: Wherein is this indicated? For it is written: ‘Without having rinsed his hands in water’. Can this mean that if he had rinsed his hands, [whatsoever he touched] would be clean? Surely he requires immersion, does he not? The meaning must be: And any other person that has not rinsed his hands is unclean. 20 R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: They enjoined the washing of the hands before eating fruit only for reasons of cleanliness The disciples understood from this that it was not a duty but that it was nevertheless a meritorious act. Raba, however, said to them: It is neither a duty nor a meritorious act, but is merely an act of free choice. This opinion [of Raba] differs from that of R. Nahman, for R. Nahman said: Whosoever washes his hands for fruit is of those that are haughty in spirit.21 Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Ammi and R. Assi when a basket of fruit was brought before them. They ate without first washing their hands, they gave me none of it, and each said the Grace [after meals] for himself. Draw three conclusions from this: (i) that the law of washing the hands does not apply to fruit; (ii) that the law of Common Grace does not apply to fruit;22 and (iii) that if two ate together. It is a meritorious act on their part to separate.23 It has also been taught to the same effect: If two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. This is so only if both of them are learned;24 but if one is learned and the other illiterate, the former says Grace and the other fulfils his obligation [by listening]. Our Rabbis taught: The washing of the hands for common food [must reach] up to the joint:25 for terumah [it must reach] and was served with swine's flesh. knowledge of them. They noticed that the man had traces of lentils on his upper lip, so they immediately went off to his home and asked his wife in the name of her husband to hand them the purses. On her asking them to prove their bona fides they told her that her husband had eaten lentils that day. She thereupon handed them the purses. When the husband came home and learnt what his wife had done he immediately divorced her, or as some say, killed her. Now had the husband been particular about washing the hands (and naturally also the lips) after the meal, this tragedy of a divorce or a murder would not have happened. reported by R. Abin. regard to the omission of washing after the meal it was the taking of a life. are they regarded as washed for the meal. The terms ‘face’ and ‘feet’ are quite irrelevant and are added here only on account of the fullness of the expression. ‘face, hands and feet’. the washing of the hands before the meal. immersion in a fountain or mikweh. ‘washing’ of the hands. For washing the hands by means of a vessel was primarily confined to the use of cold water, and although the Rabbis permitted water that had been heated, the permission did not extend to include the water from hot springs, for, being ever hot, it never came within the scope of the institution. of water for immersion but which was connected with the source. that of R. Johanan. V. Asheri a.l. and Alfasi on Ber. VIII, 44b. or terumah but not to common food. makes it into a meritorious act, v. Adreth Hiddushim.] thereby to convey that the law of washing the hands is of Biblical origin, the Rabbis merely supported their enactment by a Biblical text, i.e., t,fnxt. does not apply to a meal of fruit, for if it did these Rabbis would certainly have offered Rabbah some fruit in order to be enabled to say the Common Grace.