Chulin 107
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת חולין דף קז עמוד א continues בעזרת השם with הלכות נטילת ידיים and the requirements of כח גברא, כוונה, a valid כלי, and a רביעית, then moves into whether wrapping hands can replace washing and how those rules differ for תרומה, for a שמש, and for someone who is being fed or feeding others. The שיעור brings multiple explanations from ראשונים and later פוסקים for why these standards exist, including comparisons to the כיור and to הזאה, and it applies the sugyos to practical questions like using cloudy water, fruit juice, and disposable cups. The end of the text shifts to הלכות בשר וחלב about separating meat and cheese and about two people eating at one table, defining when familiarity creates concern and what counts as a היכר, and it illustrates how חז"ל create general rules even when a particular case seems safe.
- Today's learning begins with אמר רב פפא האי אריסא דדלויא, describing a system where water is drawn with a pail and dropped into a ditch, and the גמרא rules אין נוטלין ממנה ידיים when one would wash from the ditch because דלא אתא מכח גברא. Rashi explains that נטילת ידיים requires water to come by a person’s pouring, and the case assumes the ditch does not contain forty סאה, because if it had forty סאה then immersing hands would be acceptable as learned earlier, though some ראשונים still disagree. The בה"ג, as presented by תוספות, takes a different approach and holds that placing one’s hand into the pail itself would be acceptable.
- One explanation attributed to the ראב"ד says חז"ל insist on a רביעית and ensure it by requiring direct pouring from a כלי onto the hands. Another explanation, elaborated by the ערוך השולחן, connects נטילת ידיים to שולחנו של אדם דומה למזבח and to the כהנים sanctifying their hands from the כיור וכנו before עבודה, where it comes through human action, so כח גברא is required. Another explanation says that since הזאה is performed through a person sprinkling, חז"ל similarly require כח גברא for נטילת ידיים.
- The גמרא rules that if one places hands close to the pail so that water reaches them דקאתיא מכח גברא, then נוטלין ממנה ידיים. The רשב"א explains the חידוש as a law of כוונה: even if the one pouring lacks intention to wash the other’s hands, the intention of the one being washed suffices. The גמרא adds that if the pail has a hole of כונס משקה, the waters connect מייפי לייפי and then one may מטבל ידיים, and the ראשונים explain that this works via *nitsok*, a connecting stream that is sufficient for נטילת ידיים.
- The text distinguishes three שיעורים of holes in הלכות מקוואות, including כשפופרת הנוד defined as a hole through which two fingers can enter and move, and it notes a smaller hole size relevant to disqualifying a handwashing כלי. The גמרא states ואמר רבא כלי שניקב בכקנה המשקה אין נוטלים לידיים, disqualifying a כלי with a hole that allows seepage. Some ראשונים define the practical sign as constant dripping, and the גמרא מסכת נדה gives tests, first rejected because pressure distorts results and then replaced with placing the inverted כלי in an empty pot and filling the pot to see whether water seeps in.
- The שיעור presents a מחלוקת ראשונים whether any נקב disqualifies a כלי for נטילת ידיים even if it is above the level needed to hold a רביעית, or whether disqualification depends on whether the כלי can still retain a רביעית. The discussion ties this to the upcoming requirement that the washing cup must involve a רביעית.
- Rava states that a כלי lacking a רביעית cannot be used, and the גמרא resolves an apparent contradiction by distinguishing הא לחד הא לתרי. The plain reading is that one must begin with a full רביעית for the first person, and a second person may wash from the leftovers. The ראשונים offer differing approaches: some allow the second person to wash even with very little remaining, some require adding more water while treating the remainder as a starting base, and some limit the allowance to a case where the second person is immediately present so the water counts as שיורי טהרה, while the רמב"ן explains the case as the second person holding hands beneath the first so the poured water drips onto the second.
- A ברייתא states מי רביעית נוטלים לידיים לאחד ואפילו לשמונה, grounding the view that starting with a רביעית validates multiple washings. רב ששת asks אמי whether they are careful about the כלי being intact, about חזותא, and about the שיעור, and one version says they are careful about all three while another says they are careful only about the כלי and the clarity but not about the exact measurement. The גמרא rejects the inference that one may begin with less than a רביעית and restates that the leniency is only because the later users come from שיורי טהרה.
- The text records a מחלוקת ראשונים why חזותא must be clear, with some deriving it from the water of the כיור and others from הזאה, and it notes that the Rambam does not appear to accept the כיור derivation. The ראשונים debate water that turns greenish from being left out, distinguishing between שינוי from an outside factor like added coloring, which all reject, and a natural change from standing, which some treat as acceptable. The ראשונים also debate fruit juice, with views ranging from requiring only clear water, to permitting only clear fruit juice such as clear grape juice, to permitting natural color because it is not a שינוי. The מנחת יצחק rules that when water pours out cloudy and later clears, לכתחילה one should wait for it to clear because the גמרא requires clear liquid.
- The גמרא describes רב יעקב and רב אשי each having a כוזא בת רביעתא used as a standard to measure what a רביעית is. The שיעור presents an interpretation that the teaching is one must begin with a full רביעית and cannot combine two half-*revi’it* measures to create the requirement.
- Rava rules that a מגופת חבית שתיקנה can be used for נטילת ידים, and Rashi explains this as a bottle cap converted into a receptacle by cutting it, while תוספות explains it as a cap made usable by flattening it so it stands without wobbling. A ברייתא extends the rule to חמת וכפישה that were repaired to function as liquid receptacles, while excluding שק וקופה that are not meant to hold liquid even if they can in practice.
- The text raises the practical question whether a disposable cup counts as a כלי for נטילת ידים and reports that the פוסקים say לכתחילה one should not use a disposable plastic cup, but בדיעבד it can be used if no other cup is available and it holds a רביעית. The text adds that if choosing between plastic and Styrofoam, the פוסקים prefer Styrofoam because it holds hot and cold and is sturdier, aligning with the implication that a more durable vessel is more of a כלי.
- The גמרא asks מהו לאכול במפה, whether one may eat while hands are wrapped, and the שיעור clarifies that the question is not a case of no available water because the שלחן ערוך allows wrapping when water is not available within a מיל in the context described. A משנה מסכת סוכה about רב צדוק eating פחות מכביצה with נטלו במפה and eating חוץ לסוכה without a ברכה is brought as possible evidence, but the גמרא rejects the proof by attributing his conduct to the laws of סוכה and ברכה rather than to a ban on wrapping.
- The text states that the שלחן ערוך rules that when washing for bread one must ensure he will eat a כביצה, and it presents the concern that if one will eat less, making the ברכה on נטילת ידיים may be a ברכה לבטלה. The שיעור states that where one knows or suspects he will eat less than a כביצה, he should wash but not recite the ברכה because ספק ברכות להקל.
- Shmuel finds Rav eating with wrapped hands and questions it, and Rav answers that he did wash but is an אסטניס and wraps to avoid dirt. Rav Zeira later finds Rav Ami and Rav Asi eating with wrapped leather and worries that others will err from Rav’s precedent, and the text says they erred because Rav Tahlifa bar Avimi said in Shmuel’s name that wrapping was permitted only for those who eat תרומה. The גמרא distinguishes between אוכלֵי תרומה, for whom wrapping is enough due to their habitual care, and אוכלֵי טהרה, for whom it was not permitted, and the ראשונים dispute whether a כהן may rely on this leniency even when eating חולין because of his established carefulness.
- The גמרא asks whether someone who is being fed must wash, brings a story of Rav Hamnuna eating an *umtsa* between bread with wrapped hands, and rejects the proof by stating he had already washed before the meal. Rashi comments that the sugya teaches that זריזות is more important than זהירות by describing Rav Hamnuna as acting with prior energetic diligence. Rav Zeira quotes Rav that one should not put bread into the mouth of a שמש unless one knows he washed, and the גמרא explains this is because a שמש is טריד and may touch food, so it does not resolve the general case for a non-waiter.
- The text applies the sugya to whether one may give bread to a guest who will not wash or food to someone who will not make a ברכה, and it reports that the פוסקים are lenient because צדקה and הכנסת אורחים supersede. The explanation given is that it is not a case of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול דאורייתא because the guest could get food elsewhere, making it *trei avrei d’nahara*, and because there remains a possibility he will make a ברכה when prompted, while צדקה and הכנסת אורחים are also מצוות דאורייתא.
- The text states the הלכה that a שמש makes a new ברכה on every cup because he does not know whether he will receive another cup and his first ברכה lacks intent for later cups. It then cites a dispute between the מגן אברהם and the ט"ז about a guest who makes a ברכה with a conditional intention to include any additional future food of the same ברכה category: the מגן אברהם accepts that intention as sufficient, while the ט"ז rejects it unless one knows for sure the food will come. רבי יוחנן holds a שמש makes a ברכה on each piece of bread, and Rav Papa reconciles with a distinction between whether there is an אדם חשוב, with ראשונים explaining either that an אדם חשוב ensures the waiter will be served or that such a meal is prepared with enough food so the waiter expects more.
- A ברייתא forbids giving a waiter a piece of bread whether the cup is in his hand or the cup is in the בעל הבית’s hand, due to concern for spoiling the meal if he spills or for choking if the בעל הבית becomes upset. The ראשונים limit this concern to the waiter and allow passing food to another guest at the table because all were invited and the בעל הבית wants them to eat.
- The גמרא asks whether the one feeding must wash and brings a teaching that on יום כיפור a woman may wash one hand and feed bread to her young child, with an episode where a man was compelled to wash both hands after refusing. Abaye says this is not proof because it is משום שיבתא, and the text presents a מחלוקת ראשונים, with many reading it as concerning *negel vasser* and impurity affecting food, while תוספות says *negel vasser* is washed regardless and the issue is רוח רעה of שיבתא. A story follows where Shmuel’s teacher struck him for feeding a child without washing, Shmuel argued he was not eating, and Shmuel’s father declared the teacher not a תלמיד חכם and criticized him for striking; the text concludes with והלכתא that an eater who is being fed still requires נטילת ידים, while a feeder who is not eating does not require נטילת ידים.
- The text raises a serious question about eating food from bakeries or factories when one cannot be sure workers washed *negel vasser*. It answers with reported leniencies: washing once can fulfill *negel vasser* even though the common practice is six pours, the דין applies only to Jews and not to גויים, it is common that people wash upon rising or after using the washroom, workplaces may post signs to wash hands or use gloves, and together these form enough of a ספק ספיקא to be lenient. The text adds that some פוסקים connect greater leniency to a tradition that after the גר צדק אברהם בן אברהם was burned על קידוש השם in Vilna, the morning רוח טומאה weakened, and it links this to those who are lenient about not placing *negel vasser* next to the bed.
- A משנה permits wrapping meat and cheese together in one cloth as long as they do not touch, and the גמרא asks why touching should matter since it is צונן בצונן. Abaye answers that even if קליפה is not required, הדחה is required, so separation prevents the need for washing, and the text adds that raw meat would in any case be washed before cooking. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל teaches that two guests may eat on one table, one meat and one dairy, without concern.
- Shmuel explains that the leniency applies only when the diners do not know each other, but if they are familiar it is אסור because they may take from each other’s food. A ברייתא describes two travelers from different places each with his own food who may eat together, and the גמרא clarifies that the prohibition is only when they are כעין תפיסה אחת, meaning close and familiar. The פוסקים require that familiar people not share the same tablecloth and that they establish a היכר, with the best היכר being something not normally on the table; bread is stated to be a poor היכר because bread is normally present, and the text reports disputes whether other foods can serve as a היכר. The text applies the framework to the parallel case of a husband and wife when she is a נדה, notes that additional people at the table can function as a reminder there, and reports debate whether that is also sufficient as a היכר for בשר וחלב. The text also reports a dispute whether a single person may place meat and dairy on the same table with a היכר, with some forbidding it as the sugya addresses two people and others allowing because a היכר remains a היכר.
- Rav Yeimar asks Abaye about two brothers who are מקפידים זה על זה, and Abaye responds by analogy to a rule in פסחים that even if an expert could shape matzah safely, it is still forbidden because observers will generalize and permit unsafe cases. The text applies that logic to brothers, saying people cannot know their lack of harmony, so חז"ל maintain a general rule. The גמרא challenges from the allowance to launder on חול המועד when one has only one garment, and it answers with the explanation of Mar bar Rav Ashi that the belt being washed with the garment is an obvious sign, so the exception is self-evident, unlike the case of the brothers or shaped matzah where the distinguishing factor is not visible.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions