Chulin 106
Summary
- Today’s שיעור in מסכת חולין דף קו עמוד א begins from “כי אתא רב דימי” and frames *mayim rishonim* and *mayim acharonim* as practices whose neglect leads to severe outcomes, while developing the halachic and conceptual details of נטילת ידים through stories, variant traditions, and disputes about acceptable water, immersion versus pouring, required measures and חציצה, the scope of נטילה for חולין, תרומה, and פירות, the rules of joining for ברכות, and the possibility of a morning נטילה with a תנאי to cover the entire day.
- Today’s שיעור states that Rav Dimi says neglect of *mayim rishonim* caused someone to eat חזיר. The story describes a restaurant owner who served כשר and non-כשר food and used handwashing as the signal: someone who washed received כשר, and someone who did not wash was served non-כשר, leading a Jew who failed to wash to be served חזיר. The מפרשים ask how the owner could not tell the customer was Jewish from clothing, and this leads to the מהרי"ק’s view that ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו applies only to clothing uniquely identified with עכו"ם or clothing of פריצות that violates צניעות, but clothing commonly worn by everyone does not violate the איסור.
- Today’s שיעור challenges how the owner could sell חזיר when the הלכה forbids סחורה בדבר אסור. The שיעור presents an approach limiting the איסור to deliberate business ventures in איסור items, notes that this fits נבילה in ordinary שחיטה contexts but not חזיר, and also cites an opinion (rejected by most פוסקים) that permits such business when it is not needed for livelihood. The בית יוסף’s approach treats the shopkeeper as a רשע who acted improperly, and the שיעור then brings a Midrash that places the episode in a time of גזירה when Jews were compelled in a יהרג ואל יעבור setting to dress like עכו"ם and were forbidden to sell kosher food, so stores sold both kosher and non-kosher and used handwashing to identify Jews. The מהרש"א adds that the customer learned he ate חזיר when the owner explained the higher price was because “yesterday you ate regular beef and today you ate חזיר,” and the owner attributed the mistake to the customer’s failure to wash.
- Today’s שיעור states that neglect of *mayim acharonim* caused a woman to be removed from her husband. The narrative from מסכת יומא describes רבי מאיר, רבי יהודה, ורבי יוסי entrusting money to a host named כידור who later denied receiving it, and the rabbis approaching his wife with a סימן based on the husband’s dinner of beans visible because he did not wash *mayim acharonim* and did not wipe his face as required. The wife returned the money, and the husband, upon discovering this, divorced her, with the chain of events rooted in his neglect of *mayim acharonim*. The מהרש"א explains the lesson as מצוה גוררת מצוה ועבירה גוררת עבירה: washing leads to eating kosher, and neglect leads to escalating wrongdoing and consequences.
- Today’s שיעור records that Ravina’s version replaces חזיר with שומן של נבלה, and replaces divorce with הרגת הנפש in which כידור killed his wife. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak provides the mnemonic “אתא רב דימי אפקא אתא רבין קטלא,” aligning Rav Dimi with divorce and Ravin with killing, and ties the sequence to which sage arrived first. Rav Asi is taught as holding each version לחומרא, taking the more severe outcome in each case.
- Today’s שיעור asks why חזיר is treated as more חמור than נבילה and explains that חזיר is also categorized as נבילה, raising the earlier rule of *ein issur chal al issur*. The ראש יוסף suggests the sugya may follow the opinion that holds איסור חל על איסור. The שיעור also gives a foundational framing that *ein issur chal al issur* limits punishment for the second prohibition, but an עבירה still exists, so eating חזיר involves two עבירות, חזיר and נבילה, making it more serious than נבילה alone.
- Today’s שיעור introduces the דין of חמי האור and records a מחלוקת: Chizkiyah says אין נוטלין לידיים, while רבי יוחנן says נוטלין לידיים. Rabbi Yochanan supports his view by citing his question to רבן גמליאל בנו של רבי, described as an eater of טהרות, who reports that all גדולי גליל wash hands with warm water.
- Today’s שיעור presents a מחלוקת on חמי טבריה: Chizkiyah says אין נוטלין לידיים but permits immersion of the hands, while רבי יוחנן permits immersion of the whole body but not פניו ידיו ורגליו, and the שיעור clarifies that the practical focus remains on the hands though the phrase reflects typical washing of face and feet as well. Rashi explains disqualification by defining חמי טבריה as not halachically “water” for נטילה because they originate hot, unlike ordinary water heated later, while תלמידי רבינו יונה explain the problem as bitterness and lack of drinkability. The שיעור states a נפקא מינה: if spring water is hot yet drinkable, it remains invalid according to Rashi but valid according to תלמידי רבינו יונה.
- Today’s שיעור states that נטילת ידים can be fulfilled by dipping hands, such as immersing in a מקוה, not only by pouring. The שיעור records a dispute about the נוסח הברכה in such a case, with some saying to recite “על נטילת ידים” and others “על טבילת ידים.” The מגן אברהם distinguishes between immersion in water otherwise fit for pouring, which keeps the ברכה “על נטילת ידים,” and immersion in water fit only for טבילה, which uses “על טבילת ידים.”
- Today’s שיעור has the Gemara challenge the position that allows full-body immersion but not hand immersion and resolves it through Rav Papa’s distinction. The שיעור states that when חמי טבריה remain in their place, everyone agrees hand immersion is permitted, and when water is drawn into a vessel, everyone agrees it is forbidden. The מחלוקת is limited to a בת בירתא channel, with one view fearing confusion with drawn water and the other rejecting that גזירה. Rashi explains the channel as still connected, while רבינו יונה explains the case as disconnected and reframes the issue around מקוה measures, holding that while a person’s immersion requires מ' סאה, immersion of a small object can be done in a רביעית, so the dispute becomes whether a disconnected רביעית of חמי טבריה may be used for immersing hands.
- Today’s שיעור aligns the above dispute with a ברייתא about water פסול for animal drinking: in vessels it is invalid for pouring, but in the ground it is valid. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר allows full-body immersion but not washing פניו ידיו ורגליו, and the Gemara again resolves the apparent contradiction by locating the case in a separated בת בירתא, tied to whether one makes a גזירה against using it like drawn water.
- Today’s שיעור cites Rav Idi bar Avin in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Ashian that נטילת ידים לחולין is enacted מפני סרך תרומה. The שיעור presents the common explanation that חז"ל treated סתם ידים as שניות requiring washing for תרומה and extended the practice to חולין, but then brings Rashi’s objections about why hands are only called שניות and why washing would remove true טומאה without מקוה immersion. Rashi instead explains that the designation is a protective enactment for כבוד תרומה so that תרומה is eaten with clean hands, and that this standard is then extended to חולין.
- Today’s שיעור challenges the “סרך תרומה” rationale by citing the דרשה that “וקדשתם” refers to *mayim rishonim*. The שיעור gives a view that the פסוק functions as an אסמכתא rather than a דאורייתא source, and it also gives the רשב"א’s explanation that the פסוק alone might imply only the person making the ברכה must wash, while the sugya teaches that everyone eating must wash.
- Today’s שיעור adds that נטילת ידים is also required משום מצוה and defines the מצוה through Abaye as מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. The שיעור records תוספות’s question about why the Gemara says “ועוד” if no new reason is added, and it offers explanations that “ועוד” expresses fulfillment of the rabbinic enactment itself, or that it distinguishes between the s’rach-terumah rationale and the broader obligation to follow all the procedural rules of the נטילה. The שיעור also offers that “סרך תרומה” might sound limited to כהנים, while מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים establishes the practice for everyone.
- Today’s שיעור presents Rava’s framing that the מצוה is to heed the teaching of ר' אלעזר בן ערך, who derives a סמך לנטילת ידים מן התורה from “וכל אשר יגע בו הזב וידיו לא שטף במים.” The שיעור explains that the ראשונים read the פסוק’s core as the הלכה of זב and that the phrase also teaches a rule about exposed body parts in טבילה, while ר' אלעזר בן ערך uses “וידיו לא שטף” as support for handwashing. The Gemara’s challenge that a זב needs טבילה is answered by interpreting the verse as highlighting that one who is not a זב still becomes problematic when he did not wash his hands.
- Today’s שיעור cites Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that נטילת ידים לפירות is only משום נקיות, and it limits this to dry fruit, while reminding that *tibulo b’mashkeh* triggers a requirement, as reflected in ורחץ at the סדר. The שיעור explains why bread uniquely carries the general obligation, tying it to תרומה and to foods handled directly, and it notes challenges from the Rambam’s broader view of דאורייתא תרומה obligations, answered by framing the enactment around אכילת קבע or around the frequency of bread consumption. The שיעור adds an explanation based on הכשר לקבל טומאה, stating that bread-making involves water while dry fruit is not wet and thus not susceptible. The Gemara concludes through Rava that for fruit there is neither חובה nor מצוה but only רשות, and it records Rav Nachman’s statement that one who washes for fruit is מגסי הרוח, while permitting washing when hands are dirty or for כבוד הברכה.
- Today’s שיעור brings Rabbah bar bar Chana’s observation of Rav Ami and Rav Asi eating from a fruit basket without washing, not sharing fruit, and making separate ברכות. He derives three halachot: there is no נטילת ידים for fruit, there is no זימון on fruit since they did not include him to form a group, and when two eat without זימון there is מצוה לחלוק for the concluding blessing. The שיעור explains the ראיה as rooted in ברוב עם הדרת מלך, reasoning that if one could be motzi the other in such a case they would have done so, and it distinguishes this from ברכה ראשונה where some ראשונים prefer one person to recite for all due to the unity of beginning the meal or due to its דרבנן status.
- Today’s שיעור cites a supporting ברייתא that two who ate should separate for the final blessing when both are capable. The ברייתא rules that if one is a סופר and one a בור, the סופר recites and the בור is יוצא.
- Today’s שיעור cites a ברייתא that for חולין the washing is עד הפרק, for תרומה it is higher עד הפרק, and for קידוש ידים ורגלים in the מקדש it is also עד הפרק, while equating חציצה standards for טבילה with those for נטילת ידים and for קידוש. The שיעור explains the categories of חציצה, including the דאורייתא standard of רובו המקפיד and the rabbinic expansions to מיעוט המקפיד and רובו שאינו מקפיד. The שיעור addresses why a מקדש case needs this teaching by invoking אין שבות במקדש and stating that the baraita establishes that the rabbinic חציצה rules still apply in the Mikdash.
- Today’s שיעור records Rav distinguishing heights for חולין and תרומה, Shmuel requiring the higher washing for both, and Rav Sheshet appearing to require the lower washing for both. The שיעור explains attempts to resolve Rav Sheshet through alternate גרסאות or by reading the leniency as relative to Shmuel only for חולין while maintaining strictness for תרומה. The שיעור adds that Rav Ami and Mar Shershiya bar brei d’Rav Yehoshua ben Levi wash for both up to the knuckles, and it records that the רי"ף has a different brayta text leading to washing the entire hand up to the wrist for חולין, which the Shulchan Aruch brings.
- Today’s שיעור applies the sugya to יום כיפור by noting that despite the general restriction on washing, many פוסקים allow morning washing only up to the middle joint or knuckles based on the sugya’s measurements. The שיעור notes that for כהנים washing for דוכנינג on יום כיפור, the entire hand should be washed.
- Today’s שיעור cites Rav’s ruling that one may wash both hands in the morning and make a תנאי that it should cover the entire day, provided he is careful not to touch things that invalidate the status of the hands. The שיעור records disputes among ראשונים whether this works only for morning washing like נעגל וואסער, whether it works equally for washing done for a meal, and whether it is limited to cases where the washing was not performed specifically for מצות נטילת ידים. The רשב"א infers that כוונה is required from the need to make a תנאי, while most ראשונים limit the need for intention to this exceptional תנאי case. The ערוך השולחן adds that the תנאי works only for the day and not for a night meal, and the שיעור notes a מחלוקת whether the תנאי must be verbalized or can remain in thought.
- Today’s שיעור reports Ravina’s instruction to the people of ערבת, described as lacking water, to wash in the morning and stipulate it for the entire day. The sugya preserves two readings: that it is only בשעת הדחק and would disagree with Rav, or that it applies even שלא בשעת הדחק in line with Rav. The שיעור states that even when relying on the תנאי, if water is later available before bread one should wash again, and it presents the halachic concern that this later washing may not warrant a ברכה because the תנאי technically removed the obligation. The Shulchan Aruch rules to wash without a ברכה, and the חזון איש advises deliberately touching something that dirties the hands so the תנאי no longer applies, allowing a new washing with the ברכה “על נטילת ידים.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions