Chullin Daf 105 (דף ק״ה)
Daf: 105 | Amudim: 105a – 105b | Date: 22 Tevet 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (105a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא וקושיא
First attempt to read the Shammai/Hillel wipe-vs-rinse dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִילֵּימָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ וְלָא בָּעֵי מֵדִיחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מֵדִיחַ וְלָא בָּעֵי מְקַנֵּחַ. אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵין קִינּוּחַ פֶּה אֶלָּא בְּפַת, כְּמַאן? כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי!
English Translation:
If we say that Beit Shammai say that one wipes out his mouth with solid food and does not need to rinse his mouth with water, since they maintain that wiping is more effective than rinsing, and Beit Hillel say that he rinses his mouth in water and does not need to wipe his mouth, as rinsing is more effective, one can respond: But as for that which Rabbi Zeira said: Wiping of the mouth can be performed only with bread, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, since Beit Hillel do not require wiping. Yet, it is unlikely that Rabbi Zeira would rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the dispute from 104b, the Gemara tests a reading in which Beit Shammai require only wiping and Beit Hillel require only rinsing. But this makes Rabbi Zeira’s ruling (wiping must be with bread) follow Beit Shammai alone — an unlikely alignment, since halakha generally follows Beit Hillel.
Key Terms:
- Wipe (מְקַנֵּחַ) = clean the mouth with a solid
- Rinse (מֵדִיחַ) = wash the mouth with liquid
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא וקושיא
Second reading: Hillel requires both — but then it belongs in Eduyyot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ וְלָא בָּעֵי מֵדִיחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מֵדִיחַ. הָוֵי לֵיהּ מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלִתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל!
English Translation:
Rather, one must explain the dispute as follows: Beit Shammai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat and does not need to rinse his mouth as well, and Beit Hillel say that in addition to wiping one must also rinse. This interpretation is difficult as well, since if so, this constitutes one of the disputes between them that involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and consequently, let the tanna of tractate Eduyyot teach it alongside the other disputes listed there that involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second reading: Shammai require only wiping, Hillel require wiping AND rinsing. But if so, this is another case of Shammai-lenient/Hillel-stringent, and it should have been listed in the catalogue of such disputes in tractate Eduyyot — yet it isn’t. This reading is therefore also problematic.
Key Terms:
- In addition also rinse (אַף מֵדִיחַ) = wiping plus rinsing
- Eduyyot (עֵדוּיּוֹת) = the tractate cataloguing Shammai-lenient cases
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: each school mentions one act but requires both — no dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמֵדִיחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מֵדִיחַ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִמְקַנֵּחַ. מָר אָמַר חֲדָא, וּמָר אָמַר חֲדָא, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Rather, one must interpret their statements as follows: Beit Shammai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat, and the same is true of rinsing, i.e., one must rinse his mouth as well. And Beit Hillel say that one rinses his mouth, and the same is true of wiping. And one Sage said one statement and one Sage said another statement, and they do not disagree.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution: there is actually no dispute. Beit Shammai mention wiping but also require rinsing; Beit Hillel mention rinsing but also require wiping. Each school stated one act while implying both. This is why it doesn’t appear in Eduyyot — it isn’t a genuine disagreement.
Key Terms:
- The same is true of (וְהוּא הַדִּין) = the identical rule applies to
- They do not disagree (לָא פְּלִיגִי) = there is no actual dispute
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא וברור
Rabbi Zeira: wiping the mouth must be with bread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵין קִינּוּחַ הַפֶּה אֶלָּא בְּפַת. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְחִיטֵּי, אֲבָל בְּדִשְׂעָרֵי – לָא.
English Translation:
§ After citing Rabbi Zeira’s statement tangentially, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Zeira says: Wiping of the mouth can be performed only with bread. The Gemara explains: And this statement applies only to bread prepared from wheat flour. But with regard to bread prepared from barley flour, one may not use it for wiping, as barley bread crumbles in the mouth and does not wipe thoroughly.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now examines Rabbi Zeira’s ruling itself. Wiping the mouth between meat and cheese must be with bread — specifically wheat bread. Barley bread is excluded because it crumbles and fails to clean effectively.
Key Terms:
- Wheat (חִיטֵּי) = the flour that makes effective wiping-bread
- Barley (שְׂעָרֵי) = crumbly flour, unfit for wiping
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא וברור
Further qualifications: cold, soft bread only; the practical halakha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְחִיטֵּי נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא בִּקְרִירָא, אֲבָל בְּחַמִּימָא – מִשְׁטָר שָׁטְרִי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּרַכִּיכָא, אֲבָל בְּאַקּוֹשָׁא – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא בְּכֹל מִילֵּי הָוֵי קִינּוּחַ, לְבַר מִקִּמְחָא, תַּמְרֵי וְיַרְקָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And even in the case of bread prepared from wheat flour, we said the halakha only with regard to cold bread, but as for warm bread, it is ineffective for wiping even if made of wheat, as it softens and sticks to the palate, and it does not wipe the mouth properly. And furthermore, even if the bread is cold, this statement applies only with regard to soft bread, but one may not wipe with hard bread, as it also does not clean effectively. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the use of all items constitutes effective wiping, except for flour, dates, and vegetables.
קלאוד על הדף:
More refinements: even wheat bread must be cold (warm bread sticks to the palate) and soft (hard bread doesn’t clean). The Gemara then broadens the ruling: in practice, ANY food may be used for wiping — except flour, dates, and vegetables, which are ineffective.
Key Terms:
- Cold (קְרִירָא) = effective for wiping
- Warm (חַמִּימָא) = softens and sticks; ineffective
- Except flour, dates, and vegetables (לְבַר מִקִּמְחָא תַּמְרֵי וְיַרְקָא) = the three exclusions
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא ובעיא
How long to wait between cheese and meat? Rav Chisda’s asymmetry
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כַּמָּה יִשְׁהֶה בֵּין בָּשָׂר לִגְבִינָה? אָמַר לוֹ: וְלֹא כְּלוּם. אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אָכַל בָּשָׂר – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל גְּבִינָה, גְּבִינָה – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל בָּשָׂר! אֶלָּא כַּמָּה יִשְׁהֶה בֵּין גְּבִינָה לְבָשָׂר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
§ Rav Asi posed a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: How much time should one wait between eating meat and eating cheese? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, but if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay? Rather, Rav Asi actually asked Rabbi Yoḥanan the following question: How much time should one wait between eating cheese and eating meat? In response to this question, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi asks Rabbi Yoḥanan how long to wait between meat and cheese; the answer “no time at all” conflicts with Rav Ḥisda, who forbids cheese right after meat. The question is therefore reinterpreted: it concerns the reverse order — cheese THEN meat — for which no waiting is needed.
Key Terms:
- How long should one wait (כַּמָּה יִשְׁהֶה) = the required interval
- No time at all (וְלֹא כְּלוּם) = no interval required
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא ובעיא
Rav Chisda’s rule stated; the question of meat between the teeth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אָכַל בָּשָׂר – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל גְּבִינָה, גְּבִינָה – מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל בָּשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יוֹסֵף לְרַב חִסְדָּא: בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם מַהוּ?
English Translation:
After tangentially citing a statement of Rav Ḥisda, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Ḥisda says: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, as the meat contains fatty substances that stick to one’s mouth and preserve the flavor of meat. But if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay. Rav Aḥa bar Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: In the case of meat that is between the teeth, what is the halakha? Are these remnants considered meat to the extent that one may not eat cheese as long as they are in his mouth?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda’s rule explained: meat leaves fatty residue and lingering flavor, so cheese may not follow immediately; cheese leaves no such residue, so meat may follow at once. Rav Aḥa bar Yosef then asks: what about meat lodged between the teeth — does it still count as “meat”?
Key Terms:
- Fatty substances (שַׁמְנוּנִית) = residue that preserves meat flavor
- Meat between the teeth (בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם) = lodged remnants
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא ודרשה
Rav Chisda’s answer from a verse: meat between the teeth is still meat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״הַבָּשָׂר עוֹדֶנּוּ בֵּין שִׁנֵּיהֶם״.
English Translation:
In response, Rav Ḥisda read about him the following verse: “While the meat was yet between their teeth” (Numbers 11:33). This verse indicates that even when the meat is between one’s teeth it is still considered meat, and therefore one may not partake of cheese until that meat has been removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda answers with wordplay on a verse from the quail episode (Numbers 11:33): “the meat was yet between their teeth.” Scripture calls lodged remnants “meat,” so it retains its status — one must remove it before eating cheese.
Key Terms:
- The meat was yet between their teeth (הַבָּשָׂר עוֹדֶנּוּ בֵּין שִׁנֵּיהֶם) = the proof-text (Numbers 11:33)
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא ומעשה
Mar Ukva: “vinegar son of wine” — his father’s stricter waiting practice
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: אֲנָא, לְהָא מִלְּתָא, חַלָּא בַּר חַמְרָא לְגַבֵּי אַבָּא, דְּאִילּוּ אַבָּא כִּי הֲוָה אָכֵיל בִּשְׂרָא הָאִידָּנָא, לָא הֲוָה אָכֵל גְּבִינָה עַד לִמְחַר עַד הַשְׁתָּא, וְאִילּוּ אֲנָא – בְּהָא סְעוֹדְתָּא הוּא דְּלָא אָכֵילְנָא, לִסְעוֹדְתָּא אַחְרִיתָא – אָכֵילְנָא.
English Translation:
Mar Ukva said: I am, with regard to this matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father, i.e., my practice is inferior to that of my father. As Father, if he were to eat meat at this time, would not eat cheese until tomorrow at this time. But as for me, only at this meal, during which I ate meat, do I not eat cheese; at a different meal on the same day I will eat cheese.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar Ukva humbly compares himself to his father as “vinegar, son of wine” — an inferior product of a superior source. His father waited a full day after meat before eating cheese; Mar Ukva only refrains within the same meal, eating cheese at a later meal that day.
Key Terms:
- Vinegar son of wine (חַלָּא בַּר חַמְרָא) = an inferior descendant of a superior parent
- Until tomorrow (עַד לִמְחַר) = the father’s full-day interval
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא ומעשה
Shmuel: “vinegar son of wine” — patrolling one’s property
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲנָא, לְהָא מִלְּתָא, חַלָּא בַּר חַמְרָא לְגַבֵּי אַבָּא, דְּאִילּוּ אַבָּא הֲוָה סָיַיר נִכְסֵיהּ תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי בְּיוֹמָא, וַאֲנָא לָא סָיַירְנָא אֶלָּא חֲדָא זִימְנָא. שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאן דְּסָיַיר נִכְסֵיהּ כֹּל יוֹמָא מַשְׁכַּח אִסְתֵּירָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, Shmuel said: I am, with regard to this other matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father. As Father would patrol his property to examine it twice daily, but I patrol it only once a day. The Gemara notes: In this regard Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: One who patrols his property every day will find an asteira coin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The phrase “vinegar son of wine” triggers a parallel from Shmuel, on a different matter: his father inspected his fields twice a day, Shmuel only once. Shmuel’s own maxim explains the value: regular inspection of one’s property yields profit (an asteira coin).
Key Terms:
- Patrol his property (סָיַיר נִכְסֵיהּ) = inspect one’s fields regularly
- Asteira (אִסְתֵּירָא) = a coin; symbolic of profit from vigilance
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה
Abaye and the sharecropper carrying off wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי הֲוָה סָיַיר נִכְסֵיהּ כֹּל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בַּאֲרִיסֵיהּ דְּדָרֵי פִּתְכָּא דְּאוּפֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי לְהֵיכָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְבֵי מָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר קַדְמוּךְ רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Abaye would patrol his property each and every day. One day he encountered his sharecropper carrying a load of wood that the sharecropper intended to take for himself. Abaye said to him: To where are you taking these logs of wood? The sharecropper said to him: To the Master’s house. Abaye, who knew that the sharecropper had intended to take the wood for himself, said to him: The Sages already preempted you when they said that one should patrol his property regularly, and they thereby prevented you from stealing the wood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye illustrates Shmuel’s maxim: patrolling daily, he caught his sharecropper carrying off wood. When confronted, the man claimed it was “for the Master” — but Abaye recognized the ruse and credited the Sages’ advice with preventing the theft.
Key Terms:
- Sharecropper (אֲרִיס) = a tenant farmer working land for a share
- The Sages preempted you (קַדְמוּךְ רַבָּנַן) = their advice foiled the theft
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Asi’s skepticism and the flooded field
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אַסִּי הֲוָה סָיַיר נִכְסֵיהּ כֹּל יוֹמָא, אָמַר: הֵיכָא נִינְהוּ כֹּל הָנֵי אִסְתִּירֵי דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל? יוֹמָא חַד חֲזָא צִינּוֹרָא דְּבִדְקָא בְּאַרְעֵיהּ, שַׁקְלֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ, כַּרְכֵיהּ אוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּגַוַּהּ, רְמָא קָלָא, אֲתוֹ אִינָשֵׁי סַכְרוּהּ, [אֲמַר]: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ אִיסְתֵּרֵי דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Asi would patrol his property every day. He said: Where are all these asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel? This patrol is not reaping me any benefit. One day he saw a water channel that overflowed, causing water to flood onto his land. He took off his cloak, wrapped it, and placed it inside the pipe to block the flow of water. He then raised his voice, and people came and sealed the hole. He said: I have just found all the asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel, as I would have suffered a great loss had I not patrolled my fields.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi initially doubted Shmuel’s promise of profit from patrolling. Then one day he found a burst water channel flooding his field, plugged it with his cloak, and summoned help. He realized this saved loss was the “asteira coin” Shmuel meant — vigilance pays by preventing damage.
Key Terms:
- Water channel (צִינּוֹרָא דְּבִדְקָא) = an overflowing irrigation channel
- Cloak (גְּלִימָא) = the garment used to plug the breach
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
First and final waters: mitzva versus obligation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָין: מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים מִצְוָה, וְאַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה.
English Translation:
§ Having mentioned the manner of washing hands during a meal, the Gemara discusses another matter concerning washing hands. Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says: The first waters, i.e., washing of the hands before eating bread, are a mitzva by rabbinic law, but the final waters, washing of the hands upon conclusion of the meal and before reciting Grace after Meals, are an obligation, a more stringent requirement.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new topic on washing hands at meals. Rav Idi bar Avin (citing Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan): the first waters (before eating bread) are a “mitzva,” while the final waters (before Grace after Meals) are an “obligation” — a stronger category.
Key Terms:
- First waters (מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים) = handwashing before the meal
- Final waters (מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים) = handwashing before Grace after Meals
- Obligation (חוֹבָה) = a stronger requirement than mitzva here
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita seems to call first waters an obligation too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים וְאַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה, אֶמְצָעִיִּים רְשׁוּת. מִצְוָה לְגַבֵּי רְשׁוּת – חוֹבָה קָרֵי לַהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: The first waters and the final waters are an obligation, whereas the middle waters, between courses during the meal, are optional. Apparently, the first waters are also an obligation, not a mitzva. The Gemara responds: Although the first waters are in fact a mitzva, the tanna calls a mitzva an obligation when compared to an optional requirement.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita challenges Rav Idi: it labels both first and final waters “obligation,” and middle waters (between courses) “optional.” The Gemara reconciles: relative to the optional middle waters, even the first waters (really a mitzva) can loosely be called an “obligation.”
Key Terms:
- Middle waters (מַיִם אֶמְצָעִיִּים) = washing between courses
- Optional (רְשׁוּת) = neither mitzva nor obligation
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
The full baraita: vessel or ground for first vs. final waters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא: מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים וְאַחֲרוֹנִים – חוֹבָה, אֶמְצָעִיִּים – רְשׁוּת. רִאשׁוֹנִים – נוֹטְלִין בֵּין בִּכְלִי בֵּין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, אַחֲרוֹנִים – אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶלָּא בִּכְלִי, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: אֵין נוֹטְלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. The full text of the baraita is as follows: First waters and final waters are an obligation, whereas middle waters are optional. For first waters, one may wash either by spilling the water into a vessel or onto the ground. But for final waters, one washes only by pouring the water into a vessel. And some say a slightly different version of the baraita: For final waters, one may not wash by pouring the water onto the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
The full baraita: first waters may be poured into a vessel or onto the ground, but final waters require a vessel (or, in another version, merely may not be poured onto bare ground). Two textual variants are noted, setting up the next segment’s analysis.
Key Terms:
- Into a vessel (בִּכְלִי) = the acceptable receptacle for final waters
- Onto the ground (עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע) = permitted only for first waters
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
The practical difference between the two versions: wood slivers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ קִינְסָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara interjects: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to pouring the water on thin wood slivers on the ground. According to the first version, which requires that the water be poured into a vessel, one may not use such slivers for this purpose, whereas according to the second version, which merely prohibits pouring the water onto the ground, one may use wood slivers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the practical difference between the two versions: wood slivers (קִינְסָא) on the ground. The stricter “only into a vessel” version forbids slivers; the lenient “not onto bare ground” version permits pouring onto the slivers, since they cover the ground.
Key Terms:
- Wood slivers (קִינְסָא) = thin wood pieces covering the ground
- Difference between them (בֵּינַיְיהוּ) = the practical distinction
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
Hot or cold water for washing; Rabbi Yannai’s qualification (into 105b)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹטְלִין בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן, אַחֲרוֹנִים אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶלָּא בְּצוֹנֵן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַמִּין מְפַעְפְּעִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם וְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין אֶת הַזּוּהֲמָא. מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים נוֹטְלִין בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין הַיָּד
English Translation:
The baraita continues: With regard to first waters, one may wash either with hot water or with cold water. But for final waters, one may wash only with cold water, because hot water softens the hands and does not remove the dirt from them. The Gemara analyzes the statement that for first waters one may wash either with hot water or with cold water: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the hand does not
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: first waters may use hot or cold water, but final waters require cold — hot water softens the skin without removing grime. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef begins qualifying the “hot or cold” rule for first waters, a sentence completed on 105b.
Key Terms:
- Hot (חַמִּין) = permitted for first waters, not final
- Softens the hands (מְפַעְפְּעִין) = makes them slick without cleaning
- Grime (זוּהֲמָא) = the dirt to be removed
Amud Bet (105b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Completing the qualification: the hand recoiling from heat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סוֹלֶדֶת בָּהֶן, אֲבָל הַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בָּהֶן אֵין נוֹטְלִין בָּהֶן.
English Translation:
recoil [soledet] from the water’s heat. But if the hand recoils from it, one may not wash with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence from 105a completes: first waters may use hot water only when it is not so hot that the hand recoils (יַד סוֹלֶדֶת) from it. Water hot enough to make the hand recoil is unfit even for first waters.
Key Terms:
- The hand recoils (יַד סוֹלֶדֶת) = the threshold of scalding heat
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
The alternative version, and its inference for first waters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, אַחֲרוֹנִים אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶלָּא בְּצוֹנֵן, אֲבָל בְּחַמִּין – לֹא. אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בָּהֶן, אֲבָל אֵין הַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בָּהֶן – נוֹטְלִין. מִכְּלָל דְּרִאשׁוֹנִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בָּהֶן – מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
And there are those who teach a version of this statement with regard to the latter clause of the baraita: For final waters, one may wash only with cold water, but one may not wash with hot water. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They taught that one may not use hot water only in a case where the water is so hot that the hand recoils from it, but if the hand does not recoil from it, one may wash with it. The Gemara comments: One can learn by inference from this version of the statement that in the case of first waters, even if the water is so hot that the hand recoils from it, it is permitted to use it for washing.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative attribution places Rabbi Yannai’s qualification on the final-waters clause: hot water is forbidden for final waters only if scalding (hand recoils); milder hot water is fine. By inference, for first waters even scalding-hot water is permitted — a more lenient outcome than the first version.
Key Terms:
- Latter clause (סֵיפָא) = the final-waters portion of the baraita
- By inference (מִכְּלָל) = the deduced leniency for first waters
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Nachman: washing before cheese is obligatory, not optional
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶמְצָעִיִּים רְשׁוּת. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בֵּין תַּבְשִׁיל לְתַבְשִׁיל, אֲבָל בֵּין תַּבְשִׁיל לִגְבִינָה – חוֹבָה.
English Translation:
§ The baraita states that middle waters are optional. Rav Naḥman says: They taught this only with regard to washing the hands between one cooked dish and another cooked dish served at a meal. But between a cooked dish and cheese there is an obligation to wash one’s hands.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman limits the “middle waters are optional” rule: it applies only between two ordinary cooked dishes. But between a (meat) dish and cheese, washing is obligatory — a safeguard against transferring meat residue to dairy.
Key Terms:
- Between dish and dish (בֵּין תַּבְשִׁיל לְתַבְשִׁיל) = ordinary courses; optional
- Between dish and cheese (בֵּין תַּבְשִׁיל לִגְבִינָה) = obligatory washing
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא וברור
Why final waters are obligatory: Sodomite salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה? שֶׁמֶּלַח סְדוֹמִית יֵשׁ, שֶׁמְּסַמֵּא אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וּמִשְׁתְּכַח כִּי קוּרְטָא בְּכוֹרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כָּל מִלְחָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִבַּעְיָא.
English Translation:
§ The baraita further teaches that final waters are an obligation. Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: For what reason did the Sages say that final waters are an obligation? It is because Sodomite salt is sometimes present, a small amount of which blinds the eyes. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. Abaye said: And this type of dangerous salt is present in the proportion of a pinch [korta] in an entire kor of regular salt. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If one measured salt between meals, what is the halakha? Must he wash his hands afterward? He said to him: It is not necessary to say this; he is certainly obligated to do so.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda son of Rabbi Ḥiyya explains the obligation of final waters: dangerous Sodomite salt, which can blind the eyes, may cling to the hands. Abaye notes it’s rare (a pinch per kor). Rav Aḥa asks about handling salt between meals — one certainly must wash then, since salt was directly touched.
Key Terms:
- Sodomite salt (מֶלַח סְדוֹמִית) = a dangerous salt that can blind
- A pinch in a kor (קוּרְטָא בְּכוֹרָא) = a tiny proportion
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Rabba’s teaching: an evil spirit rests on final waters poured on the ground
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּלָא מָשׁוּ מַיָּא בָּתְרָאֵי עַל אַרְעָא – מִשּׁוּם זוּהֲמָא. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּשָׁרְיָא רוּחַ רָעָה עֲלַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
§ Abaye said: At first I would say that this halakha that one may not wash his hands with final waters over the ground is due to messiness. But the Master, Rabba, said to me that it is because an evil spirit rests upon the water and passersby are liable to be afflicted.
קלאוד על הדף:
This begins a series of Abaye’s teachings, each following the pattern: “At first I thought the reason was X (mundane), but the Master [Rabba] told me it is Y (a deeper concern).” Here: final waters aren’t poured on the ground not merely for cleanliness, but because an evil spirit rests upon them.
Key Terms:
- At first I would say (מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא) = the recurring formula
- Evil spirit (רוּחַ רָעָה) = a harmful spiritual force
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Not taking items from the table when one holds a cup: migraine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל מִידֵּי מִפָּתוּרָא כִּי נָקֵיט אִינִישׁ כָּסָא לְמִשְׁתֵּי, שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע דְּבַר קַלְקָלָה בַּסְּעוּדָה. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָשֵׁי לְרוּחַ צְרָדָא.
English Translation:
And Abaye also said: At first I would say that the reason for this statement of the Sages that one should not take anything from the table when a person is holding a cup to drink, is lest a mishap occur at the meal, i.e., the one holding the cup might have wanted the item that was taken, and since he is unable to speak he will choke in his anger. But the Master subsequently said to me that it is because it is bad for one’s health, causing a spirit of pain in half his head, i.e., a migraine.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second in the series: not removing items from the table while someone holds a cup. Abaye thought it was to avoid a social mishap; Rabba taught it is a health concern — it causes migraine (רוּחַ צְרָדָא, pain in half the head).
Key Terms:
- Holding a cup (נָקֵיט כָּסָא) = about to drink
- Migraine (רוּחַ צְרָדָא) = a spirit of pain in half the head
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא וברור
Qualifications to the cup-and-table rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דְּשָׁקֵיל וְלָא מַהְדַּר, אֲבָל מִשְׁקַל וְאַהְדּוֹרֵי – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא חוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אֲבָל תּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא מִידֵּי דִּצְרִיךְ לִסְעוֹדְתָּא, אֲבָל מִידֵּי דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לִסְעוֹדְתָּא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
English Translation:
And we said that this practice is prohibited only if one takes an item from the table and does not put it back. But as for taking and putting back, we have no problem with it. And likewise, we said it is prohibited only if one takes the item beyond four cubits of the table. But if one leaves it within four cubits, we have no problem with it. And furthermore, we said this halakha only with regard to an item that is necessary for the meal. But in the case of an item that is not necessary for the meal, we have no problem with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three qualifications to the cup-and-table rule: the concern applies only when (1) the item is taken and not returned, (2) it is removed beyond four cubits, and (3) it is something needed for the meal. Otherwise there is no problem.
Key Terms:
- Four cubits (אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת) = the boundary of concern (about two meters)
- Necessary for the meal (צְרִיךְ לִסְעוֹדְתָּא) = the relevant category
Segment 8
TYPE: מעשה
Mar bar Rav Ashi’s strictness, even with mortar and pestle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי קָפֵיד אֲפִילּוּ אַאֲסִיתָא וּבוּכְנָא דְּתַבְלֵי, מִידֵּי דִּצְרִיכִי לִסְעוּדְתָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Mar bar Rav Ashi was particular not to remove any object from the table when someone was holding his cup in hand, even with regard to a mortar [asita] and pestle [bukhna] for spices, like all items that are necessary for the meal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi applied the rule stringently, refraining even from removing the mortar and pestle used for grinding spices — since these too count as items necessary for the meal.
Key Terms:
- Mortar (אֲסִיתָא) = the grinding bowl
- Pestle (בּוּכְנָא) = the grinding tool
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Collecting crumbs: it wards off poverty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּכָנְשִׁי נִשְׁוָורָאָה – מִשּׁוּם מְנַקֵּירוּתָא. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָשֵׁי לְעַנְיוּתָא.
English Translation:
And Abaye further said: At first I would say that this practice that people collect the crumbs of bread after a meal is due to cleanliness. But the Master subsequently said to me that it is because leaving them is bad for, i.e., it can increase, a person’s vulnerability to poverty.
קלאוד על הדף:
Next in the series: collecting bread crumbs after a meal. Abaye thought it was for cleanliness; Rabba taught that leaving crumbs increases one’s vulnerability to poverty.
Key Terms:
- Crumbs (נִשְׁוָורָאָה) = bread remnants
- Poverty (עַנְיוּתָא) = the spiritual/practical danger of leaving crumbs
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
The man pursued by the angel of poverty, saved by his care with crumbs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מְהַדַּר עֲלֵיהּ שָׂרָא דְּעַנְיוּתָא, וְלָא הֲוָה יָכֵיל לֵיהּ, דְּקָא זְהִיר אַנִּשְׁוָורָא טוּבָא. יוֹמָא חַד כְּרַךְ לִיפְתָּא אַיַּבְלֵי, אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי נָפֵל בִּידַאי. בָּתַר דְּאָכֵיל, אַיְיתִי מָרָא עַקְרִינְהוּ לְיַבְלֵי, שְׁדִינְהוּ לְנַהֲרָא. שַׁמְעֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר: וַוי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא מִבֵּיתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was pursued by the ministering angel of poverty, but the angel was unable to impoverish him, as he was exceptionally careful with regard to crumbs. One day that man broke his bread over grass, and some crumbs fell among the blades of grass. The angel said: Now he will certainly fall into my hands, as he cannot collect all the crumbs. After the man ate, he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass, and threw it into the river. He subsequently heard the ministering angel of poverty say: Woe is me, as that man has removed me from my house, i.e., my position of comfort.
קלאוד על הדף:
An aggadic tale illustrating the crumb teaching: a man’s meticulous care with crumbs kept the angel of poverty at bay. When crumbs fell in grass and the angel expected victory, the man uprooted and discarded the grass into the river — thwarting the angel, who lamented being driven from his “home.”
Key Terms:
- Angel of poverty (שָׂרָא דְּעַנְיוּתָא) = the ministering spirit of destitution
- Hoe (מָרָא) = the tool used to uproot the grass
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא וברור
Not drinking the foam of a beverage: catarrh and its remedy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּלָא שָׁתֵי אוּפְיָא – מִשּׁוּם מְאִיסוּתָא. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָשֵׁי לְכַרְסָם. מִישְׁתְּיֵהּ – קָשֵׁה לְכַרְסָם, מִינְפַּח בֵּיהּ – קַשְׁיָא לְרֵישָׁא, מִדְחֲיֵיהּ – קַשְׁיָא לְעַנְיוּתָא. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? לְשַׁקְּעֵיהּ שַׁקּוֹעֵי.
English Translation:
And Abaye said: At first I would say that this practice that people do not drink the foam from the top of a beverage is followed because it is repulsive. But the Master said to me that it is followed because it is bad for one’s vulnerability to catarrh. The Gemara comments: Drinking it is bad for catarrh, while blowing off the foam from the drink is bad for head pains, and removing it with one’s hand is bad for poverty. If so, what is its remedy? How may one drink? He should sink the foam inside the beverage and then drink it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Next: not drinking beverage foam. Abaye thought it was mere repulsiveness; Rabba taught it causes catarrh. The Gemara adds that blowing it off causes head pains and scooping it by hand causes poverty. The remedy: sink the foam into the drink and then drink.
Key Terms:
- Foam (אוּפְיָא) = the froth atop a beverage
- Catarrh (כַּרְסָם) = a phlegm/mucus ailment
- Sink it (לְשַׁקְּעֵיהּ) = the safe remedy
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
The chain of remedies for foam, and the proverb of poverty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְכַרְסָם דְּחַמְרָא – שִׁיכְרָא, דְּשִׁיכְרָא – מַיָּא, דְּמַיָּא – לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: בָּתַר עַנְיָא אָזְלָא עַנְיוּתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: The treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of wine is beer; the treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of beer is water; and for catarrh caused by the foam of water there is no remedy. And this is in accordance with the adage that people say: Poverty follows the poor. Not only does a pauper have nothing to drink other than water, but there also is no treatment for the disease caused by his beverage.
קלאוד על הדף:
A graded remedy: wine-foam catarrh is treated by beer, beer-foam by water, but water-foam catarrh has no cure. This illustrates the folk saying “poverty follows the poor” — the pauper who drinks only water has no remedy for the ailment his drink causes.
Key Terms:
- Poverty follows the poor (בָּתַר עַנְיָא אָזְלָא עַנְיוּתָא) = the proverb of compounding misfortune
- No remedy (לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא) = the plight of water-foam
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Not eating vegetables from the gardener’s bundle: witchcraft
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּלָא אָכְלִי יַרְקָא מִכִּישָׁא דְּאָסַר גִּינָּאָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּרַעַבְתָנוּתָא. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָשֵׁי לִכְשָׁפִים.
English Translation:
And Abaye said: At first I would say that the reason for this practice that people do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener is because it has the appearance of gluttony, as he does not wait to untie the bundle to eat. But the Master said to me that it is because it is bad for one’s vulnerability to witchcraft.
קלאוד על הדף:
Next: not eating vegetables straight from the gardener’s tied bundle. Abaye thought it looked gluttonous; Rabba taught it exposes one to witchcraft — a concern developed in the following story.
Key Terms:
- Bundle tied by the gardener (כִּישָׁא דְּאָסַר גִּינָּאָה) = the unopened produce bundle
- Witchcraft (כְּשָׁפִים) = sorcery, the deeper danger
Segment 14
TYPE: מעשה
The matron on the boat and the three protective practices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא הֲווֹ קָאָזְלִי בְּאַרְבָּא, אֲמַרָה לְהוּ הָהִיא מַטְרוֹנִיתָא: אוֹתְבַן בַּהֲדַיְיכוּ. לָא אוֹתְבוּהָ. אֲמַרָה מִלְּתָא, אֲסַרְתַּהּ לְאַרְבָּא. אֲמַרוּ אִינְהוּ מִילְּתָא, שַׁרְיוּהָ. אֲמַרָה לְהוּ: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לְכוּ, דְּלָא מְקַנַּח לְכוּ בְּחַסְפָּא, וְלָא קְטִיל לְכוּ כִּינָּה אַמָּנַיְיכוּ, וְלָא אֲכִיל לְכוּ יַרְקָא מִכִּישָׁא דְּאָסַר גִּינָּאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were traveling on a boat. A certain matron said to them: Seat me together with you on the boat, but they did not seat her alongside them. She said something, an incantation, and thereby tied the boat to its spot so that it could not move. They too said something and thereby released it. That matron said to them: What can I do to you? Witchcraft has no power over you, as after attending to your bodily functions, you do not wipe yourselves with an earthenware shard, and you do not kill a louse that you find on your garments, and you do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener.
קלאוד על הדף:
A story reinforcing the witchcraft concern: a sorceress magically froze the sages’ boat when refused a seat; they undid her spell. She conceded her magic was powerless against them, listing three protective practices they observed — not wiping with earthenware shards, not killing lice on their garments, and not eating from the gardener’s bundle.
Key Terms:
- Matron (מַטְרוֹנִיתָא) = the noblewoman/sorceress
- Incantation (מִלְּתָא) = the spoken spell
- Earthenware shard (חַסְפָּא) = a pottery fragment
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Two more practices: fallen vegetables and sitting under a gutter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּלָא אָכְלִי יַרְקָא דִּנְפַל (אַתַּכָּא) [מִתַּכָּא], מִשּׁוּם מְאִיסוּתָא. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָשֶׁה לְרֵיחַ הַפֶּה. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּלָא יָתְבִי תּוּתֵי מַרְזֵיבָא, מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹפְכִים. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחִי מַזִּיקִין.
English Translation:
And Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: The reason for this practice that people do not eat vegetables that fell on the table is because it is replusive. But the Master said to me that it is because it is bad for halitosis. And Abaye said: At first I would say that the reason for this practice that people do not sit under a gutter is because of the waste water that pours out of it. But the Master said to me that it is because demons are commonly found there.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more in the series: (1) not eating vegetables that fell on the table — Abaye thought it was repulsiveness, but Rabba taught it causes halitosis; (2) not sitting under a roof-gutter — Abaye thought it was the waste water, but Rabba taught demons frequent such places.
Key Terms:
- Halitosis (רֵיחַ הַפֶּה) = bad breath
- Gutter (מַרְזֵיבָא) = the roof drainpipe
- Demons (מַזִּיקִין) = harmful spirits frequenting gutters
Segment 16
TYPE: מעשה
The porters, the burst barrel, and the excommunicated demon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנְהוּ שָׁקוֹלָאֵי דַּהֲווֹ דָּרוּ חָבִיתָא דְּחַמְרָא, בְּעוֹ לְאִיתְּפוֹחֵי, אוֹתְבוּהָ תּוּתֵי מַרְזֵיבָא, פְּקַעָה. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַפֵּיק שִׁיפּוּרֵי שַׁמְּתֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי תַּעֲבֵיד הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי אֶעֱבֵיד, כִּי אוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּאוּנַּאי?
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There were certain porters who were carrying a barrel of wine. When they wanted to rest, they placed it under a gutter and the barrel burst. They came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, who brought out horns and had them blown as he excommunicated the demon of that place. The demon came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, and the Sage said to it: Why did you do this? The demon said to him: How else should I act, when these men place a barrel on my ear?
קלאוד על הדף:
A story about gutter-demons: porters rested a wine barrel under a gutter and it burst. Mar bar Rav Ashi excommunicated the demon with shofar blasts; summoned, the demon defended itself — the men had set the barrel “on its ear” (in its dwelling place), so it reacted.
Key Terms:
- Porters (שָׁקוֹלָאֵי) = the barrel-carriers
- Horns/shofar (שִׁיפּוּרֵי) = blown for excommunication
- On my ear (בְּאוּנַּאי) = in the demon’s dwelling
Segment 17
TYPE: מעשה
The demon must pay; why it cannot take guarded property
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ בְּדוּכְתָּא דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים מַאי בָּעֵית? אַתְּ הוּא דְּשַׁנֵּית, זִיל שַׁלֵּים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לִיקְבַּע לִי מָר זִימְנָא וְאֶפְרַע. קְבַע לֵיהּ זִימְנָא. כִּי מְטָא זִימְנָא, אִיעַכַּב. כִּי אֲתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי לָא אֲתֵית בְּזִמְנָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל מִילֵּי דִּצְיִיר וַחֲתִים וּכְיִיל וּמְנֵי, לֵית לַן רְשׁוּתָא לְמִשְׁקַל מִינֵּיהּ, עַד דְּמַשְׁכְּחִינַן מִידֵּי דְּהֶפְקֵרָא.
English Translation:
Mar bar Rav Ashi said to it: What are you doing in a place where many people are found? You are the one who deviated from the norm; go and pay them the value of the barrel of wine. The demon said to him: Let the Master now set a time for me, so that I can find the money, and I will pay. Mar bar Rav Ashi set a time for his payment. When that time arrived, the demon delayed in coming to pay. When the demon eventually came, Mar bar Rav Ashi said to it: Why did you not come at the time set for you? The demon said to him: With regard to any item that is tied up, or sealed, or measured, or counted, we have no authority to take it. We are unable to obtain money until we find an ownerless item. For this reason, it took him a long time to find enough money to pay for the barrel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi ruled the demon liable, since it occupied a public place, and ordered it to pay for the barrel. The demon delayed because demons cannot take property that is tied, sealed, measured, or counted — only ownerless items — a lesson on safeguarding one’s possessions.
Key Terms:
- Tied, sealed, measured, counted (צְיִיר וַחֲתִים וּכְיִיל וּמְנֵי) = the four protections against demons
- Ownerless (הֶפְקֵרָא) = property demons may take
Segment 18
TYPE: מימרא
Pouring off water from a pitcher’s mouth: foul waters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא, הַאי דְּשָׁדֵי מַיָּא מִפּוּמָּא דְּחַצְבָּא – מִשּׁוּם צִיבְתָּא. אֲמַר לִי מָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא מַיִם הָרָעִים.
English Translation:
And Abaye said: At first I would say that this practice that people pour out a little water from the mouth of a pitcher before drinking from it is followed because of twigs it might contain. But the Master said to me that it is followed because there are foul waters in the pitcher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final Abaye teaching: pouring off a little water from a pitcher’s mouth before drinking. Abaye thought it was to expel twigs; Rabba taught it removes “foul waters” (מַיִם הָרָעִים) that gather there — a concern explained by the closing story.
Key Terms:
- Pitcher (חַצְבָּא) = the water jug
- Foul waters (מַיִם הָרָעִים) = harmful water settling at the mouth
- Twigs (צִיבְתָּא) = the mundane concern Abaye first assumed
Segment 19
TYPE: מעשה
The demon-servant who waited for the foul waters to pass (into 106a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא בַּר שֵׁידָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב פָּפָּא, אֲזַל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַיָּא מִנַּהֲרָא, אִיעַכַּב. כִּי אֲתָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי אִיעַכַּבְתְּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: עַד דְּחָלְפִי מַיִם הָרָעִים. אַדְּהָכִי
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain son of a demon that was in Rav Pappa’s house as a servant. It went to bring water from the river, and it delayed in returning. When it came, the members of Rav Pappa’s household said to it: Why did you delay? It said to them: I waited until the foul waters passed. In the meantime,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes mid-story: a demon-servant in Rav Pappa’s house delayed fetching river water, explaining that it waited for the “foul waters” to pass by. This confirms the reality of the foul-waters concern; the narrative continues on 106a.
Key Terms:
- Son of a demon (בַּר שֵׁידָא) = a demon serving as a household servant
- Until the foul waters passed (עַד דְּחָלְפִי מַיִם הָרָעִים) = the demon’s explanation