Commentary page

Chullin 105a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Chullin 105a

Chullin 105a. The full printed text of this folio side — 17 numbered segments, about 440 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

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!

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.

Segment 2

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!

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.

Segment 3

אֶלָּא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַנֵּחַ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמֵדִיחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מֵדִיחַ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לִמְקַנֵּחַ. מָר אָמַר חֲדָא, וּמָר אָמַר חֲדָא, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.

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.

Segment 4

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵין קִינּוּחַ הַפֶּה אֶלָּא בְּפַת. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְחִיטֵּי, אֲבָל בְּדִשְׂעָרֵי – לָא.

§ 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.

Segment 5

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.

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.

Segment 6

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.

§ 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.

Segment 7

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?

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?

Segment 8

קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״הַבָּשָׂר עוֹדֶנּוּ בֵּין שִׁנֵּיהֶם״.

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.

Segment 9

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.

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.

Segment 10

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.

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.

Segment 11

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.

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.

Segment 12

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.

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.

Segment 13

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָין: מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים מִצְוָה, וְאַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה.

§ 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.

Segment 14

מֵיתִיבִי: מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים וְאַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה, אֶמְצָעִיִּים רְשׁוּת. מִצְוָה לְגַבֵּי רְשׁוּת – חוֹבָה קָרֵי לַהּ.

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.

Segment 15

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.

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.

Segment 16

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ קִינְסָא.

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.

Segment 17

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

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

Chullin 105a

Chullin 105a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Encyclopedia entries citing this page

Original text