1)

(a)When, after arriving from Eretz Yisrael, Rav Dimi related how ...

1. ... Mayim Rishonim fed someone Basar Chazir - he was referring to an inn-keeper, who once served a Jewish client, Chazir, because the latter did not wash for bread, and it was his custom to serve his Jewish clients (whom he recognized from the fact that they washed Netilas Yadayim before the meal) Kasher meat, and his Nochri customers, T'reif (Why the story ends with Basar Chazir (and not Basar Neveilah, with which it begins) see Maharsha).

2. ... Mayim Acharonim caused a man to divorce his wife, he was referring to Reuven, who saw Shimon, after having eaten a meal of lentils, deposit a purse-full of coins with his wife, before leaving the house without washing Mayim Acharonim. After waiting a while, he approached Shimon's wife and told her that her husband had sent him to fetch the purse. When she asked for a Siman, he told her that they had eaten lentils (which he learned from the remains of the meal that surrounded Shimon's mouth), upon which she handed him the purse. When Shimon returned home and discovered what had happened, he divorced her.

(b)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he told over the same stories, but each with a different ending. In the first episode, the inn-keeper served his Jewish customer Neveilah, and not Basar Chazir. According to him, the story of Mayim Acharonim ended - with Shimon, not divorcing his wife, but killing her.

(c)To remember who said what in this latter case, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak gives the Siman - Asa Rav Dimi, Afkah; Asa Ravin Katlah (When Rav Dimi came, he drove her out; when Ravina came, he killed her .

(d)Rebbi Aba learned one of each le'Chumra, by which he means that - he learns Katlah by Mayim Acharonim (like Ravin), but Chazir by Mayim Rishonim (like Rav Dimi). What makes Chazir more Chamur than Neveilah is - the fact that (assuming one holds Isur Chal al Isur) for eating a dead Chazir, one is Chayav for Neveilah as well.

2)

(a)According to Chizkiyah, one may not wash Mayim Rishonim using boiled water (like the first Lashon on top of the previous Amud). Rebbi Yochanan - permits it (like the second Lashon there, see Tosfos DH 'Chamei ha'Or').

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan asked Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi this very question, he replied that - all the Gedolei Galil actually used to use it.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan described Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebbi as - one who ate his Chulin be'Taharah.

3)

(a)Chizkiyah considers Chamei Teverya ineligible for Netilas Yadayim - but not for Tevilas Yadayim ...

(b)... which is permitted, provided it is in a Mikvah of forty Sa'ah.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan permits Toveling one's entire body in Chamei Teverya, but not one's hands, face and feet. Hands and feet - have no Halachic significance here at all, and Rebbi Yochanan only mentions them because that is what people generally do.

(d)The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling is that - if one may Tovel one's entire body there, then how much more so one's hands?

4)

(a)In answering the Kashya. Rav Papa explains that both Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan will agree, that in a case where one Tovels one's hands in ...

1. ... the water whilst it is still attached to the spring - the Tevilah is Kasher.

2. ... in a cupful of water that has been detached from the spring - it is Pasul.

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Chamei Teverya is worse than Chamei ha'Or in this regard - because whereas Chamei ha'Or were originally permitted, Chamei Teverya were not.

(c)And Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan argue in a case - where some of the Chamei Teverya has been diverted into a short ditch, (bas Birsa) which does not contain forty Sa'ah of the water, but which is still attached to the Mikvah.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the Chachamim decreed on account of where the water was Mayim She'uvim (drawn into a vessel [Rebbi Yochanan]) or not (Chizkiyah).

5)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which disqualifies water that is unfit for an animal to drink - because either it emits a foul smell, or because it is hot (Chamei Teverya) from Netilas Yadayim (if it is in a K'li), but not from Tevilas Yadayim (if it is still on the ground).

(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits Toveling one's entire body in water that still on the ground, but not one's hands ... . We establish Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - by bas Birsa (like we just established Rebbi Yochanan) ...

(c)... and he and the Tana Kama argue over the same point as Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan (whom we just discussed) - whether the Chachamim decreed bas Birsa on account of water in a K'li (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) or not (the Tana Kama).

6)

(a)When Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi'an ascribes the Mitzvah of Netilas Yadayim to S'rach Terumah, he means that - the Chachamim instituted it so that the Kohanim's hands will be Tahor when they eat Terumah.

(b)They did not institute it because of those who eat Chulin - because, seeing as hands can only become Sheniyos le'Tum'ah (mi'de'Rabbanan), there would be no point in washing them, since there is no such thing as a Shelishi by Chulin (only by Terumah).

(c)The second reason that Rav Idi ... adds for the obligation to wash Mayim Rishonim is - because it is a Mitzvah.

(d)Abaye explains this to mean Mitzvah Lishmo'a Divrei Chachamim. According to Rava - it is a Mitzvah to listen to the words of Rebbi Elazar ben Arach (as we will now explain).

7)

(a)The problem Rebbi Elazar ben Arach has with the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Chol asher Yiga bo ha'Zav ve'Yadav Lo Shataf ba'Mayim, Yitma" is that - a Zav needs to Tovel his whole body in a spring, and not just his hands.

(b)Rava therefore interprets the Pasuk to mean that - a Zav remains Tamei as long as he has not Toveled in a Mikvah, and there is also a case of a person remaining Tamei as long as he has not Toveled his hand in water (even though this is really only an Asmachta).

(c)According to Abaye - the Mitzvah is purely de'Rabbanan, whereas according to Rava - it has its roots in the Torah.

8)

(a)Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya attributes washing one's hands before eating fruit to - cleanliness.

(b)Initially, we thought that it is not an obligation, but a Mitzvah, until Rava explained that - it is not even a Mitzvah either, only R'shus (voluntary).

(c)This does not however, concur with the opinion of Rav Nachman who rules that - someone who washes his hands for fruit is conceited (in which case it is not even R'shus).

9)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah related how Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi neither washed their hands over the basket of fruit that was brought before them, nor did they offer him any of it - from which he learned that the Din of Mezuman (that applies to three people who ate bread together) does not extend to fruit.

(b)When they had finished eating they each recited the B'rachah Acharonah independently, from which he also learned - that it is not correct for one person to be Motzi another with regard to Birchos ha'Nehenin (see Tosfos DH 'u'Sh'ma Minah').

(c)This third ruling is supported by a Beraisa, though the Tana qualifies it - by restricting it to two Talmidei-Chachamim. Where the second person is a Bur (who is unable to recite the B'rachah on his own), then it is permitted for the Talmid-Chacham to be Motzi him with the B'rachah Acharonah.

10)

(a)When the Tana of the Beraisa states ...

1. ... 'Netilas Yadayim le'Chulin ad ha'Perek' (up to the joint), he means - up to the second (middle) joint of the four fingers of the hand, which will suffice, seeing as this is only a safeguard for Terumah (which is itself only mi'de'Rabbanan.

2. ... 'Netilas Yadayim li'Terumah ad ha'Perek', he means - up to the third joint (where the fingers are joined to the palm).

3. ... Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim ba'Mikdash ad ha'Perek', he means - up to the end of the hand, where it is joined to the wrist

(b)And he also rules that whatever is considered a Chatzitzah regarding Tevilah - is also a Chatzitzah regarding Tevilas Yadayim and Kidush Yadayim ve'Raglayim.

11)

(a)Rav used to demonstrate on his hand according to the Shi'urim given by the Beraisa. So did Shmuel - only he demonstrated the same Shi'ur for Chulin as for Terumah (le'Chumra).

(b)Rav Sheishes too, did like Shmuel - only he compared the Shi'ur Terumah to the Shi'ur Chulin (le'Kula).

(c)Bar Hedya cites Rebbi Ami like Shmuel, adding 'bein le'Chulin bein li'Terumah' - but not, he adds, because Rebbi Ami happened to be a Kohen who ate a lot of Terumah ...

(d)... in which case - the Chumra would not even have extended to other Kohanim, let alone to Yisre'elim, all of whom would only have had to wash to the end of the second joint of their fingers, like Rav.