1)

(a)Rav circumvents the need to wash each time that one eats bread during the course of the day - by permitting washing once in the morning for Motzi, with the express intention of covering the entire day ...

(b)... provided that one subsequently guards one's hands from becoming Tamei.

(c)Rebbi Avina - permitted the residents of the valley of Arvos to rely on this - because they were short of water.

(d)Some say that he said it specifically in case of emergency (where no water was available [not like Rav]). According to others - he would have permitted it under any circumstances (like Rav).

2)

(a)Rav Papa forbids washing in Arita de'Davla - an irrigation (half)-pipe (see Tosfos DH 'Hai Arita') into which one pours buckets of water from the river, which then flows along the pipe to the fields.

(b)This is not valid because of ...

1. ... Netilas Yadayim - because the water flowing along the pipe no longer comes from the force of the initial pouring from the bucket (and Netilas Yadayim requires Ko'ach Gavra).

2. ... Tevilas Yadayim - because the pipe does not contain forty Sa'ah.

(c)It would be possible to perform (in the water in the pipe) ...

1. ... a valid Netilah - if one placed one's hands close to where the bucket is being poured into the pipe, in because then the water that flows over his hands is still the direct result of Ko'ach Gavra.

2. ... a valid Tevilah - if the bucket had a hole just large enough to let water in (Koneis Mashkeh), from which water dripped back into the river, even as he poured the water into the pipe (thereby joining the water in the pipe to the water in the river.

(d)Joining the water to the source in this way is called - Nitzok.

(e)Tevilas ha'Guf would be invalid in this manner - because the Shi'ur for the hole that would join the two (for Tevilas ha'Guf) is ki'Shefoferes ha'Nod (large enough to allow two fingers that one places into it to revolve), which is larger than Koneis Mashkeh, and Nitzok (dripping from the bucket into the river) is not considered joined when it comes to Tevilas ha'Guf (see Tosfos DH 've'I').

3)

(a)Rava - invalidated washing with a K'li that contains less than a Revi'is.

(b)Elsewhere, he ruled that one may not wash from a K'li that cannot hold a Revi'is, implying that if it can, the Netilah will be Kasher, even if it actually contains less that a Revi'is.

(c)We resolve the discrepancy - by differentiating between one person, who requires a Revi'is to be in the K'li, and two (where the second one, who washes from the water that falls from the first one's hands which is what remains from the original Revi'is (Ba mi'Shiyarei Taharah).

(d)And we support this with the Mishnah in Yadayim - which permits even two people to wash with a Revi'is of water.

4)

(a)When Rav Sheishes asked Ameimar whether he was particular ...

1. ... about Mana (that the K'li should be complete [without any defect]) ...

2. ... the water should be identifiable as water (and not murky), and ...

3. ... Shi'ura (that the K'li should contain a Revi'is) - he replied in the affirmative.

(b)According to the second Lashon - Ameimar replied in the affirmative regarding the first two questions, but in the negative with regard to the last one (Shi'ura).

(c)And he learned it from the Mishnah in Yadayim (that we just cited) va'Afilu li'Shenayim - from which we see that a Revi'is is not required (see Tosfos DH 've'Lo Hi').

(d)We refute Ameimar's proof however - on the grounds that the Mishnah only validates the second one using less than a Revi'is, because the first one began with a Revi'is (and it is possible to say that he washed with the remains of Taharah ['Ba mi'Shiyarei Taharah'])., as we explained.

5)

(a)Rav Ya'akov from Nehar Pakud instituted a washing vessel - called Natla (which was made of earthenware), whilst Rav Ashi instituted one - in Hutzal, called Kuza (which was made of glass).

(b)These two vessels served - as samples for people to measure their own Keilim for Netilas Yadayim, to ensure that they contained a Shi'ur Revi'is.

6)

(a)Rava validates the lid of a barrel that one carved into a receptacle for Netilas Yadayim - despite the fact that it was not originally manufactured for washing the hands.

(b)And we corroborate Rava's ruling with a Beraisa, where the Tana ...

1. ... permits using leather flasks, but ...

2. ... forbids using a sack or a box ...

(c)... because whereas sacks and boxes are not manufactured to use with water, the lid of the barrel and leather flasks are ...

(d)... even though they were not originally made for washing (in fact, they were not even intended to be used as receptacles).

7)

(a)We ask whether someone who did not wash his hands may wrap his hands in a cloth instead and eat accordingly, which may well be forbidden - because we are afraid that he might inadvertently touch the food with his hands.

(b)We try to resolve our She'eilah from the Mishnah in Succah, which cites Rebbi Tzadok, who ate less than a k'Beitzah, which he held with a cloth as he ate it outside the Succah - assuming that he only did so because he ate less than a k'Beitzah, but more than that would have required washing.

(c)We reject that proof however on the grounds that - maybe the reason that he ate less than a k'Beitzah was because more than that would have required a. sitting in the Succah and b. a B'rachah Acharonah (see Tosfos DH 've'Lo Beirach Acharav').

(d)When ...

1. ... Shmuel once found Rav eating with a cloth wrapped round his hand - he assumed that he had not washed his hands, and asked him whether that was the right thing to do. To which ...

2. ... Rav replied that - although he had washed his hands, he nevertheless wrapped them in a cloth, because he was an Ist'nis (finicky), and could not bear eating with his bare hands.

(e)This proves that - one is not allowed to wrap one's hands in a cloth and eat in order to avoid washing.

8)

(a)When, upon arriving in Eretz Yisrael, Rebbi Zeira found Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi eating with rags wrapped round their hands he commented that - two great men of their caliber should not have erred in the previous episode concerning Rav and Shmuel (who clearly forbid this, as we explained).

(b)He seemed to have forgotten however, a ruling of Rav Tachlifa bar Avimi Amar Shmuel that ...

1. ... permitted Kohanim who eat T'rumah - to eat in this way (because Kohanim are known to be careful in their actions, and will not therefore come to touch the food with their hands), but ...

2. ... forbade Ochlei Taharos to do so ...

(c)... because Ochlei Taharos are not as careful as Kohanim (Kohanim Zerizin heim).

(d)This absolves Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi - who are described as Kohani Chashivi de'Eretz Yisrael (those important Kohanim of Eretz Yisrael).

9)

(a)Ochel Machmas Ma'achil means someone who is fed. We ask whether Ochel Machmas Ma'achil - needs to wash his hands before eating or not.

(b)When Rav Huna bar Sechorah was once standing in front of Rav Hamnuna - he cut a piece of meat ('Balam' might also mean placed it in the coals, from a Lashon of Hatmanah, which means to hide or conceal), and placed it in his mouth, together with a piece of bread (Tosfos DH 'Balam').

(c)We initially interpret his statement that if it hadn't been Rav Hamnuna (a Chacham who was meticulous in his observance), he would not have fed him, to mean that if it hadn't been Rav Hamnuna, he would not have fed him) to mean that Rav Hamnuna was a Chacham and careful (Zahir) not to touch the food - a proof that Ochel Machmas Ma'achil does not need to wash his hands (otherwise, why should he not touch it?).

(d)We refute this proof however, by interpreting Rav Huna bar Sechorah's statement to mean that - he knew that Rav Hamnuna was careful (Zariz) to wash his hands even though he was being fed.

(e)We use the Lashon Zahir in the first explanation - because it means to be careful at the time (not to touch), and Zariz in the second - because it means alert to act in advance (to wash his hands). Hence we learned in Avodah-Zarah that Zehirus leads to Z'rizus.

10)

(a)We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav, who said that - a guest may only place a piece of bread in the Shamash's mouth, if he knows that he washed beforehand.

(b)He also says that a Shamash who ...

1. ... drinks a few cups of wine - is required to recite a B'rachah over each cup ...

2. ... but not over each slice of bread that he eats, because although he knows that they will give him as much bread as he wants, he does not know whether they will give him any more wine (in which case each cup is like a new entity).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan - requires him to recite a fresh B'rachah over every piece of bread, too.

11)

(a)To reconcile Rav with Rebbi Yochanan - Rav Papa establishes Rav where one of the guests is an important person sitting at the table (who is bound to feed the Shamash bread [but not wine]), and Rebbi Yochanan, where there is no such person present.

(b)We refute the proof from there that someone who is fed nevertheless needs to wash his hands, on the grounds that a Shamash is different - since he is busy serving the guests, and is therefore liable to forget that he has not washed and touch the food in his mouth.

(c)We cannot answer that the Shamash needs to wash, because he touches the food whenever he serves it - because Chazal only instituted Netilas Yadayim for someone who eats the food, but not for someone who touches it for any other reason.

12)

(a)The Beraisa forbids feeding the Shamash whilst a cup of wine is in the hand of ...

1. ... the Ba'al ha'Bayis either because he may get angry at the guests giving the Shamash too much bread and choke over his wine, or - in case, whilst keeping an eye on how much bread remains for the guests, he spills the cup.

2. ... the Shamash - in case he spills the cup of wine whilst chewing the bread.

(b)The Tana also - forbids placing a piece of bread in the Shamash's mouth at other times, unless one knows that he has washed his hands (as we just learned).

(c)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules in a Beraisa that a woman who wants to feed her baby son on Yom Kipur - must first wash one hand (in spite of the prohibition of washing one's hands on Yom Kipur).

(d)They decreed on Shamai ha'Zaken, who declined to feed his child, because he did not want to wash even one hand on Yom Kipur that - he should feed him with both hands.

13)

(a)Abaye refutes the proof from this Beraisa that the one who feeds is obligated to wash his hands - by establishing the Beraisa where the mother had not yet washed Neigel-Vasser in the morning (see Tosfos DH 'Hasam Mishum Shivsa'), in which case she needs to wash her hands because of the Ru'ach Ra'ah (the evil spirit, which rests on one's hands up to the time that one does so), and not because someone who feeds needs to wash his hands.

(b)We finally resolve the She'eilah from an episode that took place with Shmuel's father, whose little son once came home from Cheider crying - because his Rebbi had given him a slap.

14)

(a)Young Shmuel attributed the slap - to the fact that he had fed his Rebbe's son without having washed his hands ...

(b)... and he was upset - because he did not see why, if the Rebbi's son enjoyed the food, he should have to wash his hands.

(c)Shmuel's father's response was that - not satisfied with not knowing the Halachah, his Rebbe also hit him!

(d)The final ruling is that ...

1. ... Ochel Machmas Ma'achil - is obligated to wash.

2. ... the Ma'achil himself - is Patur from washing (like the ruling of Shmuel).

15)

(a)Our Mishnah permits wrapping meat and cheese together in the same cloth - provided the two do not actually touch.

(b)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that two guests at the same guest house - may eat at the same table, one meat, the other, cheese.

(c)Despite the fact that the meat and the cheese are both cold, the Tana does not permit wrapping them together if they touch - because even though they do not need to be peeled, they do require washing (so he prohibits wrapping them together, in case they forget to wash them).

(d)Rav Chanan bar Ami Amar Shmuel qualifies the ruling in our Mishnah (permitting two guests to eat at the same table, one meat and the other cheese) - by confining it to where the guests are not acquainted; but if they are, it is forbidden, in case they forget and taste each other's food.

16)

(a)We support Shmuel's statement with a Beraisa, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits two people who are guests in the same guest-house, one from the north and the other, from the south, to eat at the same table, one, meat and the other, cheese.

(b)When the Tana adds ve'Lo Asru Ela bi'Tefisah Achas, he means that - it is only forbidden if they are actually wrapped together (See also Tosfos DH 'Ke'en T'fisah Achas').

(c)He cannot possible mean this literally, so we amend it to mean that - it is forbidden even if it only appears as if they were eating from the same wrapping (if they are acquaintances [a proof for Shmuel]).

17)

(a)When Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya asked Abaye whether two brothers who are on bad terms, may eat at the same table, one, meat, the other, cheese, he replied - 'Yomru Kol ha'Sarikin Asurin, ve'Sarikei Baytus Mutarin!', meaning that one cannot forbid most people to bake Matzos with patterns, and permit Baytus, who had special baking tins which speeded the process. Likewise here, one cannot forbid two acquaintances to eat together in this way, and permit them when they are on bad terms (Lo P'lug).

(b)It is forbidden to wash clothes on Chol ha'Mo'ed. Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless - permits someone who possesses only one shirt to do so.

(c)Mar bar Rav Ashi reconciles this with the principle Yomru ha'Sarikin Asurin, ve'Sarikei Baytus Mutarin - because there, the person washing his only shirt, is visibly different than someone who has two, inasmuch as the latter would transfer the belt that went with the shirt to the clean shirt he is wearing, whilst a person with only one shirt does not wear a belt whilst he washes his shirt.

(d)This explanation will not apply ...

1. ... to our case - where there is nothing to distinguish the brothers who do not get on from anybody else.

2. ... to the case of Kol ha'Sarikin Asurin - since, to the onlooker, Baytus' special baking-tins were not clearly distinguishable from regular ones.