Implied Question: The demon stalled and did not pour off himself or inform them about this. (Why not?)

Answer #1: He was scared that the other demons would be upset at him for revealing (what he thought was) this secret.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it does not help unless the person who is going to drink pours off the water himself from the pitcher.

Implied Question: The Beraisa earlier (105a) says that Netilas Yadayim can be done both with hot water or cold water. (Isn't this unlike Chizkiyah?)

Answer: Chizkiyah establishes that this is according to the first version of Rebbi Yanai earlier where the water was not Yad Soledes. Chizkiyah is referring to water that is Yad Soledes. Rebbi Yochanan in the second version here permits doing Netilas Yadayim even if the water is Yad Soledes.

Observation: (Accordingly) Rashi did not have to say that Chizkiyah is a Tana who can argue on the Beraisa earlier.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Nazir (38a) says that they nullified the law of a Revi'is serving as a Mikvah.

Answer #1: This was specifically regarding immersing needles and tubes in it. However, it is permitted to immerse ones hands in it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, they indeed nullified it totally, even for immersing hands. However, our Gemara is referring to a Revi'is that is connected to a Mikvah. This is also Rashi's explanation.

Observation: In Zevachim (22a), we say that whatever can help complete a Mikvah can help complete waters of a well (our text is the waters of the Kiyor). It cannot help complete a Revi'is (of water for Netilas Yadayim).

Observation (cont.): What does this exclude? If it excludes plaster that is poured, which case of plaster is this? If a cow would bend down and drink from it (as it is very watery), it can even complete a Revi'is of Netilas Yadayim! Rashi explains that they are valid for Netilas Yadayim as stated in Chulin that water that is unfit for an animal, whether it is in a vessel or in the ground, is invalid. This implies that if it is not unfit for an animal to drink, it is valid.

Question: The Gemara there (ibid.) says, if a cow would not bend down and drink from it, it is not even valid for a Mikvah. Our Gemara implies that according to everyone he can immerse his entire body in it!

Answer: The case there is where the animal cannot drink it because the plaster is so thick that it cannot be drunk. It therefore is no longer called water. However, here the case is where it is pretty clear, but it is somewhat disgusting and smelly. This is why the cow cannot drink it.

Question: Didn't they institute this due to it being similar to eating Terumah? Why, then, do we need to say "and furthermore?"

Answer: The additional reason was due to cleanliness.

Explanation: This means that he cited a Pasuk as an Asmachta. This is clearly not an actual derivation, as the main context of the Pasuk is as stated in Nidah (43a) "Just as one's hands are outside etc."

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this. How does he know that it is a Mitzvah to split up (and recite Birkas ha'Mazon on their own)? Perhaps one is allowed to do so, like the opinion in Berachos (45a) that if they want to make a Mezuman they can? This is an argument between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan.

Question #2: There is an additional question. The Gemara there only argued regarding bread, where people make a Mezuman with three people. However, one does not make a Mezuman on fruit at all, as he states that we see from here that one does not make a Mezuman on fruit. In such a case, it is obvious that it is a Mitzvah for each person individually to recite the Berachah Acharonah!

Answer: It is possible to say that this is what he means. We see from here that one does not do a Mezuman with fruit. This means that there is no obligation to make a Mezuman with fruit, even when three people eat fruit together. This is apparent from the fact that they did not give him fruit. There is no difference in fruit regarding whether two or three people are eating.

Answer (cont.): We still do not know if one can make a Mezuman when two people eat bread or if three people eat fruit, or if it is forbidden as there is an opinion that if they want to do so they may not. Rather, from the fact that each person said the Berachah Acharonah separately, the implication is that everyone must say it separately.

Answer (cont.): If it is permitted to make a Mezuman each one would not have made the Berachah Acharonah privately, but rather would have made the Berachah for his friend and added first "Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo" in order to add praise to Hash-m.

Answer (cont.): We still only know that it is forbidden for two people to say "Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo." However, without this introduction perhaps one can make the Berachah for his friend and cause him to be exempt. However, the Beraisa states that if two people ate it is a Mitzvah to separate. When is this said etc. This indicates that if both people know how to say the Berachah Acharonah, they must do so individually.

Question: What is the difference between a Berachah Acharonah that everyone must make individually and a Berachah Rishonah where one person can make this Berachah for everyone?

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara in Berachos (39a) regarding the students of Rav who say before Bar Kapara and brought before him fowl, cabbage, and a cooked vegetable. Bar Kapara gave permission for one of them to recite the Berachos for everyone.

Proof #2: In Berachos (53a), the Beraisa states that when they were sitting in the Beis Medrash a fire was brought before them. Beis Hillel says that one can make the blessing (Bore Meorei ha'Aish) for everyone.

Proof #3: In Berachos (42b) the Mishnah states that one person can make a Berachah on incense for everyone.

Answer: A Berachah Rishonah is different in that every person benefits from the Berachah. Through this Berachah they are able to eat and benefit and they therefore can combine to be exempt with one person's Berachah. However, after they have eaten they cannot combine.

Implied Question: The Gemara states in Berachos (37a) that when Rabban Gamliel and the elders were eating in an attic in Yericho dates were brought before them. After they ate them, Rabban Gamliel gave permission for Rebbi Akiva to make a Berachah Acharonah. Rebbi Akiva jumped up and made a Berachah Acharonah of Al ha'Eitz. (This shows one person can cause others to be exempt from his Berachah Acharonah!)

Answer: This is because Rabban Gamliel based himself on his opinion that this Berachah Acharonah is similar to that on bread. This is as the Mishnah states there that if a person ate something from the Shivas ha'Minim, Rabban Gamliel says that one must recite Birkas ha'Mazon.

Implied Question: Rebbi Akiva holds like the Rabbanan who say that one recites Al ha'Eitz. (Why would he say his Berachah would make everyone exempt?)

Answer: He did not do this in order to make everyone exempt. Rather, he made a Berachah to exempt himself out loud in order to show everyone that the Halachah was like the Rabbanan.

Implied Question: Our custom presently is that we only have one person recite the Berachah Rishonah for everyone when we are eating bread. (Why?)

Answer: This is because we do not have a Kevius (i.e. sense of permanence) when we drink wine or eat fruit. Even regarding bread the Mishnah in Berachos states (42a) that if people were sitting together each person should make his own Berachah. However, if they reclined, one makes the Berachah for everyone.

Answer (cont.): Regarding wine, the Gemara (43a) quotes an argument between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan. Rav holds that reclining does not help. Some say that it does not require reclining. Rebbi Yochanan holds that reclining does help.

Question: However, this requires study. The simple explanation of the Mishnah implies that it is referring to a Berachah Rishonah. The Gemara, however, implies that it is referring to a Berachah Acharonah when it discusses the students of Rav who said that to each other that they should eat bread together next to Dink River. After they broke bread, they sat and asked whether this only applied if they reclined together. This implies that according to everyone they did not need to ask this regarding their Berachah Acharonah, as it clearly does not require reclining. Their only question was regarding Birkas ha'Mazon after they finished eating.

Question (cont.): Additionally, if Rav and Rebbi Yochanan argue regarding a Berachah Rishonah, why according to Rav is wine different than incense and fire where one person makes the Berachah for everyone?

Answer: Incense and fire are different, as everyone receives benefit from these things simultaneously.

Question: However, there is a difficulty. The Mishnah explicitly states there that one person recites the Berachah for everyone on the wine that comes after the meal.

Answer: One can say that this is different, as since the reclining helped for the bread it should also help for the wine. This answer is indeed given there in order to answer a question asked on Rav from the Beraisa regarding guests.

Question: Even so, the Gemara should have asked this question on Rav from the Mishnah itself and given this answer.

Answer #1: Rather, the reason that the Gemara does not ask a question from the Mishnah is because the Mishnah must be referring to Berachah Rishonah, similar to the case of wine drunk during the meal. However, the Beraisa is referring to Berachah Acharonah, as it requires reclining.

Answer #1 (cont.): According to this, one does not need to have a Kevius (permanent setting) regarding Berachah Rishonah whether it is for bread or anything else. Only regarding Berachah Acharonah is a permanent setting required, whether regarding bread or anything else, as the Halachah follows Rebbi Yochanan.

Answer #2: However, one can in fact answer that everything is referring to Berachah Rishonah. The reason that the Gemara asked a question on Rav from the Beraisa and not from the Mishnah is because the Beraisa is a question on both versions of Rav's statement.

Implied Question: Rav's students did not have a doubt until after they ate bread. (Why?)

Answer: This is because they did not originally arrive together at Dink River. Rather, they gathered there in order to travel together from there. Each one who arrived there would sit and eat, and make his own Berachah Rishonah.

Implied Question: The Gemara there brings proof from the Mishnah that is discussing Berachah Rishonah, even though two people must split up in order to say Birkas ha'Mazon while one person may say a Berachah Rishonah for his friend.

Answer: It still brings a proof that if people say, "Let us eat bread in a certain place" it is akin to reclining and is considered a Kevius. Whenever a person is saying a Berachah for everyone, whether it is a Berachah Rishonah or Berachah Acharonah, he may only do so when there is a Kevius.

Question: Rav Avraham ben Rav Moshe asked that the Tosefta in Mikvaos (ch.7) states that whatever is considered a Chatzitzah regarding vessels is considered a Chatzitzah regarding Nidah and the immersion of a convert. Regarding Chulin, it is not considered a Chatzitzah. However, our Gemara says it is a Chatzitzah!

Answer: The Gemara here is discussing washing for the purpose of eating, as is apparent from the entire Gemara. They were as stringent regarding washing for eating as they were regarding immersion. The Tosefta is discussing washing for touching, and is saying that they were not stringent regarding Chatzitzah for touching even if it was Chulin whose level of purity was maintained as if it were Terumah.

Observation: One has to be careful while washing from plaster and dough that get under one's nails, as they cause a Chatzitzah while immersing as stated in the Mishnah in Mikvaos (9:2). If something is a Chatzitzah regarding immersion, one must be careful regarding that type of Chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim for eating. However, regarding a small amount that he does not care about he does not have to be concerned, as it is not even a Chatzitzah for immersion as stated in Eiruvin (4b).

Explanation #1: This is as it says in the Beraisa that for Chulin one washes "until the Perek" and for Terumah one washes "until the Perek" (see below) etc. and Rav used to show the area with his hands.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explains that "until the Perek" regarding Chulin is until the second set of knuckles in the middle of the fingers. Regarding Terumah, "until the Perek" refers to the (third set of) knuckles on the back of the hand. Regarding Kidush Yadayim "until the Perek" refers to the wrist.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi did not want to explain that "Perek" regarding Chulin is the first set of knuckles towards the top of the fingers, as the thumb does not even have such a knuckle. However, the middle knuckles are equal (i.e. present) regarding all of the fingers.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Shmuel says that "the Perek" regarding Chulin and Terumah are equal in their stringency. Shmuel is not arguing on the Beraisa. Rather, because he is a Kohen and is used to eating Terumah he was stringent upon himself so that he should be used to washing until his third set of knuckles even regarding Chulin.

Question: However, this presents a difficulty in the position of Rav Sheshes, as he says that the same amount applies to Chulin and Terumah even in a lenient fashion!

Answer: Rav Sheshes explains the Beraisa as meaning that for Chulin one must wash until the first set of knuckles, while one must wash for Terumah until the middle knuckles. He is not intending to be more lenient than the Beraisa, rather he is being more lenient than Rav and Shmuel who say that the Perek regarding Terumah is the place where the fingers connect to the palm.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that for Chulin one must wash until the first set of knuckles, as explained by Rav Sheshes.

Question: According to this explanation, the Beraisa is a question on Rav Sheshes. According to his explanation, one must say that both regarding Chulin and Terumah one must only wash until the first set of knuckles!

Answer: However, it is possible to push aside that being stringent according to Shmuel would mean the knuckles on the back of the hand similar to Kidush Yadayim. Rav Sheshes is coming to be more lenient than Shmuel.

Explanation #3: However, do not explain as does Rav Avraham that one must wash for Chulin until the third set of knuckles and for Terumah one must wash the entire palm, meaning until the wrist. He also holds that for Kidush Yadayim one must wash until the Atzil (elbow) which is called the Koda.

Proof: He brought a proof to this from the Sefer Hizhir who writes that Shmuel says that the entire hand must be washed for Chulin.

Question: This is impossible, as the Beraisa states in Erchin (19b) that if someone pledges to give the weight of his hand or foot, Rebbi Yehudah says that a person fills a barrel with water and puts his hand in until the Atzil and his foot until his knee (to see how much he must give based on the displacement of the water).

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks, does he put his hand in until the Atzil? Doesn't the Beraisa say that Kidush Yadayim is done in the Mikdash until the Perek? The Gemara answers that according to Torah law one only needs to put it in until the Perek. Regarding vows, we say that the way people talk determines his intent. This Gemara clearly indicates that Kidush Yadayim is not until the Atzil!

Answer: His explanation is possible according to the explanation there that Atzil means Ishila (as opposed to our Gemara where it means the elbow), which is the armpit where the arm and shoulder are connected. This is indeed how Rashi explains Atzil in Chulin (134b).

Question #1: However, there is a difficulty with the explanation of Rabeinu Tam. The Gemara in Zevachim (18b) states, "And they should not put on their belt b'Yaza" means that they should not put it where people sweat. It should not be lower than their thigh and not higher than their Atzil. Rather, it should be opposite their Atzil (elbow) called Koda, as it is normal to put one's belt there. If it would be referring to an armpit it seems inappropriate, as that is the place where one sweats the most!

Question #2: Additionally, how is it possible to say, "And not higher?" Above the armpit is the neck. How would someone put a belt over there?

Question #3: Additionally, in Erchin (19b) the Gemara says "the hand until the Atzil and the foot until the knee." This implies that the Atzil is in the middle of one's arm (the elbow), just as the knee is in the middle of one's leg.

Question #4: Additionally, when the Mishnah in Ohalos (1:8) counts two hundred and forty eight limbs, it says that there are thirty in the palm of the hand. Six are in each finger, two in the forearm, two in the Marpek, and four in the shoulder. This implies that Marpek is the Koda (elbow), as it is discussing the order of the limbs (going up from the fingers).

Question #4 (cont.): Marpek and Atzil are all considered one thing, as the Gemara in Erchin (19a) states that Rebbi Yehudah taught in the Mishnah that a person puts his hand in until the Marpek.

Proof: Additionally, the Targum of the words "Kol Atzilei Yadayim" (Yechezkel 13:18) is "Kol Marpukei Yadaya" (further indicating that Atzil and Marpek are the same thing).

Implied Question: We cannot explain that Kidush Yadayim is until the armpit, meaning until the shoulder. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the Gemara in Erchin asks, "Does the Torah require until the Perek (for Kidush Yadayim)? Regarding Tefilin the Torah says, "your hand." It was taught in the house of Menashe, "your hand - refers to the Kibores (bicep)." The Gemara answers, "According to Torah law, the Kibores...Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (the amount) is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai." This implies that Perek referring to Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim does not reach the Kibores.

Answer (cont.): Rabeinu Tam himself explains that Kibores refers to the bicep, as the Gemara in Bava Basra (5a) states "Kibora d'Ahina" which is a term used for a bunch of dates (the bicep is a place where the muscle is bunched up).

Question: This is difficult, as we say in Pesachim (106b) that if someone washes his hands he should not make Kidush, as Kidush is an interruption between Netilas Yadayim and his meal.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Berachos (52b) says that Beis Hillel says that one pours the cup and the does Netilas Yadayim because immediately after Netilas Yadayim is the meal. Our Gemara says that the condition helps for the entire day!

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam says that this is when he makes a condition in the morning (meaning not for eating food but for Netilas Yadayim in the morning, see Maharam Shif).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible that even though a condition helps according to Rav even when it is not a pressing situation, this is only if he does not have water near him or if he has it but he really needs it for something else.