Yerushalmi Berakhot 8:2 ירושלמי ברכות ח׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one washes his hands and after that he mixes the cup, but the House of Hillel say that one mixes the cup first and then he washes his hands⁴⁵The cup here is the Qiddush cup. Qiddush is followed by a meal with bread for which one must wash his hands. The details and reasons are spelled out in the Halakhah. This disagreement has nothing to do with the question whether one washes his hands before (following R. Moses Isserls) or after (following R. Joseph Caro) Qiddush; in both cases, the cup is filled before one washes his hands..

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The fluids on the back of the cup should not become impure from his hands and in their turn defile the cup⁴⁶The Biblical principles on ritual impurity are spelled out in the book of Leviticus. A Biblical source of impurity is called אב הטוּמאה “father of impurity”. The only possible objects of impurity are humans, vessels, and food. Any object that becomes impure secondarily, usually by contact, is “first in impurity.” For profane objects, the two stages are the only ones. However, by rabbinic tradition there exists a “second in impurity” for profane and “third, fourth” for certain holy objects. The general principle is that any transmitted impurity decreases by one degree. There is one important exception. Since body fluids of a person with gonorrhea are “fathers of impurity”, it was decreed that any impurity involving fluids is at least “first in impurity.” Also, unwashed hands are always assumed to be “second in impurity.” If one touches a dry cup with unwashed hands, nothing happens. But if there should be drops of wine on the outside of the cup, these drops will become “first in impurity” and defile the contents of the cup. It is the characteristic of Rabbinic (pharisaic) Judaism that one tries to eat one’s profane meals in a way reasonably consistent with rules of ritual purity. It seems that the House of Shammai assumes that a “full cup” required for Qiddush is full to the rim, kept together only by surface tension, and, hence, it is unlikely that the back of the cup will be dry. (For pottery vessels, other rules apply.)
The text of the explanation is from the Tosephta (Berakhot 5:26)..

What is the reason of the House of Hillel? The back of the cup is always impure⁴⁷The back of the cup is impure (“second in impurity”) by Rabbinic decree, as explained in the next paragraph. If one washes his hands first and does not dry them very thorougly, then the hands will become “first in impurity” by holding the cup, as explained in the previous note, and one is worse off than with unwashed hands. (This is also the explanation of the Babli, 52a.) The House of Hillel assume that a “full cup” is one filled close to the rim but leaving a reasonable safety margin as hedge against a spill.. Another explanation: Washing of the hands should be as close as possible to the benediction⁴⁸It is not clear whether the benediction in question is that over bread (R. Joseph Caro) or the wine for Qiddush (R. Moshe Isserls). Here also both explanations are from the Tosephta (loc. cit.).

Rebbi Vivan⁴⁹A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of all the great Amoraïm of R. Joḥanan’s generation. His name probably was Vivianus. In other quotes, his name is shortened to Bibi, Vivi. in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: It turns out that the House of Shammai is consistent with Rebbi Yose and the House of Hillel with Rebbi Meïr⁵⁰This is paradoxical since practice follows the House of Hillel and Rebbi Yose. The Babli (52a/b) explains otherwise, that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on whether one may use a cup which is impure outside at all if one cares about consuming food in purity., since we have stated there (Mishnah Kelim 25:7)⁵¹Chapter 25 starts: “All vessels have an inside and an outside.” For earthenware vessels, it is a decree of the Torah that they become impure only if an impure “father of impurity” is found in the volume enclosed by the vessel (even without touching the walls,) never from the outside (even if the “father of impurity” touches the wall.) From this is derived a Rabbinic decree that also all other vessels, e. g. metal vessels that become impure from a biblical “father of impurity” by simple touch, cannot become impure inside if a Rabbinic impurity touches from the outside (but not vice versa.) Mishnah 7 then reads: “All vessels have an outside, an inside, and a rim. Rebbi Tarphon said, [one speaks of] a large wooden trough, Rebbi Aqiba said, of cups. Rebbi Meïr said for impure and pure hands, R. Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.” Since inside and outside have been discussed before, the opinions of Rabbis Meïr and Yose, students of R. Aqiba, deal with the rim, the part of the outside of the cup that is slightly bent outward or otherwise distinguished as place for the lips when one drinks from the cup. The explanation of the Mishnah is given in Tosephta Kelim Baba bathra3:9–10: “R. Meïr said: How is it for impure hands? If one’s hands are impure, the outside of the cup is pure; if it has moist spots then he may hold the cup by its rim without worry. R. Yose said: How is it for pure hands? If his hands were pure and moist, but the outside of the cup impure, then he may hold the cup at the rim without worrying that the moisture of his hand should become impure from the outside and then defile his hand.” It follows that for R. Yose, the hands have to be pure (i. e., washed) and for R. Meïr they may be impure.: “Rebbi Meïr said, for impure and pure hands. Rebbi Yose said, they spoke only about pure hands.”

Rebbi Yose⁵²He is R. Yasa (Assi). in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai⁵³An Israeli Amora of the first generation, student of Ḥizqiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya. and Rebbi Ḥiyya⁵⁴He is Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ḥallah⁵⁵Ḥallah is the gift for the Cohen from newly kneaded dough. It has the status of holiness of Terumah; hence, it has to be separated from the dough in purity which, in all cases, means also that in the Land of Israel one has to wash his hands before taking it. (All other countries are impure anyhow and their ḥallah must be burned.) and for washing one’s hands⁵⁶For any action for which the washing of one’s hands is required., he has to walk⁵⁷If no water is available one has to wait, e. g., to eat bread, until he has washed his hands. If the distance to water is greater than 4 mil then the Babli declares in the name of the Galilean sages that one should clean his hands with sand or any other cleaning material. up to four mil. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not bother him to return on his way⁵⁸The Babli (15a) has a different rule, that one has to return if the distance required is less than one mil..

How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them⁵⁹Do they have to go up to four mil in search of water or may they clean their hands with sand or other cleansers?? Let us hear it from this (Mishnah Ḥallah 2:3): “A woman may sit down naked and separate her ḥallah⁶⁰Since the separation of ḥallah needs a benediction, it may not be done if one’s genitals are visible. A woman may hide her genitals by sitting down but a man cannot do that. because she can cover herself, but a man may not.” Is that woman not sitting inside her house⁶¹And, presumably, has some clothes there that she could put on. The entire argument is possible only for the Yerushalmi which does not require any retracing of one’s steps at all in the search for water; it is impossible for the Babli which requires retracing one’s steps, if only for a reduced distance. and you say that one does not bother her? Also here, one does not bother him⁶²One does not bother him at all and if there is no water at his place, he need not leave it in his search for water..

It has been stated⁶³The language is close to Tosephta Berakhot 5:13. Since the Mishnah introduces laws of washing one’s hands, the details are discussed from here on.: “Water before the meal is conditional⁶⁴In the language of the Babli, רשות means “permitted.” However, in the language of the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi, i. e., the language of the Land of Israel, רשות means “a minor obligation” as shown by S. Lieberman [תיקוני ירושלמי, Tarbiẓ 5 (5694), pp. 97–110]. The same language is found in the Tosephta, in Tanḥuma Balaq 15, and in other Galilean Midrashim. The Tanḥuma explains the expression “conditional” for something that is required, by “it is optional in the sense that if one decides not to eat bread with his meal, he does not have to wash his hands.”, after the meal it is obligatory. Only that for the first one he takes and interrupts⁶⁵Most commentators explain this expression from the Mishnah Yadayim2:1–3 that rules, if one washed his hands with less than a revi‘it of water for each hand then he has to wash each hand twice. However, in that case it is not true that one may interrupt the washing because if he does not keep his mind concentrated on watching his hands they become impure again. As S. Lieberman points out, one might follow the interpretation of R. Isaiah I of Trani (Pisqe RYD on Berakhot 52a) that the Yerushalmi here stays with the previous topic of Qiddush and speaks of washing one’s hands twice, once for Qiddush for cleanliness and after that for food for ritual purity. This agrees with Tosephta Berakhot 4:8, which requires the washing of one hand for the wine drunk as appetizer before a formal dinner.; for the second he takes and may not interrupt⁶⁶Washing one’s hands after the meal is not a ritual requirement. Since spoons and forks were not used, the hands were dirty by necessity. Washing one’s hands after any meal involving sauces was a necessity for cleanliness (in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, later in this Halakhah) or for health reasons (in the opinion of the Babli). In any case, since no ritual impurity is involved, there is no required minimum volume of water and one does not have to repeat the washing..” What is: “He takes and interrupts”? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes⁶⁷Takes water and pours it over his hands. and repeats. Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac said⁶⁸In the parallel in Ḥallah it reads: “Rebbi Jacob bar Isaac asked: …” This language is somewhat easier but the reading R. Samuel bar Isaac is better; since it refers to an Amora also otherwise known, there is no reason to cross out the word “said” here. In the Rome ms., the reading is: רבי שמואל בר יצחק את מימר דבעי ואת אמרת רשות “R. Samuel bar Isaac: You say that it is needed and you say that it is conditional?”, I asked: “He takes and interrupts⁶⁹In peremptory language.” and you say it is conditional?

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said: Because of the first⁷⁰The water used for washing one’s hands before the meal. The text is given in the name of Rav Dimi in Babli Ḥulin 106a, the opinion of “some say” is ascribed there to Ravin (Rebbi Abin). The full story is in Tanḥuma Buber Balaq 24 [quoted also in Tanḥuma Balaq 15, Bemidbar rabba Balaq 2(20)]: In a time of persecution, when one could not show one’s Jewishness openly, a shopkeeper had both kosher and non-kosher food prepared. Since he could not ask his customers whether they were Jewish, he gave the kosher food to people who washed before eating bread and pig’s meat to customers who did not wash. When a man came in who did not wash his hands, he was taken for a Gentile and served non-kosher food. [For halakhic consequences of this story, see Šulḥan ‘Arukh Yore Deä 178, Note #4 of Śifte Cohen.], pork was eaten. Because of the second⁷¹The washing of one’s hands after the meal. The story is told in Babli Yoma 83b of a man who unlawfully kept a money-pouch that was deposited with him. He did not wash his hands, so the victimized person saw that he had eaten peas, went to the wife of the thief and told her that her husband wanted her to give him the pouch and as sign of recognition he told him to tell her that their last meal was peas. The wife then gave him back the money pouch. When the husband came back, he was so incensed that he killed his wife. It seems that the Yerushalmi has a first version in which the husband simply divorced his wife and in the second version he killed his wife, the intended victim, and himself. In the Yerushalmi source, Tanḥuma Buber, quoted above, the husband was not a thief, but he was the victim of a man who tricked the wife out of a precious ring by the identification of the food of his last meal., a woman had to leave her house; some say, three persons were killed.

Samuel went to visit Rav and saw him eating with his hands covered by cloth. He asked him, what is that⁷³He thought that Rav did not wash his hands and used the cloth, which cannot become impure from one’s hands, to eat bread without incurring an obligation to wash. Samuel wondered, since that subterfuge is permitted only for people who would have to walk more than four mil to the next water source. The parallel in the Babli is Ḥulin 107a.? He answered him, I am asthenic⁷⁴I washed my hands but am unable to eat without gloves.. When Rebbi Zeïra immigrated here, he saw Cohanim eating with their hands covered by cloth⁷⁵Without washing their hands.. He told them, was not that of Rav and Samuel explained away? Rebbi Yose bar bar Cahana⁷⁶In the Rome manuscript, the name is R. Yose bar Huna Cahana. Neither of these names appears a second time; it is impossible to decide between the readings. In the Babli (Ḥullin 107a/b), the name is Rav Taḥlifa bar Abime, a known student of Samuel. came in the name of Samuel: Handwashing is for profane food⁷⁷If someone wants to eat profane food “in the discipline of terumah,” he must wash his hands. While this washing is taken from the discipline of terumah, one opinion allows Cohanim to eat terumah without washing but wearing gloves since a Cohen knows that eating impure terumah is a deadly sin, so he will avoid any contact between his hands and the food. But for profane food where washing is simply a matter of discipline (although taken from the rules of terumah,) it cannot be circumvented, cf. Babli Ḥullin 106a., not for terumah. Rebbi Yose⁷⁸He seems to be the Tanna R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta.) says, for terumah and for profane food.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and Rebbi Jonah, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Handwashing for terumah is to the wrist but for profane food it is to the finger joints. Maisha, the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: If someone wanted to eat with my grandfather and he did not rinse his hands to the wrist, he would not eat with him⁷⁹The parallel is in Babli Ḥullin106a/b. Since R. Joshua ben Levi is a higher authority than Rav, practice in both Talmudim requires washing to the wrist also for profane food. The identification of פרק as wrist and קשרי אצבעות as the joint of fingers to the hand follows Raviah (R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi), not Rashi and Tosaphot in their commentaries on the Babli..

Rav Huna said: Handwashing is only for bread. Rebbi Hoshaya stated: For anything getting dirty by a fluid⁸⁰This is also reported in Babli Pesaḥim 115a to explain why at the Seder ceremony one has to wash his hands before touching the vegetable that is to be dipped in fluid. For any sacred food like terumah or the Passover sacrifice, it is obvious that one has to wash his hands before touching fluids since the secondary impurity of hands causes primary impurity for the fluid. Hence, for the Seder it is only a question whether one should pronounce a benediction, as in the times of the Temple, or whether one washes his hands as a remembrance of Temple times. Here, the question is posed for everyday food, since handwashing for profane food comes from the “discipline of terumah.” Rav is of the opinion that the Rabbinic institution of handwashing applies only to bread whereas Rebbi Hoshaya requires handwashing for profane food in all situations where it would be required for terumah. In Antiquity, in the absence of spoons most foods in sauce were scooped up with pitta bread. Hence, the real difference between Rav and R. Hoshaya was in food handling as explained by R. Zeïra.. Rebbi Zeïra said: Even when cutting lupines⁸¹They do not contain much sap., he used to wash his hands.

Rav⁸²In the Babli (Ḥullin 106b/107a), Rav is quoted as requiring an explicit declaration to make the washing of the hands valid for the entire day and Rebbi Avina seems to restrict this to desert-like conditions where water is not easily found. The latter interpretation is then rejected by the Talmud. In the Yerushalmi it seems that Rav is reported to require only one washing per day and Rebbi Avina restricts it to people like donkey drivers who cannot easily find water. Since he is the Israeli authority, it may be presumed that the Yerushalmi prefers the interpretation that is rejected in the Babli. said: If one washed his hands in the morning, one does not bother him in the evening. Rebbi Avina commanded the donkey drivers: If you find water to wash, wash your hands and condition them for the entire day.

Rebbi Zeïra went up to Rebbi Abbahu in Caesarea. When he met him he said: Come to eat. He [R. Abbahu] gave him a loaf to break and told him: Take it and recite the benediction. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The householder knows best the qualities of his loaf. After they had eaten, he [R. Abbahu] said to him: Start and recite Grace. He [R. Zeïra] said to him: The rabbi knows Rav Huna who is a great man and he used to say that he who starts is the one who finishes⁸³The parallel to this story is in the Babli, Berakhot 46a. There, the Babli adds that practice follows R. Joḥanan (in the name of R. Simeon bar Yoḥai) who declares that the head of the household should recite the benediction for the bread since he is the host but that the guest should recite Grace and add to it a public blessing for the host. Even though the two authors quoted are Israeli, it follows from the Yerushalmi here that the public blessing for the host was never accepted practice in Galilee.. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna, as it was stated⁸⁴A similar formulation is in Tosephta Berakhot 5:6 and a different one in Babli Berakhot 46b. It seems that the three texts represent three different traditions.: “The order of washing of the hands⁹⁵Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:11: “In doubtful cases involving hands to become impure, to transmit impurity, or to be pure, they are declared pure.” Hence, since the House of Shammai agree that the entire matter is one of doubt, there is no problem since the hands of the person eating remain pure.. Up to five persons, one starts with the most important personality. More than that, one starts with the least important one⁸⁶Since one cannot ask the V.I.P. to wait a long time between washing and breaking the bread. Once the hands are washed, one may not let his attention be diverted from them, otherwise he has to wash again.. In the middle of the meal one starts with the most important one⁸⁷In the Tosephta, this sentence does not refer to washing one’s hands at all, but to pouring wine. The Babli (Ḥullin 105a/b) quotes a baraita that declares washing of hands in the middle of the meal (between courses) to be voluntary; the exact halakhic meaning of this statement is in doubt.. After the meal one starts with him who will recite Grace.” Does that not mean that he may prepare himself for reciting Grace⁸⁸The Babli (46b) brings a story that Rebbi asked Rav to wash his hands first, meaning that he should recite Grace aloud for the entire company. It follows that Rebbi emphatically denies the rule of Rav Huna that, as noted earlier, was never accepted in Babylonia.? If you say that the one who starts is the one who finishes, he already is prepared! Rebbi Isaac said, explain it for those who come separately and do not know who will recite Grace.