Daf Ditty: Pesachim 86: Table Manners

Food House of Julia in Pompeii

The House of Julia Felix, also referred to as the praedia (Latin for an estate, or
land) of Julia Felix, is a large Roman property on the Via dell'Abbondanza in
the city of Pompeii.

It was originally the residence of Julia Felix, who converted portions of it to

apartments available for rent and other parts for public use after the major
earthquake in 62 AD, a precursor to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79
AD that destroyed Pompeii.

1
 On Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah 5752, the Lubavitcher Rebbe commented
on the saying of our Sages,

“One must do everything the baal ha’bayis tells him to, except leave.”

In other words, even if the true Baal HaBayis of the world, Hashem, were to
tell us to stop (praying for Moshiach), He does not really want us to, as His
true desire is that we continue to implore him for the Geula.

When two groups are eating in the same house each must face in a different direction to eat,
with the samovar between them. When the waiter comes to mix he must shut his mouth and
turn his face until he returns to his group, when he may eat. A bride turns her face away and
eats.

2
Rabbi Simcha Roth writes:1

1:
This is the last mishnah of the present chapter. It is, in fact, a kind of bridge between this chapter
and the next.

Three whole chapters have been concerned with Korban Pesach solely, and the next chapter is also
connected with it, though less directly. To us, this seems strange, maybe even obsessive. However,
if we look at the matter from the historical point of view I think we should be able to place the
matter into a perspective. When we started our study of this tractate I pointed out that the name of
the tractate should really be translated as 'Paschal Lambs'. The demise of the worship in the Bet
Mikdash was the catalyst in creating a paradigm shift in the very ethos of the Seder service.

For our ancestors the central feature of the Passover Seder service was the fulfillment of the Torah
command to eat the roast meat of a paschal lamb together with matzah and maror, according to all
its minute regulations of how, who, when, and where. For us, this major element has almost
completely disappeared: what was, for our ancestors, the central feature of their celebration is now,
for us, reduced to a symbolic 'shankbone' on the Seder dish which is referred to once in the
ceremony and never actually physically used in even the least meaningful way.

Perhaps this should be noted at the Seder service when we read the admonition of Rabban Gamli'el
concerning the Paschal Lamb (but we must wait until Chapter Ten for further elucidation).

2:
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 have been concerned with the 'how' of the slaughter of the paschal lamb in the
Bet Mikdash, with the 'when' of this ceremony (at what time on Nisan 14th and what to do when
that day falls on Shabbat and so forth), and the 'where' of its consumption (the regulations that
derive from the requirement that it be eaten 'in one house'. Chapter 8 will be concerned with the
'who': the regulations that apply to the people actually participating in this ceremony and their
manner of doing so. It is in this sense that I see our present mishnah as a bridge between the two
chapters.

3:
We have already mentioned the sever overcrowding that was a usual concomitant on the
celebration of the Seder in Temple times. Our present mishnah is concerned with the fact that it
was no uncommon occurrence for two discrete subscription groups to have to share the same
accommodation for their celebration. The Torah [Exodus 12:3-4] stipulates, as we have seen, that
people must subscribe to a particular lamb and that they may then only fulfill the mitzvah by eating
of that particular animal. Our mishnah describes what is required of two groups sharing the same
room. They must form two discrete groups, which must be physically separated by the samovar -
a utensil for dispensing hot water. The members of each group must take care to be facing in
opposite directions so that there may be no danger of their being combined in any way.

1
http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/pesachim/pes07.html

3
4:
We have often had occasion to mention that one of the customs in ancient dining was that one of
the diners serve as waiter. Perhaps wine-waiter would be a better indication. (This task was usually
performed by the eldest son in the family or a student for his rabbi and so forth.) It was this person's
task to make sure that all the diners had wine and to mix it for them. (Wine was 'neat' and had to
be diluted with water before being drunk.) From our present mishnah it seems that it was also
customary to use warmed water to dilute the wine. It seems that table manners were not the same
as those we are used to today, and our mishnah describes what a waiter must do if he is called upon
to fulfill his function which he still has his mouth full of the meat of the paschal lamb. If he is
serving the 'other' group (the one to which he personally is not subscribed) he must keep his mouth
closed - i.e. he must be careful not to chew or swallow the meat that is in his mouth while he is
serving the other group.

5:
The bride is mentioned because she is considered to be extraordinary in this context. I suppose it
is but natural that people should show an acute interest in a newly-wed. Given the rather sheltered
nature of many women in those times it could be an embarrassment for a woman to have people
looking at her while she is eating. She is thus given permission to face in the 'wrong' direction
when eating the paschal lamb - away from her own group - so as to avoid her embarrassment.

4
MISHNA: Two groups that were eating one Paschal lamb in one house need not be concerned
that they will appear to be one group. Rather, these turn their faces this way and eat, and these
turn their faces that way and eat. And it is permissible for them to have the boiler from which
they pour hot water in the middle, so that the waiter can easily serve both groups. When the
attendant who is serving both groups gets up to pour for the group of which he is not a
member, he must close his mouth and turn his face so that he does not accidentally eat with the
other group, until he reaches his group again and eats with it. And the bride, who is
embarrassed to eat in the presence of men she does not know, turns her face away from her
group and eats, although this may make it seem as though she is part of a different group.

RASHI

5
6
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It
is Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states:

,‫ְשֵׁתּי ַהְמּזוּ ֹזת‬-‫ ְוָנְתנוּ ַﬠל‬,‫ַהָדּם‬-‫ ִמן‬,‫ ז ְוָלְקחוּ‬7 And they shall take of the blood, and put it on the two
‫י ֹאְכלוּ‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ ַהָבִּתּים‬,‫ַﬠל‬--‫ַהַמְּשׁקוֹף‬-‫ ְוַﬠל‬side-posts and on the lintel, upon the houses wherein
.‫ ָבֶּהם‬,‫ֹאתוֹ‬ they shall eat it.
Ex 12:7

“Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it” This teaches that one Paschal lamb may be eaten
in two separate groups, even if the groups eat it in separate houses. I might have thought that one
person who eats from it may eat it in two separate places; therefore, the Torah states:

-‫תוִֹציא ִמן‬-‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ מו ְבַּב ִית ֶאָחד ֵיָאֵכל‬46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth
‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ַהָבָּשׂר חוָּצה; ְוֶﬠֶצם‬-‫ ַהַבּ ִית ִמן‬aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye
.‫בוֹ‬-‫ִתְשְׁבּרוּ‬ break a bone thereof.
Ex 12:46

“In one house shall it be eaten [ye’akhel]”

From here they stated that if an attendant who was registered for a Paschal lamb ate an olive-
bulk of it next to the oven in which it is being roasted, and thereby made himself into an
independent group at that location, if he is prudent he will fill his stomach with it because when
the Paschal lamb is moved to a different location he will no longer be able to eat it. And if the
members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they would
come and sit at his side. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

7
Rabbi Shimon says that the verses should be understood in the opposite manner: “Upon the
houses wherein they shall eat it” teaches that one person who eats the Paschal lamb may
eat it in two places.

I might have thought that a single Paschal lamb may be eaten in two separate groups; therefore,
the verse states: “In one house shall it be eaten.”

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi
Yehuda holds that the consonantal text of the Torah is authoritative; meaning, the primary
understanding of the verse is according to the way it is spelled. If this is the case, the verse may be
rendered: In one house shall he eat it [yokhal], referring to the person eating the Paschal lamb. This
would indicate that one eating from the Paschal lamb must eat in one location, but the verse does
not prohibit dividing the offering between multiple groups. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the
vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative. Since the word is pronounced ye’akhel, it is clear
that it is referring to the Paschal lamb itself, and the verse requires that the offering be consumed
by a single group of people (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).

(a)The Torah is written without vowelization. Also, words that are written in
some places with a "Vav" or a "Yud" may appear elsewhere without these
letters; tradition determines the spelling of the word in each place. Due to
these factors, certain words appear to be pronounced one way, but according
to tradition are vowelized otherwise. Amora'im disagree as to which meaning
- that which appears to be correct according to its spelling, or that which
appears to be correct according to the way it is pronounced - is followed when
deriving laws from the text.

Some maintain that "Yesh Em la'Masores" - the verse is interpreted based

upon the way it appears in its written state. Others are of the opinion that
"Yesh Em la'Mikra" - the verse is interpreted based upon the way that it is
read.

8
 (b)The verse states regarding the Korban Pesach, "b'Vayis Echad Ye'achel"
- "It must be eaten in one house." This clearly refers to the Pesach itself, and
we learn that it may not be eaten in two places. However, the word
appears as "Yochal" - "he may eat." According to the traditional spelling, we
see that it is one individual who may not eat in two places, but the Korban
itself may be split into two groups.

‫תוס' ד"ה ומר סבר יש אם למקרא‬

Tosfos reconciles Rebbi Shimon here with Rebbi Shimon in other places, and reconciles the
Gemara on Daf 85 with the opinion here that permits a Pesach to be eaten in two groups.

... '‫( דאית ליה 'יש אם למקרא ולמסורת‬:‫ והא שמעינן ליה לרבי שמעון בפ"ק דקדושין )דף יח‬,‫וא"ת‬

But Rebbi Shimon himself in the first Perek of Kiddushin (Daf 18:) holds both 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'
and 'Yesh Eim le'Masores' ...

?‫ דאין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות ולא לאישות אחר שפחות‬- '‫ 'בבוגדו בה‬,"‫דדריש "בבגדו בה‬

When he Darshens "be'Vigdo vah" - 'Be'Vogdo vah' - that a man may not sell his daughter as a
maidservant after she has been married, and not as a wife after she has been a maidservant?

.‫ דריש מקרא‬,‫ אבל הכא דליכא למידרש אלא חד‬,‫ דהתם לא סתרי אהדדי ויכול לדרוש שניהם‬,‫י"ל‬

There, the two D'rashos do not contradict each other, so that it is possible to Darshen them both,
whereas here, where it is only possible to Darshen one of them, he Darshens Mikra.

.(.‫וכן בפ"ק דסנהדרין )דף ד‬

And the same applies to the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 4. [where Rebbi Shimon holds 'Yesh aim
le'Mikra').

‫ אתי אפילו למאן דאמר פסח נאכל‬,'‫ הרי הוא בלא תעשה‬,‫( 'המוציא בשר פסח מחבורה לחבורה‬.‫והא דאמר לעיל )דף פה‬
... ‫בשתי חבורות‬

And what the Gemara said earlier (Daf 85.) 'Someone who takes the Basar of a Pesach from one
group to another, transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh' goes even according to the opinion that permits a Pesach
to be eaten in two groups ...

.‫ אסור להוציא חלק חבורה זו לחבורה אחרת‬,‫דאחר שנחלק ולקחו כל חבורה חלקה‬

Because once they have split up, and each group has taken its portion, it is forbidden to take the
portion of one group to the location of the other group.

9
In this regard, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, happened to come to the
house of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. They said to him: What is your name? He said to
them: Rav Huna, even though using his title appeared to show conceit. They said: Our master
may sit on the bed due to his great stature. He sat immediately, despite the fact that common
etiquette dictated that he initially refuse. They gave him a cup of wine that he accepted the first
time, without initially refusing it. And he drank it in two sips and did not turn his face from
the rest of the people who were present.

These actions all appeared to be departures from the common etiquette and surprised his hosts,
who said to him: What is the reason you call yourself Rav Huna? He said to them: I
am known by that name since my youth, and therefore referring to myself with that title does not
indicate conceit. They asked him: What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the bed,
you sat immediately and did not initially refuse?

He said to them: We have learned that anything the master of the house says to you, you
should do, except for an inappropriate request, such as if he says to leave.

RASHI

10
Summary
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2
Groups Eating the Pesach

The Mishna says that if two groups were eating a Pesach in the same house, each group simply
faces away from the other and eats, even with a kettle in between them.

When the waiter goes to serve the other group, he keeps his mouth closed and faces his group,
until he returns to them. A new bride turns away and eats.

The Gemora says that this Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemora cites a braisa in which
Rabbi Yehuda says that the verse which refers to the houses in which they will eat them [the
Pesach] teaches that one Pesach can be eaten in separate groups, while the verse which states that
it must be eaten in one house teaches that any one individual may only eat it in one place.
Therefore, if a waiter ate a kazayis of the Pesach next to the oven, he would be smart to fill himself
up right there, and if the group was nice to him, they would join him there.

Rabbi Shimon says that the verse which refers to the houses teaches that an individual may eat the
Pesach in more than one place, while the verse which refers to one house teaches that it may not
be eaten in more than one group. The Gemora explains that their dispute depends on the way one
explains a word which is can be read one way, based on the letters, but is read a different way,
with its given vowels. Rabbi Yehuda says that we follow the letters, and therefore the word
ye’achel – will be eaten in the verse about one house can be read as yochal – he will eat, mandating
that each person only eat it in one location. Rabbi Shimon says that we follow the given vowels,
and we therefore understand the verse to refer to the Pesach itself, mandating that it be eaten in
one place, i.e., group.

Adding or Removing a Barrier

The Gemora explains that if one group was eating the Pesach, and a barrier was place in the middle
of them, Rabbi Yehuda would say they may continue eating, while Rabbi Shimon would say they
cannot. If two groups were eating, separated by a barrier, and the barrier was removed, Rabbi
Yehuda would say they may not continue eating, as they are now in a new place, while Rabbi
Shimon would say they may, as the Pesach is in the same place. Rav Kahana stated this without
doubt, but Rav Ashi said that he should ask whether removing and making a barrier makes two
groups or not. Rav Ashi leaves this an unresolved taiku.

Table Etiquette

Rav Chiya bar Abba quotes Rabbi Yochanan explaining that the new bride turns her face away
when she eats, since she’s embarrassed. Rav Huna the son of Rav Nasan went to Rav Nachman

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Pesachim_86.pdf

11
bar Yitzchak’s house. When they asked him his name, he said it was Rav Huna. They told him to
sit on the bed, a place for notables, and he did so. They gave him a cup, and he took it right away,
and drank it in two sips, without turning away. They asked him why he gave his name including
his title, and he explained that his name has always been Rav Huna, even when he was a child.
They asked him why he sat on the bed, and he said that one must listen to whatever the head of the
house commands one to do. They asked him why he accepted the cup right away, and he explained
that one refuses a simple person, but not someone important. They asked him why he took two
sips for the cup, and he cited a braisa which discusses drinking behavior. It says that one sip is the
way of a glutton, two sips the polite way, and three sips a haughty way. They asked him why he
didn’t turn away, and he said that the Mishna only says that a bride turns away, implying that there
is no need for others to.

Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yossi went to Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi Yossi ben
Lakunia’s house. They gave him a cup of wine, and he accepted it right way, and drank it in one
sip. They asked him if he didn’t accept the braisa which says that drinking in one sip is gluttonous,
and he answered that this doesn’t apply here, as the cup is small, the wine is sweet, and he is large.
Rav Huna says that a group can request a waiter one they are three, but then each individual can
leave separately, even though the waiter now has less than three to wait on. Rabbah says this is
only if they enter and exit during the regular mealtime, and if they notified the waiter that they will
eat this way. Ravina says that they must pay the waiter appropriately, and the last one must pay
most, but the Gemora says we don’t rule like this.

Do Everything Your Host Asks - Except for “Leave”

This well-known saying finds its source in our Gemara, but what does it really mean? Should we
interpret it at face value, that a guest should be so audacious as to refuse to leave? In our version
of the Gemara the words “except for leave” are written in parentheses, implying that they are not
accurate to the original text of the Gemara. The Meiri writes that they were inserted by a prankster
who sought to mock the Gemara’s words.

‫ א"צ‬: The version cited in Ein Yaakov includes the words “except for leave.” The Zohar (Pinchas,
p. 244) also quotes this saying, including these puzzling words. Therefore, various explanations
have been offered to make sense of them.

One explanation is that “leave” in Hebrew is ‫צא‬. Here, an apostrophe should be added between the
letters, implying that it is an acronym for ‫איסור צד‬, which means “element of the forbidden.” That
is to say, good manners require us to fulfill all our host’s requests, unless he asks us to violate
halacha (see Gan Yosef p. 104; Ben Yehoyada here).

Leave on an errand:

Other commentaries explain the word ‫ צא‬according to its simple meaning, and offer various
interpretations. The Bach (O.C. 170) explains that a guest is expected to help his host by
performing various chores around the house. However, he need not leave the house to run an errand
for his host. Since he is a stranger in the area, it is not fair to expect him to find his way among
unfamiliar streets.

12
The Maharsham (Daas Torah on Shulchan Aruch ibid) cites his father’s explanation based on a
subsequent sugya (99b), where we find that when a group has joined together to share a Korban
Pesach, they cannot always tell one member to take his portion of the korban and eat it elsewhere.
A guest who had already agreed to take part in his host’s Korban Pesach should not leave the group
after the Pesach has been shechted.

The Sefas Emes (here) explains based on the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, wherein a host
embarrassed his guest by forcing him to leave. The offended guest then slandered the Jews to the
Roman authorities, and this eventually led to the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. As a response
to this terrible event, the Sages instituted a ruling that once a guest has entered someone’s home,
one may not force him to leave.

Fights with the landlord:

Perhaps most surprisingly, some interpret this Gemara according to face value that one should not
leave at his host’s command. Elsewhere, (Erchin 16b) the Gemara tells us that a tenant should not
leave until his landlord hits him or throws out his belongings. Tenants and landlords can enter into
heated disputes, and a landlord may get so upset that he threatens to evict his tenant. However, a
tenant should not be so quick to take the landlord’s threats seriously. When a person is forced to
leave his apartment, both the tenant and his landlord could get a bad reputation. People will think
that they do not know how to interact peacefully.

Until the landlord gets physically violent, a tenant should choose to stay. The Drisha (O.C. 170:3)
and Mateh Moshe (290) apply this explanation to our sugya, and their opinion is cited as halacha
by the Magen Avraham (O.C. 170 s.k. 10) and Aruch HaShulchan (ibid, 8).

Teshuva is always accepted:

We conclude with the explanation of the Reishis Chochma (Shaar HaKedusha ch. 16), cited by the
Shlah and others. A person may feel so depressed over his many sins that he is doubtful whether
Hashem will ever accept his teshuva. After the Sage Elisha ben Avuya left the path of Torah
observance, a Bas Kol emanated from the Heavens proclaiming, “Return, wayward children –
except for Acher [Elisha]” (Chagiga 15a). Elisha was told that his teshuva would not be accepted.
However, this was only a test from Heaven. Elisha was meant to ignore the Bas Kol, and return
nonetheless. We are all guests in Hashem’s world. Even if our Host tells us to leave His service,
we must not listen. Teshuva is always effective, even for the most terrible sins.

Guzzling a Drink

The braisa states that if a person guzzles down a drink he is considered a “drinker,” if he finishes
in two sips it is considered good manners, while three sips is considered haughty.

13
The Rema (Orach Chaim 170:8) qualifies the braisa and puts it into perspective. He explains that
if the cup is a small cup which contains less than a revi’is (i.e. a shot glass), there is no problem
drinking it in one sip. Additionally, if one has a very big cup, there is no problem to drink it in
three or four sips.

The Mishnah Berura (170:20) quotes the Magen Avraham as saying that there is a fourth stage. If
someone drinks a cup in one gulp but leaves even a small amount of drink in it, he is not considered
a “drinker.” However, this is also not considered positively good manners (rather it is a neutral
act).

The Mishna Berura continues (170:22) to say that the Rema’s law regarding a small cup less than
a revi’is is only regarding a regular person and wine. However, if a person is a big person or the
wine is sweet, even more is permitted. The Mishna Berura concludes that certainly our beer that
is not very strong can be drunk in one gulp even if it is more than a revi’is. However, he does not
say how much more one could drink at one time.

EVERYTHING THE HOST TELLS YOU TO DO, YOU MUST DO

Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nasan visited the home of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. The hosts told Rav
Huna to recline, and he did so. When they asked him why he reclined, he answered, "Everything
the host tells you to do, you must do, except for 'leave' (Chutz mi'Tzei)."

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

What does "Chutz mi'Tzei" mean? If the host tells his guest to leave, why should the guest not
listen to him?

It is certainly indecorous to remain in someone's home when requested to leave. (In fact,
the ME'IRI writes that some "Letzanim" (jokers) added this phrase to the Gemara, and it should
be omitted).
MAGEN AVRAHAM cites the BACH who says that a guest does not have to comply with his
host's word when his host tells him to go to the market to buy something for him. The host does
not have the prerogative to send his guest out of the house to do errands for him.

MAHARSHA adds that a guest is required to listen to his host only inside of the host's home,
where the owner of the house serves in the capacity as host. Once the host asks his guest to go out
of the house and do things for him, he is no longer the host.

(SEFAS EMES says that perhaps this phrase was added to the Gemara because of the incident of
"Kamtza and Bar Kamtza" (Gittin 56b).

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-086.htm

14
Bar Kamtza suffered immense embarrassment when the host insisted that he leave his home, and
he took vicious revenge which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. After
the Churban, the Chachamim added to the dictum, "Everything the host tells you to do, you must
do," the condition "except for 'leave'." If the host attempts to embarrass the guest and insists that
the guest do something humiliating, the guest does not have to listen to him.

Some explain that this dictum alludes to one's service of Hashem. The Gemara in Chagiga (15a)
relates that after Elisha ben Avuya, also known as "Acher," turned from the path of Hash-m, he
heard a heavenly message proclaim, "Return in repentance, wayward children -- except for
Acher!" When he heard this, he despaired of doing Teshuvah and he became a sinner. He should
not have listened to the heavenly message, because the gates of Teshuvah are never closed to
anyone. The statement, "Everything the host tells you to do, you must do, except for 'leave'," means
that whatever the Ba'al ha'Bayis -- Hashem -- tells you to do, you must do, except for "leave."

If one hears a heavenly message proclaim that he must leave the service of Hashem because his
Teshuvah will not be accepted, he must not listen, because Hashem always accepts a person's
Teshuvah. (REISHIS CHOCHMAH)

Turning Away from the Group

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4
As we have learned before, in preparation for the korban Pesah individuals or families needed to
join together in groups to bring and subsequently eat the sacrifice. Once established, two groups
are not allowed to join together, nor can an individual switch from one group to another.

Mishna: Two groups that were eating one Paschal lamb in one house need not be concerned that
they will appear to be one group. Rather, these turn their faces this way and eat, and these turn
their faces that way and eat…And the bride, who is embarrassed to eat in the presence of men
she does not know, turns her face away from her group and eats, although this may make it seem
as though she is part of a different group.

With that halakha as a springboard, the Gemara tells a story about Rav Huna the son of Rav
Natan who visited Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak and behaved in what appeared to be an uncouth
manner –
He agreed to sit immediately without first offering a polite refusal
He accepted a cup of wine, again without an initial polite refusal
He drank it in just two sips.

He looked directly at his hosts without diverting his gaze.

4
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim86/

15
When asked how he could behave so poorly, and still call himself a Rabbi, he explained each of
his actions based on a statement from the Talmud.

The Sages teach:

You should do whatever the host tells you to do, unless he commands you tzei (leave).
While it is appropriate to decline an offer made by someone of little stature, you should accept
what someone of high stature offers you.
Someone who drinks a cup in one gulp is a guzzler; it is appropriate to drink in two swallows;
three sips shows that you are haughty.
A bride turns away from the other guests; others do not.

The first comment, that you should listen to what your host commands, ends with an odd statement
“unless he commands you – tzei,” to the extent that the Meiri argues that they do not belong in the
Gemara and should be removed.

Most commentaries do find explanations, however.

The Perisha argues that this means that if the host asks you to leave, you are not obligated to do so
right away if it will be embarrassing to you.

The Magen Avraham explains that you are supposed to listen to your host unless he asks you to
do something that would necessitate leaving the house.

According to the Maharsha, once the host asks you to leave, you are no longer his guest and do
not need to listen to him any longer.

Some see the word tzei as an abbreviation. The letters tzadi – alefmight stand for:

Tzad issur – unless you are asked to do something that might be forbidden.
Tzeduki-Apikores – unless the host is someone who denies theTorah
Tzarhei Ishto – unless you are asked to involve yourself in matters pertaining to the wife of your
host.

16
One who drinks his cup down in one gulp is a guzzler, two sips is the proper way, and three1 is a
haughty person, etc. When your cup is small (2), the wine is sweet, and your stomach is large there
is no problem to drink it down in one gulp.5

The Malbushei Yom Tov (3) points out that it seems from our Gemara that one would need all
three of the above conditions in order to drink something down in one gulp. He points out that it
is not so common to find such a scenario. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch makes no mention of these
criteria and forbids one to drink down his cup in one gulp (unless the cup is very small (4). He also
says that one may not drink his cup in three sips (unless the cup is unusually large (5).

However, the Magen Avrohom (6) explains that each one (7) of the three criteria listed in our
Gemara can be used independently. That is, if the cup is less than a revi’is or the wine is sweet or
one has a large stomach, one can drink his cup down in one shot. This is because the amount of
drink changes based on its sweetness and based on the intake capacity of the drinker.

The Mishna Berura (8) and other Poskim concur with the Magen Avrohom. Therefore, when one
drinks strong brandy (9), even less than a revi’is, one should be careful not to drink it down in one
shot, unless it is a very small cup or he leaves a little (10) at the bottom of the glass, otherwise it
would be considered “guzzling.” Based on this reasoning one would therefore even be permitted
to take up to 4/5 sips11 on such a drink.

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20086.pdf

17
Do whatever the master of the house says, except when he says to leave…

The Shelah HaKadosh taught that Hashem is the Master of the house that is the Universe, and even
if it seems as though He is driving us away, even if it seems as though we will be denied our
heavenly reward, we must persevere and continue to serve Him.

A wealthy, childless couple from Berlin heard about the famous Baal Shem Tov, zt”l, and decided
to travel all the way to the Ukraine to seek his blessing. By the time they got there, he had already
set out on his attempt to reach the Holy Land. In hot pursuit, they just missed him at each stop,
even at the port of Odessa, and only caught up with him Erev Pesach in Istanbul.

Right after ma’ariv, the tzaddik went straight to the couple’s hotel room, where he immediately
began the seder just like always. About halfway through, he suddenly turned to the husband and
said, “I know why you’ve come, and your prayers are answered.” As soon as he uttered the words,
his soul ascended on a meditative journey while the other people at the table sat wonder-struck.

While in this trance, the Baal Shem Tov exclaimed, “If so, I will serve Hashem even without olam
ha’bah!” and a look of pure joy radiated from his shining face. Then he awoke.

He told the couple: “When I blessed you, powerful accusations were made against me in heaven—
you are both completely infertile, and my words meant that the natural order would have to be
changed. It was decided that I would have to sacrifice my heavenly reward. I said, “If so, I will
serve Him anyway!” I rejoiced to finally be able to serve God without any ulterior motive. When
the heavenly court saw my willingness, my reward was restored, and you will also be blessed with
children. Now you understand why I was so happy!”

Sara Ronis writes:6

Modern Western social etiquette tells us that thoughtful dinner guests bring a gift, wait for the host
to lift a fork before digging in and compliment the cook. Is that what the rabbis of the Talmud
thought you should do? Let’s find out:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, came to the house of Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak. They said to
him: What is your name? He said to them: Rav Huna. They said: Our master may sit on the
bed. He sat. They gave him a cup of wine that he accepted the first time (without initially
refusing it). And he drank it in two sips and did not turn his face from the rest of the people
who were present (as would have apparently been polite).

6
Myjewishlearning.com

18
At first glance, everything that Rav Huna does seems rude: insisting on his title, not politely
declining the offer to sit on someone’s bed and drinking his wine in two gulps while maintaining
eye contact with his hosts. What is Rav Huna doing?! In what is apparently not a break with
etiquette (or, perhaps, just a rabbinic device) his hosts ask their guest to explain himself:

They said to him: What is the reason you call yourself Rav Huna?
He said to them: I am known by that name.

Rav Huna explains that he has put in the time and effort to become not just Huna but Rav Huna.
Using the title is not arrogant, just a reflection of his true identity. An effort to be straightforward
and polite is what motivates his next actions as well:

They asked him: What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the bed, you sat
(immediately and did not initially refuse)? He said to them: We have learned that anything
the master of the house says to you, you should do, except for an inappropriate request, such
as if he says to leave.

What is the reason that when they gave you the cup, you accepted it the first time (and did
not politely demur)? He said to them: One may refuse a lesser person, but one may not refuse
a great person.

Rav Huna explains that it is his great respect for Rav Nahman bar Yitzchak, both as his host and
as a sage (his elder, as well), that led him to obey the host’s requests.

What is the reason you drank it in two sips? He said to them: As it was taught: One who
drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler; drinking it in two sips is proper manners; one who
drinks his cup in three sips is haughty.

What is the reason you did not turn your face? He said to them: We learned in
the mishnah that a bride turns her face.

Rav Huna thus explains that he is familiar both with social etiquette and with rabbinic teachings
— when the mishnah states that a bride must turn her face to drink (presumably out of some kind
of modesty), this suggests that only a bride should turn her face. In citing the mishnah, Rav Huna
demonstrates that he understands that the rabbis’ social etiquette might be slightly different from
common etiquette — but as a rabbi eating at another rabbi’s home, he must follow rabbinic
etiquette, even when it contradicts the norm.

Though we aren’t likely to be deciding whether it is rude to accept an invitation to sit on someone’s
bed or precisely counting our sips of wine, Rav Huna’s lesson is salient: all etiquette is nuanced
and relative — it depends on the host and guest, and no rule applies universally.
And though the Talmud doesn’t say anything about it, I would add: don’t forget to bring a gift!

Halachic Table Manners

19
Rabbi Avraham Rosenthal writes:7

The dictionary informs us that "manners" are a form of proper behavior. And there are manners
for just about everything. But somehow, when it comes to "table manners," the list of "do's and
don’ts" seems to be endless.

Halachic literature also has a list of "table manners." It is interesting that when Rabbeinu Yaakov
ben Asher, commonly known as the Baal Haturim, organized the halachos of the Gemara and early
Rishonim, he chose to include an entire chapter that deals exclusively with how a person should
conduct himself while eating.

No Talking Please

The Gemara (Taanis 5b) relates that two of the great Sages, Rav Nachman and Rebbi Yitzchok,
were dining together, and Rav Nachman asked Rebbi Yitzchok to relate some words of Torah.
Rebbi Yitzchok responded that one does not speak during the meal, out of concern that the food
will enter the trachea, endangering the person’s life.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 170:1) cites this ruling as the very first halachah concerning
how a person should conduct himself during a meal. Seemingly, to add emphasis to the severity
of the prohibition, he writes that one is not even allowed to respond "asuta" (the Aramaic version
of "Gesundheit") during the meal if someone sneezes. Although there is a view that maintains that
this prohibition is in effect throughout the entire meal (Prishah 170:1), most Acharonim hold that
one is allowed to speak between courses (Aruch Hashulchan 170:1; Mishnah Berurah 170:1).

Numerous Acharonim are troubled by the fact that, although this prohibition is based on the
Gemara and is cited as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch, people are not careful about it, and, in the
words of the Chida, "We see that the elder rabbonim are not particular about this." To explain why
people are not careful about this observance, the Acharonim point to the words of the Prishah
(170:1) who writes that this prohibition was in effect only during the time of Chazal. In their time,
the custom was to eat while reclining on the left side. That particular position increased the
likelihood of food entering the trachea if one spoke while eating.

Nowadays, however, this precaution is no longer relevant, as we eat in an upright position. In

addition, the Acharonim note the passage of Gemara (Shabbos 129b) that when it is common
practice to do something dangerous, one can rely on the dictum, "Hashem protects fools" (Tehillim
116:6) 8

It should be noted that at least two of the great poskim write explicitly that there is no difference
between our time and the time of Chazal, and that it is forbidden nowadays to speak during the

7
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/32703
8
see Birkei Yosef 170:1; Sha’arei Teshuvah 170:1; Elyah Rabbah 170:1

20
meal (Pri Megadim #170, Eishel Avraham #1; Aruch Hashulchan 170:2). Additionally, the
Maharsham, basing himself on the words of the Beis Yosef elsewhere, writes that a talmid
chochom is not allowed to speak during the meal, as he cannot rely on the dictum, "Hashem
protects fools" (Da’as Torah 170).

Permissible Situations

Even according to the stringent opinion that nowadays one should refrain from talking while
eating, the Acharonim mention some situations where it is permissible to do so. These include:

1) If one who is eating sees someone about to do something that is forbidden, he may warn him.
This ruling teaches something surprising. There is a well-known Talmudic dictum, chamira
sakanta mei’isura, that something dangerous should be treated more seriously than something
which is forbidden (see Chulin 9a-10a). Based on this rule, one who is eating should not be allowed
to tell someone about to transgress to desist, as the one eating is placing himself in danger.
Nevertheless, the Acharonim rule that it is permitted.9

2) The halachah is that if one inadvertently began eating without first reciting a bracha, if the food
will become disgusting if one spits it out, he should move the food to one side of the mouth and
recite the bracha (Shulchan Aruch 172:2). We see that this is not considered talking while eating.
Based on this, some poskim suggest that, where necessary, one is allowed to move the food to one
side of the mouth and then speak (Badei Hashulchan 39:3).

Torah Learning during the Meal

Having discussed the law about talking while eating, let us now discuss the importance of learning
Torah during the meal. The source for this concept is a Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (3:3) that states:
"Rebbi Shimon says: Three people who ate at the same table and did not speak words of Torah, it
is as if they had eaten from offerings to the dead (idols), as it says: ‘For all tables are full of vomit
and filth without the Omnipresent’ (Yeshayahu 28:8). But three people who ate at the same table
and did speak words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten from the table of the Omnipresent, as it
says: ‘And he said to me, this is the table that is before Hashem’ (Yechezkeil 41:22)."

At least two of the commentators on the Mishnah maintain that one can fulfill the obligation of
learning Torah at a meal simply by reciting birkas hamazon (see Rashi and Rabbeinu Ovadiyah
Mibartenura). However, some are bothered by this approach, as it is obvious that when Rebbi
Shimon formulated this ruling, he was speaking to people who recite birkas hamazon. If so,
everyone who eats a meal automatically fulfills this requirement, and there is no need to tell us to
do so (Tosafos Yom Tov). Indeed, the Mishnah Berurah (170:1) cites the view of the Shelah that
one should study something – such as a Mishnah, halachah, some aggadata or mussar, and that one
does not fulfill this obligation through birkas hamazon.

9
Pri Megadim 170, Eishel Avraham #1

21
The Mishnah Berurah, quoting the Chayei Adom, mentions that one should recite the chapter of
Tehillim (#23), "Hashem ro’i lo echsor, which are words of Torah as well as a tefillah for
sustenance. The Aruch Hashulchan (170:1) writes that lechatchilah one should learn divrei Torah
during the meal, and b’Di’eved, he can fulfill this obligation by reciting "Al naharos Bavel" or
"Shir hamaalos" prior to bentching. In order to fulfill the obligation of speaking divrei Torah at the
meal, some have a custom of saying, "Mayim acharonim chovah" – "mayim acharonim are
obligatory," before washing mayim acharonim (Ben Ish Chai, Shelach I, #7).

Although it would seem from the words of the Mishnah that there is an obligation to learn Torah
only when a minimum of three people eat together, according to many sources, even an individual
must do so.

The Likutei Maharich (Seder Hanhagas Haseudah, s.v. divrei Torah), citing Shaarei Kedushah,
notes that there is a disagreement on this matter between the Midrash and the Zohar, and that one
should be stringent. The Mishnah Berurah (170:1) writes that "there is a mitzvah for each person
to study Torah at the table," indicating that an individual is also obligated.

Staring is Impolite
In order to understand the next halachah, we need to discuss some halachos relevant to orlah.
During the first three years after a tree or a grape vine has been planted, we are forbidden to eat or
benefit from its fruits, as they are considered orlah. Fruits that grow after the third year are
permitted.

The Mishnah (Orlah 1:5) discusses a situation where an "old," meaning more than three years old,
vine was grafted on to a "young" vine, younger than three years old, and obligated in orlah. Rebbi
Meir rules that if the plant draws its nourishment from the older vine, orlah does not apply, but if
the sustenance is coming from the younger vine, the fruits are forbidden.
The Gemara Yerushalmi (Orlah 1:3) gives us an indication how we are to know from which plant
the fruits are drawing nourishment. If the leaves are facing the older vine, it is drawing sustenance
from the younger vine, while if the leaves face the younger vine, the nourishment is coming from
the older one. The Gemara then says that this is similar to the concept that a guest is embarrassed
to look at the face of his host and turns away while eating.

Based on this Yerushalmi, the Rambam (Hilchos Brachos 7:6) writes that when someone is eating,
one should not look at him or at his food, so as not to embarrass him (Mor Uketzi’a #170). The
Shulchan Aruch (170:4) cites the words of the Rambam. The Acharonim argue under which
circumstances this halachah is said. Some maintain that since it is derived from the Yerushalmi
mentioned above, it is forbidden to look only at a guest who is eating. Since the guest is receiving
the food gratis, he is more likely to be embarrassed (see Mor Uketzi’a ad locum; Aruch Hashulchan
170:7). Others contend that since the Rambam did not make any distinctions between guests and
other people, it is always forbidden to look at someone while he is eating (Toras Chayim [Rav
Yaakov Shalom Sofer of Pest] 170:6).

Some maintain that to observe a tzaddik or a talmid chochom eating is permissible. This is because

22
the intention of the onlooker is not to embarrass but rather to show honor and deference, as well
as to fulfill the mitzvah of clinging to talmidei chachomim (Mishnah Halachah #170).

Do What You’re Told

Our Daf (Pesachim 86b; see also Derech Eretz Rabbah 6:1) relates that Rav Huna was a guest in
the house of Rav Nachman. When he entered, they instructed him to sit on a bed, and he did so.
(The story continues, but we will focus on what is germane to our topic.) Afterwards, Rav
Nachman asked him why he readily sat on the bed, something that was considered an act of
haughtiness, when he could have instead opted to sit on a bench. Rav Huna replied that he was
fulfilling the dictum of "kol mah sheyomar lecha baal habayis aseih" – "whatever the host says to
do, do."

Tosafos (ad locum, s.v. ein) points out that we see from this Gemara that even if one’s host tells
him to do something which smacks of haughtiness and he would normally not behave in such a
way, nevertheless, he should do as he is told. Indeed, the Mishnah Berurah 170:16) cites this
opinion as halachah lema’aseh. It should be noted that there is a disagreement among the poskim
whether the guest should comply immediately (Birkei Yosef 170:8; Sha’arei Teshuvah 170:6) or
whether he is allowed to decline at first until the host insists (Magen Avraham 170:10).
The Shulchan Aruch (170:5) cites the above-mentioned Gemara and writes: "One who enters a
house, whatever the host tells him to do, he should do." The Levush (ad locum) explains the reason
behind this idea by citing a pasuk from Megillas Ester (1:22): "Each person should rule in his
house." In other words, derech eretz, or etiquette, demands that the word of the host is law.
It is interesting to note that the Acharonim place numerous limitations on this halachah. For
example:

1) The Mishnah Berurah (170:16) writes that if the guest has a particular chumrah which is based
upon a concern that he might transgress a prohibition, he is not required to forgo this stringency in
order to accommodate his host. However, if the guest has a practice where he refrains from a
particular action or food in order to act with prishus, asceticism, he should hide his stringencies
from others.

2) The dictum of following the instructions of the host applies to everything but eating and
drinking. In other words, if a person is uninterested in eating and is concerned that if he does eat,
it will affect his health, he does not have to do so, even if the host insists that he eat (Mishnah
Berurah 170:17).

3) Even if one is invited to eat at someone’s home, if the guest suspects that the host does not have
sufficient funds to feed his family, it is forbidden to eat there, as it borders on thievery (Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch 42:18). If a person is caught in such a situation, he should try and give some
excuse why he cannot eat. It is reported that great tzaddikim, when finding themselves in similar
situations, would say, "The doctor told me not to eat this," having in mind that the "doctor" is the
Rambam (see Piskei Teshuvos #170, footnote #45).

Aside from Leaving

23
Earlier, we quoted a Gemara (Pesachim 86) which states: "Kol mah sheyomar lecha baal habayis
aseih" – "whatever the host says to do, do." Some texts add two words to the conclusion of this
quote: "chutz mi’tzei" – "aside from ‘leave.’" According to these texts, the Gemara’s dictum is
that a person must always listen to his host, unless the host tells him to leave. It should be noted
that, according to numerous views in the Rishonim and Acharonim, these words do not belong in
the Gemara at all. The Maharsha (ad locum, Chiddushei Aggados) opines that the suggestion
implied by this text is halachically incorrect, for if the host insists that his guest leaves, how can
the guest continue staying there without permission? The Meiri (ad locum) writes that these words
were "added by some scoffers."

Be that as it may, many Acharonim discuss this alternative text and provide numerous approaches
to understand it. Since some of the explanations have practical halachic ramifications, we will
briefly present two of them.

1) The Bach (Orach Chaim 170) explains that whenever a host asks his guest to help him with
some type of work in the house, the guest is obliged to do so. However, if the host asks him to "go
out" and do something for him outside, e.g., to pick up something from the store, the guest is not
required to oblige.

2) The Sfas Emes (Pesachim 86b) explains that Chazal’s original dictum was simply "kol mah
sheyomar lecha baal habayis aseih," and according to this, if the host told the guest to leave, he
was required to do so. However, after the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, where, due to Bar
Kamtza’s embarrassment over being forced to leave the meal, the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed,
Chazal added to the rule and said that if the guest would be embarrassed, he does not have listen
to the host.

Learning from Avraham Avinu

The Acharonim (see Magen Avraham 170:10) cite a Gemara (Arachin 16b) that states: "A person
should not change his place of lodgings." In other words, if a person was a guest in a city and he
ate and slept in the home of a particular family, when he revisits that city, he should return to the
original host. The Gemara derives this from Avraham Avinu. The pasuk tells us that upon returning
to Eretz Canaan from Mitzrayim, "Vayeilech lemasa’av" – "he went to his travels." Chazal
understand that on his return trip he stayed in the same inns where he stayed when traveling
towards Mitzrayim.

Although most of the Gemara is beyond the scope of this article, it can be said that a person must
make every effort to try and heed this dictum, even if it means some inconvenience. The reason
for this, explains the Gemara, is because, by not doing so, people will think badly of both the host
and the guest. They will think the reason why the guest is staying elsewhere is because the host
did not fulfill the mitzvah of hachnosas orchim properly. And they will think badly of the guest,
because his actions indicate that he does not get along with other people.

24
Based on this, if the guest has a legitimate excuse not to stay in the home of his original host, he
is allowed to seek other lodgings. For example: Yehudah arrives from out-of-town to attend the
wedding of Levi’s son, and Levi graciously invites Yehudah to sleep and eat in his home. During
Yehudah’s next trip to that city to participate in the wedding of Naftali’s daughter, he may stay in
Naftali’s house and does not have to stay with Levi. This is because everyone realizes why
Yehudah is changing his place of lodging. Similarly, if the original host is unable to have guests,
the guest is permitted to find another place to stay (Ahaleich Ba’amitecha [Rav Betzalel Stern]
chapter #25).

Torah is Primary

Concerning learning words of Torah during the meal, the Chassid Yaavetz (Avos 3:4) writes as
follows: "It is a great obligation, for the time of eating is a test and an indicator whether one loves
Torah or not. This can be compared to a person who has a son in a distant land and at the time of
his joy, he remembers him, as it is written (Tehillim 137:6): ‘If I fail to elevate Yerushalayim above
the foremost of my joys.’ Therefore, at the time of eating when a person is happy, if he remembers
the Torah, it is recognizable that its love is bound to his heart… A person should make the Torah
primary and eating secondary. People do the opposite, as their joy is only when they attain a ‘sea
of pleasures,’ and they are depressed and distressed when they do not attain them… It is fitting
for a person to rejoice only with fear of Hashem, which is the purpose for which we were
created…"

The Sfas Emes Refuses To Be Sent Out10

The Sfas Emes rarely took any trips as he was a great masmid and preferred
to stay put and learn. Any small trip he took was a great occasion to his
Chasidim. One time he traveled to nearby Warsaw which was not far from
his hometown Gur. When he arrived, a large gathering was waiting for him
and his host prepared a lavish Kiddush for the occasion.

The Sfas Emes said that he does not want to attend such a reception. The
host argued that Chazal tell us "Kol SheOmer Licha Baal HaBayis Aseh
Chutz MiTzei", whatever the host instructs you to do you must do except if
he asks you to leave. Therefore, said the host, the Rebbe is halachically
bound to attend.

The Sfas Emes replied that the word "Tzei" has another connotation beyond
leaving the immediate premises.

10
Chaim SheYesh Bahem - Aish Tamid: http://revach.net/stories/gadlus/The-Sfas-Emes-Refuses-To-Be-Sent-Out/4281

25
 The Mishna in Pirkei Avos (4:28) says that three things take a person out of
the world, Kinah, Taava, Kavod. Since honor will take a person out of the
world and anything that will cause a person to "go out" he need not listen to
the Baal HaBayis, therefore the Sfas Emes need not listen to the host and
indulge in this honor.

Jewish Table Etiquette a la Soloveitchik

Rav Ezra Bick writes:11

Everybody eats, every day. It is true that there are occasional special meals, banquets, and feasts;
but basically eating is viewed as an essential, and therefore not particularly meaningful, act. It is
universal to all living things, and, from the usual religious point of view, too hopelessly bound up
with the body, with physical impulses and mundane desires, to have significant spiritual potential.
And yet, eating is riveted with halakhic directives. Not only are all holidays marked by special
feasts, not only was the ancient Temple ritual bound up with the eating of the sacrifices, but even
the daily act of consumption is filled with laws and prayers. Experientially, although it soon
becomes second nature, the halakhic form of eating is one of the most basic underlying marks of
a halakhic Jew, and is in fact practically the first thing taught to the little child.

As an introduction, I would first like to present part of a lecture given by my master and teacher,
the Rav zt"l, Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik, some twenty-five years ago ("Structural
Patterns and Ethical Motifs of the Haggada;" adapted from notes by Ezra Bick).

"A meal ("seuda") in Halakha is more than eating. The Halakha formulated many rules of how and
when, an etiquette and an ethic of seuda. At the root of seuda lies a problem which troubled the
Sages as well as the ancient Stoics and Cynics. Eating is a physiological process, in response to an
elementary irresistible drive. There is nothing human about pursuing food. Many of the Stoics
reached the conclusion that eating is a disgraceful necessity, a necessary evil. It is a carnal, brute
action; and many Stoics therefore would take their meals in solitude, ashamed to be seen eating in

11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/jewish-table-etiquette

26
public. The twin conclusions which arise from this premise are either radical asceticism or
hedonism. Judaism also dealt with this problem. It is true that beasts also eat, but this universality
of eating does not mean that man and beast must eat alike. Man can raise, or liberate, eating into a
free and spontaneous act. There are two distinctions between man and beast. The beast eats alone
- each one eats for himself. Secondly, the beast cannot withdraw from its prey once it begins eating.
Man must overcome these two characteristics and elevate eating to the heights of seuda.

"Modern society accepts that man must not eat alone. The question, however, is what is the obverse
of eating alone. The western world answered this problem in a shallow fashion by declaring that
man is a social animal and quests for companionship. Hence, the humanization of eating can be
accomplished by making eating a social activity, by developing table manners and etiquette, by
placing eating in an aesthetic context of the well-laid table and correct conversation. The aesthetic
experience is advanced as the sublimating medium of not only eating but all physiological drives.
Since antiquity, society has attempted to humanize the sex drive through aesthetics. The hedonism
of modern society conditions that the hedonae be purged of brute forces. What is beautiful is good.
"Judaism has defied the notion of the redemptive power of the aesthetics. The experience of the
beautiful is not redemptive at all. Rather, beauty has a hypnotic, almost orgiastic effect on man,
robbing him of his freedom and dignity. In the Torah, Eve succumbed to the beauty of the tree
("The woman saw that the tree... was pleasant to the eyes," Genesis 3,6); the fallen angels
succumbed to the beauty of the daughters of man (6,2); the People of Israel in the desert succumbed
to the beauty of the Midianite women (Numbers 25,1). Judaism says that beauty itself is in need
of redemption. Beauty can drag down a human institution to the depths of a beastly life. The
elaborate, beautiful meal is rejected. "(The head of the Gestapo in Vilna was named Weiss. He
was an accomplished musician, an expert on Bach. He was also an expert on murdering children.
He especially liked to do both at once.)

"Judaism substitutes something else in place of beauty. In the mystic discipline of the Kabbala,
there are two movements, "chesed" (generosity) and "gevura" (strength, heroism). Chesed is a
movement of expansion, of surging forward towards parts unknown, vistas invisible in the haze of
morning. Chesed is compared to the overflowing river, flooding the countryside. Gevura is a
movement of recoil. It denotes flight from society into the private recesses of oneself. Gevura is
the flight of the lonely one to the Lonely One. Both movements must be mastered by man, at
different times. "To elevate eating, we need a community, not that of western society, but one of

27
chesed. Chesed means compulsive kindness, irrespective of the size of one's possessions. It
encompasses an attitude - whatever I own for myself is too much.

"Judaism creates a community not of artists and aesthetes, but of chesed-experiencing, chesed-
thinking, chesed-oriented, chesed-questing individuals, who cannot sleep because someone does
not have bread. Only that community can convert physiological eating into a humanized seuda.
And mere humanity is not enough. The meal is redeemed by its becoming a divine service. The
sacrifice offered on the altar in the Temple - what is it? It is the great meal of man and God. "And
there shall you eat before HaShem your God, and you shall rejoice in all the endeavors of your
hands, you and your household, with which HaShem your God has blessed you" (Deut. 12,7).
There is no division between host and guests - all eat and rejoice before God. The institution of
"zimun" confirms that this is true of every meal. "Zimun" means the collective recital of the
blessing after eating. Together, as a single voice, the eaters praise God because they ate together.
The original institution of zimun was for a community of a rich host and poor guests, a community
of chesed. The halakha is based on the idea that the bread of each one be accessible to the others."

Let me explain the halakha to which the Rav zt"l is referring.

After eating, one is required to recite a blessing, basically thanking God for the food. We will
discuss what a blessing, a berakha, is supposed to mean in halakha next time. But the point now is
that this berakha, like personal prayer, is meant to be recited personally by each person who is
obligated to do so. In cases where someone is incapable of reciting a berakha, there exists a
halakhic mechanism whereby another can recite the berakha for him, where he listens and thereby
fulfills his obligation. But optimally, every communication with God should be direct. Halakhic
Judaism does not recommend having others pray in your place. Nonetheless, in this case, the
Mishna (Berakhot 7,1) states that "three who ate as one" should have one person recite the blessing
(and an additional one) for all three. This is called "zimun."

The Rav zt"l explained that zimun is not a case of one person having his berakha relate to another
who listens; i.e., in the final analysis, we do not view it as though all three have individually
fulfilled the obligation. Rather, in this case, having eaten "as one," they collectively are obligated
in only one berakha. In fact, they are not permitted to separate and recite the berakha individually.
They have been joined, by sharing their food (which is the meaning of "eating as one"), into a

28
community, and the berakha is a single communal one, and not an individual one multiplied by
three.

The last line in the quote from the Rav above, that the food be mutually available, refers to the
halakha that states that in order to perform zimun, the food before them must be permitted to all.
In other words, even though each ate from his own plate, the berakha of zimun is based on the idea
that they were sharing the food, eating, as it were, from a common plate. What we see here is that
this occurrence, the joining together to share food, is sanctified by the addition of a special berakha,
because the community, three individuals who share their food, has a greater value than the sum
of its parts. Eating, the purely animal function of nourishment, serves to bind men together in a
greater unit because it is a vehicle of chesed.

The Rav also mentioned in passing a comparison with the sacrifice on an altar. This refers to a
famous statement of the Sages, that a table (for eating) is like an altar. Now, at first glance, the
exact opposite would appear to be true. An altar, the site of a sacrifice, is where man gives up his
possessions, his food, and restrains his indulgence and consumption. The table in my dining room,
on the other hand, is where I indulge my desires and drives. God is the object of the altar; I am the
object of my table. But if I see the table as a vehicle of chesed, if I sanctify my eating by sharing
with others, then I purify eating of its hedonistic element. A man for himself is mundane; sharing
with others, giving to others, creates the presence of the holy in our midst. The Rav continued in
the opposite direction as well. The holy altar in the Temple was also the center of our eating. First
fruits (bikkurim) were brought to Jerusalem to be eaten together before God. The equality and
community is itself a sign and a cause of holiness, redeeming the simple basic act of consumption
and raising it to the level of humanity, and even more.

In western religious thought, eating would not normally be considered a fit vehicle for holiness.
Holiness is associated with asceticism, with denying the naturalness of the body. But this is not
true in Judaism. On the contrary, it is axiomatic that a holy soul can be found only in a holy body,
and the holiness of the body is achieved not by denying it, but by redeeming it, by molding the
naturalness of the body to reflect value. The value described above, that of chesed, is one example.
Without food, without eating, both ours and others', there can be no sharing, no chesed, no joining
of different individuals into a greater whole, a whole which becomes the vehicle of holiness. The
hermit cannot practice chesed. In this way, the natural urges are not only humanized, but hallowed
as well.

29
The direct expression of the sacred potential of eating is found in the berakha, the blessing recited
both before and after eating. The gemara (Berakhot 35a) states:

R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If one who benefits from this world without a berakha, it
is as though he has benefited from sacred objects, as is written, "The earth and all its contents are
God's." R. Levi posed the question: It is written, "The earth and all its contents are God's," and it
is also written, "The heavens are God's and the earth He has given to man?" There is no
contradiction - One verse speaks of before the berakha; one after the berakha.

The obvious explanation is that before the berakha, everything is God's; after the berakha, He gives
it to man. Note the apparent paradox - the method by which man acquires possession of the goods
of the world is by reciting a berakha, a declaration that God is the master (Blessed are You, our
God King of the universe, that everything was made by His word). What this means is that one
must genuinely recognize that nothing is really his, but is given to us by God. By our recognition
of that fact, by acknowledging the sacred nature of the world, we have raised our upcoming benefit
to the level of the sacred, we have invested our own bodily activities with holiness, so there is no
longer a contradiction between our use of the world and its divine origin. This too is deeply rooted
in the chesed we spoke of earlier. If the food is not mine but God's, who has given it to me in
chesed, I should obviously be prepared to share it with others.

(In an interesting twist, a chassidic interpretation of the gemara reversed the answer of R. Levi.
BEFORE one makes the berakha, the food is yours; AFTER you make the berakha, it is God's,
sacred food, like a sacrifice on the altar. The meaning is the same, despite the clever reversal. The
berakha is a vehicle of sanctification, even as it allows us to partake of the food.)

The experiential result of the requirement to recite a berakha before eating is very powerful. A
halakhic Jew cannot put even the smallest piece of food into his mouth without reciting a berakha
first. Precisely because eating is such a natural, almost unconscious activity, this halakha forces
one to PAY ATTENTION, to hallow his every step, to take nothing for granted, and, of course, in
this particular case, to recognize that we do not own our world, we are not masters of it to do as
we please. Practically, it is a halakha easy to forget, since the motion of hand to mouth is such a
natural one - that is precisely the reason it is so important. Judaism seeks to insure that we pay
attention even to what we eat, because it is the body, our relationship to it and to the world that
supports it, that is the first step to creating a holy personality. Together with the theme of the

30
previous lecture, the need to discriminate what we eat and separate the permissible from the
forbidden (i.e., to step back and NOT eat everything), the laws of food and eating insinuate
themselves at the most basic level of human existence. Man reaches higher not by ignoring the
"base" levels, surely not by negating them, but by hallowing them, and thereby hallowing himself,
his natural self.

Antiquity: Pagan Etiquette12

Living in society implies living with rules. What and how a person eats is conditioned
by culture. Eating with the fingers, with a fork and knife, or with chopsticks implies a
learning process, after which the eater is able to eat like the other members of the
community.

The slightest difference in manners and behavior may suggest a difference in gender,
identity, and social status. Ancient Greeks possessed a concept of table manners
close to their own understanding. It belongs to the category of sympotika, according
to Plutarch'sTable Talks.

The law of hospitality (xenia) is praised and its rituals are described in detail on many
occasions, but also the good and bad consequences of its zealous application or
disrespect.

Table manners are usually taught in childhood by parents or by some other person
of authority.

12
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118878255.ch25

31
The separate dining room (triclinium) was introduced, the great houses having two or more, and
the oeci were, perhaps, pressed into service for banquet halls. The dining couch took the place of
the bench or stool, slaves served the food to the reclining guests, a dinner dress was devised, and
every familia urbana included a high-priced chef with a staff of trained assistants.

Ancient people largely ate with their hands. Sometimes they used knives and spoons. Romans had
spoons, knives and drinking cups, but no forks. Sometimes they held a plate in their left hand and
used their right hand to take food. Polite Romans lifted their food with three fingers so as not to
dirty their ring finger and pinkie.
In the early days of the Roman Republic, Harold Whetstone Johnston wrote in “The Private Life
of the Romans”: “ Everything was prepared by the mater familias or by the women slaves under
her supervision. The table was set in the atrium; the father, mother, and the children sat around it
on stools or benches, waiting on one another and on their guests. Dependents ate of the same food,
but apart from the family. The dishes were of the plainest sort, of earthenware or even of wood,
though a silver saltcellar was often the cherished ornament of the humblest board. Table knives
and forks were unknown; the food was cut into convenient portions before it was served, and
spoons were used to convey to the mouth what the fingers could not manage.” 13
Some upper-class “Romans took excess to new levels. According to Seneca, Romans at banquets
would eat until they couldn't anymore—and then vomit so that they could keep eating. Some
people threw up into bowls that they kept around the table, but others didn't let themselves get so
caught up in the formalities. In some homes, people would just throw up right there on the floor
and go back to eating. The slaves are the people you really need to feel sorry for, though. Their

13
The Private Life of the Romans” by Harold Whetstone Johnston, Revised by Mary Johnston, Scott, Foresman and Company
(1903, 1932)

32
jobs were terrible. In the words of Seneca: “When we recline at a banquet, one [slave] wipes up
the spittle; another, situated beneath, collects the leavings [vomit] of the drunks.14

In Europe, from the 12th century onward, numerous written works began to record and codify
behavior at the table. Control over one’s body and gestures, moderation and good hygiene were
principles advocated during the Middle Ages and carried through to the Renaissance. Rules
multiplied and became stricter in the 19th century. Today, the idea of conviviality prevails and
allows for more flexibility.

Treatises on good manners15

Good manners also apply to table manners, the formal behavior of individuals as they learn to
master precise eating techniques. Such manners appertain to the moral values which help ensure
civility and the cohesion of a society. Table manners in Europe can be traced back to the
12th century, when the first written standards were circulated. The Church wished to ease the moral
standards and customs of feudal society and contributed to the codification of table manners,
notably by prescribing control over one’s gestures. Courtly literature also played a role, by
emphasizing the importance of hospitality, the quality and quantity of the dishes, and the beauty
of the utensils, clothes and people, all of which were values reflecting moral virtue.
Numerous treatises have been published to date, in different formats depending on the era. The
16th to 18th centuries saw the publication of books on courtesy, aimed at the upper classes in
particular. In 1530, Erasmus produced De civilitate morum puerilium (On Civility in Children),
which soon left its mark on the whole of Europe (an English version A Little Book of Good
Manners for Children by Robert Whittington was published in 1532). Initially written for ‘well-
born’ children, the philosopher’s work was aimed at everyone, warning against social danger and
offering a real ‘survival strategy’ to avoid common pitfalls. Later, in the 19th century, bourgeois
society was educated with books on good manners, in particular with the guide to etiquette Usages
du Monde – Règles du Savoir-Vivre dans la Société Moderne by Baroness Staffe (Blanche Soyer,
1843 – 1911), and The Handbook of Etiquette: A Complete Guide to the Usages of Polite Society,
by Cassell, Petter and Galpin, published in London in 1860.

Handbooks of etiquette are still being published today. Until the 16th century, inappropriate
behavior was described as bad or shameful, then it became unseemly or rustic, and the 19th century
classed it as vulgar. Today, unsuitable behavior is more likely to be seen as annoying or disruptive.

Common Western rules

Some principles, already evoked in the 16th century, have recurred over the centuries and form the
common thread of table manners to this day. Diners must avoid infringing on someone’s personal
space, must respect hygiene rules, control their behavior and gestures, avoid inappropriate noises
and eat with restraint and without greed. They must do everything to ensure the meal is a sociable
and pleasant occasion.
14
Mark Oliver, Listverse, August 23, 2016
15
https://www.alimentarium.org/en/knowledge/table-manners

33
Various dishes and ways of eating were established alongside these rules. For example, from the
15th century, communal table utensils became individual and increasingly specialized, to ensure
respect of one another’s space. Thereafter, everyone used their own napkin, cutlery, glass and
plate. In the 19th century, it became one glass for each type of wine, one plate for each course, etc.
To avoid any bodily noises, even while chewing, the royal court of the 18thcentury favored
mousses.

Over the centuries, table manners became increasingly refined and complex, or even rigid or
absurd, in particular in the 19th century and the early 20th century. Many rules defined both the
gestures as well as table decorum as a whole: how to place a napkin on one’s lap, which cutlery to
use, how to peel, cut and eat an apple with a knife and fork, and which subjects of conversation to
avoid (politics and religion for example).

Many rules have become fully integrated into our table manners and continue to be shared within
the family circle. However, modern-day life, simplified meals, the influence of fast food and exotic
cuisine are leading to table manners becoming more relaxed. The rules are now increasingly
flexible and adapt to the context. The principle of conviviality seems to prevail, allowing for a
certain ‘easing’ of the rules, making propriety less absolute, but not obsolete.

Health above all

A fundamental rule in many parts of Europe in the 19th century and throughout most of the
20th century was to eat every kind of food and to finish one’s plate. While this rule remains, the
severity depends on the context of the meal, for example whether it is a business or family meal.
Nowadays, medical reasons (such as allergies or diets) are fully accepted and allow such rules to
be ignored.

Etiquette of Roman Empire Dining

Some foods which we take for granted today such as potatoes, tomatoes and chocolate, were
unknown to the Romans. Likewise, many Roman dishes are unheard of now. The menu at a Roman
banquet could include sows' udders and larks' tongues, though most people never ate such
extravagant meals.

34
 An 1882 print titled, “A Roman Bakery,
Restored from the excavations at Pompeii”
Poorer Romans and slaves had to live on basic food, such as bread, porridge and stew, but wealthier
people had a more varied diet. For breakfast, they ate a snack of bread or wheat biscuits with
honey, and lunch was a simple meal of eggs, cheese, cold meat and fruit.

Many people hardly ate at all during the day, waiting instead for the evening meal. For average
Romans, this was roast poultry or fish, but the wealthy often enjoyed lavish dinner parties.

The Romans drank lots of wine, and people in Rome could choose from around 200 types which
were made all over the Empire. Wine was often spiced, or sweetened with honey, and it was usually
diluted with water -- drinking it undiluted wasn't considered respectable.

In the early days of the Republic, women were forbidden to drink wine, but during the Empire this
rule was dropped. Other popular drinks included grape juice and goat's milk, and people could also
drink water from public fountains.

35
 Depiction of cooking in an ancient Roman kitchen

A Roman kitchen was equipped with many of the same utensils that we use today; saucepans,
cheese graters, and strainers to drain water away. These items were usually made of bronze, which
could make food taste strange, so some pans were coated with silver.

Food was boiled, fried, grilled, stewed, or roasted on a spit. With no freezers or cans to keep food
fresh, it had to be smoked, pickled or salted to preserve it. Rich Romans loved spicy food, and
most of their meals were highly seasoned or eaten with a strong sauce. One of the most popular
sauces was a thick, salty concoction called liquamen, made from pickled fish.

In town, very few people did their own cooking. Most people lived in apartment blocks with
wooden beams and floors, and it was forbidden to light cooking fires inside, in case the building
burned down. Instead of cooking at home, people usually bought hot foods, such as pie, sausages
and stews, from snack bars in street.

36
 Depiction of a Roman Banquet ~ “Menus written on tablets were known in
ancient Greece and Rome, but far more common at feasts was the custom of
someone -- either the host or a specially instructed slave -- pointing out the
different dishes, explaining on occasion what each contained and how it had

37
 been made, and informing guests of the provenance, the freshness, the age of the
foods and wines. The need for written menus at modern feasts is the result of an
important change in the way for more formal meals were constructed, which
spread to Europe and America from about the mid-nineteenth century.” From
Margaret Visser, The Rituals of Dinner

A Roman Dinner Party

Ancient Roman dinner guests, depicted lounging on a triclinium... “If they were
too full to finish their food, they could wrap the leftovers in a napkin to take
home.”— “The first napkin was a lump of dough the Spartans called
‘apomagdalie,’ a mixture cut into small pieces and rolled and kneeded at the
table, a custom that led to using sliced bread to wipe the hands. In Roman
antiquity, napkins known as sudaria and mappae were made in both small and
large lengths. The sudarium, Latin for 'handkerchief,' was a pocket-size fabric
earned to blot the brow during meals taken in the warm Mediterranean climate.
The mappa was a larger cloth spread over the edge of the couch as protection
from food taken in a reclining position. The fabric was also used to blot the lips.
Although each guest supplied his own mappa, on departure mappae were filled
with delicacies leftover from the feast, a custom that continues today in
restaurant ‘doggy bags’.”

Wealthy Romans loved to eat extravagant and fancy foods. They threw lavish dinner parties to
show off their great power and wealth. Important Romans tried to outdo each other by making
their banquets more and more extravagant.

38
A dinner party would usually begin in the early evening. The guests would remove their sandals
at the door and have their feet washed by a slave. They were then announced by an usher and
shown to their places. Their hands were then washed with perfumed water. Washing their hands
was an important ritual as Romans usually ate with their fingers.

Wealthy Romans reclined on three cushioned couches, or a triclinium, while dining. In the Roman
Empire, only slaves and children sat on chairs while eating. Women and men ate together, with up
to nine people lounging around a table. Romans didn't have forks, but were known to sometimes
use knives and spoons. People ate straight from serving dishes as opposed to using plates, and
between courses slaves washed the guests' hands with more perfumed water.

A full Roman banquet was made up of seven courses and could last as long as ten hours. Starting
with a couple of cold courses, such as sardines, mushrooms, and eggs, they then moved on to more
exciting dishes. They could include flamingoes' tongues, doormice in honey, or even elephants'
trunks. How the food looked was just as important as how it tasted and chefs took great enjoyment
in disguising one type of food to make it look like another. The writer Petronius boasted that his
chef could make a pig's belly look exactly like a fish. Between courses, guests were entertained by
poets, conjurers, clowns, or musicians. After dinner, there would often be games. For example, the
host would pick a number and everyone would have to swallow that number of drinks.

To show that they had enjoyed the meal, guests would belch loudly. If they were too full to finish
their food, they could wrap the leftovers in a napkin to take home. Very greedy guests would tickle
their throats with a feather until they became sick and then would start eating all over again. The
writer Seneca was disgusted by guests who indulged in this habit, and wrote scornfully, "They
vomit to eat and eat to vomit."

39
 Elagabalus's guests being smothered when the petals were released from a
large net above the table.

Emperor's spies were everywhere, so guests had to be careful about what they talked about at
dinner parties. If someone was heard criticizing the Emperor, he might suddenly be tied up in
chains and dragged away. Some dinner parties were even more dangerous.

The crazy emperor Elagabalus smothered his guests to death with thousands of rose petals falling
from the ceiling. A nineteenth-century painting depicts Elagabalus's guests being smothered when
the petals were released from a large net above the table.

40
Manners and Customs of Bible Lands16

Fred H. Wight writes:17

Customs at mealtime

EASTERN HABITS, connected with the eating of a meal, are such a decided contrast to Western
habits, that much care should be given to the study of them, if the many references in the Bible to
eating, are to be interpreted accurately.

Washing of hands before eating

Orientals are careful to wash their hands before a meal, but they would think that the Occidental
way of washing in the water already made dirty by the hands, to be very untidy and disgraceful.
The servant or whoever takes his place, pours water on the hands to be washed as they are held
over a basin. Often the basin has a concave cover with holes, so as to allow the dirty water to run
through and thus be out of sight. The method of eating without knives, forks, or spoons, makes
this washing a necessity. That this method of washing was in vogue in the days of the prophets is
seen by the way Elisha was characterized by the king's servants: "Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat,

16
Fred H. Wight : Moody Press; 1ST edition (December 1953)
17
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/manners/customs-at-mealtime.htm

41
which poured water on the hands of Elijah" (2Kings 3:11). Elisha had served as Elijah's servant,
and pouring water, so that his master could wash his hands, was an important part of his duties.

When the Pharisees complained against the disciples of Jesus, because they ate bread without
washing their hands (Matt. 15:1, 2; Mark 7:1-5), it was concerning a lengthy ceremonial washing
of hands that they spoke. The Jewish hierarchy of that day had given forth a positive injunction as
to exactly how this ablution should be done. It was not a law of Moses but a tradition of the elders.
Jesus refused to sanction it as a rule that was binding. It was not the custom of washing hands
before eating that Jesus objected to, but the authority the rabbis claimed to have in telling the
people the exact and detailed manner in which it must be done.

Position while eating

According to general Arabic custom, the seemly posture while eating is "to sit erect on the floor
at the low table, with the legs either folded under the body, or thrown back as in the act of
kneeling." Thus in the desert tent of the Bedouin, or in the simple house of the Fellahin, this would
be the position of those eating a meal. And we can be sure that this was the posture of the common
people of Bible days in most cases. The exception to this rule is the custom of the wealthy, or the
habit of the people on special occasions such as suppers or feasts; and this will be dealt with in a
later section. It is easy to imagine Elisha and the sons of the prophets eating in the usual Oriental
position, when it says concerning them: "And the sons of the prophets were sitting before him and
he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot" (2Kings 4:38).

Table

In many cases the Arab custom would seem to indicate to the Westerner that they use no table at
all, when serving a meal. Actually, a mat spread upon the ground serves the purpose of a table.
This is especially true of the tent Arab. This was the early Semitic table of Old Testament times,
for the Hebrew word "Shool-khawn," usually translated "table," has as its root meaning, "a skin or
leather mat spread on the ground." With this sort of a table in view, the Psalmist can be understood
when he said concerning his enemies, "Let their table become a snare before them." David's
meaning would be, "Let their feet become entangled in it, as it is spread on the ground."

If the Arabs use more of a table than this mat, then it is likely to be a polygon stool, no higher than
about fourteen inches, and those eating would sit on the floor around this Stool.

42
Chairs

With such an Oriental table in general use, it would follow that Occidental chairs would be largely
missing. In regard to making use of chairs in ancient Bible days it has been said: "On ordinary
occasions they probably sat or squatted on the floor around a low table, while at meals of more
ceremony they sat on chairs or stools." The scriptural instances of chairs or stools used at mealtime,
include Joseph's brothers sitting on seats at a banquet in Egypt (Gen. 43:33); and David's having a
seat at the table of King Saul (1Sam. 20:5, 18). Both of these cases are connected with royalty or
high position. On ordinary occasions the "chair" used by the vast majority of Israelites was the
ground or floor on which would be spread a carpet or a mat.

Use of hand instead of knife, fork, or spoon

In general it may be said that the Arabs in eating do not use knives, forks, spoons, plates, or napkins
which are considered so essential in the West. They say: "What does a man want of a spoon when
God has given him so many fingers?" Sheets of bread, about as thick as heavy flannel; take the
place of spoons or forks to some extent. A piece from this bread is broken off and shaped so as to
put some of the food on it.

They use this bread to scoop up any partially liquid dish, such as soups, sauces, or gravies. Each
torn off piece of bread that thus serves as a spoon is eaten along with the food it contains.

Meat is usually served in a single large dish and is eaten with the fingers. Broth is served in a
separate dish and it is used to moisten the bread. This method of eating is actually not as untidy as
might be supposed.

The invitation Boaz gave to Ruth to eat with his workers, indicates that these same customs must
have been in operation in those days: "And at meal-time Boaz said unto her, Come hither, and eat
of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar" (Ruth 2:14).

Washing after the meal

43
After a typical Oriental meal, washing the hands again is of course essential. If there is a servant,
he is the one to bring in the pitcher of water and basin, and the water is poured over the hands of
those who have eaten the meal. A napkin is placed over the shoulder so that the hands may be
dried. They do this for each other if there is no servant to do it for them. That this method of
pouring water to wash hands was used in ancient times has already been seen concerning the
washing of hands before eating.

44