If we say that Beit Shammai say that one wipes out his mouth with solid food and does not need to rinse his mouth with water, since they maintain that wiping is more effective than rinsing, and Beit Hillel say that he rinses his mouth in water and does not need to wipe his mouth, as rinsing is more effective, one can respond: But as for that which Rabbi Zeira said: Wiping of the mouth can be performed only with bread, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, since Beit Hillel do not require wiping. Yet, it is unlikely that Rabbi Zeira would rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel.

Rather, one must explain the dispute as follows: Beit Shammai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat and does not need to rinse his mouth as well, and Beit Hillel say that in addition to wiping one must also rinse. This interpretation is difficult as well, since if so, this constitutes one of the disputes between them that involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and consequently, let the tanna of tractate Eduyyot teach it alongside the other disputes listed there that involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

Rather, one must interpret their statements as follows: Beit Shammai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat, and the same is true of rinsing, i.e., one must rinse his mouth as well. And Beit Hillel say that one rinses his mouth, and the same is true of wiping. And one Sage said one statement and one Sage said another statement, and they do not disagree.

§ After citing Rabbi Zeira’s statement tangentially, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Zeira says: Wiping of the mouth can be performed only with bread. The Gemara explains: And this statement applies only to bread prepared from wheat flour. But with regard to bread prepared from barley flour, one may not use it for wiping, as barley bread crumbles in the mouth and does not wipe thoroughly.

The Gemara adds: And even in the case of bread prepared from wheat flour, we said the halakha only with regard to cold bread, but as for warm bread, it is ineffective for wiping even if made of wheat, as it softens and sticks to the palate, and it does not wipe the mouth properly. And furthermore, even if the bread is cold, this statement applies only with regard to soft bread, but one may not wipe with hard bread, as it also does not clean effectively. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the use of all items constitutes effective wiping, except for flour, dates, and vegetables.

§ Rav Asi posed a dilemma to Rabbi Yoḥanan: How much time should one wait between eating meat and eating cheese? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, but if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay? Rather, Rav Asi actually asked Rabbi Yoḥanan the following question: How much time should one wait between eating cheese and eating meat? In response to this question, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: No time at all.

After tangentially citing a statement of Rav Ḥisda, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Ḥisda says: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him to eat cheese immediately, as the meat contains fatty substances that stick to one’s mouth and preserve the flavor of meat. But if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay. Rav Aḥa bar Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: In the case of meat that is between the teeth, what is the halakha? Are these remnants considered meat to the extent that one may not eat cheese as long as they are in his mouth?

In response, Rav Ḥisda read about him the following verse: “While the meat was yet between their teeth” (Numbers 11:33). This verse indicates that even when the meat is between one’s teeth it is still considered meat, and therefore one may not partake of cheese until that meat has been removed.

Mar Ukva said: I am, with regard to this matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father, i.e., my practice is inferior to that of my father. As Father, if he were to eat meat at this time, would not eat cheese until tomorrow at this time. But as for me, only at this meal, during which I ate meat, do I not eat cheese; at a different meal on the same day I will eat cheese.

Similarly, Shmuel said: I am, with regard to this other matter, like vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father. As Father would patrol his property to examine it twice daily, but I patrol it only once a day. The Gemara notes: In this regard Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: One who patrols his property every day will find an asteira coin.

The Gemara relates that Abaye would patrol his property each and every day. One day he encountered his sharecropper carrying a load of wood that the sharecropper intended to take for himself. Abaye said to him: To where are you taking these logs of wood? The sharecropper said to him: To the Master’s house. Abaye, who knew that the sharecropper had intended to take the wood for himself, said to him: The Sages already preempted you when they said that one should patrol his property regularly, and they thereby prevented you from stealing the wood.

The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Asi would patrol his property every day. He said: Where are all these asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel? This patrol is not reaping me any benefit. One day he saw a water channel that overflowed, causing water to flood onto his land. He took off his cloak, wrapped it, and placed it inside the pipe to block the flow of water. He then raised his voice, and people came and sealed the hole. He said: I have just found all the asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel, as I would have suffered a great loss had I not patrolled my fields.

§ Having mentioned the manner of washing hands during a meal, the Gemara discusses another matter concerning washing hands. Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says: The first waters, i.e., washing of the hands before eating bread, are a mitzva by rabbinic law, but the final waters, washing of the hands upon conclusion of the meal and before reciting Grace after Meals, are an obligation, a more stringent requirement.

The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: The first waters and the final waters are an obligation, whereas the middle waters, between courses during the meal, are optional. Apparently, the first waters are also an obligation, not a mitzva. The Gemara responds: Although the first waters are in fact a mitzva, the tanna calls a mitzva an obligation when compared to an optional requirement.

The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. The full text of the baraita is as follows: First waters and final waters are an obligation, whereas middle waters are optional. For first waters, one may wash either by spilling the water into a vessel or onto the ground. But for final waters, one washes only by pouring the water into a vessel. And some say a slightly different version of the baraita: For final waters, one may not wash by pouring the water onto the ground.

The Gemara interjects: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to pouring the water on thin wood slivers on the ground. According to the first version, which requires that the water be poured into a vessel, one may not use such slivers for this purpose, whereas according to the second version, which merely prohibits pouring the water onto the ground, one may use wood slivers.

The baraita continues: With regard to first waters, one may wash either with hot water or with cold water. But for final waters, one may wash only with cold water, because hot water softens the hands and does not remove the dirt from them. The Gemara analyzes the statement that for first waters one may wash either with hot water or with cold water: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the hand does not