1)

TOSFOS DH HAI ARISA

úåñôåú ã"ä äàé àøéúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that an Arisa is a river, not a pipe.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ öéðåø ùùåôëéï ìå îéí îï äéàåø áãìé åäåà îåìéê îéí áùãä

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that this refers to a pipe into which water is poured from the river with a pitcher. This moves the water around the field.

àéï ø"ì ùéäà äöéðåø ÷øåé àøéúà ãäà éàåøéí îúøâîéðï àøéúé åáô' äôøä (á"÷ ð:) àîø ääåà úåøà ãðôì ìàøéúà åîùîò ùí ùäåà òîå÷ òùøä èôçéí

1.

Explanation (cont.): This does not mean that the pipe is called an Arisa, as the Targum for "Ye'orim" is Arisai. Furthermore, the Gemara in Bava Kama (50b) discusses an ox that fell into an Arisa (not a pipe). The Gemara there implies that it was ten Tefachim deep.

2)

TOSFOS DH D'LO ASU

úåñôåú ã"ä ãìà àúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses many Halachos of Netilas Yadayim.)

ôéøù áäìëåú âãåìåú ùîåúø ìäèáéì éãéí áúåê äëìé ãçùéáà ðèéìä

(a)

Opinion #1: The Bahag explains that it is permitted to immerse one's hands in a vessel, as this is called Netilah.

åäáéà øàéä îô"á ãæáçéí (ãó ëà.) ãàéáòéà ìäå îäå ì÷ãù éãéå åøâìéå áëéåø îîðå àîø øçîðà åìà ìúåëå îùîò ãá÷éãåù éãéí îáòé ìéä îùåí ãëúéá îîðå àáì áðèéìú éãéí àôéìå áúåëï îåúø

1.

Proof: He proves this from the Gemara in Zevachim (21a) that asks, can one do Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim in the Kiyor? The Torah says, "from it" implying not in it. This implies that the question stems from the fact that the Torah says, "from it." (Since there is no such Pasuk regarding Netilas Yadayim) One should therefore be allowed to even do Netilas Yadayim in a vessel.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãäëà àîø àéðå ðåèì îîðå ãìà àúé îëç âáøà îùîò ãáòéðï ëç âáøà äùåôê

(b)

Question: His explanation has a difficulty. Our Gemara says one cannot take from this water pipe because the water did not come from the power of a person. This implies that a person's power of pouring the water (onto hands) is required for Netilas Yadayim!

åîéäå é"ì ãáòéðï ðèéìä îï äëìé áéï èåáì éãéå áúåê äëìé åáéï ùåôê îï äëìé òì éãéå éù ëàï ðèéìä îï äëìé àáì äëà éãéå çåõ ìëìé äï åëáø ôñ÷ ëç äëìé ëùäîéí áàéí òìéå äìëê àéï ëàï ðèéìä îï äëìé åâí èáéìä àéï ëàï ùäï ùàåáéï

(c)

Answer: It is possible to answer that we require Netilah from a vessel, whether he immerses his hands in the vessel or he pours water on them from the vessel. However, here his hands are outside of the vessel, and the power of the vessel is no longer present when the water spill onto his hands from the pipe. Therefore, it is not considered Netilah from a vessel nor is it immersion, as the water is Mayim She'uvin (invalid for Mikvah as it was in a vessel).

åäà ãð÷è ãìà àúå îëç âáøà

1.

Implied Question: The Gemara says that the water is not coming from the power of a person. (How does this fit with what we just said that it can also be from a vessel?)

ìàå ãå÷à îëç âáøà àìà îùåí ãìà àúå îëç ëìé ãáòéðï ðèéìä îï äëìé

2.

Answer #1: It doesn't mean specifically from the power of a person, but rather it means that since it is not from the power of a vessel it is invalid, as we require Netilah from a vessel (i.e. either in a vessel or from a vessel, as stated above).

à"ð îùåí ãúðï áîñ' éãéí áô"÷ (î"ä) äëì ëùøéï ìéúï îéí ìéãéí àôéìå çøù ùåèä å÷èï åîðéç çáéú áéï áøëéå åðåèì åîðéç çáéú òì öãå åðåèì ä÷åó ðåúï ìéãéí øáé éåñé ôåñì áùðéäí ôéøåù á÷åó åáçáéú ðåèä òì öãå åäîéí ðùôëéí îàìéäï ãáòé øáé éåñé îëç âáøà åú"÷ ìà áòé àìà ùéäà ëç ëìé

3.

Answer #2: Alternatively, this is because the Mishnah in Yadayim (1:5) says that everyone is valid for pouring water, even a deaf mute or insane person or a minor. He can put a barrel between his legs and do Netilah, and put a barrel on its side and do Netilah. A monkey can pour water on his hands. Rebbi Yosi says both cases are invalid, meaning both the monkey and the barrel on its side and the water pours on its own (due to the angle) over his hands. This is because Rebbi Yosi requires a person's power, while the Tana Kama only requires the power of the vessel.

åäùúà ùîòúà ãð÷è ëç âáøà àúé ëøáé éåñé

i.

Answer (cont.): This would mean that our Gemara that says the power of the person is required is according to Rebbi Yosi.

àáì ääìëåú âãåìåú àé àôùø ìäòîéã àìà ëøáðï

ii.

Observation: However, the Bahag can only hold like the Rabbanan.

åöøéê ìäçîéø ëéåï ãñåâéà ãùîòúéï ëøáé éåñé

(d)

Opinion #2: One must be stringent (unlike the Bahag), since our Gemara is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

åàí àãí ðåèì éãå àçú åçåæø åîùôùó áçáøúä öøéê ìçæåø åìéèåì

(e)

Opinion: If a person washes one of his hands and rubs it with his other hand, he must wash his hand again.

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ùðé ãéãéí (î"â) ðèì éãå àçú åùôùó áçáøúä èîàä

1.

Proof: This is as the Mishnah states in Yadayim (2:3) that a person who washes one hand and rubs his other hand has caused his first hand to become impure.

åàí ùøä ôúå áîéí àå äãéç áäï àú äëìéí ôñåìéí ìðèéìä åàí äãéç áäï éãéå ëùøéï ãäëé úðï áîñëú éãéí

(f)

Opinion: If he soaks his bread in water or washes dishes with water he has caused the water to become unfit for Netilah. If he washes his hands with the water they can still be used for Netilah, as this is stated in the Mishnah in Yadayim.

åöøéê ìùôåê îéí òì éãéå â' ôòîéí ôòí øàùåðä ëãé ìäòáéø èéè åãáø äçåöõ îòì éãéå åôòí ùðéä ìèäø éãéå åôòí ùìéùéú ìèäø àåúï îéí åëï îåëç áëîä ãåëúéï áîñëú éãéí ùöøéê îéí øàùåðéí åùðééí

1.

Opinion (cont.): One must pour water on his hands three times: Once to ensure any plaster or thing that is a Chatzitzah is removed, a second time to purify his hands, and a third time to purify the water on his hands. It is apparent from many places in Yadayim that one requires a first and second pouring.

åîéäå àí áôòí àçú ùåôê îéí äøáä ëùéòåø øáéòéú éãéå èäåøåú ãúðï áîñëú éãéí (ô"á î"à) éãå àçú áùèéôä àçú éãå èäåøä ùúé éãéå îùèéôä àçú ø"î îèîà òã ùéèåì îé øáéòéú ôéøåù åàôéìå áàéï îùéøé èäøä ãìà áòå øáéòéú ëùðåèì áùúé ùèéôåú

2.

Opinion (cont.): However, if he pours a lot of water equivalent to the amount of a Revi'is on his hands, they are pure (with only one pouring). This is as the Mishnah states in Yadayim (2:1) that if he purified one hand with one pouring, he has purified it. If he purifies two hands from one pouring, Rebbi Meir says the hands are impure until he washes with water that is (i.e. amounts to) a Revi'is. This means that even if the water comes from leftover water purifying other hands it is valid. A Revi'is is not required when one washes in two washings.

åäùúà ãìéëà àìà ùèéôä àçú öøéê øáéòéú áùèéôä æå àáì áðåèì éãå àçú ìà öøéê øáéòéú ëé àúå îùéøé èäøä àìà ùúäà àåúä ùèéôä îøåáä ëùúéí

3.

Opinion (cont.): Where there is only one pouring, a Revi'is is required. However, when a person washes only one hand he does not require a Revi'is when it comes from water that purified other hands. Rather, he just needs that pouring to be the amount of two regular pourings.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'EE

úåñôåú ã"ä åàé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Rabbanan were not as stringent regarding Netilas Yadayim as they were regarding immersion.)

åàò"â ãìòðéï èáéìú ëì âåôå ìà îäðé îúøé èòîé ãðöå÷ àéðå çáåø åâí áòéðï ëùôåôøú äðåã ìòðéï òéøåá î÷ååàåú

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that regarding immersing his entire body it would not be valid for two reasons. One is because we hold Nitzuk Aino Chibur (a poured stream from entity to another is not considered to connect those two entities), and the other is because we hold that one requires a hole the size of a tube put in the mouth of a leather jug (the size of two fingers) in order to consider Mikvaos connected. (Why, then, is this permitted for Netilas Yadayim?)

âáé øáéòéú éãéí ìà äçîéøå

(b)

Answer: They were not stringent to require this regarding Netilas Yadayim.

4)

TOSFOS DH KAPDISU

úåñôåú ã"ä ÷ôãéúå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the source of our Gemara is Ameimar and not a Mishnah in Yadayim.)

åäà ãúðï áîñëú éãéí (ô"à î"â) ðôì áäï ãéå àå ÷ð÷ðúåí åðùúðå îøàéäï ôñåìéï

(a)

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Yadayim (1:3) says that if Dyo or Kankantum (types of ink) fell and their appearance changed, the waters are invaild. (Why is this being discussed as if Ameimar is the source of this law? It is an explicit Mishnah in Yadayim!)

ãìîà äðé îéìé ìúøåîä

(b)

Answer: Perhaps they though that the Mishnah in Yadayim was only regarding washing for Terumah.

5)

TOSFOS DH V'LO HEE

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà äéà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question and answer.)

îùîò ãîòé÷øà áòé ìîéîø ãàôéìå äøàùåï ìà áòé ùéòåø

(a)

Explanation: This implies that originally he wanted to say that even the first pouring does not need to be of a specific amount.

åúéîä ãäà áäãéà ÷úðé îé øáéòéú ìàçã

(b)

Question: This is difficult, as the Mishnah explicitly states, "the amount of a Revi'is for one!"

åé"ì ãîúðéúéï ìúøåîä åäåä ãéé÷ îéðéä ãëé äéëé ãàôéìå ìúøåîä ìà áòéðï ùéòåø ìùðé ä"ä áçåìéï àó ìøàùåï åîñé÷ ãùàðé äúí ãàúå îùéøé èäøä

(c)

Answer: The Mishnah is referring to Terumah. The Gemara is deducing from it that just as an amount is not needed for the second pouring even regarding Terumah, it would seem that an amount is not even needed for the first pouring of Chulin. The Gemara concludes that Terumah is different, as it (the first pouring) comes from leftovers of purity (i.e. a Revi'is). (Accordingly, this cannot be applied to say that the first pouring of Chulin does not need a minimum amount.)

6)

TOSFOS DH MEGUFAS

úåñôåú ã"ä îâåôú

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the definition of the case of Megufas ha'Chavis.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùç÷÷ä

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it was carved into a vessel.

ðøàä ãáìà ç÷é÷ä äéà øáéòéú àìà ùîùåôòú äéà åàéðä éåùáú àìà îñåîëú ëòéï ëñåé ëåñåú ùì ëñó åëñåé ÷ð÷ðéí

(b)

Explanation #2: It would seem that even without carving it can have a Revi'is. Rather, it is slanted and does not sit straight, but instead leans like a covering of silver cups or jugs.

åú÷ðä äééðå ùäøçéáä îìîèä òã ùéåùáú ùìà îñåîëú å÷åãí ùú÷ðä àéï ðåèìéï îîðä ãàéï áéú ÷áåì ùìä çùåá ëéåï ùàí áà ìäåùéá áìà ñîéëä äéå äîéí ðùôëéï åàéï ðùàø áäí øáéòéú åàîø ìòéì ëìé ùàéï îçæé÷ øáéòéú àéï ðåèìéï îîðä

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): When the Gemara says "And he fixed it" it means that he widened it on the bottom until it sits straight without leaning. Before he fixed it, one was not able to use it for Netilah, as the place where it holds things is not significant. This is because if he would want to put water in it without it leaning in the right way, it would spill without being able to hold a Revi'is. The Gemara earlier said that one cannot do Netilah from a vessel that cannot hold a Revi'is.

åëï îùîò áîñëú éãéí (ùí î"á) ãçùéá îâåôú çáéú áäãé ãôðåú äëìéí ãàéï îçåñøéï ç÷é÷ä àìà ìôé ùàéï éåùáéï ùìà îñåîëéï ëãôøéùéú

i.

Proof: In Yadayim (1:2), the Mishnah implies that the cover of a barrel is included in the (outside part of the) walls of a vessel that do not lack carving, but rather do not contain water unless they are leaned the right way as I have explained.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'LO BARACH

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà áøê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that one always makes a Berachah Rishonah on food, even on a very small amount.)

ñáø ëøáé éäåãä ãáòé ëáéöä ããøéù åàëìú åùáòú àëéìä ùéù áä ùáéòä ãäééðå ëáéöä áôø÷ â' ùàëìå (áøëåú îè:)

(a)

Observation: He holds like Rebbi Yehudah who requires a k'Beitzah, as he derives in Berachos (49b) from the Pasuk, "And you will eat and you will be satiated" that the Pasuk must be discussing eating that makes one full, meaning a k'Beitzah.

åãå÷à ìàçøéå àáì ìôðéå îùîò ãîáøê åëï ìø"î ãôåèø áôçåú îëæéú äééðå ãå÷à ìáñåó àáì áúçìä îáøê àó áôçåú îëæéú åáäãéà îã÷ã÷ áéøåùìîé äëé

1.

Observation (cont.): This is specifically afterwards. Beforehand, the implication is that he does make a Berachah. Similarly, Rebbi Meir who says that one does not make a Berachah on less than a Kzayis means that one does not say Birkas ha'Mazon. However, he makes a Berachah before eating even when it is less than a Kzayis. This is deduction is explicitly made by the Yerushalmi.

åàò"â ãáøéù ëéöã îáøëéï (ùí ìä.) ðô÷à ìï áøëä ãìëúçìä î÷"å îáøëä ãìñåó ëùäåà ùáò îáøê ëùäåà øòá ìà ë"ù î"î ìà ùééê ìåîø ãéå åîáøê áúçìä àîùäå åàò"â ãìà îáøê áñåó

(b)

Implied Question: In Berachos (35a), we deduce that one must make a Berachah before eating based on a Kal v'Chomer from Birkas ha'Mazon. If one makes a Berachah when he is full, he certainly makes a Berachah when he is hungry! Even so, it is not possible to say Dayo (that we can only learn any Halachos in a similar fashion to this Kal v'Chomer), and therefore he makes a Berachah on a small amount even though he is not going to say a Berachah Acharonah. (Why not say it should be subject to the Kal v'Chomer?)

ãàåúå ÷"å àéðå àìà âéìåé áòìîà ãáøëä ãìôðéå ìàå ãàåøééúà

(c)

Answer: This Kal v'Chomer is (not a regular Kal v'Chomer which is a Torah law but rather) only a way to understand the Rabbinic enactment that one should make a Berachah Rishonah.

ëãúðï áôø÷ îé ùîúå (ùí ãó ë:) áòì ÷øé òì äîæåï îáøê ìàçøéå åàéðå îáøê ìôðéå

1.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Mishnah in Berachos (20b) that states that a Ba'al Keri makes a Berachah Acharonah but not a Berachah Rishonah (if it were a Torah law, he should make both).

åëï áôø÷ äéä ÷åøà (ùí èæ.) úðéà äôåòìéí ùäéå òåùéí îìàëä àöì áòì äáéú åàåëìéï ôúï àéï îáøëéí ìôðéäí àáì îáøëéí ìàçøéäí ùúé áøëåú

2.

Proof #2: Similarly, in Berachos (16a) the Beraisa states that workers that were working for someone and eating their bread should not make a Berachah Rishonah but they do recite the first two Berachos of Birkas ha'Mazon.

8)

TOSFOS DH MAI LAV

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé ìàå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty understanding the Hava Amina of the Gemara.)

úéîä äéëé îöé ìîéîø äëé äà ò"ë áúøåîä àôé' ëáéöä ìà áòé ðèéìú éãéí ãäà äúéøå îôä ìàåëìé úøåîä

(a)

Question: How can we say this? One does not even need Netilas Yadayim for a k'Beitzah of Terumah, as they permitted a napkin to be used for those who ate Terumah (see 107b that Rav Tachlifa says this is permitted in general, even for more than a k'Beitzah).

ãøáé öãå÷ ëäï äåä ëãîåëç áô' îé ùîúå (ùí ë:) âáé îãìâéí äééðå ò"â àøåðåú ëå' åáô' ëì ôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï (áëåøåú ìå.) âáé ääåà áåëøà ãäåä ìéä ìø' öãå÷ åáñô"÷ ãéáîåú (ãó èå:) åäéä àåëì çåìéï òì èäøú úøåîä

1.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that Rebbi Tzadok was a Kohen, as is apparent from the Gemara in Berachos (20b) regarding the statement, "We skipped over coffins (to see the king)." This is also apparent from the Gemara in Bechoros (36a), regarding a Bechor owned by Rebbi Tzadok. Similarly, we find in Yevamos (15b) that he used to eat Chulin as if he needed to maintain the purity of Terumah. (In other words, Rebbi Tzadok was always eating Terumah or as if he was eating Terumah, and we know one can use a napkin for even a k'Beitzah of Terumah. Why would the Gemara make such a deduction when it knows the Gemara later (107b) that one can use a napkin for Terumah?)

åé"ì ãäåä îöé ìîéîø åìéèòîéê [ò' úåñ' éåîà òè: ã"ä äà åúåñ' ñåëä ëæ. ã"ä äà ëáéöä]

(b)

Answer: The Gemara indeed could have said, "And according to you..." (and pointed this out). (The Maharam says that this answer erroneously appears in the text of Tosfos due to students mistakenly putting it into Tosfos. The correct text is that Tosfos does not answer the question at all.)

107b----------------------------------------107b

9)

TOSFOS DH BALAM

úåñôåú ã"ä áìí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that he ate the meat with bread.)

ôéøåù åôú òîä

(a)

Explanation: This means that he ate it (the meat) with bread.

10)

TOSFOS DH HASAM

úåñôåú ã"ä äúí

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel argue regarding the definition of Shivsa.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ øåç øòä ùåøä òì äéãéí ùìà ðèìå ùçøéú

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Shivsa is an evil spirit that is on hands that have not been washed in the morning.

åøáéðå úí îôøù ãáìà ðúéðú ôú ìúéðå÷ îåúø ìéèåì éãéå ùçøéú áéåí äëôåøéí ãìà âøò îîìåëìëåú áèéè åáöåàä ãàîøéðï ùøåçõ ëãøëå åàéðå çåùù

(b)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that even if one does not have to give bread to a child on Yom Kippur he is allowed to wash his hands on Yom Kippur morning, as it is not worse than if his hands were dirty with plaster and excrement. In such a situation we say that one is allowed to wash normally and not worry (that he is transgressing the prohibition against washing on Yom Kippur).

åàéï ìê îìåëìëåú éåúø îæä ùàéï éëåì ìéâò áôéå åáòéðéå áçåèîå åáàæðéå ãáëåìäå àîøéðï áô' ùîåðä ùøöéí (ùáú ãó ÷è.) ãú÷öõ éãå îùåí áú îìê

1.

Opinion (cont.): There is nothing dirtier than not washing one's hands in the morning, as one cannot touch his mouth, eyes, nose, and ears without doing so. This is as stated in Shabbos (109a) that if he does so (touches these areas before Netilas Yadayim in the morning) the evil spirit called Bas Melech rests on his hands (and can cause his harm).

åùéáúà ãäëà éù ìôøù ëîå ùôéøù ø"ç ùäåà øåç øòä äùåøä òì äàåëì ëùáà ìéúï äôú ìúðå÷ áï ã' åä' ùðéí åçåð÷ú àåúå àí ìà ðèì éãéå áàåúä ùòä àò"ô ùðèì ùçøéú

(c)

Explanation #2: Shivsa here can be explained, as it is explained by Rabeinu Chananel, as an evil spirit that rests on food (for example) when one touches the bread that he is going to give to a four or five year old child, causing him to choke if he did not wash his hands at that time, even though he did wash his hands when he woke up in the morning.

åîä ùàéï àðå ðæäøéí òëùéå îæä

1.

Implied Question: We are not careful about this (not to give bread to a four or five year old child without washing our hands first). (Why not?)

ìôé ùàéï àåúä øåç øòä îöåéä áéðéðå ëîå ùàéï àðå ðæäøéï òì äæåâåú åòì äâéìåé

2.

Answer: This is because that evil spirit is not commonly found amongst us. This is similar to the reason why we are not careful regarding Zugos (having things in pairs) and regarding Giluy.

11)

TOSFOS DH K'AIN

úåñôåú ã"ä ëòéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two definitions of the word "Tefisah.")

åàí éù ãáø îôñé÷ ìà äåé ëòéï úôéñä àçú ëääéà ãîñëú ò"æ áôø÷ øáé éùîòàì (ãó ð.) âáé àáðé îø÷åìéñ ãàîø ëàï áúôéñä àçú ëàï áùúé úôéñåú åäéëé ãîé ëâåï ãàéëà âåáä áéðé åáéðé

(a)

Opinion #1: If something is separating them, it is not within "one Tefisah (grabbing)." This term is used here in the same way that it is used in Avodah Zarah (50a) regarding Markolis stones when it says, "This case is within one grabbing, and this case is within two grabbings. What is the case (of two)? It is when there is a pile in between them."

åìôéëê ðåäâéï òëùéå ëùæä àåëì áùø åæä àåëì âáéðä òì ùìçï àçã îðéçéï ìçí àå ÷ð÷ï àå ùàø ëìéí ìäôñé÷ áéðúééí àå àåëì òì îôä àçøú ãäåé ëòéï ùúé úôéñåú

1.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Therefore the custom nowadays is that when one person is eating meat and one is eating cheese on one table, a loaf of bread or pitcher or other vessels are placed between them to separate them. Alternatively, one of them eats on a different tablecloth, as this also makes it akin to two "grabbings."

åé"î ãìà àñøå àìà áúôéñä àçú ëìåîø ùäï áäåöàä àçú ëâåï àçéí ù÷ðå àúøåâ áúôéñú äáéú ãéù ðåçìéï (á"á ÷ìæ:)

(b)

Opinion #2: Some explain that "they only forbade one grabbing" means that they share their expenses. This is akin to the case in Bava Basra (137b) which is about two brothers who bought an Esrog from the money of their estate.

åôøéê úôéñä àçú ñ"ã îä ìé áäåöàä àçú åîä ìé áùúé äåöàåú àí îëéøéï æä àú æä åîùðé ëòéï úôéñä àçú ãäééðå ùîëéøéï æä àú æä

1.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks, do you think they really bought it with the same Tefisah? Why should it make a different if they have one expense or two different expenses if they know each other? The Gemara answers, like one Tefisah means that they recognize each other.

åìôé' æä ìà àééøé ëìì ùéäà îåúø ìàëåì òì ùìçï àçã áùáéì äôñ÷ ùáéðúééí

(c)

Observation: According to this explanation, the Gemara is not saying that it is permitted to eat on one table together with something interrupting between them (rather it is saying they may only eat together because they do not know each other).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF