Introduction
In this week’s parsha we learn that in response to their incessant complaining about the inferior quality of the manna the Jewish people were attacked by snakes, as the pasuk states: “The people spoke against Hashem and against Moshe, 'why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in this desert for there is no bread and no water and we are disgusted with this rotten bread', Hashem sent against the people the venomous snakes and they bit the people and many died” (Bamidbar 21:5 - 6). Rashi explains that the Jewish people's slanderous speech about the manna warranted the punishment of snakes because the original nachash was the first one to speak slanderously when he falsely claimed that Adam and Chava were only prohibited from partaking of the Tree of Knowledge, “for Hashem knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will become like divine beings, knowing good and evil" (Bereishis 3:5).
The relationship between lashon hara and snakes is confirmed by the pasuk: “One who breaks a fence, a snake shall bite him" (Koheles 10:8), referring to one who breaches the barriers of the teeth and the lips to spew negative speech about someone else. The libelous individual deserves to be bitten by a snake because the original snake first opened the door to lashon hara. For this reason, Yosef's life was also threatened by snakes. The pit where Yosef was cast by his brothers, “was empty there was no water in it” (Bereishis 37:24), but Rashi comments: “Water indeed it did not contain but there were snakes and scorpions in it”. The Kli Yakar submits that Yosef was trapped together with snakes as a punishment for speaking lashon hara about his brothers, as the Torah tells us: “And Yosef brought bad reports of them to their father” (Bereishis 37:2).
However, Rav Pinchas Freidman (Shvilei Pinchas) suggests that the Jewish people were stricken with snakes after their disparaging comments about the manna for an additional reason. The Gemara (Yoma 76a) records that the talmidim of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai once asked him: Why did the manna come down every day in small portions instead of one large shipment that would sustain them for the entire year? He replied with the parable of a king who accepted to provide support for his son. The king knew that if he granted his son a substantial annual gift the son would only visit once a year when it was time to receive his allowance. Therefore, the king elected to give his son food in daily installments thereby forcing the son, who he loved and wanted to see, to visit every day. Similarly, Hashem chose to limit the Jewish people to daily helpings of manna instead of handing them one lump sum for the entire year, so that they would be compelled to interact with Him more often and daven every day for their needs.
The exercise of collecting the manna daily was intended to communicate Hashem's desire to have a relationship with the Jewish people and strengthen their awareness of Hashem's constant involvement in their lives. Perhaps this is alluded to in the language of the pasuk which describes Bnei Yisrael's initial reaction to the appearance of the manna when they declared “to one another 'man hu' - it is manna" (Shemos 16:15). Rav Yisroel of Modzhitz (Divrei Yisroel) notes that the letters of the words "man hu" can be rearranged to spell emunah - faith, because the purpose of the manna was to enrich and reinforce the emunah of the Jewish people in the providence of Hashem.
Rabbeinu Bechayeh (Parshas Chukas) claims that the primary grievance of the Jewish people regarding the manna was not in relation to its flavor or the manner in which it was digested, but rather to the size of the deliveries. They resented the need to trek out each and every day in order to gather their meager rations. Why couldn't they be given enough all at once to last the entire year so that collecting their panassah would not be a constant and daily struggle?
The answer to their complaint was provided by the emergence of the snakes, because the snake actually possesses an extreme version of the lifestyle the people requested. In the wake of the sin of Adam and Chava the snake was cursed, “and you shall eat dust all the days of your life” (Bereishis 3, 14). On the surface the ability of the snake to consume dirt seems like a great blessing, since there is a constant and endless supply of food available. Indeed, the Gemara (Berachos 57a) relates that one who sees a snake in a dream is a sign that his livelihood is accessible to him, just as dust is readily accessible to a snake. What then was the nature of the snake's punishment? Rav Simcha Bunim of Peshischa explains that by giving the snake a perpetual stream of uninterrupted parnassah Hashem was in effect banishing the snake. Since the snake is not concerned about his livelihood, he has no reason to bother and interact with Hashem in the future. By striking the Jewish people with snakes, Hashem was contrasting the delivery schedule of the manna with the treatment of the snake. The work of gathering the manna every day, and the labor of earning a parnassah, while admittedly a nuisance and a bother, should ultimately be interpreted as a signal of Hashem's love for the Jewish people and His desire to continuously be involved in our daily lives.
In light of the fact that snakes feature heavily in this week’s parsha, I would like to take this week’s opportunity to discuss a topic which is very much related to snakes, the topic of mashkim megulim, uncovered beverages: Does it apply today? If not, why not, where did all the snakes go? Is there a difference between Eretz Yisroel and the rest of the world? Does it apply to all beverages, or are there only certain special beverages that the prohibition applies to? From the sugya [discussion in the Gemara] of mashkim megulim it seems that snakes are very fussy drinkers, but surely everything tastes like dust for them, so why are they so picky? What caused the Vilna Gaon to once lose concentration during Shemonah Esrei? Can one go to mikveh or for a swim in water which was left uncovered? Can one use it to wash his car? How long does it take for the liquid to become subject to giluy [the issue of being uncovered]? Do CCTV cameras help? What if mashkim megulim was left in a utensil for more than 24 hours, does the utensil need to be kashered? Of this and more below.
Source
The source for the prohibition of drinking mashkim megulim is the Mishnah in Terumas (8:4) the Mishnah teaches:
כל ושאר והחלב והיין המים גלוי משום אסורים משקין שלשה חולין של לומר צריך ואין ישפך שנתגלה תרומה של יין .וישתה קרוב ממקום הרחש שיצא כדי אסורין ויהיו ישהו כמה מותרים המשקין
Wine of terumah that was left uncovered, should be poured out, and certainly wine of chullin should be. There are three liquids subject to giluy: Water, wine, and milk, all other liquids are permissible. How long do the liquids need to be left uncovered for their to be a problem? The amount of time it takes for a crawling creature (i.e. snake) to crawl out of its hiding place and drink.
Then and Now
In ancient times, poisonous snakes and reptiles were commonly found even in populated areas. In keeping with the Torah’s strict exhortation to safeguard one’s life, Chazal issued an edict forbidding drinking from any uncovered vessel which had been left unsupervised, for fear that a poisonous snake might have ejected venom into its contents while drinking from it.
This prohibition, known as mashkim megulim, “uncovered beverages,” besides for the Mishnah we mentioned above is mentioned in a number of Gemara’s (see Avodah Zorah 30a, Chullin 9b and others), and is codified by the Rambam as halachah which we are to practice today. But the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 116:1), who starts by quoting the Rambam, concludes by ruling that this edict no longer applies. Since poisonous snakes and reptiles are rarely found in populated areas nowadays, there is no longer any reason to forbid drinking an uncovered, unsupervised beverage. The basic halachah follows this opinion, and one is no longer required to concern himself with this prohibition (see Mishnah Berurah 160:23).
Where Did the Snakes Go?
This idea that the halachos of mashkim megulim no longer apply nowadays comes from the Rishonim who mention an idea that: שאין נחשים מצויין בינינו עכשיו – “Nowadays it is not common to find snakes amongst us”. Many Rishonim mention this idea, see for example Tosfos in Avodah Zorah 35a, and Beitzah 6a. The question is, however, where did all the snakes go to?
The simple answer I think is, that in the times of the Gemara there were muddy paths and street everywhere, and even the areas where people lived in were much muddier and less built up than they are today. The houses people used to live in were also much less built up than they are today. Since areas were much less built up, snakes would remain living in such areas. Nowadays, however, we live in much more solid built-up areas, and it’s not enjoyable for snakes to live in such areas, therefore, today they are much less common. We can also add that today we have many more cats, and cats like to eat up snakes, hence today finding a snake is much less common.
We mentioned that the Rishonim say: שאין נחשים מצויין בינינו עכשיו – “Nowadays it is not common to find snakes amongst us”. The Kneses Hagedolah (Hagoas Beis Yosef, ois 18) writes that there are two ways to understand this statement: 1) We can be lenient everywhere in the world, as snakes aren’t as frequent today as they were in the times of the Talmud, 2) We aren’t scared about snakes being found today at all. According to the first explanation, even if one finds himself in a place where there are snakes, they aren’t as common as they were in the times of the Talmud, therefore, one can still be lenient. According to the second explanation, however, one can only be lenient if there are no snakes at all, if one finds that there are snakes where he lives, then he would have to be stringent.
The Kneses Hagedolah concludes that we take on like the first explanation. However, this is only if one is unaware of a snake having had any access to the beverage, if, however, one finds a snake by the side of his beverage, then even according to the first explanation it would be forbidden to drink.
In the He’oras of R’ Elyashiv on Pesachim (109b) they bring: “There was an individual who went to all the cities and asked them for statistics of the number of snakes in their region. This individual wrote in a sefer, that he found in every place a few snakes, sometimes two, sometimes three, sometimes four, and sometimes even more, and he suggested that the halachos of mashkim megulim must be reinstated, as we see snakes are common. R’ Elyashiv, however, disagreed with this individual.” (In the sefer, they don’t explain why, but in light of the first explanation of the Kneses Hagedolah it is very understandable.)
They quote further from R’ Elyashiv, that nowadays, drinking mashkim megulim isn’t dangerous. Even if one drinks the poison itself, if one doesn’t have any wounds he won’t be harmed. If this is true says, R’ Elyashiv, then the Shulchan Aruch stands correct.
Room for Stringency
There are, however, poskim who maintain that the original edict applies even in our days. Their opinion is based on the following arguments:
- Although poisonous snakes and reptiles are no longer common in most places, they do exist in some remote areas. Since one can easily avoid drinking mashkim megulim, there is little justification to discount a Rabbinic edict which was enacted for our benefit and protection. In addition, while it is true that we no longer fear being poisoned by a snake or other reptile, we are still concerned about the venom of other rodents which may be harmful, even if not fatal.
- A Rabbinic prohibition cannot be repealed even when the stated rationale no longer applies. This is because the Rabbis did not necessarily divulge all of the reasons behind their pronouncements. Consequently, even if the given reason is no longer applicable, we are still bound by the prohibition.
This comes from the Vilna Gaon and is probably one of the most famous things written in Maaseh Rav. The Maaseh Rav (95) writes:
תיקנו או ,ל "חז שאסרו מה כל אומר היה הוא בדבר מאד מאד נזהר היה ל"ז והוא .בינינו מצוים נחשים שאין אף אסור גלוי מכמה אחד אלא גילו לא הם כי ,עומד במקומו ואיסורן תקנתן לנו הגלוי הטעם שבטל אף ,טעם איזה מפני ,תקנה איזה .לנו הגלוי הטעם שבטל אף חכמים דברי על לעבור אסור כ "ע עמהם הכמוסים טעמים
“Uncovered beverages are forbidden for us, even though it is no longer common to find snakes amongst us. The Gaon was extremely careful about this and he would say: Anytime Chazal forbade something, or made a certain enactment due to a particular reason, even if the revealed reasons no longer apply, the original prohibition remains in place. The reason for this is, Chazal revealed to us just one of the many reasons behind the prohibition. Therefore, it’s forbidden to go against the words of Chazal, even if the known reason no longer applies.”
The sefer Siach Eliyahu (ois 41) writes that he has a tradition from the Vilna Gaon: שמי שנזהר בתכלית החומרות בגילוי כל המשקין ומים לשתיה לא יבוא לו מחשבה זרה בתפלתו – “One who is careful with all the stringencies about leaving beverages uncovered, and leaving water for drinking uncovered, won’t come to have stray thoughts during his davening”.
They bring (Siach Eliyahu) that the Vilna Gaon had a gabbah [attendant] and he would warn him very strongly to make sure to always bring fresh water that was not left uncovered. One time, it was a rainy and windy night and the gabbah was lazy and he got the Gaon water from an uncovered barrel and brought it to him. The next day after Shacharis he told off his gabbah for bringing him uncovered water. The Gaon told his gabbah that throughout the entire Shacharis there was a certain image in his head that was causing him to struggle concentrating, and it was because of the uncovered water that he had drank, and he told his gabbah to make sure not to ever do it again.
As we mentioned above, the basic halachah does not follow this opinion, and uncovered drinks may be consumed. Nevertheless, there are many people who choose to observe these halachos strictly, and there are several sources who strongly recommend avoiding mashkim megulim, especially in Eretz Yisrael. We also mentioned from the Gaon that if one is careful with mashkim megulim he will be saved from stray thoughts during tefillah, therefore, we will discuss below some of the basic halachos for those who wish to keep them.
Which Beverages Are Included in the Prohibition?
- The aforementioned Mishnah in Terumas brings: Water, wine, and milk.
- The Steipler (Orchos Rabbeinu, Vol. 1, pg. 206) is quoted as saying that beer is also subject to giluy. The reason is, because he held that even though it is cooked and has spices added, it’s still considered water.
- Coffee is a machlokes between the Chazon Ish and the Steipler. In Orchos Rabbeinu (Vol. 5, pg. 129) they bring from the Chazon Ish that coffee is not subject to giluy, and from the Steipler that it is.
- In regard to tea, the Chazon Ish, Steipler and R’ Chaim Kanievsky were all stringent.
- Honey — bee’s honey only. Date honey is not affected by this prohibition (see Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeiach 11:7).
- Fish juice is subject to a machlokes Rishonim. The Steipler is quoted as being stringent (see Orchos Rabbeinu, Vol. 1, pg. 207).
Fruit juices, vinegar and oil are excluded from this prohibition (see Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeiach 11:7.)
Why Are Snakes So Fussy About What They Drink, Surely It All Tastes Like Dust
From the fact that only very specific beverages are subject to the dinim of mashkim megulim, it seems that snakes are very fussy about what they eat and drink. But surely, we learn in Bereishis (3:14), that after the snake caused Adam and Chavah to sin it was punished: וע פר תאכ ל כל ימי חיי ך – “dust you will eat for the rest of your life.” Rashi in this week’s parsha (21:6) even brings: “That snakes were punished and everything they taste, tastes like dust”. Rashi is coming to explain why the Yidden were punished specifically with the snakes, and he writes based on Chazal, since the Yidden were given the manna which tasted like anything they wanted and yet they were still ungrateful, measure for measure they were punished by something for which everything tastes the same, i.e. the snake. If everything the snake eats and drinks tastes like dust, why do they only go after certain beverages, surely, all liquids should be subject to giluy. We should be worried that snakes drink and leave behind venom in all beverages?
The truth is, this assumption that everything a snake tastes, tastes like dust is actually a machlokes in Yoma (75a). The Gemara cites a machlokes between R’ Ami and R’ Asi, one says that the curse given to the snake was “whatever it eats, even the tastiest things in the world, it will taste like dust”. And one says, “even if the snake eats all the tasty things in the world, it won’t be satisfied until it also eats dust”. According to this second opinion, a snake can taste different types of taste, and the curse is merely, that it doesn’t get satisfied until it also has dust for dessert. According to this opinion, our question falls away, but what about according to the first opinion, which Rashi in Parshas Chukas goes with: Why are snakes so fussy if everything tastes like dust?
There is a third opinion in the Medrash HaGadol (Bereishis 3:14) that the food a snake eats turns into dust in its stomach. This implies that initially when the snake eats, it can taste, and it does enjoy all different tastes and kinds of foods. The curse is, that instead of having good healthy feeling foods inside its stomach, it feels full of dust. According to this opinion, we can also explain why snakes are fussy, but how do we understand the sugya of mashkim megulim according to the first opinion mentioned above?
It would seem that what we must say is, although the snake was cursed that everything tastes like dust, however, its smelling capabilities remained intact. This is clear from the Gemara in Shabbos (110a) which says that a snake is able to smell both food and drink. The Gemara mentions that a snake can even smell the steps of a person to determine where he is. Therefore, although they can’t taste, they have smell, therefore, perhaps they smell food and drink before eating or drinking it, and a snake only smells and then drinks from the aforementioned beverages.
Chiddush of the Gaon
Another answer to our question can be found in the very cryptic words of the Vilna Gaon in Aderes Eliyohu (Bereishis 3:14) where he explains the curse of: וע פר תאכ ל כל ימי חיי ך – “Dust you will eat for the rest of your life.” The Gaon writes: The snake had great jealously and lust, and never left any food untasted; therefore, it was cursed that it shouldn’t benefit from any food, and that all it eats will taste like dust. Since the pasuk only mentioned food:ל כן ישלוט במשקות הגלויים - it has control over what it drinks, and makes problems with uncovered beverages.
It’s clear that the Gaon had our question, and he answers, that from the pasuk it’s clear that the curse that “everything should taste like dust” was only on food, and not on drink.
Another answer I saw brought down is, that although the snake was cursed that whatever it eats would taste like dust, even by dust itself there are different tastes, and it only likes certain dust like tastes, therefore, it doesn’t drink from all beverages. Proof to this can be brought from the Gemara in Shabbos...
