Siman 158

The sages ordained the washing of the hands with water when one desires to eat bread. As we learned in a Mishnah in Chagigah (17b): One washes the hands for chullin, and for ma'aser, and for terumah. And it is explained in the Gemara: "for chullin" – regarding eating, "and for terumah" – even regarding touching, because ordinary hands are considered second-degree of impurity, and a second-degree makes a third-degree in terumah. And they decreed regarding the eating of chullin because of the habit of terumah (Chullin 106a), for if they do not accustom themselves to wash hands for chullin – they will come to be habituated also regarding terumah not to wash hands. And they were not stringent regarding the touching of chullin, for it is sufficient if we accustom ourselves regarding the eating of chullin. And even though we do not have terumah in this time, nevertheless, the Beit HaMikdash will speedily be rebuilt and we will have terumah, and we will know to be careful with it (Levush).

And the truth is that they did not decree based on this reason alone. Rather, we derive this from the verse "And you shall sanctify yourselves" – this refers to the first waters (Berakhot, end of the eighth chapter). And the matter of holiness is as we say in Sotah (4b): Anyone who eats bread without drying the hands is as if he eats impure bread, as it is said: "And the Lord said: Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread impure...". For without drying the hands, the hands are loathsome, and a loathsome thing is like impurity, as it is written: "Even thus..." – it follows that a loathsome thing is called impurity (Rashi). And this is the matter of holiness, the opposite of impurity, for such is the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, that we conduct ourselves with cleanliness, holiness, and purity, for cleanliness leads to purity, and purity leads to separation and holiness. And even though they said this regarding the drying of the hands, nevertheless it is simple that regarding the essential netilah it certainly is like impure bread, for hands are busy. And furthermore, there is a support from the Torah for netilat yadayim from the verse "and his hands he did not rinse in water," as is found in Chullin ibid. (And with this, what is written there is understood: netilat yadayim is because of a trace of terumah, and furthermore because of the mitzvah to heed the words of the sages. And the Tosafot explained it is because of cleanliness, see there – and it is not understood at all. But according to what I have written it works well, for the words of the sages are in Berakhot from "And you shall sanctify yourselves," and it can be said that the intention of the Tosafot is also thus. Examine and you will find it easy.)

One must be very careful regarding netilat yadayim, and anyone who treats netilat yadayim with contempt comes to poverty (Shabbat 62b), and is uprooted from the world (Sotah 4b). And in Tractate Eduyot chapter five we learned that there was one who cast doubt on netilat yadayim, and they cursed him and he died in his curse. And anyone who violates the words of the sages is liable for death. They only imposed the obligation of netilat yadayim upon bread over which one recites the blessing "Hamotzi," even if one does not know of any tumah upon them. And one recites the blessing: "Who has sanctified us... regarding netilat yadayim," for since the sages instituted this, it is appropriate to say "and commanded us" from the verse "you shall not turn aside." And it is also appropriate to say "Who has sanctified us," since they supported this upon the verse "and you shall sanctify yourselves." But for bread over which one does not recite the blessing "Hamotzi," such as rolls or pat haba'ah b'kisnin, which are types of pastries and wafers over which one recites "Mezonot" — one does not need netilat yadayim. And if one established his meal upon them, such that he recites "Hamotzi" — he needs netilat yadayim with a blessing. There are those who are uncertain about this, but there is no doubt in this at all. And so wrote the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, and so it is clarified from the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Berakhot, who wrote: Anyone who eats bread over which he recites "Hamotzi" — needs netilat yadayim. And so the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch agreed (Taz and Magen Avraham subsection 2), and so one should instruct to wash his hands and with a blessing. And why did they not institute it for these? Because they only instituted it for an eating of a fixed nature, which involves "Hamotzi" and Birkat HaMazon and the holiness is recognizable. But not for that which its blessing is "Mezonot," where the eating is in a temporary manner and the final blessing is short, and the holiness is not so recognizable in this. Therefore, even for less than a kezayit one does not need netilat yadayim, because it does not involve Birkat HaMazon. And there is one who says that even for less than a kebeitzah of bread one does not need netilat yadayim, for the reason that all tumah of foods is in a kebeitzah. Therefore, he should wash his hands and not recite a blessing. But most of our teachers do not hold so, for since he is obligated in Birkat HaMazon and in "Hamotzi" — the rabbis did not differentiate, and he should wash his hands and recite a blessing (so it is implied in the Magen Avraham subsection 3). But some say that this is only regarding terumah (the Gra subsection 6). And a doubt regarding blessings is to be lenient. And there is one who wishes to say that even for less than a kezayit one should wash without a blessing (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 4), since he must recite "Hamotzi." And it seems that the world did not adopt this, and for less than a kezayit there is no netilat yadayim. (And as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 4, that the entire section 3 in the Shulchan Aruch is from a mistaken manuscript and no one disagrees on this.)

We say in Pesachim (115a): Anything whose dipping is in a liquid requires netilat yadayim. And some have explained the reason: that just as with bread they decreed because of a trace of terumah, for a second degree of impurity makes a third in terumah, and with liquids we hold that anything that disqualifies terumah renders liquids impure to be a first degree of impurity even in chullin; and if so, when he does not wash his hands, the hands will render the liquids impure to be a first degree, and the liquid will render the food impure, for a first degree makes a second in chullin (Tosafot of R. Yitzchak in Berakhot chapter eight). And according to this, it requires a berakhah just as with bread. But the Tosafot wrote in Pesachim there that this washing is not because of holiness and cleanliness as with bread, but rather so that he does not render the liquids impure and it would be forbidden to drink them and disqualify his body... and according to this, it appears that one should not recite a berakhah on this washing, since there is no mitzvah here to obey the words of the sages... Thus far their words. That is to say: for in truth, the matter of impurity and purity does not apply to us, for are we careful regarding impurity? And the primary obligation of netilat yadayim is from "And you shall sanctify yourselves," and this is only with bread in a fixed meal as I have written. And the reason of a trace of terumah is an additional reason, and since regarding this the matter of "And you shall sanctify yourselves" does not apply—a berakhah does not apply. And many of the Rishonim hold this way. And according to this opinion, there is no obligation at all in this time to wash his hands for his dipping in a liquid, and this was only in the ancient time when they ate in purity. And so the Tur wrote explicitly later in siman 473 in the name of the Maharam of Rothenburg. And for this reason, people are lenient nowadays in this. (And the Levush wrote according to this opinion that it is only because of cleanliness. And his words are puzzling, for the Tosafot wrote explicitly that it is not because of cleanliness, and as the Tur wrote in siman 473 that nowadays this law does not exist, see there. And the words of our teacher Yerucham that are in the Beit Yosef misled the Levush, as he wrote: And some explain that it is only because of cleanliness, see there. And it is a printing error, and thus it should say: that it is not because of cleanliness. And it is known that the books of our teacher Yerucham are full of errors, and in the glosses of the Levush the matters are corrected, see there. And also in the Taz, subsection 6, there is this error of our teacher Yerucham.)

When they obligated washing for dipping in liquid—it is even if his hands do not touch the place of the liquid; for we fear lest they touch, and even if he only dips the tip of the vegetable or the tip of the fruit. And for every type of dipping in liquid—one should wash without a blessing, because of the differences of opinion that have been explained. And there are some of the great authorities who lengthily explained that the primary view is like the first opinion, which is the opinion of the Geonim and the Rambam, and one must recite a blessing (the Gra, subsection 12). But the custom is not so, for even those who are careful regarding dipping in liquid, nevertheless we have never heard that they recite the blessing "on the washing of hands." And a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently, and all the more so in a matter where most of the world is not careful in this at all.

"Mashkin" are only seven liquids and no more, and these are they: wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, water. And your mnemonic is: YaD ShaChaT DaM. But other types of moisture, such as fat and sweat and fruit juices—are not included in "mashkin," for only these seven liquids render susceptible to impurity and contract impurity, as we learned in the Mishnah in Tractate Machshirin, chapter six (Mishnah 4). And these liquids, as long as they are moist, until there is in them enough moisture to moisten another—are called "moist." But less than this, they are like dry items, and do not require netilah. And know that honey is only bee honey like ours, but date honey is fruit juice and not a liquid. And similarly, wasp honey and gizzim—are not a liquid. And "blood" which we counted is not relevant here at all, for it is forbidden to eat blood. And the blood of fish and locusts is not a liquid; rather, because in Machshirin it is counted—the poskim counted it here as well as a routine phrasing of the Mishnah there. And it is simple that vinegar is included in wine, and if it was made from water—it is included in water. And similarly our beer is included in water, and similarly brandy is included in water. And even the strong kind that is called spirit is included in water. And I heard one who wished to say that it is mere sweat. And it is not so, for much water enters into them. And similarly with all the beverages found in cellars—the rule of dipping in liquid applies to them.

One who drinks liquids—he does not need to wash his hands, since one drinks by means of a vessel. And even if he dipped his finger into liquids and sucks it—he does not need washing (Magen Avraham, subsection 5, in the name of the Radbaz), for they did not decree regarding a matter that it is not the way of people to do so. And for this reason, also one who dips a food item into liquid, in a manner that it is not the way of people to dip it into liquid—he does not need washing of the hands, for his intention is nullified by that of all people (ibid.). But a matter that it is the way to dip it into liquid, even if he dips it by means of a fork or a spoon—he requires washing of the hands, for the sages did not differentiate (Ba'er Heitev, subsection 12, in the name of the Knesset HaGedolah). However, it is certainly so that a matter whose way is to be eaten with a spoon, such as soup, or with a fork, such as fish and meat—he does not need washing, for this is like one who drinks. And those who submerge fruits in water in order to clean them from dust or from another repulsive thing, and eats them while the water is still moist upon them—he requires washing of the hands (Sha'arei Teshuvah, subsection 4). But if he wipes them, even if there is still a bit of moisture upon them—he does not need washing of the hands. (And that which the Taz wrote in subsection 10 regarding honey—it requires further study.)

Egg fluids are fruit juice. Similarly, the fat of beasts and birds, and water that has frozen, we learned in the Tosefta of Taharot that it is not a liquid (the Rash cited it in the third chapter of Taharot, mishnah 2). If they returned and melted—they are a liquid (ibid.). Snow is not a liquid; if one intended it for liquids—it is a liquid (Niddah 17a). And it appears that this is when it has not melted, for if it has melted—it is complete water. The Rambam wrote in the first chapter of Tumat Ochalin, law 19: Congealed oil is neither food nor liquid. If one intended for it while it is congealed, whether for food or for liquid—his intention is nullified. Milk that congealed—is neither food nor liquid. If one intended for it—his intention is nullified if he intended it for liquids. See there. And similarly for wine and honey the law is so, and when they melt they return to being liquids. Milk that is in the stomach and in the udder—is not a liquid (ibid.). And from this we learned that butter is not a liquid unless it has melted. And one who eats something with butter—does not require netilat yadayim, even if he smeared it with his hands. And there is no difference regarding congealed substances, whether they congealed by means of cooking or by means of cold. But if they only thickened slightly, and they are still flowing and have in them moisture sufficient to moisten—it is a liquid, and requires netilat yadayim (Magen Avraham, subsection 7).

Types of preserves that are fried in honey, such as ein gemacht and teiglach and pureskes and the like, some say they are not considered a liquid. As it was taught in the Tosefta of Taharot: Honey that flows from its hive—it contracts the impurity of liquids. If he intended it for food—it contracts the impurity of foods. And if so, the honey of preserves, since it stands for eating—it is not called a "liquid" (Magen Avraham). And some say that this is an error, for that applies to honey that flows on its own and he intended it at the time of flowing. But honey that was harvested from a hive, it was taught there that it contracts the impurity of liquids. And it does not avail that he intends it for food, for intention does not remove it from the status of action. And even though he fried it and there was an action, and it removes it from intention—that is regarding vessels, but regarding foods [it remains a liquid] until it is disqualified from the consumption of a dog (Taz, subsection 7). And in my humble opinion, even though the truth is like the words of the latter opinion, nevertheless for the law, the primary view is like the first opinion, for certainly regarding the essence of the honey it is a liquid. But we say in Shabbat (144b) that a liquid that comes for food—it is food. And in Yoma (80b): Anything that prepares food—it is food, see there. And here it indeed comes for food, and to prepare the food, and it does not require netila. And one should not distinguish and say: because there it did not previously have the status of "liquid" before it came to the food, and therefore when it came to the food it became food, but here it had the status of "liquid" beforehand. For it is not so, as here too we say this: that now at the time we would obligate him in netila because of the liquids—it has already been mixed with the food and prepared the food. And there is no obligation unless he now places a food item into a liquid. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote at the end of subsection 7, that if they congealed even if they returned and melted they are not liquids, see there—this is the opinion of the Tosafot. But the Rambam did not rule so, as I have written.)

And there is reason to doubt regarding types of preserves where the intention is for the sake of the syrup, such as when they squeeze the fruits and fry the syrup in sugar which they call "zucker." And all of them are fruit juices, and it is only the way to mix a little water at the time of preserving. And so too even when they fry them with the fruits and they are whole, like our types of "confiture" which have much syrup in them, nevertheless the primary element is the sugar, only that a little water is mixed there. And so too all types of preserves we make now with sugar and not with honey, and they are fruit juices only that they mix a little water in them, if they require netila? And it appears that they do not require netila, for since there is a majority of fruit juice against the water—the water is nullified regarding the fruit juice. And this matter is explicit in Bekhorot (22a) in the sugya of one who purchases brine, see there. And that which we learned in Makhshirin (chapter six, mishna 3) that pure brine into which any amount of water fell is tamei, they established it in Bekhorot there (23b) that also previously it was half and half, see there. And the words of the Rambam in chapter sixteen of Tumat Okhalin, law 4, who explained the mishna according to its plain meaning—they have already wondered at him regarding this, see there. However, for the halakha it is as I have written, and one does not need netila for our preserves unless they were fried in honey. And such is the primary ruling for the halakha.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: Roasted meat—there is one from whose words it appears that even if the moisture is damp upon it, its law is like fruit. And a dish of wheat and they are dry—its law is like fruit. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: For it deals with a roast that they roast on a spit over the fire, and therefore the moisture that emerges from the meat itself, its law is like fruit juice. And even though it was certainly rinsed with water, nevertheless, it presumably dried from the water immediately before its cooking. And a dish of wheat and they are dry—it is obvious that it does not require netila. And some say that even if there is moisture damp upon the meat and upon the wheat, they do not require netila, for they only decreed upon that which one dips in liquid, and not what has damp liquid upon the food (Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter eight of Chullin, siman 18), for since it was cooked it is called "food" (Magen Avraham, subsection 10 in the name of the Maharit). And they disagreed with this, for behold the Rashba wrote (in Torat HaBayit) that fruit and meat and fish that have liquid on them, or if one dips them in liquid—one requires netilat yadayim (Taz, subsection 9). And this is no proof, for that is when it was not cooked, but when it was cooked the name "food" is upon it. And so it is implied in Rashi, Berakhot (52a, starting with the words "Ein Keli"), who wrote: Liquids of a cooked dish damp upon the hands—the law of liquids is not upon it, but rather the law of food. Thus far his words. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 10, that this is specifically with its own liquid, see there—I do not know from where we have this to say so. However, from the Mishnah at the beginning of the third chapter of Teharot it is clarified that it is a liquid, see there. But according to what the Yam Shel Shlomo wrote, even though it contracts tumah, nevertheless they did not decree in this case. Examine and you will find it easy.)

One who washes his hands for fruits—behold, this is among the haughty of spirit, for he shows that he is more stringent than the words of the sages. For the sages did not decree regarding fruits, only regarding bread, because the terumah of fruits is rabbinic. And even if it were from the Torah, as is implied by the words of the Rambam in the first chapter of Terumות, nevertheless they are a casual eating, and they only decreed regarding a fixed eating, as I have written. And this is specifically when he washes them as a matter of obligation. But if he washes them merely for the sake of cleanliness, and especially when he knows that his hands are not clean—it is well. And similarly, one who drinks does not need to wash even one hand; since one always drinks by means of a vessel, they did not decree in this. And even if he takes water from a river with his hands—it is a chance occurrence, and they did not decree in such a case (see Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And similarly, when they cook types of dough in water—they do not require washing, for they eat them with a spoon (Turei Zahav, subsection 9). And it seems to me that even if he takes them with his hands, since it is an uncommon matter—the sages did not decree regarding it. And when they fry dough in butter which they eat with the hands, if there is moist butter upon them that has the moisture sufficient to moisten—it requires washing. And if not—it does not require washing. And if they fried in fat, in any case it does not require washing of the hands, for they are fruit juices (Turei Zahav, ibid.). And similarly, meat from a broth, it is not the way to eat it except by means of a fork, and it does not require washing. And similarly, potatoes that are in a cooked dish, and when one eats them with melted butter, he requires washing of the hands.

If one washed his hands for a matter that is dipped in liquid, and afterward decided to eat bread; or if he washed his hands not for eating at all, such as because they were dirty, and after the washing and the drying he decided to eat bread—it depends on the opinions that will be explained in siman 159 regarding whether intention is required for washing hands for the eating of bread or not. For if intention is required—certainly he must return and wash with a blessing. And if intention is not required—he does not need to return and wash at all, provided he did not divert his mind from the previous washing. And the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, later on tends toward the view that intention is not required, and therefore here he should wash but not bless. It follows that his eating now is without a blessing, for initially he certainly did not bless, and now too he shall not bless. And one cannot say he should bless now upon the previous washing, for even though we hold that even after drying one blesses "al netilat yadayim"—it is impossible to say so, for that is regarding a washing where he intended for the sake of bread. But here, in the first washing, he did not intend for the washing of hands for bread (Magen Avraham, subsection 13), and therefore he does not bless at all. And blessings are not indispensable. And if he touched filthy places on his body in the middle of his eating—he shall return and wash his hands and bless "al netilat yadayim." And all the more so when he went to relieve himself in the middle of the meal, for he must return and wash and bless "al netilat yadayim."

At the end of the first chapter of Eruvin (17a), we learned in a Mishnah that in a war camp they were exempted from netilat yadayim because it is a place of danger, and even if there is water within four mil – one is not required to go. And the same law applies to those who travel in deserts, or if one was on a journey in a place of danger and has no water – he is exempt from netilat yadayim. So too, one who sits in a prison and has no water, for he may eat without netilat yadayim. And even though we found regarding Rabbi Akiva when he sat in prison that he did not want to eat without netilat yadayim (Eruvin 21b) – he was acting stringently upon himself, but by the law he was exempt. And it appears that he does not need to wrap his hands in a cloth and eat, for since the sages exempted him – he is entirely exempt. And there is one who says that he must wrap his hands in a cloth (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 20, in the name of Ma'adanei Yom Tov). But it does not imply such from the language of the Mishnah, for since we learned that they exempted them – it should have said they permitted them by means of a cloth, as in the Gemara they permitted a cloth for those who eat terumah (Chullin 107b). And it is brought in the Yerushalmi there that just as they permitted it in their going to the camp – so too in their return, see there.

It has already been explained that one must be very careful regarding netilat yadayim, for one is uprooted from the world and comes to poverty. And your sign is that the initial letters of "Al Netilat Yadayim" are "Ani" [poor], meaning: that this saves one from poverty (Levush). And even though their measure is a revi'it – one should wash with abundance. For Rava said: I wash with handfuls of water, and they give me handfuls of goodness (Shabbat 62a). That is to say: he poured much water upon his hands, and they gave him much wealth from Heaven. And those people who disparage and cast doubt upon the words of our sages, of blessed memory – their end is destruction, and they have no portion in the World to Come. And concerning them the prophet cried out: "Woe to those who say of evil it is good and of good it is evil," for behold, in netilat yadayim there is great cleanliness, and nevertheless, due to the evil of their degenerate inclination, they despise this delicate mitzvah and eat with filthy hands. Woe to them and to their souls.

When one washes his hands, he should take the vessel in his right hand and give it to his left, and wash the right hand first, for in all places we accord honor to the right. And there is another reason for this (see Magen Avraham at the beginning of this siman). And according to that which we hold that for all mitzvot one recites the blessing over them prior to their performance, it should have been necessary to recite the blessing of "al netilat yadayim" before the washing. Nevertheless, this is not the custom, and we bless after the washing. And so is the primary ruling, because in most instances his hands are not clean and it is impossible to bless at all. Therefore, occasionally even when his hands are clean, they did not distinguish. And furthermore: even when one blesses after the washing it is considered prior to their performance, for he blesses before he rubs his hands together, as is the way of people, and it is like before the performance of the mitzvah. And all the more so if he washes the first time with less than a revit, for they have not yet become pure until after the second waters, as will be explained. And he blesses before the second, which is prior to their performance. And even if he blesses entirely after the washing, since he blesses before the drying it is considered prior to their performance. For the drying also is indispensable, as they said at the beginning of Sotah that anyone who eats without drying the hands is as if he eats impure bread.

Therefore, one should be careful to dry them well, and the essence of this law is due to the impurity of the water, as will be explained. When one washes with a large amount of water the first time—they are not impure, and similarly one who immerses them in a river. But nevertheless, we have never seen anyone eat with damp hands, and it is unseemly. Therefore, the drying is also considered part of the mitzvah, and when one recites the blessing before drying, it is "prior to their performance." This is the simple custom, and it should not be changed. (And the precision of the Taz in subsection 12 is answered.) If one forgot to recite the blessing before drying—he should recite the blessing even afterward, as in immersion where she recites the blessing after the immersion, as explained in Yoreh Deah siman 200. There is one who says that after drying he should not recite the blessing (Taz subsection 12), just as with "Hamotzi" one does not recite the blessing when he has finished his meal, as I wrote in siman 167. But it is not comparable, for there it was fitting to recite the blessing before "Hamotzi," and it was "seen and rejected," and that which is rejected does not return and become "seen." This is not the case here; in most washings it was not fitting to recite the blessing beforehand and it was a "rejection from the outset," and we hold throughout the Shas that "rejection from the outset" is not named a rejection. Similarly, the great Acharonim agreed that he should recite the blessing afterward (Magen Avraham subsection 16, and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 23), and such is the essence of the law. But after the blessing of "Hamotzi" he does not recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim" (ibid.), for it is as if its time has already passed since he began another matter. (And he should not dry his hands with his shirt or his garment, for it is detrimental to memory. And it was written in Birkei Yosef that if immediately after Birkat HaMazon they brought before him something whose dipping is in liquid—he does not require netilat yadayim.)

One who immerses his hands may, according to the law, eat without drying, for the hands did not become impure. And ostensibly, even when pouring a revi'it at once upon his hands—likewise, the water did not become impure. Nevertheless, they wrote that this is not so, for drying is an enactment of the sages, and they enacted it in every case only regarding washing and not regarding immersion (Rashal, and Bach, and Taz, and Magen Avraham subsection 18). And even regarding one who immerses, there is a concern of repulsiveness if he finds it distasteful, and he must dry (ibid.). But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 13 ruled that one who pours a revi'it at once upon both hands, or a revi'it upon each hand—it is like one who immerses, see there. And the great Acharonim did not rule accordingly, as I have written. And how one blesses upon immersion will be explained at the end of siman 159.