Siman 159

One may only wash the hands with a whole vessel. And we derive this from the water of purification, which requires a vessel, as it is written: "living water into a vessel." And the sanctification of the hands and feet also requires a vessel, like the washstand and its equivalent. Furthermore: for the table of a person is in the place of the altar (end of Chagigah), and just as before the service of the altar one was required to sanctify his hands from the washstand, so too before his eating he shall sanctify his hands by means of a vessel. And we learned in Tractate Yadayim (first chapter, Mishnah 2): One may wash the hands with all vessels, even with vessels of dung, with vessels of stone, with vessels of earth. And even though for impurity they are not considered vessels to contract impurity, nevertheless they are vessels, and what does it matter to us if they contract impurity or do not contract impurity?

And know that regarding a hole in a vessel, whether it disqualifies it, and how large the hole must be to disqualify—there is confusion among the poskim, and therefore it is necessary to explain the law from its source. We learn in Chullin (107a): Rava said: A vessel that was perforated like a "receiver of liquid" [kones mashkeh]—one may not wash the hands from it. And if we say the reason is because it has been nullified from the status of a "vessel" regarding tumah, for with such a hole the vessel becomes pure, as appears from the words of the Rambam in chapter six of Berakhot, law 11, who wrote: And vessels that were broken with a breaking that purifies them from tumah—one may not provide water in them for the hands, because they are shards of vessels. Thus far his words, and he did not mention "kones mashkeh" at all; and also regarding the law of a pipe, which in the Gemara there mentioned "kones mashkeh," and will be explained in section 29, and the Rambam wrote it there in law 14—he also omitted "kones mashkeh," see there. And it appears explicitly that he holds that the reason of Rava is because with this hole it becomes pure from tumah, for it is like a shard of a vessel. And if so, this law applies only to an earthenware vessel designated for liquids, as Rava himself said in Shabbat (95b): There are five measures in an earthenware vessel: if it was perforated like a "kones mashkeh"—it is pure from sanctifying Mei Chatat in it, but it is still a vessel for the susceptibility of seeds..., see there. And that which he mentioned "kones mashkeh" is because it is the first level of the nullification of a vessel, as Rashi explained in Niddah (49a). For it says there also that an earthenware vessel, its measure is a "kones mashkeh," and Rashi explained that this is the smallest of the measures that nullify it from being a vessel. Thus far his words. (And even though a gistra is like an "emitter of liquid" [motzi mashkeh], yet that is a shard of a vessel from the outset, see there.)

And according to this, this law applies only to an earthenware vessel designated for liquids, but if it is designated for foods, the measure of the hole is like that which lets an olive pass through, as is explained there. And so too if it is a wooden vessel—its measure is like that which lets a pomegranate pass through, as we learned in Kelim at the beginning of chapter seventeen. And if it is a metal vessel, there are other measures, as is explained there in chapter fourteen and in the Rambam, chapter eleven of Kelim. And Rava relied on the measures that were explained in the Mishnayot of Kelim, for the Mishnayot are known to all, and he opened with the first measure as in Niddah. And even though he did not mention here "earthenware vessel" explicitly according to his explanation, it is known that the measure of "admitting liquid" applies only to an earthenware vessel. And this is what the Rambam wrote, that a vessel that was broken with a break that renders it pure is invalid for netilat yadayim. And it appears to me that this is also the opinion of the Semak brought by the Tur, and this is his wording: It is written in the Semak that if one designated it for olives, the status of a "vessel" is upon it, and it is permitted to wash from it if it holds a revit, until it is perforated like that which lets an olive pass through. Thus far his words, and this is exactly the system of the Rambam. And the Tur challenged him with this wording: And it is possible to distinguish that specifically regarding the matter of tumah does designation for olives avail, but regarding the matter of washing, whose measure is "admitting liquid," since it was perforated with this measure, it is no longer considered a vessel. Thus far his words. For to the Tur it was simple that Rava stated the measure of "admitting liquid" regarding all vessels; if so, it is not related to tumah. But according to the system of the Rambam, this is dependent on that, and perforce one must say as we have explained with the help of Heaven.

But the Semag in the laws of netilat yadayim wrote: Rava said: A vessel that was punctured to the extent that it admits liquid—one may not perform netilat yadayim from it, for the name "vessel" is no longer upon it. And even if it was punctured above the volume of a revit. And my teacher wrote that the Ri would practice accordingly even with a vessel requiring immersion, even though this measure was only mentioned regarding an earthenware vessel. Thus far his words. And the Tosafot wrote similarly in Niddah there, and this is their wording: And even though in our entire sugya "admits liquid" was only mentioned regarding an earthenware vessel... and not regarding a wooden vessel, nevertheless, that which Rava said in Chullin: A vessel that was punctured to the extent that it admits liquid, one may not perform netilat yadayim from it—one should be stringent with all vessels..., since he did not mention an "earthenware vessel" but rather "vessel" without qualification. Thus far their words, and the intention is not a mere stringency but rather the essential law. And their reasoning appears to me: that with all vessels, when one designates them for water, the name "vessel" is nullified from them when punctured to the extent that it admits liquid. For behold, in an earthenware vessel itself the law is so, for when one designates them for olives, it requires a puncture the size of "discharging an olive." Therefore, that which is said regarding a wooden vessel, that it requires the size of "discharging a pomegranate"—it is because they are typically used for such. But when designating them for water, "admits liquid" is sufficient. And proof for this: for behold, even regarding metal vessels we learned there that when one designates them for wine and oil, their purification occurs when there is a puncture through which the wine and oil flow from them, see there. Furthermore: according to the approach of the Rambam and the Semak, how shall we judge regarding vessels of earth... which do not contract tumah, for regarding them it is not applicable that they should be broken to the extent of their purification from tumah, as they never contract tumah. Rather, certainly anything used for netilat yadayim, the name "vessel" is nullified from it when it admits liquid. And according to the Rambam and the Semak one must also say so regarding these vessels, for regarding them there is no other measure. And see in section 11.

However, according to these two approaches, there is certainly no difference between when one pours onto his hands from the vessel through its upper opening, and when one pours through the hole even if a רביעית remains from the hole and below; for since the reason is because it is "fragments of a vessel"—if so, in any manner it is forbidden to wash from it for the hands. And there is clear proof for this matter from the Semag, who wrote there, and this is his wording: And if the vessel was perforated on its side less than the measure of "entry of liquid," and it holds a רביעית below the hole, and the water comes through the hole onto his hands, they are pure; however, one who takes from the water that passes outside the hole and falls over the lip of the vessel, they are disqualified... for from the hole and further it does not have the status of a "vessel." But below the hole it has the status of a "vessel," since it was not perforated with the measure of "entry of liquid." Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that with a hole the size of "entry of liquid"—the entire vessel is disqualified. And with less than "entry of liquid"—that which is above the hole does not have the status of a "vessel," and that which is below has the status of a "vessel" and one must wash through the hole. And according to the Rambam it is obvious that it is so, for he wrote explicitly that with a break that effects ritual purity one does not wash for the hands, because they are fragments of vessels. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that with a fragment of a vessel—it is disqualified to wash for the hands from any place whatsoever. However, regarding less than "entry of liquid," the stringency of the Semag is not found in the poskim.

However, the Rosh and the Tur have another approach in this. For the Rosh in Chullin there wrote: A vessel that was perforated, and holds a revit below the perforation—it is permitted to wash via the perforation but not via its mouth, for above the perforation it is not considered a "vessel." Thus far his words. This is the wording of the Tur: If it was perforated to the extent of "admitting liquid"... it is nullified from the status of a "vessel." And one may not wash from it for the hands, even if it holds a revit from the perforation and below. And these words apply when one washes via its mouth above, for that which is from the perforation and above is not considered a vessel, and it turns out that the water is not coming onto his hand from the vessel. But if he washes via the perforation—it is permitted, since it holds a revit from it and below. And it is written in the Semak... and it is possible to distinguish... Thus far his words. And their opinion is that the matter does not depend on the laws of tumah and taharah, for one may also wash with vessels that do not contract tumah. Rather, this is how it was decided for Rava, that any vessel perforated to the extent of "admitting liquid"—is not considered a vessel regarding netilat yadayim, since the water exits in abundance via the perforation when it is "admitting liquid," which is much more than "releasing liquid." Therefore, when washing via the perforation—it is fine, since there is a revit from the perforation and below, for remove the upper portion from here. And consequently it is proven from their words that if it was perforated with less than "admitting liquid"—it is permitted to wash even via its mouth, because it is still considered a "vessel," because the water does not descend through them in abundance. (And therefore the Tur challenged the Semak, for in his opinion it does not depend on tumah and taharah.)

However, it is simple that a vessel that was purified from its impurity by means of its breaking – even the Rosh and the Tur admit that it is invalid for netilat yadayim. Therefore, one may not perform netilat yadayim with the sides of vessels, as will be explained. On the contrary, they are more stringent, for even with a vessel that has not yet been purified from its impurity, and its law is like a complete vessel regarding impurity, nevertheless regarding netilat yadayim it is not called a "vessel" when it has a hole the size of a liquid-absorber. And it is forbidden to perform netilat yadayim from it through its mouth, but through the hole it is permitted. And in this they are lenient against the Rambam, the Smag, and the Smak, for according to them, in a clay vessel designated for liquids, the entire vessel is invalidated by a hole the size of a liquid-absorber, and it is forbidden to perform netilat yadayim even through the hole. But according to the Rosh and the Tur, it is permitted.

The opinion of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit (Bayit 6, Sha'ar 3) is seemingly not understood, as he wrote: And a vessel that was broken, even though it holds a revi'it below the break, it is written in the Sefer HaTerumah that it is forbidden to wash from it; for anything above the break does not have the status of a "vessel" upon it, and it is a broken vessel. Nevertheless, if the water flows over his hand by way of the break—it stands to reason that it is permitted, for it is like a faucet. And it stands to reason that even if it was broken, as long as it has not become pure by virtue of its breaking, it is still a vessel, and we do not divide the vessel into two. And as long as it holds a revi'it and its break is not so large that it would purify it from its impurity—it is permitted to wash from it for the hands. Thus far his words.

And behold, his words are obscure. And it appears in my humble opinion that this is the explanation: for previously he brought the words of the Sefer HaTerumah, who holds like the opinion of the Rosh that everything below the break has the status of a "keli," if there is a revi'it there and one can pour through the break. And that which is above is a broken vessel. And that which he wrote that it is like a tap—the intention is not literally like a tap, for a tap is made that way from its beginning. But here, it is a break. Rather, this is the explanation: that it is no worse than one who pours through the hole of a tap, for remove the upper portion from here. And he did not mention the measurement of the hole, for he stands upon the words of Rava that the hole is like that which "admits liquid"; and he did not see fit to explain this explicitly, since he holds that this is not a matter of tumah and taharah like the opinion of the Rosh—consequently, the hole is like that which "admits liquid" such that the water exits through it in a stream, and this is not a keli for netilat yadayim. And this is the opinion of the Sefer HaTerumah.

And afterward the Rashba wrote: "And it stands to reason..." – meaning: that he disagrees with the Sefer HaTerumah in two matters: one regarding leniency, in that the Sefer HaTerumah holds that with any break the vessel is disqualified for netilat yadayim, he says it is not so: for as long as it has not become pure by virtue of its break – it is still a vessel. Meaning: and it is completely valid, and according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Semak. And afterward he says that one does not divide the vessel into two, meaning: in this he disagrees regarding stringency, and that is that according to the Sefer HaTerumah the lower part, when it contains a revi'it and one can wash from the break – is always valid. And he holds that one does not divide into two, meaning that if there is only enough in the break to purify it from its impurity – the entire vessel is disqualified, according to the opinion of the Semag that we brought. (So it appears in my humble opinion regarding his intention.)

It is found according to what we have clarified, the Rambam and the Semak and the Rashba stand in one approach, that a vessel is not disqualified by a hole unless it has been purified from its impurity by such a hole. And the measure of "admitting liquid" is only for an earthenware vessel designated for liquids. But when it is not designated for liquids but for foods, and similarly wooden vessels and metal vessels and bone vessels and glass vessels designated for foods—the hole does not disqualify unless it is as large as an olive. And similarly, vessels of dung designated for liquids—their law is like "admitting liquid." And when they are designated for foods—their law is with an olive. And even though they do not receive impurity, nevertheless regarding netilat yadayim one should not differentiate them from other vessels. And against this they are stringent that when there is a hole that purifies—the entire vessel is disqualified, even the part from the hole and below.

The opinion of the Rosh, the Tur, and Sefer HaTerumah is exactly the opposite: that it does not depend on impurity and purity, but rather in every vessel a hole of "admitting liquid" renders it unfit. Conversely, they are lenient regarding the lower portion, that when it contains a revi'it and one can draw from the hole—it is always kosher even if the vessel was purified from its impurity. The Semag adopts the stringencies of both, that in every vessel a hole of admitting liquid renders it unfit, and this is also the opinion of the Tosafot in Niddah ibid. Furthermore, the Semag was stringent like the opinion of the Rambam that with admitting liquid even the lower portion is unfit. And he was more stringent than the Rambam, for according to the Rambam, the Semak, and the Rashba, this applies only to an earthenware vessel designated for liquids, whereas according to the Semag, the law is so in all vessels, and only with a hole of "releasing liquid" did he permit the lower portion. But according to all our teachers, with a hole that is less than "admitting liquid"—even the upper portion is completely kosher. And know that the Tur at the end of the matter brought also the words of the Rambam, see there. And it appears that his opinion is that in this he agrees with the Rambam, that if it was purified from its impurity by such a hole, it is completely unfit. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote entirely according to the words of the Rosh and the Tur, and did not bring the words of the Rambam at all, nor the words of the other poskim. And it requires further study. (And their reason is because the Beit Yosef in his great work became much entangled in the words of the Rambam, the Semak, and the Semag, see there. And also the Taz, subsection 1, wrote at great length. And his words are not understood, as the Pri Megadim wondered. And the Levushei Serad labored to settle his words with great difficulty. And the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, brought the words of the Rashba, and thought that the Rashba explains the words of Sefer HaTerumah, see there. And according to what I have written it is not so, only that for the halachic ruling he agreed almost like what I wrote. And he also wrote that a vessel that was purified from its impurity—is unfit even to draw through the hole, see there. And certainly it is so, since even the Tur holds so; although from the Rosh and Sefer HaTerumah it does not appear so, nevertheless for the halachic ruling the primary view is so. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And know that in tractate Parah, chapter five, mishnah 7, regarding the sanctification of the purification waters, we learned: If it was perforated from the bottom and he plugged it with a rag – the water within it is invalid... from the side and he plugged it with a rag – the water within it is valid... see there. And so the Rambam ruled in chapter six of Parah Adumah, law 7, and this is his wording: If it was perforated from the side and he plugged it – it is valid to draw water into it, to sanctify, and to sprinkle from it. Thus far his words. And now, the matter is a fortiori: for if regarding the sanctification of the purification waters, which is from the Torah, as it is explicitly written "living water into a vessel," it is valid in such a case – how much more so regarding netilat yadayim, which is rabbinic. And I wonder why not one of the poskim mentioned this. And so wrote one of the great ones regarding this mishnah, and this is his wording: We learn from this that it is permitted to perform netilat yadayim with a vessel perforated from the side... and it cannot be said that here it is when the water is below the perforation, but that which is above is not considered a vessel, for if so... (the Gra in Eliyahu Rabbah). And so wrote one of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (Magen Avraham, subsection 6), and this is his wording: And if it was a complete vessel, and it was perforated and he inserted another object into it – it is effective..., for since he closed it – it is properly considered a vessel. Thus far his words. However, he did not distinguish between from below and from the side. And it appears that his intention refers to a fine closing with wood or iron that is durable. However, the Rosh in his commentary there wrote explicitly to the contrary, and this is his wording: But from the side, one sanctifies with the water that is below the perforation, even if he did not plug it with a rag... Thus far his words. And so it is implied from the Rash, see there. But the Rambam ruled as I have written. (And the Taz at the end of subsection 1 brought this mishnah, and wrote that netilat yadayim is more stringent, see there, and his words are puzzling. And I wonder why they did not bring the words of the Rosh? And for the law, one may rely on the lenient opinions, as the Terumat HaDeshen wrote in siman 161 that regarding netilat yadayim we follow the lenient opinions, see there. And examine and you will find it easy.)

How much is a hole of "admitting liquid"? If one places it upon water, the water will enter through the hole. And this is larger than a hole through which water exits, for that occurs even with a very small hole, and there is no disqualification in such a hole according to most poskim. And even if the hole is in the base of the vessel—it is permitted. Only according to the Smag is it forbidden, as I have written. And there is also another sign for "admitting liquid," which is that if water exits from it drop after drop—it is known that it admits liquid (Niddah 49b). And there is one who says that if it was cracked across its entirety from top to bottom, even if the hole is not of admitting liquid but only of discharging liquid—it is disqualified for netilat yadayim, because it was purified through this from its impurity (Bach). And behold, if it was purified from its impurity in such a case, it is certainly disqualified for netilat yadayim, but this law is not explained anywhere (Taz, subsection 1). And on the contrary, in the fifth chapter of Kelim, Mishnah 11, it is proven that a crack and a hole have the same law, see there. And every crack in the Mishnayot is a substantial break between one and the other, as is explained in the ninth chapter of Kelim, Mishnah 7, where it is taught: If it was cracked from the oven to the rim—its measure is the full width of the handle of a goad. And so too at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of Ohalot regarding a house that was cracked, where at the very least it is like a plumb line, see there. And at the end of Shabbat, a crack is a tefach, see there. Therefore, this law is not so.

Therefore, any type of vessel that has a hole in it, if it is not as large as "the entry of liquid" – it is permitted to wash with it for netilat yadayim. Similarly, if it has a notch at the top or a crack even along its entire length, if the water cannot enter through the notch or through the crack – it is permitted to wash with it. Similarly, if the hole or the notch or the crack is very large, to the extent that one can wash his hands through the hole or through the notch or through the crack, and there still remains from them and below a revi'it – it is permitted to wash with it for netilat yadayim according to the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur and Sefer HaTerumah and our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. Similarly, if one plugged the hole or the notch or the crack with any substance whatsoever – it is permitted to wash even through its mouth according to the opinion of the Rambam and several of the great authorities, as I wrote in section 13. And according to the opinion of the Rosh it is not so, as I have written. And we have already written that regarding netilat yadayim one may rely on those who are lenient.

We learned in tractate Yadayim, chapter one (mishna 2): One may not pour water for the hands from the sides of vessels, nor from the bottom of a broken water jar, nor from the stopper of a barrel. The Rash, the Rosh, and the Bartenura explained that "the sides of vessels" and "the bottom of a broken water jar" are shards of vessels. And "the stopper of a barrel" is disqualified because it was not made for use as a container, but rather as a cover for a barrel; see there. According to this, even if they hold a revit and can stand without support, they are disqualified for netilat yadayim (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And the reason is: because they are not called "vessels." They are also disqualified for the sanctification of the waters of purification, as we learned in the fifth chapter of Parah (ibid.). And it was taught in the Tosefta there: The bottom of a bone vessel, or a glass vessel, or a wooden vessel—one may not perform netilat yadayim from them. If he smoothed them and polished them and made them into vessels—one may perform netilat yadayim from them. Thus far its words. And this is the explanation: that "the bottom of a vessel" is a shard of a vessel. However, if he smoothed them and polished them—and this is like in the mishna in Kelim, chapter thirty, where we learned: The bottom of a bowl... that he designated for use—it is pure. If he smoothed it or polished it with a file—it is susceptible to tumah. Which is to say: that a mere designation where he designated it for use is not effective, and it does not contract tumah because it is a shard of a vessel. Only if he smoothed it, such that he repaired it through an action and made it smooth, or polished it with a tool of iron-smiths—it becomes a vessel. And here too regarding netilat yadayim: if he did not perform an action upon it, one may not perform netilat yadayim with it, and if he performed an action upon it, it is permitted to perform netilat yadayim with it. (And in the Tosefta it says: A shard of a clay vessel that holds a revit—it is permitted to perform netilat yadayim with it. And it is a wonder.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, followed a different path in this matter, for he holds that the disqualifications of the walls, the bottoms, and the stopper—this is because they are unable to sit without being supported. Based on this, he wrote in section 3: A vessel that holds a revit when it is supported, but if it is not supported the water will spill and a revit will not remain in it—is not a "vessel." Therefore, the stopper of a barrel, which is sharp and does not hold a revit without being supported—one may not wash from it. But if he widened it from below until it holds a revit when it sits without being supported—one may wash from it. Thus far his words. And behold, the law is a true law. However, that which he wrote, that the disqualification of a stopper is because it does not hold a revit without being supported—it is not so, for the law is the same even if it sits without being supported—it is disqualified until he performs a repair upon it as I have written. And a mere designation is not effective. (Magen Avraham, subsection 4. And the Beit Yosef follows the approach of the Tur.)

There is one who says that one should not wash hands from the pitcher called a "giskan" through the protruding spout, because it was not made for reception (Shelah). And they wondered about this: for from the kiyyor, the priests would sanctify their hands and feet from the kiyyor through the spouts of the kiyyor (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And they answered that in the kiyyor they were made like a type of tube that receives water, but when it is made like a type of pipe that is open on top and they are like a half-circle – no (ibid.). Alternatively: that in the kiyyor the protrusions were not higher than the body of the vessel, but rather they protruded from the sides evenly. But when it protrudes upward – no (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 6). And behold, the matters are obscure and need to be explained.

And it seems to me the explanation of the matters is as follows: for the intention is not that it is necessary that at the time of receiving the water, they must bring the water in through there, for behold, through all the spouts of vessels one does not bring in water, and nevertheless the priests washed their hands from the spouts of the kiyor. Rather, this is the explanation: that it is necessary that in that place it must hold the water, to exclude those vessels called "kannen" – where a protrusion goes out from a part of the vessel above the body of the vessel, and in that protrusion the water will not be held, as is apparent to the senses. And for this they said that in the kiyor it was not so, or even if the spouts were above, nevertheless each of the spouts was surrounded all around and consequently the water is held there. Or that the protrusions were not above the kiyor but rather level with the kiyor, and consequently the water is held there. This is the explanation of the matters.

And according to this, regarding our vessels, when there is no protrusion rising above the vessel – it is permitted to wash his hands via the protrusion. But when it protrudes above – one may not wash via there, but away from the protrusion it is permitted. And a metal vessel made for heating hot water which is called a "samovar," which has a spout below from which the hot water is poured via a faucet in the spout called a "kran"; and similarly a large vessel called a "handfass" into which they pour much water, and below there are spouts, and when they wish to wash from them they raise the spouts upward and the water is poured via there, and when they remove the hands the spouts return downward and the water outlets are closed – it is permitted to wash via there, but he must be careful that with every pouring he shall raise the spout and lower it so that the water comes from his force, as will be explained. And so too with the spout of the samovar he shall do so. And via the spout of the "chainik" that stands on the samovar – he can wash via the spout that is in it, and similarly via the faucet in a barrel. But with every pouring he shall take the faucet and put it back, so that the water comes from human force as I have written. And from this we shall understand for all types of vessels.

It has already been explained that one may perform netilat yadayim with all vessels. However, this is specifically with those that are typically used to hold water, to the exclusion of a sack, a basket, and felt, which refers to hats or shoes made of felt called "piltz." Even if one prepared the sack to sit without support, and coated it with pitch until it can hold liquids—one may not perform netilat yadayim from them, because they are not made to hold liquids. Similarly, felt, even though it is hard and water does not leak from it, nevertheless it is not made to hold water. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 that nevertheless, in a case of pressing need they are permitted, for wayfarers are accustomed to drink from them. Thus far his words. But there are those who disagree, holding that even in a case of pressing need it is not effective (Yam Shel Shlomo). One who relies on our teacher, the Beit Yosef, has not lost (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 5). And this applies only to hats of felt, for sometimes one drinks water from them, but not to a sack or a basket. Vessels of leather are like all other vessels, and one may perform netilat yadayim from them, for many leather flasks are used for liquids, as it is written: "And she opened the flask of milk and gave him to drink." However, for netilat yadayim we require a vessel that can stand without support, and flasks are merely like a pouch. Rather, when one wishes to put liquids in them, one inflates them, and this is not valid for netilat yadayim. Therefore, a chemet and a kefishah, which are leather flasks that were prepared and made with a base so that they can stand without support—one may perform netilat yadayim from them.

And that which has been explained, that the vessel from which one washes the hands must be able to stand without support, this refers to ordinary vessels. However, there are types of vessels that are made from the outset such that they cannot stand without support, and their primary use is by means of support—one may wash the hands from them, since such is their primary use, and it is properly considered a "vessel." Therefore, our hand-fass, where the spigots are beneath it, and it does not stand on the ground or on the bench, but rather they attach it with nails to the wall and it is suspended in the air—one may wash the hands from it, since such is its primary use.

And similarly, regarding that which we required that there be no hole in the vessel, if it is a vessel whose initial manufacture was for holes, as the Rambam wrote in chapter eighteen (halacha 6) of Kelim, and this is his wording: A titros, even though it is perforated and lets perutot fall through—it becomes impure, for the water collects on the sides, and they are made for reception. Thus far his words, and it is a Mishnah in Kelim. Therefore, a vessel that is full of holes at its bottom, and its mouth is narrow at the top, and when a person places his finger upon it the water does not exit, and when he removes it the water exits—it is permitted to wash from it, even though it does not hold anything; since it is made for reception in this manner, and this is its primary use—it is called a "vessel." And all the more so a vessel that has a tap below, like our hand-fass, even though it has large holes that the taps plug, since from the beginning they were made for reception by this means—one may wash from them for the hands. And similarly, a complete vessel that was perforated and one inserted something into it to plug it with a permanent plugging—it is effective, for since he plugged it, it is called a "vessel" (Magen Avraham subsection 6). And see in siman 162, section 22.

There is one who wrote that there are tin vessels called "giskan," which they place at the meal to wash from them for the hands, and there is in those vessels a large hole above near their mouth, and they do this for beauty. Nevertheless, one should not be lenient to wash through the mouth of the vessel but rather through the hole. And it is not similar to a vessel full of holes, which we explained that it is permitted to wash from them for the hands, for there the holes are thin, which is not the case with a large hole such as this: even though it is made for beauty, ultimately it is a large hole, and it disqualifies what is above it (Taz, subsection 6). And even regarding the thin holes there are those who disagree. However, nevertheless, we rely on the permit in those, but not in a large hole. Therefore, it appears to me regarding our "leika," with which they draw liquids from a barrel, that has large holes on both sides—it is forbidden to wash from them for the hands, since also from the second side the hole is large, and it is not similar to a "titros" as has been explained. And so one should instruct in practice.

Since the washing must specifically be from a vessel, it follows automatically that it is forbidden for Reuven to take water in his cupped hands and pour them onto the hands of Shimon, for the water on Shimon's hands did not come from a vessel. Not only that, but even if Shimon himself washes one of his hands from the vessel, and takes water in the cupped palm of this hand and pours it onto his other hand—the washing is not effective for his other hand, even though the water reached his first hand from a vessel. He must wash the second hand once more. However, there are some among the great ones of our teachers who permitted in such a case, for since there was a washing from a vessel for this water in his one hand—he is permitted to cast the water onto the second hand from the cupped palm of his first hand. And it is the custom to be lenient like this opinion. But the primary view is like the first opinion, and therefore one should be stringent ab initio. However, one must be careful even according to the lenient view that the water in his one hand should not be impure, meaning that he should pour a revi'it upon it all at once, and pour over the entire hand, on the palm and on the back, and then when he pours onto the second hand—he has fulfilled his obligation according to the lenient view. For if not so, the water has become impure, and it defiles the second hand. And these laws cannot be explained here as this siman is not their place. They will be explained in siman 162 with the help of Heaven, and see there in section 23.

And aside from the requirement of a vessel, it is further required that the water come from the force of a "giver," that is to say: from the force of a person who gives. And it is not only necessary to say that if he immerses his hands in a vessel it is not effective, as it is written regarding the washstand: "And Aaron and his sons shall wash from it" – and not inside it (Zevachim 21a). And even though in forty seah immersion is effective for hands as will be explained, that is in a mikveh in the ground which is fit for the immersion of the body, all the more so for netilat yadayim. However, in a vessel immersion is not effective, only netila from the vessel and by means of human force. But without human force, such as if by some cause the barrel tilted and the water poured from it, and he placed his hands under the flow – he has done nothing, since the water did not come from human force. Yet regarding which person, we are not particular. And so we learned at the end of the first chapter of Yadayim: All are fit to give to the hands, even a deaf-mute, an insane person, and a minor. And the same law applies by means of a woman and a Kutite. And whether it specifically requires a human species, or also from other animals such as a monkey that acts like the deed of a human – there is a dispute there, for the sages permit and Rabbi Yosei disqualifies. And the poskim divided: there are those who rule like the sages and there are those like Rabbi Yosei. And the words of those who permit appear correct. And even though in shechitah it is disqualified, shechitah is different as it is from the Torah. And nevertheless, ab initio one should be stringent, and there is one who is concerned to be stringent regarding a Kutite and a niddah. And for the law it is not so, for in any case we are all impure, and one who is careful regarding this is only a measure of piety. And so there are those who are concerned regarding a deaf-mute, an insane person, and a minor less than six years old, and for the law the main point is as I have written (see Taz subsection 15, and Magen Avraham subsection 22). And in section 32 it will be explained that there is one who permits the immersion of hands in a vessel.

And since it is necessary that the water come from human force, therefore, a person who draws water from the river or from a well that is a spring, and pours the water into the pipe before him, and from the pipe the water is drawn to water the fields – it is not permitted to place his hands into the pipe prior to the arrival of the water so that with the arrival of the water they are poured over his hands, because the force of the person pouring has already ceased, and it turns out that these waters do not come from human force. And this is specifically when he places his hands in the pipe far from the place of the pouring into the pipe. But if he places his hands near the place of the pouring, even though he does not place them directly under the pouring – the netilah is effective for him, for as long as they are near the place of the pouring – they still come from his force.

And this is when the water comes by means of his hands. But if he immersed his hands into the pipe, in any case the netila is not effective for him, because they are drawn water and the vessel is attached to the ground. And with that which is attached, a vessel is not effective, and even if it is not attached there are those who disqualify it, as will be explained. And these words apply when the one drawing the water pours into the pipe itself. But if he places them outside the pipe, and draws them into the pipe and immersed in it – his hands are pure, for even regarding a mikveh we maintain in Yoreh Deah siman 201 that drawn water which was drawn through a channel – is valid. And even according to those who forbid it in a mikveh, nevertheless regarding netilat yadayim, which is rabbinic, everyone agrees it is effective.

And even if one draws and pours into the pipe itself, if the bucket with which he draws is perforated at its back with a hole the size of a liquid-absorber, and while he pours through its mouth into the pipe it flows from its back into the river or into the spring – he may immerse his hands in it and they are pure, for they are considered as if he immersed them in the river, as this stream connects the vessel to the river, and the water in the pipe is considered connected to the waters of the river. And even though such a stream is not considered a connection regarding immersion until there is a hole the size of the tube of a wineskin, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 201, nevertheless, regarding netilat yadayim one may be lenient. And there are those who disagree on this and hold that even regarding netilat yadayim such a stream is not considered a connection. And certainly, ab initio one should be stringent, but when he has no vessel – one may be lenient regarding netilat yadayim according to the lenient opinions.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: One may not wash his hands from those stones fixed to a wall, even if one made for them a receptacle and a faucet. But if they were vessels initially, and he attached them to the wall – one may wash from them. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For that which is attached does not have the status of a "vessel"; only in the case of that which was detached and subsequently attached, such as where it was a vessel initially – one may be lenient regarding netilat yadayim, as it is considered detached. And there is one who is lenient in every case (Taz, subsection 8). And the primary view is like our teacher, the Rema, since it did not have the status of a "vessel" at all while detached. If so, it is completely attached, and neither washing by means of a faucet nor immersion within it is effective, even if it contains forty se'ah, since it is forbidden for immersion (Pri Megadim). And it is possible that regarding immersion one may be lenient when it contains forty se'ah for the purpose of netilat yadayim (ibid.).

Water that is drawn through hollow pipes from a distance, such as "Rohrkasten," to wash from the pipes themselves—is certainly forbidden, for they do not come from human power, as they are far from the actual water upon which the person acts. However, it is permitted to immerse one's hands in the stone basin that stands before the pipes, for it is as if they are connected to the river or the spring at the time that the pipes are flowing with water, and it is a "nitzok" which we consider a connection regarding netilat yadayim, as I have written. But when the flow from the pipes is interrupted—it is forbidden to immerse the hands in it, for then it is not connected with the water of the river and the spring (Olat Tamid and Eliyah Rabbah). And to wash from the "pumpen"—is certainly forbidden, for they are not a kelli (Ba'er Heitev subsection 8).

If he inserted his hands into a vessel of water and rinsed his hands in them, if the vessel is attached to the ground—certainly the netilah is not effective for him, for with that which is attached there is certainly no status of "netilah" but rather "tevilah"; and there is no tevilah in drawn water, even if there are forty seah there. However, if the vessel is detached, such that it is not attached to the ground—some say that the netilah is effective for him, for only regarding the kiyor do we derive "from it" and not "inside it," as I wrote in section 26. But regarding the rabbinic netilat yadayim—this is a type of netilah. And some say it is not effective for him, as I wrote there. And the primary ruling is for prohibition, as such is the opinion of most of the poskim. Nevertheless, in a time of pressing need, one may rely on the one who permits regarding the rabbinic netilat yadayim. And if afterward water with a vessel becomes available to him—he should wash his hands, and he should not recite the blessing if it was after the blessing of "Hamotzi" (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 12). And also beforehand he should not recite the blessing. And there is one who says that he should recite the blessing beforehand over the tevilah (Magen Avraham, subsection 15), but it does not seem so; rather, afterward he should recite the blessing if it is still before the blessing of "Hamotzi." And so appears to be the primary view. And there is one who says that even the one who permits only permitted when there are forty seah in the vessel (Bach in the name of the Hagahot Ashri). And it is not so, for if so, why do I need a verse for the prohibition regarding the kiyor, since there are not forty seah there and it is certainly prohibited? (Taz, subsection 10, see there. And this is not a precise inference, for one could say that it comes to exclude even when there are forty seah in the kiyor. Nevertheless, the opinion of most of the poskim is that the one who permits, who is the Bahag—permitted in every case. And the "Yam Shel Shlomo" ruled that even in a time of pressing need one should not rely on the one who permits, see there and in the Taz, subsection 11.)

A barrel that contains water, and one does not have a vessel, and there is also no other person to lift the barrel for him to pour over his hands, if it is small – he should place it on his knees and perform netilat yadayim from it. And this means that he moves it with his knees for each and every stream (Magen Avraham, subsection 16). And this is "koach gavra," for what difference does it make to me if he gives with his hands or tilts with his knees? And if it is large and it is tilted on the ground, and the water streams from it not by means of his rolling it, but rather it rolled on its own and he placed his hand under the stream – the netila is not valid for him. And if there was a plug in the hole, and he removed it and received the water on his hands – it is considered well as "koach gavra," provided that for each and every stream he removes the plug and returns it, and again removes it, for only the first stream is considered "koach gavra." And there is one who says that the entire pouring is called "koach gavra" (Yam Shel Shlomo), and it is not the primary view (Magen Avraham, subsection 20). And nevertheless, if he tilted a barrel full of water, and went and sat down, and the barrel pours water all day because of his tilting, and he performed netilat yadayim from it – the netila is valid for him, for this is considered "koach gavra." And it is not similar to the removal of the plug where one must remove it for every stream, for that is because he did not perform an action on the body of the water but only in the removal of the plug. But in the tilting of a barrel where he performed an action on the body of the water – the entire stream is considered "koach gavra." And it is also not similar to what we explained in section 27 regarding a pipe where it is not considered "koach gavra," for there it is because it is far from the place where his power acts, which is not the case here. Therefore, when he has a large barrel, and he does not have a vessel, if it is full of water – he should tilt it on its side and place the hands under the hole, and the water will come upon him, and he will fulfill through this the obligation of netilat yadayim.

In Chagigah (18b) it is explained that intention is not required for netilat yadayim for chullin, only for terumah; and so it is explained in Chullin (31b). Nevertheless, the Rashba in Torat HaBayit was stringent in this, from that which was taught in the Tosefta: If the one washing intends and the one pouring does not intend, or the one pouring intends and the one washing does not intend—his hands are pure. This implies explicitly that one of them must intend: either the one washing or the one pouring upon his hands. And it must be said that in Chagigah and Chullin we are dealing with the matter of touching and not with the matter of eating. However, all the poskim did not write so, and did not concern themselves with the Tosefta since in the Gemara it is the opposite, or because that is for terumah. Nevertheless, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 13 were concerned ab initio for the words of the Rashba, and this is their wording: And ab initio the one washing should intend for the washing that validates for eating. And the intention of the one pouring also avails even ab initio, even if the one washing did not intend at all. Thus far their words, and this is according to the Tosefta that we brought. And there is one who was concerned for the opinion of the Rashba even ex post facto (Magen Avraham, subsection 25), and it requires further study. (And one should not ask: if intention is not required, why did we rule in siman 158 that if one washed his hands for dipping in liquid, he requires another netilat yadayim for the meal? For it is not a difficulty at all, because when he intends for another matter—it is worse than without specific intent. Analyze and you will find it simple.)

If one immersed his hands in the water of a מעיין, even if it does not contain forty seah—the immersion is effective for him. For a מעיין purifies in any amount even for the body itself, and certainly regarding netilat yadayim, provided that both his hands are covered by the water at once. And if he immersed them in the water of a mikveh, meaning rainwater—some say that forty seah is required just as for the immersion of the body, and some say that its law is like a מעיין. And their reasoning is: that since from the Torah one may immerse vessels in a mikveh when there is a revi'it of water, but the rabbis nullified this and required forty seah even for vessels as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 201, therefore regarding netilat yadayim which is rabbinic, we rely [on this] even ab initio. And such is the primary ruling, and only ab initio should one be stringent. Therefore, one who is traveling on the road and has no vessel—he may immerse his hands in a puddle of rainwater, or in a small pit of rainwater, provided that both his hands are covered by the water. Nevertheless, the water must be stationary, meaning: that they stand in one place and are not flowing, for a mikveh is invalid when flowing. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 15: Rainwater that is flowing, meaning that it continues to move and is not gathered, and it contains forty seah—there is a doubt whether one may immerse his hands in it. Thus far his words. Because flowing water is invalid even for the immersion of vessels.

The Rambam wrote in the sixth chapter of Berakhot, law 5: Anyone who requires netilat yadayim and immersed his hands in the waters of a mikveh—he requires nothing else. But if he immersed them in water that does not have the measure of a mikveh, or in drawn water that is in the ground—he has done nothing, for drawn water does not purify the hands except through pouring. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding that which lacks the measure of a mikveh, it was explained in the previous section that they disagreed with him, and its law is like a spring. Also regarding this, that he disqualifies drawn water in the ground, the Ra'avad disagreed with him and ruled that in forty se'ah of drawn water in the ground, since those who have had a seminal emission immerse in them, as we learned in Mikvaot chapter eight—they are also valid for netilat yadayim through immersion. And drawn water that was entirely channeled—even according to the Rambam, one may immerse the hands in it.

It is found written in this language: Regarding snow, there are those who prohibit and there are those who permit. And our teacher Rabbi Avigdor did not want to perform netilat yadayim with snow, even in a time of pressing need. Thus far his words. And the intention is to throw snow on one hand, and afterwards on the second, and to rub them until they dissolve like water. But to immerse his hands in a pile of snow that contains forty se'ah—it is obvious that it is permitted, for even for the immersion of the entire body many permit, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah there. And all the more so for netilat yadayim (Taz subsection 20). And see what I wrote in siman 160, section 16.

One should not take water from the river with one hand and pour it onto the second, because there is neither netilah nor tevilah here. For "netilah" is from a vessel, and here there is no vessel. But one hand in tevilah, and one hand in netilah by means of a vessel—it is permitted, and his hands are pure. And one who performs tevilah for his hands does not need to immerse twice, for this is only necessary in netilah when one pours less than a full revi'it, as will be explained in siman 162, but not when one pours a revi'it, and certainly not in tevilah. And he also does not require drying, nor the raising of the hands, for all of this is when the water is impure, as I have written there.

One who immerses his hands does not recite the blessing "on the immersion of hands" but rather "on the washing of hands," for such was the essence of the enactment—washing; rather, the greater includes the lesser, for it is a kal vachomer for immersion. Therefore, the blessing is according to the essence of the enactment. And some say that he recites the blessing "on the immersion of hands," and such is the primary view. For how can he say "washing" when he is not washing? And there is one who decided that if he immersed in water fit for the washing of hands—he recites the blessing "on the washing of hands." And if they are unfit for washing, according to what will be explained in the next siman—he recites the blessing "on the immersion of hands" (Magen Avraham, subsection 38). And he who acts according to this master—acts, and he who acts according to this master—acts. However, with one hand in washing and one hand in immersion—he certainly recites the blessing "on the washing of hands" (ibid., subsection 30).