Siman 161

One must be careful regarding chatzitzah during netilat yadayim, and so it is stated in the Gemara (Chullin 106b): that anything which constitutes a chatzitzah for the body regarding tevilah constitutes a chatzitzah for netilat yadayim for chullin, see there; for everything the sages ordained, they ordained similar to a Torah law. And that which is taught in the Tosefta of Mikvaot (Chapter 6) that for chullin they do not constitute a chatzitzah, this refers to touching chullin when they were prepared according to the purity of terumah (Tosafot ibid.). Behold, all the laws of chatzitzah were explained in Yoreh Deah siman 198, however, one must be more careful regarding netilat yadayim with a matter that is very common, which is that beneath the nails his hands should be clean, such as filth that is beneath the nail not opposite the flesh, such as when the nail is long and rises above the flesh of the finger, for filth that is opposite the flesh does not constitute a chatzitzah because it is its way to be so and a person is not fastidious about this, but if there is dough beneath the nail even opposite the flesh—it constitutes a chatzitzah, because it is not its way to be so and the person is fastidious about this. And according to this, if it is known that he is not fastidious—it does not constitute a chatzitzah.

The Levush wrote the reason is because excrement that is against the flesh is not tight and the water enters there, but dough is very tight and the water does not enter there; see there. And his words are puzzling, and in Yoreh Deah there he himself wrote as I have written, that it is due to the reason of being particular; see there in section 18. And so it is clear from the words of the Tur who wrote: "regarding excrement that is not against the flesh, and if he is not particular—it does not constitute a chatzitzah"; see there. And it is true that the Rashba in Torat HaBayit wrote regarding this both reasons: because it is not attached well and also he is not particular; however, the primary reason is because of being particular, and when they wrote the reason of tightness, they wrote it regarding swamp mud; see there. And so a bandage that is on his flesh constitutes a chatzitzah when he is able to remove the bandage (Taz, subsection 2), and so swamp mud and potters' clay constitute a chatzitzah. And this is when it constitutes a chatzitzah on the majority of it, but on a minority of it where he is not particular—it does not constitute a chatzitzah, and on the majority of the hand even though he is not particular—it constitutes a chatzitzah (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And one should not ask that even on a minority of it, it was explained in siman 162 that if an object is found on the hand it is tamei, for it can be said that this is regarding an object that is not nullified toward the hand, but here it is nullified toward the hand (ibid., subsection 4), and so if he poured a revi'it on the hand, tumah is not relevant at all, as will be explained there (ibid.).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that for this reason it is not the custom to clean out the mud under the nails for netila, because it is like a minority of the area that one does not mind, for people do not mind this for netila; but if he did mind, it would be a chatzitza, and he would need to clean it out, and such is the primary view. And it is possible that they practiced leniency regarding chatzitza for the matter of netila, because some say that chatzitza does not apply to netila, but the primary view is like the first opinion. Thus far his words. That is to say, people generally do not practice cleaning out the mud under the nails that is opposite the flesh, because they do not mind this. And if he truly does mind, even though others do not mind—he must clean it out. But that which is not opposite the flesh—it is certainly the way to mind mud and one must clean it out, even though he personally does not mind, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 198 (ibid. subsection 5). And on Shabbat it is forbidden to clean it out due to the prohibition of memachek, as is explained in siman 302, and therefore he should wash them with water (ibid.). And afterward he says: "And it is possible that they practiced leniency regarding chatzitza for the matter of netila," meaning that previously he stated the reason they practiced leniency was because they do not mind, and now he says that it is possible they practiced leniency even regarding that which they do mind, for the reason that they hold that chatzitza does not apply at all to netilat yadayim. And the intention is not according to its plain meaning, for certainly there is chatzitza, but rather this is its explanation: for the Rashba in Chullin there wrote in the name of the Tosafot that this which they say, that filth and mud under the nail is a chatzitza—it is an error, for it is not a chatzitza except for the mud of potters or builders which adheres well like dough. But ordinary mud or filth which are not tightly attached and are foul and a person removes them at any time—they are not a chatzitza at all. Thus far his words (the Beit Yosef brought it in Yoreh Deah there), and perhaps people rely on this opinion. But the primary view is like the first opinion, which is the opinion of most of the poskim. And now, most of the masses of the people do not practice cleaning it out, because they do not mind at all.

A fingernail that has partially separated—one must cut it and it is a chatzitzah, as is written in Yoreh Deah there, and there are specific laws regarding this and it is explained there. And the general rule of the matter: anything that one is particular about—it is a chatzitzah, and that which one is not particular about—it is not a chatzitzah. If it was the way of this person to be particular and this person's way not to be particular, for the one who is particular about it, it is a chatzitzah, and for the one who is not particular about it, it is not a chatzitzah. And so too, if there is one whose craft is to be a dyer and his hands were dyed—the dye is not a chatzitzah on his hands even though there is substance from the dye on his hands. But if he was not a dyer and his hands were dyed and there is substance from the dye—it is certainly a chatzitzah; and so too, dry ink is a chatzitzah and moist ink is not a chatzitzah, and for one who writes constantly—it is not a chatzitzah even if dry (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And so too, if he is a butcher and sells fat—blood and fat that are on his hand are not a chatzitzah for him, and this matter is a query in Zevachim (98b), and we follow the lenient view regarding netilat yadayim (ibid.). But for another who is not accustomed to this—it is a chatzitzah even though he is not particular (the HaGra"z), since the majority of people who are not butchers are particular.

The mud of pits and the mud of potters, which are extremely adhesive and prevent the water from reaching beneath them, and likewise other types of mud that are extremely adhesive—interpose even against the flesh, because most people are meticulous about this, and even if he is not meticulous, it interposes, unless it is a completely minimal amount about which people are not meticulous. And women whose way is to dye their hands for beauty and the like—that dye does not interpose, and all this is regarding a minority of the hand. But regarding a majority of the hand—in any case it interposes with a substance that has tangibility. And discharge that comes out of a wound and dried and became a scab, if he is not meticulous about it to remove it or if he suffers pain to remove it—it is called "not meticulous" and does not interpose, and even though regarding immersion we were stringent in Yoreh Deah there, nevertheless regarding netilat yadayim they were lenient.

A ring, when it is very tight on the finger, constitutes a chatzitzah, and if it is loose, it does not constitute a chatzitzah, because the water comes under it. And this is specifically when one pours a revi'it at one time, for if not so, the ring becomes tamei from the water, as will be explained in siman 162. And ab initio, one should remove the ring even when it is loose, for we are not experts in what is called "loose," and in a matter where there is no exertion, why should we enter into a doubt. And if it was tight and pressed against the finger, even ex post facto it constitutes a chatzitzah. To what do these words apply? At a time when it is his way to remove it occasionally, such as if it has a precious stone which he is careful to remove when he washes; and a woman, even if it does not have a precious stone, it is her way to be careful to remove it at the time of kneading so that it does not get soiled, and therefore regarding a woman, in any case it constitutes a chatzitzah when it is tight, and regarding a man without a precious stone, it is not his way to be careful to remove it. And if he knows that it is his way to be careful to remove it occasionally, even regarding a man it constitutes a chatzitzah, except that it can be said that since the ring is at the end of the third joint of the finger, and there are those who say that one only needs netilah for the first two joints as will be explained, and consequently the term chatzitzah would not apply there. However, in truth, we do not hold like this opinion, and it requires further study.

How far must one wash the hands: According to Rashi, the obligation of washing is only the two joints of the fingers, which is to say until the middle of the fingers and no further (Chullin 106b), for since this is because of a trace of terumah, it is sufficient if he washes the parts of the fingers that touch the food (ibid.). The Rokeach (siman 328) also wrote thus, and this is his wording: "And rings on the finger of women—it is not a chatzitzah, for it is above the middle joint of the finger, and we say in Chullin: 'Until here for chullin,' the explanation: the middle joint of the finger, and if the whole hand were required, it would be a chatzitzah." Thus far his words. Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot there explained until the first joint, see there, and the Ra'avad and the Rosh wrote that washing is all three joints of the fingers, which is to say until the connection of the fingers with the palm of the hand. And even according to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, it is possible to say that according to the conclusion of the sugya there, where they said "until here applies both to chullin and to terumah" as a stringency, and this is all three joints as is explained there, if so, according to the conclusion they hold like the Ra'avad and the Rosh, and this is the opinion of most of the poskim. And so wrote our teacher, the Ri, in the eighth chapter of Berakhot, that the opinion of Rashi is indeed thus, until the end of the fingers, see there (however, from the Rokeach it does not appear so, as I wrote).

And also from the words of the Rambam in chapter 6 it is implied so, for he wrote: "Netilat yadayim is until the joint," and he did not clarify which joint; presumably his intention is the final joint, and so explained the Hagahot Maimoniyot, see there. However, in the name of the Rif, the Rosh wrote that he is stringent until the end of the palm of the hand at the place where it connects to the arm, and he wrote that it is an excessive stringency, and the Tur also wrote so, see there, and in truth, in the Rif before us nothing is proven there. However, the version of the Rishonim in the Rif was: "For chullin until the joint," and that is until the end of the finger joints, "and for terumah until the joint," and that is the connection of the hand and the arm. And therefore, when he says at the end to be stringent for chullin like terumah, it follows that it is until the connection of the hand and the arm (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah), and so they wrote in the name of Hilkhot Eretz Yisrael (ibid.). And in the Zohar Ekev (page 272b) it is explicit like the Ra'avad that it is until the end of the fingers, for it says there netilat yadayim is until the joint, fourteen joints, see there, and in every finger there are three joints and in the thumb two joints, and that is fourteen, and such is the primary law. And the world is accustomed to wash the entire hand according to the opinion of the Rif, and one should stipulate at the beginning that it shall not be an obligation upon him to do so always, for perhaps he will not have so much water (and from the measurement of half a revi'it for a hand there is also a proof for the Ra'avad, for how would half a revi'it suffice for the entire hand).