Siman 164

We say in Chullin (106b): A person may wash both his hands in the morning and make a condition regarding them for the entire day that he should be able to eat without netilat yadayim, provided that he is careful not to soil them or defile them (Rashi). And specifically when he explicitly made a condition that this washing should count for him for the entire day for his eating, but if he did not make a condition—it is not effective even if he guarded his hands. And the reason appears to be that it is not only necessary if one requires intent for netilat yadayim, but even according to what we hold like the majority of the poskim that one does not require intent, as I wrote in siman 159, section 34, see there, nevertheless, without a condition it is like one who eats without netilat yadayim, for the rabbis instituted netilat yadayim for eating even when he knows that his hands are pure, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 158, see there, and if so, how can he eat without washing because his hands are pure? But when he made a condition, it is properly considered netilat yadayim for the meal, meaning that in the morning his intent was for the meal. And even though for ordinary netilat yadayim the washing must be adjacent to the meal, nevertheless, in this the rabbis were lenient. However, in any event, there is netilat yadayim for the meal, but without intent it is nothing. And there is reason to doubt whether he must make the condition specifically with his mouth or if it is also sufficient when he calculates the condition in his heart, and I found one who doubts this (Bach at the end of siman 158), and there is one who says that thought is sufficient (Eliyah Rabbah). But I saw that they cited in the name of Shibbolei HaLeket and in the name of the Tanya that he must say: "With this washing I shall be permitted to eat the entire day" (ibid.) and so it appears to me to be the primary view, for if not so, there is no recognition at all that he washed his hands for the meal. And know that from the language of the Gemara which said: "the entire day," the condition is only effective until night, and although one could say that the intent is until the time of sleep, for what distinction is there in this between day and night, nevertheless, since it is a great leniency, it is enough for us for the entire day and no more.

When he makes the condition, he must be careful not to divert his attention from them and not to soil them, such as by wearing gloves and the like. There is one who asked that if he does not divert his attention, why is a condition necessary, and from this he proved that we require intention for netilat yadayim (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). But it is no proof at all, for even if intention is not required, in any event we require that it be recognizable that this is netilat yadayim for eating, as I wrote in section 1, and if he diverts his attention and a long time passes from his washing, there is no recognition of this at all. And a proof for this is that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in siman 159, section 13, that intention is not a disqualifying factor and only ab initio is it proper to intend, see there; and nevertheless, he ruled here that he should not divert his attention, and also the Rambam and the Tur wrote that he should not divert his attention, and they did not explain anywhere that intention is required; on the contrary, from the words of the Rambam in Avot HaTumot and in Hilkhot Mikvaot chapter 9, it is explained that for all matters of chullin, intention is not required.

In the Gemara there are two versions: in one version, even not in a time of pressing need one may make a condition, and in one version, specifically in a time of pressing need. The Tur brought a dispute regarding this, see there, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided that it is even not in a time of pressing need. However, several great Acharonim ruled that it only avails in a time of pressing need, such as one who is traveling on the road and it is not easy to obtain water and the like (Yam Shel Shlomo and Magen Avraham and Eliyah Rabbah), and many of the Rishonim ruled accordingly (see Eliyah Rabbah). And more than this, one of the greats wrote that nowadays the world is accustomed not to make a condition at all (ibid. in the name of Knesset HaGedolah), and in truth, we have not heard in our days of anyone who would do so. Nevertheless, in a time of pressing need, such as one traveling with gentiles and it is difficult for him to find water, he may do so.

And even when he made a condition, if afterward at the time of eating water became available to him, he should not rely on the condition, and he should wash his hands and not recite a blessing. The Tur wrote that the condition is only effective in the morning, see there, and there is one who wishes to say it is because in the morning we recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim" and there is in this a slight support for the meal (Bach). But the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, is not so, for he wrote: "And that which a condition is effective is specifically regarding a washing that is not for the purpose of eating, similar to the morning washing, but if he washes for the purpose of eating—a condition is not effective for that washing." Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: For ostensibly how is a condition effective, for we say in Berakhot (52b): "Immediately following the washing of the hands is the meal," but in truth this is regarding one who washes for eating, who must juxtapose the washing to the eating, but regarding one who washes not for the purpose of eating but for another purpose, such as if he exited the latrine or for dipping in liquid or because his hands were not clean, he does not need the meal to immediately follow the washing of the hands, and this is similar to the morning, meaning that the washing is not for the purpose of the eating. And even though there is no blessing here, for at the time of washing a blessing is not relevant since he does not intend to eat now, and before the eating he is not washing his hands, nevertheless what do we care since in such a case a blessing is not required (Taz). And all the more so regarding one who washes his hands for eating and makes a condition that it shall be effective for the meals of the entire day, that it is effective (Magen Avraham subsection 6), and even a condition is perhaps not necessary if he guarded his hands (ibid.), unlike the one who wishes to say that from one eating to another eating it is not effective. However, this certainly appears to be the case, that he must require washing for some matter, but if he does not require washing at all now and washes only for an eating of a later time—it is not effective.

One who is sitting at a meal and touched the shank or the thigh or the covered places of a person, or filthy places that contain beads of sweat, or who scratched his head and anything similar to this, or who remembered that he touched these places after washing, and likewise if he diverted his mind from guarding the hands and certainly if he went out to relieve himself in the middle of a meal—he must return and wash his hands and recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim." And there are those who wrote that he should not recite the blessing unless he went and distanced himself (ibid. subsection 8 in the name of Maharshal); however, regarding one who went out to relieve himself, everyone agrees that he must recite the blessing (see Magen Avraham subsection 7 who wrote that if he touched while the piece was still inside his mouth that it is forbidden to swallow until he washes his hands, and in my humble opinion this is an excessive stringency, and a proof for this is from Terumot chapter 8 mishna 2 according to Rabbi Eliezer, and in this certainly Rabbi Yehoshua also agrees, see there and examine carefully).