Siman 613

It is forbidden to wash on Yom Kippur, even a single limb, whether in hot water or in cold water. Even to place one's finger in water, not for the purpose of washing, is forbidden, as this is also considered a bit of pleasure. Even if one's hands, or his face, or his body were full of sweat, it is forbidden (Taz, subsection 1), as this is also a pleasure in the removal of the sweat. However, if one's hands, or his feet, or the rest of his body were soiled with mud or excrement, it is permitted to wash the soiled area (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), as this is not for pleasure, but rather to remove the filth. And he must be careful that the water does not go onto the clean part of the body. Likewise, one whose blood is dripping from his nose is permitted to wash his nose and his mustache that are soiled with blood with water, for this reason. And one whose blood is dripping from his teeth is forbidden to take water into his mouth and rinse them; rather, he should wipe with a cloth.

Since only washing for pleasure was forbidden, therefore our sages, of blessed memory, said (Tosafot 77b, starting with the words "mishum") that it is permitted to wash one's hands in the morning on Yom Kippur when one rises from his bed. For you have no greater filth than this, as it is forbidden for him to touch his mouth, his ear, his nose, and his eyes, as we say in Shabbat (108a). For this is not for the pleasure of washing, but rather to remove the evil spirit that rests upon the hands prior to the morning washing. Therefore, he should not intend for pleasure, even though he has it automatically, and it is like "impossible and does not intend," which is permitted. This excludes if he intends, even though it is impossible—it is forbidden. And he should only be careful that he washes only until the end of his finger joints, for until there the evil spirit rules, and no further. (See Pesachim 25b, and this is the intention of the Rema in section 2. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

If he urinated and rubbed with his hand, or touched his covered flesh, and certainly if he moved his bowels and wiped—it is obvious that he is permitted to wash until the end of the finger joints, or more if he touched there as well, for his hands are soiled, and it is no worse than mud or excrement. But when he urinated and did not rub and did not touch—he should not wash, for he can recite "Asher Yatzar" even without washing. However, if he wishes to pray, even if he did not touch—it is permitted to wash until the end of his finger joints, for for prayer one must necessarily wash his hands, even without touching. Yet some say that even for the blessing of "Asher Yatzar"—one must wash even without touching. Therefore, in order to remove himself from dispute—it is good that he rub or touch, and wash (Bach and Magen Avraham, and Taz subsection 2). And such is the primary ruling, that even without rubbing—he may wash his hands for the blessing of "Asher Yatzar." And this is all at night after the prayer. But during the day—he certainly must wash in any case, for all day we pray (ibid.).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: And so too a kohen who ascends to the duchan—he washes his hands even though they are pure, for any washing that is mostly not intended for pleasure is permitted. Therefore, even if he arrived from a journey and his feet are pained—it is permitted to wash them. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding pained feet—it is explained in the Yerushalmi that this is for the purpose of healing, and it is permitted. However, regarding the washing of hands for the priestly blessing, it is true that the approach of the Tosafot in Sotah (39a) is that even if he washed his hands in the morning—he must wash for the duchan. But the Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Tefillah did not require washing except when his hands are impure. But if he washed his hands in the morning—he does not require washing. And so the son of the Rambam testified that they used to conduct themselves accordingly (Kesef Mishneh ibid.). And if so, according to those who hold that all the afflictions are from the Torah—how can we enter into a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition on this holy day? And perhaps because of this, our teacher, the Rema, was precise to say "that he does not intend for pleasure," meaning: that if only he does not intend for pleasure, even if we assume that it is possible also without washing—it would be a case of "it is possible" and "he does not intend," and we rely on the one who permits in such a case in Pesachim (25b), see there. And such is the simple custom that they wash their hands, and nevertheless, it requires further study.

The Tur wrote in the name of a Gaon: One who is fastidious, and needs to wipe his face with water, and his mind is not settled all day until he wipes—he may wipe on Yom Kippur. And so wrote the Ritz Giat: If there is filth on his face, or upon his eyes—he may remove it with water. And even any person may soak a cloth in water on the eve of Yom Kippur, and wring it out so that its water exits, and on the next day he may pass it over his eyes, even though moisture from the water remains in it. Thus far his words.

And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: One who is an istanis, and his mind is not settled until he wipes his face with water—it is permitted; thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And the custom in this is to be stringent. And even regarding the washing of the eyes, which is somewhat of a remedy—the custom is to be stringent. And it is forbidden to wash one's mouth on Yom Kippur. Thus far his words. And the essence of the matter is perplexing: for how could the Gaon permit an istanis to wipe his face with water, when it is simple that this is for pleasure? Furthermore: what is this that the Tur said, "And so wrote Ritz Giat: if there is filth on his face" etc.—what comparison is this? For certainly filth is permitted, as this is not for pleasure, as has been explained. And it must be said that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, maintains that the reasoning of the Gaon is that for an istanis this is not for pleasure, and for him it is like filth, and so he explained in his great book. But how forced this is! Therefore our teacher, the Rema, ruled to be stringent. And there is one who says that the intention of the Gaon is also when he has filth on his face (Bach). And it is impossible to say this, for if so, the essence of the permission is missing from his words. Furthermore: for this we do not need the words of a Gaon. Furthermore: for if so, even if he is not an istanis, just as with filth of mud or excrement, which is permitted to every person, as I have written. Furthermore: for if so, Ritz Giat disagrees with the Gaon, for Ritz Giat permits it to every person. Furthermore: what is this wording "to wipe"? The end of the matter: the words of the Gaon and the words of the Tur require great study.

And according to my humble opinion, a different intention appears in their words. For behold, the Rosh, after bringing the words of the Gemara (78b) that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had a cloth which he would soak in water on the eve of Yom Kippur and make it like dried vessels, and the next day pass it over his eyes—the Rosh wrote: A Gaon said: One who seeks to wipe his face on Yom Kippur—if he is an istanis and his mind is not settled all year until he wipes with water, and certainly on Yom Kippur when he needs to purify himself and wipe—he may wipe. But any other person is forbidden, etc.; Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: That the Gemara did not permit with dried vessels except to pass over his eyes. And the Gaon permits an istanis even to wipe his face with dried vessels, since every day he is accustomed to water—we permitted him to wipe with dried vessels. And this is also the wording of the Tur, that an istanis who needs water on his face—may wipe his face on Yom Kippur with dried vessels. And the Ritz Gi'at permitted even with water for dirt on his face, and for any person. And the degree of dirt with water, and an istanis with wiping with dried vessels—they are equal. And afterwards he wrote that to pass dried vessels over his eyes—is permitted even for any person. And certainly these laws are clear in their reasoning, and so one should instruct.

Regarding what the Tur wrote, that one may soak a cloth on the eve of Yom Kippur and wring it out, and on the next day pass it over his eyes—so it is in the Gemara there. And the Rambam in the third chapter, halacha 5, wrote: and he passes it over his face, see there. And it must be said that such was his version of the text in the Gemara. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted this, and I do not know why. Our teacher, the Rema, in section 9 wrote that it is forbidden to soak a cloth while it is still day, and make it like dried vessels, and cool oneself with it on Yom Kippur. For we fear perhaps it will not be dried well, and he will come to wringing. Thus far his words. And it seems to me that this is the explanation: even though in the Gemara they permitted in such a case—this is when he does so only to pass it over his eyes, and he will wring it well, for even with the small amount of moisture that remains in the cloth it will be enough to pass over his eyes. But if he does so in order to cool himself with it—we fear perhaps he will not wring it well, and he will come to wringing. And granted that we do not fear that enough will remain for washing—nevertheless, we do fear a small amount for wringing (and there is no need for what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 11).

The Rambam wrote there that the ill person washes in his usual manner, even if he is not in danger, thus far his words, because the washing of an ill person is not for pleasure but for the health of the body, or to wash away some filth. However, anything that is not for the health of the body, and not for the removal of filth – certainly even for an ill person it is forbidden. And a woman after childbirth, who is frequent with blood – it is simple that she may wash her flesh, both because she is like an ill person, and because of the removal of filth. And it is simple that for one who was seized by a seizure on Yom Kippur, it is permitted to wash his face and his hands and other places, and to pour water on his head to remove the seizure from him, for this is like a complete illness.

And it is a great principle regarding Yom Kippur, that any washing that is not for pleasure is permitted. Therefore, we learned in the Mishnah: The king and the bride may wash their faces; the king because of "your eyes shall behold the king in his beauty" and this is not for his pleasure, and the bride for all thirty days from her wedding, so that she does not become unattractive to her husband, and this is not for her pleasure. And beyond thirty days, it is obvious that she is like all other women. For in every matter of joy, or conversely in mourning, it continues until thirty and no more (and with this the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 12, is answered). And conversely: for the purpose of pleasure it is forbidden even without a complete washing, such as to cool oneself with moist clay, if it is moist enough to moisten others. And it is forbidden to cool oneself with vessels that contain water, and it is not only necessary to say when they are full, for there is a concern that the water will spill on the body. Rather, even if they are lacking, it is forbidden. For if the vessel is of earthenware, it is forbidden because it emits a discharge of moisture outward, and with metal which does not emit, we fear lest because it is smooth it will slip from the hand, and the water will fall upon him. But with empty vessels, it is permitted to cool oneself, and so too with fruits, and so too to hold a child near him when he is cool. Since there is no water in these, there is no concern of washing in them.

And so even actual washing—whenever it is evident that it is not for the pleasure of washing, but rather that he is compelled to this by way of his travel, such as: one who goes on Yom Kippur to the beit midrash, or to greet his father, or his teacher, or one who is greater than him in wisdom, who were on the other side of a river, or for other needs of a mitzvah that require passing through water—he passes through and is not concerned, for this is not a washing of pleasure. And he may pass through the water up to his neck, whether in going or in returning. For if you do not permit him in returning—he too will not go, and it will come to the prevention of a mitzvah. And our sages, of blessed memory, required that he should not lift the edges of his shirt onto his arm, and bring his hand out from under the lip of his shirt, because that is the way to do on a weekday. And we are concerned that he might come to wringing. Therefore, we required him not to do so as on a weekday, and by means of this change he will remember that it is Yom Kippur, and he will not come to wringing. And this is when the waters are not rushing, and there is no danger in this when he goes up to his neck in the water. For when the waters are rushing—it is forbidden for a person even on a weekday to go in a depth above the loins. For when the waters are rushing he could drown from the current of the water, and it is forbidden for a person to place himself in a position of danger. And specifically walking in water is permitted, but to swim—is forbidden, for behold it is forbidden to swim on Shabbat, and Yom Tov, and Yom Kippur because of shevut. And so too in a ferry—it is forbidden. And it is not similar to washing which they permitted to him, for this is not washing, since it is not for pleasure. But swimming in any case is forbidden. And this is the reasoning of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot that the Tur cited. (And the Tur questioned: How is it different from washing? And the Beit Yosef and the Bach and the Taz in subsection 4 labored to answer, see there. And the answer is simple as I have written.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6, and this is his wording: That which is permitted to pass through water with one's body for the sake of a mitzvah—specifically to pass through the water itself with one's body. However, to pass in a small boat—there is one who forbids. Thus far his words. And he wrote "there is one who forbids" because the Tur wrote the prohibition in the name of the Behag, and he raised a difficulty against him: how is it different from washing? However, according to what we have written, this is not a comparison, and according to everyone it is forbidden. Furthermore, the Tur only wondered at the Behag, but does not disagree with him in the final law. (And so wrote the Bach, and see there that he wrote according to our words, and not like what the Taz wrote in his name, see there. And the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 8, is also answered, see there.)

And likewise, one who goes to guard his produce—it is permitted to cross through water on the way there, but not on the return, for in this case it is not relevant to permit the end because of the beginning. And if he does not wish to go—it is of no concern to us. But on the way there—it is permitted, for this is not a washing of pleasure, and they permitted it to him because of financial loss, since there is no prohibition in this. And any place where it is permitted to cross through water, even if he had a path where he could go around on dry land—it is permitted to cross, for minimizing the walking is more preferable.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 7: A teacher is forbidden to cross through water in order to go to his student. Thus far his words. The Rambam did not mention this law at all. In the Gemara (77b) it was a query and was not resolved. There is one who wondered, for this is a doubt regarding a rabbinic law, so why should we follow the stringent view (Taz subsection 6)? And it appears to me when we examine what the Gemara's query was, for since it is not for pleasure—it should be permitted? Rather, the matter is as follows: certainly a student who goes to greet the face of his teacher—his intention is for a mitzvah. And likewise one who goes to guard his produce—his intention is to guard his property, and there is no washing for pleasure here. But a teacher to a student, which he is not obligated to do, perhaps his intention is for pleasure. And even though regarding the supreme holy ones like the Amoraim—certainly their intention was for the sake of Heaven, but in other generations we cannot rely on this. Therefore, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch forbade it. And the Rambam omitted it because one cannot state a fixed halacha regarding this. And just as a teacher to a student is forbidden, so too a colleague to a colleague. However, if it is known that it is necessary to ask a matter of halacha that is relevant to the moment—it is certainly permitted, for it is revealed to all that he does not intend for pleasure (see Beit Yosef and Taz and the Gra"z).

One who has had a seminal emission in this day and age on Yom Kippur: if it is moist—he wipes it with a cloth, and that is sufficient. And if it has dried on the body, or if he has become soiled—he washes only the places soiled by it. And it is forbidden to wash his body or to immerse, even though during the rest of the days of the year he is careful regarding immersion for a seminal emission; rather, he cleans himself and prays. And if the shirt is not clean: if it is moist, he wipes it with something, and if it has dried—he shall change to another shirt. And in this day and age, it is forbidden for a woman to immerse on Yom Kippur when her time has arrived, as we maintain that immersion in its time is not a mitzvah, and she shall immerse at night at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. And one who wears white—is permitted to wash slightly between her thighs. And the mohel when he performs suction—is forbidden to rinse his mouth with water.