Skip to main content

Handwashing and Immersion: Parallels and Contrasts

Text file


 

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

IMMERSIONS: OBSTRUCTIONS

          For immersion in a mikveh to be valid, the whole body must be totally submerged under water at once (Torat Kohanim Emor 4, Shulchan Arukh YD 198:1 and 201:1).  A "chatzitza" (obstruction) that prevents water from reaching even part of the body can render "tevila" (immersion) invalid.

          Not every foreign matter adhering to the body is considered by the halakha as a chatzitza.  Obstructions can be divided into four categories:

a. "Rubo u-makpid" - The Torah (based on a "halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai," a tradition received by Moshe at Sinai) only considers something as a chatzitza if it covers the majority of the body and is something people would take care to remove.

b. "Rubo she-eino makpid" - The sages (Eiruvin 4b) decreed something a chatzitza on a rabbinic level even if one of these conditions are missing - i.e., if the person does not mind the obstruction, even though it covers most of his body; and

c. "Mi'uto ha-makpid" - if it does not cover most of his body, but he minds it.

d. "Mi'uto she-eino makpid" - Only an obstruction that covers a minority of one's body and is not bothersome is not considered a chatzitza.

 

HAND-WASHING AND IMMERSION

          According to a beraita quoted by the gemara in Chullin 106b, "Anything considered a chatzitza with regards to immersion is considered one with regards to washing hands before eating."  This principle, though not universally accepted (see Rishonim on Chullin 106 and Rama OC 161a), is codified by the Shulchan Arukh and Rama.  Apparently, an absolute parallel is drawn between the rules of chatzitza for immersion and those of hand-washing.

          Against this background, several inconsistencies between the two realms demand attention.  We will attempt to explain why in several areas the rules of chatzitza for washing hands differ from those of immersion.

DIFFERENCES:

          We mentioned earlier that there are two criteria which characterize something as a chatzitza on a biblical level: it must cover most of the body and must be objectionable.  How is this second requirement determined - by individual preference or by general consensus?  What happens if most people object to a certain obstruction on their bodies and a certain individual does not?  Do we take into account subjective feelings or do we say "Batla da'ato etzel kol adam" (One's personal attitude is irrelevant when most people relate to an issue differently)?  Interestingly, the Rishonim who relate to this question differentiate between the rules of hand-washing and those of immersion.

1. When most people are particular about a certain obstruction and an individual is not: With regards to immersion, the Tur (YD 198) rules that we ignore the individual's inclination and it IS considered a chatzitza.  In the laws of netilat yadayim, though (according to the Bakh and the Mishna Berura), he writes that in such a situation [ex. an artist that does not mind walking around with paint on his hands all day] it is not considered a chatzitza and do not apply the rule of "batla da'ato."  The Shulchan Arukh and the Rama in the Darkei Moshe (see Sha'ar Ha-tziyun 161:9) rule likewise, while the Magen Avraham considers it a chatzitza here also.  In other words, the Magen Avraham equates hand-washing with immersion, whereas the Tur, Shulchan Arukh and Rama differentiate between them.

2. When most people do not mind a certain kind of obstruction and an individual does: Many Rishonim believe that in such a situation it is considered a chatzitza with regards to immersion.  The Beit Yosef understood that this was the position of the Rambam and the Tur (see Shakh YD 198:2).  The Rama rules the same way with regards to hand-washing [concerning one who objects to hand lotion], whereas the Beit Yosef is in doubt about the Rashba's position in such a case - whether the individual's objections to such an obstruction should be taken into account or not.  The Magen Avraham, in suit, quotes those that rule that it is not considered a chatzitza, claiming that we should rule leniently where there is a doubt about the laws of hand-washing because it is a rabbinic law.

          The Beit Yosef's opinion is difficult to understand.  In the rules of immersion he writes that this situation - an individual that is particular about a certain obstruction that most people do not mind - is the subject of an argument between the Rashba and the Rambam.  The Rashba (in the Torat Ha-bayit) rules that we should ignore the individual's taste whereas the Rambam (and the Tur) rules that we do not and it is considered a chatzitza.  Why is he in doubt about the Rashba's position with regards to hand-washing and not with regards to immersion?  Why should we differentiate between the two realms?

HAND-WASHING VS. IMMERSION

THE BAKH: RABBINIC VS. BIBLICAL

          The Bakh has a simple solution to this problem: Immersion is a biblical law, while hand-washing is rabbinic so we can be lenient.  He writes:

"We must say that they were lenient with regards to hand-washing since it is difficult to be careful about this rule.  Even though they said 'Any thing considered a chatzitza with regards to immersion is considered one with regards to hand-washing (Chullin 106b),' the rule was only meant to set down a general principle; there are exceptions (Eiruvin 29)."

[They would only be willing to rule leniently on the grounds of "it is difficult to be careful about his rule" with regards to a rabbinic law.]

          Usually, though, when a parallel is drawn between a rabbinic and a biblical law it is done completely.  The Talmud states that, in general, "The sages patterned their decrees after biblical laws (Pesachim 30b)."  If the rules of chatzitza are built on those of immersion, why in this case (whether we take the individual's unique taste into account) do we stray from this principle?  Is there another way of explaining this exception besides that of the Bakh?

          We would like to suggest an alternate explanation but must preface it with a broader discussion of two issues:

I. The rule: "An obstruction which covers the majority of the body and about which one is particular about, is (biblically) considered a chatzitza." ("Rubo u-makpid alav chotzeitz.")

II. Comparisons between hand-washing and immersion.

1.  BIBLICAL LEVEL CHATZITZA - MAJORITY, PARTICULAR

          With regards to immersion, Rishonim differ about whether we take into account the individual's attitude toward the chatzitza or only the attitude of the average person, three positions emerge:

1. According to the Rambam (as explained by the Beit Yosef), we are only concerned with each individual's subjective feelings about obstructions on his or her body.  If an individual cares about it, it is a chatzitza, irregardless if others do not mind it; and if an individual does not mind it, it is not considered a chatzitza even if every other woman in the world regularly removes it.

2. The Rashba (Torat Ha-bayit Ha-arokh 32b) takes the opposite position: Everything depends on common practice and individual idiosyncrasies are ignored.  In short, "Batla da'ato eitzel kol adam."

3. The Tur and the Sefer Yere'im rule stringently in both situations where the individual relates to the obstruction differently than the majority of people.  Whether the individual or most people are particular about removing a certain obstruction it is considered a chatzitza.

          We can isolate two basic requirements of immersion:

  • immersing one's whole body in water (see Be'er Ha-gola YD 198:1 and the Shi'urei Tahara 1); and
  • water reaching all of one's flesh.

          This machloket Rishonim seems to hinge on two understandings of the relationship between these requirements.

A. One might see the second requirement as a way of achieving the first; water must reach all of one's flesh because his whole body must be immersed.  The two conditions for an obstruction impeding the immersion - covering most of the body and the person wanting to remove it - can be understood in this context.  If the person is NOT particular about an obstruction it is considered as the person's body.  When water reaches the obstruction it is as if it reached the body itself, for the person considers it part of the body.  The Rashba (Torat Ha-bayit Ha-katzar 32b) [though, as we will mention below, does not himself follow through with the analogy] wrote in a similar vein about a woman who dyed her hair: "It [the coloring] is now part of the hair, like dye is part of a colored garment.  Dye is not considered a separate thing that is a chatzitza, but part of the garment itself that does not impede the immersion [of the garment]."  Rashi (Eiruvin 4b) writes that an obstruction that one is not particular about does not impede the immersion because it becomes "part" of the person's own body.

          An obstruction that only covers a minority of the person's body is ignored because it is insignificant relative to the size of the rest of the body.  Therefore when water reaches the majority of the person's flesh it is as if it reached all of it.  This is an application of the principle "rubo ke-kulo" (the majority is like the whole).  Even though the obstruction is not considered as the body itself, we can view the water as reaching the entire flesh of the body.

          For immersion to be considered valid one's whole body must be immersed by water reaching one's whole body.  This can take place despite an obstruction on the body if it is either ignored or small.  If it is ignored, it is considered like the body itself and water actually reaches all parts of the body.  If it is small, water at least reaches the majority of the body, which is tantamount to immersing the whole body.

B. On the other hand, one might see these two aspects of immersion, immersing the whole body and water reaching every part of the flesh, as distinct independent requirements.  Water must reach every part of the flesh not just IN ORDER TO make sure that the whole body gets immersed, but IN ADDITION TO the whole body getting immersed.  The two laws, each derived from a separate verse, speak of two different issues.

1. Immersing one's whole body is derived in Torat Kohanim from the verse, "... u-va ha-shemesh ve-taheir" ("... the sun will set and he will be purified." Vayikra 22:7).  The beraita comments, "Just as the sun sets all at once, so must a person immerse his body."  The whole body must be immersed at once, not limb by limb, just as the sun sinks completely below the horizon.  The rules of chatzitza are not related to this law at all, as long as no part of the body is outside the water during the immersion.

2. Water reaching all parts of one's flesh is derived from "He must wash all of his flesh in water (Vayikra 15:16)."  Anything that holds water back from reaching every part of a person's body should, based on this verse, render immersion invalid.  The halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai defines chatzitza as an obstruction that covers MOST of the body and that the person wants removed.  Without the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai any obstruction would have been considered a chatzitza - the rule of "rov" would be irrelevant in light of the verse "all of his flesh."  Based on the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, water must come in contact with the majority of the body that has no unwanted obstructions.  [See the Tosafot Ha-Rosh's comments on Eiruvin 4b about the relationship between the derivation from the verse and the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai.]

          According to this approach, if a small part of the body has an obstruction his immersion is valid because two conditions are met: 1. His whole body was immersed at once, not limb by limb (based on the Torat Kohanim's reading of "The sun sets and he is purified.").  2. Water reached most of his unobstructed flesh (based on "He must wash all of his flesh in water" modified by the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai).  [The first approach had one requirement - water reaching ALL of the body.  This is accomplished because the halakha deems the minority of the body as insignificant; all of his body DID, based on the rule of "rov" (majority), come in contact with water.]

          Based on these two approaches, we can examine the opinion of the Rishonim.  The Rambam and the Rashba might each take one of the two opposing positions of this dispute.  The Rambam, who rules that an individual's subjective feelings determine whether something will be considered an obstruction, works with the first approach.  Water must reach all of the person's body.  Therefore, an obstruction that only covers the minority of the body or that a person does not care about is not considered a chatzitza because it is insignificant (in the first case) or considered part of the body (in the second).  It follows naturally that one would prefer a subjective definition of what kinds of obstructions one cares about.  For one's not being particular about an obstruction deems it part of his own body.  Only his personal attitude can determine this.

          The Rashba is totally unconcerned about the individual's subjective feelings when determining what is a chatzitza.  It is plausible that his search for objective criteria for defining a chatzitza is related to the second approach we presented above.  The function of the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai is to limit how much of the body water must come in contact with.  Water must only come in contact with the part of the body that has no chatzitza - chatzitza defined as an obstruction covering most of it, and is objected to.  An obstruction that people are NOT particular about does not impede immersion because the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai did not define it as a chatzitza.  Because being particular or not serves an objective function, classifying the obstruction as one that impedes immersion or not, it requires objective standards of definition.  Therefore we consider the individual's feelings irrelevant.

 

2. HAND-WASHING - NETILAT YADAYIM

          The requirement of the whole body being immersed at once has no parallel in the area of netilat yadayim.  The doubt we had above, whether water reaching every point of the body and the whole body being immersed are two separate laws or one and the same, does not apply to hand-washing.

          It would then follow that the obvious lack of a rule mandating total immersion for hand-washing might also mean that there is no rule requiring water to reach every part of the hand.  Even though the rules of chatzitza apply to hand-washing, they need not be understood in a way that water be seen as reaching the whole hand.  Water need only reach the part that is not a chatzitza.  [See below for the practical difference between these two seemingly similar approaches.]

          However, this assumption is not certain, since it is possible to counter that we require water to reach the WHOLE HAND.  Since the basic rule is to wash the HAND, it would follow that when there are obstructions we would not view it as if water reached the HAND.

          In short, even one who, with regards to immersion, takes the first approach (the Rambam, according to our presentation), that a person not objecting to an obstruction  deems it part of his body, might not require water reaching the whole hand for hand-washing.  Conversely, one who takes the second approach (the Rashba as explained above), that only when one objects to an obstruction that covers most of the body is it defined as a chatzitza that impedes immersion (biblically - rabbinically either majority or being particular deem it an obstruction), might here require that water reach the whole hand.

          We can now explain the subtle differences between hand-washing and immersion that we opened with.

1. When most people are particular about a certain obstruction and an individual is not: The Tur rules that for immersion this is a chatzitza but for hand-washing [paint on the painter's hands] it is not.  We can explain this in one of two ways:

a. The Tur basically holds like the Rashba with regards to immersion.  However, only with regards to immersion, where there is a requirement that the whole body be immersed, there is no requirement that water reach all of his flesh.  Because of the halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, water need not reach obstructions that one does not mind or those that only cover the minority of one's body.  This is why, according to the Rashba, the halakha opted for the more objective way of defining obstructions, those things that the world objects to.

          Because there is no requirement that one's whole HAND be immersed under water, water must reach all of his flesh.  The only way this is possible if there is an obstruction that covers most of his hand is if he does not mind it, and it is seen as part of his hand.  Here we look for subjective criteria, what the individual objects to.

b. The Tur basically holds like the Rambam with regards to immersion.  When an individual objects to an obstruction that the rest of the world does not, it is considered a chatzitza.  But, against the Rambam, even if the world considers something as a chatzitza but an individual does not, we ignore the individual's feelings (applying "Batla da'ato ...," ignoring personal subjective inclinations).  With regards to hand-washing, though, which is a rabbinic law in origin, the Rabbis did not apply "Batla da'ato."  We therefore revert to the basic law and do not consider it a chatzitza.

2. When an individual objects to an obstruction and the rest of the world does not: The Beit Yosef rules that this is considered a chatzitza with regards to immersion, but he has doubts about the Rashba's positions with regards to hand-washing.  There is no need for water to reach all of his flesh for immersion; there is a requirement that water reach all of his hand for hand-washing.  Therefore, the Rashba is open, says the Beit Yosef, to consider the individual's subjective feelings about an obstruction.

          The Magen Avraham always only takes into account what the common attitude to an obstruction is.  Therefore he rules that an obstruction is a chatzitza even for hand-washing if people in general are particular about it, even if the individual does not mind it.  He is also lenient about a case where an individual is particular and the rest of the world is not.  Since, according to the Magen Avraham, there is no requirement that water reach all of the flesh of the hand.

          The statement, "Anything that is a chatzitza with regards to immersion is a chatzitza with regards to hand-washing," is only meant as a general guideline.  There are several exceptions, based on differences between the two areas.

SUMMARY:

          There are two ways of viewing an obstruction that is not considered a chatzitza (either on a biblical or rabbinic level):

A. Through the rules of "rov" we can see the obstruction as insignificant (minority of the body or hand) or because of the person's attitude (does not object to it) we can view it as part of the body.  We will determine whether it is not objected to based on SUBJECTIVE criteria - does the individual object to it, deeming it a chatzitza, or not care about it, viewing it as part of the hand or body.

B. The halakha exempted such an obstructed area from the requirement that water reach it.  The halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai only considers immersion invalid when there is an obstruction that covers most of the body and it is objected to.  Water need not reach places where the less severe obstructions (minority of the body, not objected to) are.  We determine what is not objected to by OBJECTIVE criteria - how people in general relate to such an obstruction.

          The Rambam and the Rashba argue about whether to determine something as a chatzitza with regards to the laws of immersion based on how an individual feels about it (Rambam) or how people in general relate to it (Rashbam).  The Tur is always stringent, both when an individual objects to an obstruction and people in general do not, and when people do and an individual does not.

          Discrepancies between the rules of immersion and hand-washing in this area (despite the general principle aligning the rules of chatzitza of immersion and of hand-washing), are due to a key requirement that does not apply to hand-washing - the whole body being submerged at once (based on the analogy to the setting sun).  Maybe we only use objective criteria (B.) for determining what is objected to with regards to immersion and not with regards to hand-washing.  For immersion we might view the rule requiring water to reach the whole body as distinct from that requiring the whole body to be submerged and therefore use objective criteria to define where water must reach.  For hand-washing, whether we use subjective or objective criteria depends on whether or not there is a requirement for water to reach the whole hand.  If water must reach the whole hand, we must view obstructions that are not invalidating as part of the hand.  If there is no rule requiring water to reach the whole hand we are open to use objective criteria for determining whether an obstruction is objected to.  On this issue the two realms may be viewed independently.

Daf Kesher #197, Elul 5749, vol. 2, pp. 326-329.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!