Iyun Masechet Sota: 4b

 

A seemingly innocuous aggadic statement recorded in our sugya in Sota, that anyone who eats his bread without drying his hands is considered to be eating "lechem tamei," was transformed by the Tosafot in Pesachim (7b s.v. al) into a cornerstone of the entire system of netilat yadayim, with major implications for our understanding of this common halakha.  Thus, although Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi devoted an entire masekhet of mishnayot to the topic of netilat yadayim, which is further supplemented by a lengthy sugya in the Bavli (Chullin 104b-107b), a mimra in Sota is, nevertheless, a major source regarding the mitzva of netilat yadayim.  Furthermore, by juxtaposing this comment with the previous mimra that one should lift his/her hands following netilat yadayim, our sugya can serve as an effective prism for viewing the basic approaches that Rishonim took to the topic of netilat yadayim.

 

Tosafot raises the question that netilat yadayim (according to Ashkenazic practice) seems to defy the basic rule regarding birkat ha-mitzvot - that they are to be recited PRIOR to the performance of the mitzva.  Unlike the Rambam, who indeed demanded that the berakha of netilat yadayim precede the washing of the hands, Tosafot recognized the common practice of reciting the berakha after the netila and struggled to justify the minhag.  One answer that they suggest, that there are exceptions to the priority rule of "over (preceding) la'asiyatam" so that the berakha can be recited after the mitzva, as in tevila, tefillin shel rosh, lulav and other such cases, fits in with their approach to birkat ha-mitzvot and is a topic to be considered in a different shiur on another occasion.  For our purposes, although it is undoubtedly significant for hilkhot berakhot, it has no impact upon our understanding of netilat yadayim, as it attacks the problem from the perspective of berakhot and does not attempt to redefine netilat yadayim. 

 

This however, is not the case regarding their second answer, one that dramatically redefines netilat yadayim by claiming that recitation of the berakha after washing of the hands conforms to the rule of "over la'asiyatam," since it is prior to the drying of the hands! In support of this claim, they quote our gemara to prove that drying the hands is an essential part of the mitzva.

 

[Full disclosure: I am assuming that the Tosafot are claiming that drying the hands is a central part of netilat yadayim.  It is possible to minimize its significance and regard it as an appendix to the mitzva, which nonetheless allows the berakha to be recited.  A more extensive discussion of hilkhot berakhot would be necessary to review this issue.  For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that even its status as an extension of the mitzva is meaningful.  More significantly, the Tosafot in Sukka (39a s.v. over) are explicit that it is an inherent part of the mitzva and not an insignificant postscript.]

 

This brings us to the heart of the matter of netilat yadayim.  The gemara in Chullin (106a) states that netilat yadayim was instituted because of "serakh teruma" (i.e. as a reinforcement to purify the hands before eating teruma in order to prevent it from becoming tamei, as stated in the sugya in Chagiga [18b] and also "moreover as a mitzva."  Subsequently, the gemara offers two possible sources for this "mitzva" – either it is a mitzva established by Chazal or it is hinted at in a pasuk relating to the laws of tum'a and tahara of a zav.

 

The plain and simple reading of the gemara, as the Tosafot there explain, is that there is an additional reason, aside from the need to protect teruma from tum'a, which obligates netilat yadayim.  Moreover, it is this second element that transforms netilat yadayim into a positive mitzva, rather than a preventive measure.  As the gemara itself does not provide a reason for the "mitzva," Tosafot step into the breach and offer the explanation that it is due to cleanliness.

 

This requires some elaboration, as the Tosafot are apparently relying upon a gemara in Berakhot (53b) that they do not mention.  The gemara, in the concluding lines of the eighth perek of Berakhot, quotes the following drasha:

 

"ve-hitkadishtem (make yourselves holy) – these are mayim rishonim (the waters of netilat yadayim prior to the meal), ve-heyitem kedoshim (you shall be holy) – these are mayim achronim, ki kadosh ani (because I am holy) – this is the use of a fragrance."

 

This gemara, a well known and often quoted source regarding netilat yadayim, predicates the idea of netilat yadayim upon "kedusha," which should be equated with cleanliness, as made evident by the inclusion of the "aftermeal" perfume in the list of things that sanctify the meal (and is not analogous to kiddush yadiyim ve-raglayim in the Mikdash, as the Sifri suggests). 

 

The idea is quite simple – the concept of personal hygiene and cleanliness is a basic differentiating characteristic that sets man apart from the animal world.  The self consciousness and awareness that bring man to treat the act of eating with a certain dignity and decorum, as opposed to the bestial devouring of the food typical of the animal, is an indication of the spiritual life that sanctifies man and establishes a unique relationship between him and his Maker.  The elevation of the eating function, expressed through the medium of cleanliness, among others, is an elevation of human life from the physical to the spiritual realm.

 

Tosafot's awareness of this equation and their utilization of it can be readily proven from a Tosafot in Pesachim (115a, s. v. kol) that couple "kedusha" and "nekiut" together in their discussion of netilat yadayim for bread (and subsequently refer to kedusha as the underlying principle of netilat yadayim) in contradistinction to netila because of tum'a problems.

 

Thus, the Tosafot in Chullin interpret the gemara as determining that there is a dual element in netilat yadayim:

 

a.  a preventive measure to protect teruma from tum'a;

b.  a mitzva that creates kedusha through the medium of cleanliness. 

 

This is borne out by the Tosafot in Peasachim 115a who draw a distinction between two kinds of netilat yadayim, based upon the dual element established by the gemara in Chullin. 

 

Halakha requires netilat yadayim, not only for bread, but for any damp food ("davar shetibbulo bemashkeh"), – since the rules of tum'a are more stringent for damp food than for dry food.  Tosafot, however, claim that the requirement of netilat yadayim in such a case is fundamentally different than the washing for eating bread, insofar that netilat yadayim for bread has a positive mitzva of kedusha involved in it, while netilat yadayim for damp food is due only to our concern for teruma.  Therefore, Tosafot postulate a number of halakhic differences between the two cases:

 

1. Netilat yadayim for bread requires a berakha since it is a positive mitzva, while netilat yadayim for damp food doesn't, as it is only a preventive measure.

 

2. Netilat yadayim for bread is obligatory even if the food isn't actually touched and there is no problem of transmitting tum'a, while netilat yadayim for damp food is unnecessary if a fork and knife are used.

 

c.   Nowadays, the mitzva of netilat yadayim for bread remains in effect, although we are no longer concerned with issues of tum'a and tahara. Netilat yadayim for damp food, however, whose only reason is the need for protection from tum'a, is no longer observed, since its rationale is no longer relevant.

 

The Ramban disagrees with the Tosafot and argues that there is a single principle alone at work in netilat yadayim, which is the idea of "serakh teruma."  The gemara's remark that "moreover, there is a mitzva" is understood by the Ramban as an attempt to provide a source of authority for its previous statement, but not as an additional reason.  Therefore, all of the halakhot of netilat yadayim must be understood within the framework of tum'a and the need to protect teruma and cannot be interpreted by relying upon the concept of kedusha and cleanliness.

 

Actually, the gemara there offers two suggestions as to the source of the mitzva of netilat yadayim.  The second one, an asmakhta from a pasuk regarding the tum'a of a zav, is more supportive of the Ramban's approach, as it seems to draw an analogy between the process of tahara from tum'a by a zav and netilat yadayim, so that Tosafot would certainly feel more comfortable with the former claim that it is novel mitzva introduced by chakhamim.

 

Let us now return to our sugya and to the Tosafot in Pesachim 7b who transformed the act of wiping hands into a basic part of netilat yadayim, a claim that seems to be unwarranted by the nature of the statement as an aggadic comment outside of the main netilat yadayim sugya.  However, now that we are acquainted with Tosafot's understanding of netilat yadayim, the logic of their claim is revealed to be consistent with the basic elements of the system.  Indeed, if netilat yadayim is to create kedusha through cleanliness, the crucial element is the wiping of the hands, for if the dirty water remains on the hands, nothing has been accomplished.  Therefore, prior to wiping, the mitzva has yet to be completed and it is quite appropriate to recite the berakha at that point.  (From similar considerations, the Raavad, who is the Rishon who most prominently insisted upon the cleanliness ideal in netilat yadayim, introduced the idea of an obligatory double netila so that the second waters will wash away the dirty water of the first pouring.) Thus, Tosafot's claim is rooted in the idea of kedusha and the gemara's statement is a reflection of this concept and not a chance aggadic remark.   

 

Needless to say, the Ramban obviously cannot accept such a solution to the berakha problem. It should come as no surprise to us that he offers an explanation that is along the lines of the Tosafot's first suggestion (see Ramban Pesachim 7b, near the end of his lengthy treatment of that sugya).

 

Rashi in our sugya seems to adopt the Ramban's approach in his interpretation of this statement, explaining it as an issue of cleanliness, yet in a manner that seems to present it as no more than an homiletic insight.

 

As the tum'a–cleanliness duality is the backbone of almost all of hilkhot netilat yadayim, we shall not attempt to provide a comprehensive survey but will only point to a representative case.  The gemara in Chullin (107b) presents a dilemma whether, where one person feeds another, the feeder or the eater must wash his hands.  Presumably, the issue at stake is whether netilat yadayim is a function of tum'a, in which case it should depend upon the person coming into contact with the food, or whether the concept of kedusha is the controlling element that may require the eater to wash.  The gemara's conclusion that the eater must wash and not the feeder is based upon the idea that netilat yadayim is dependent on kedusha and not tum'a. 

 

The halakha in our sugya that the hands should be raised so that the water not drip back is explained by most Rishonim as a function of the tum'a aspect of netilat yadayim. The logic is that only the hands can be purified by netilat yadayim, while the arm remains tamei, and therefore water that drips down from one's arm could cause new tum'a to the hand. (See Rashi in our sugya, the Rambam, Rash and Rosh in their commentaries to masekhet Yadayim and others.)  The Raah (Bedek HaBayit 6:2 s.v. garsinan bayerushalmi), who was bothered by the inconsistency of these rules with the basic rules of the regular system of tum'a, claims that the underlying idea and source of netilat yadayim is not tum'a but the ceremony of kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim in the Mikdash, and constitutes an independent system that uses the terminology of tum'at yadayim, yet is distinct from the classic idea of tum'a.  The Ravad, who championed the concept of cleanliness as the raison d'etre of netilat yadayim, as mentioned above, also relies upon kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim to explain the relevance of netilat yadayim to the hand alone.  Alas, the fact that the system is described as a system of tum'a and tahara but yet has wholly unique rules makes it very difficult to arrive at any conclusive conclusions in this case, for any attempt to prove that it doesn't conform to the laws of tum'a and therefore must be something else, such as kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim, can always be rebutted by the claim that the base is tum'a, even if the rules are different from the regular rules of tum'a, while the contention that cleanliness and/or kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim dictate the parameters of hilkhot netilat yadayim will always clash with the terminology of tum'at yadayim that pervade these halakhot. 

 

 

Next week's shiur will deal with the sugya of "pride."  Learn all the gemara until the middle of 5b.