Siman 159:8-20 Dipping Hands To Wash
DIPPING THE HANDS IN A VESSEL
In the last shiur, we briefly mentioned a dispute amongst the Rishonim regarding dipping hands in a container. This dispute underlies se'ifim 8-
The mishna in Tractate Yadayim (1:5) reads as follows (numbers are added for reference):
1. Anyone is fit for pouring on the hands, even a deaf-mute, a deranged person, or a minor.
2. One may rest a barrel on the knees and wash,
3. or tilt a barrel on its side and wash.
4. And [even] an ape can pour on the hands.
5. Rebbe Yosi disqualifies these two.
Basically, the bone of contention is that the Tanna Kamma (first, anonymous opinion) does not require "koach gavra" - human effort, whereas Rebbe Yosi does. Therefore, the flow from an already-tilted barrel (3) or pouring by an ape (4) is acceptable only for the Tanna Kamma.
A deaf-mute, deranged person or minor is still considered "human," and repeated pouring from a barrel on the knees is still considered "effort;" thus 1 and 2 are acceptable even to Rebbe Yosi.
Most Rishonim rule like Rebbe Yosi (Tosafot, Rosh, Raavad, Rabbeinu Yona and others), but the Behag (a Geonic work, an acronym for the "Ba'al Halakhot Gedolot" - Berakhot chapter 6), the Rambam (Commentary on the Mishna) and the Rashba (Torat HaBayit VI:4) rule like the Tanna Kamma. Let us see how this disagreement is reflected in our siman.
Rule 1 is recorded in se'if 11, rule
In accordance with our explanation of the dispute as a disagreement over whether "koach gavra" is necessary, se'if 8 records two opinions if washing can be done by dunking the hands in a vessel. Since Tanna Kamma's ruling is the minority opinion, it is logical that the SA advises relying on this view only in "sha'at ha-dechak" - extenuating circumstances. This is in accordance with a GENERAL halakhic principle that such circumstances may be grounds for relying on a minority view (Berakhot 9a, Shabbat 45a, Eiruvin 46a, Gittin 19a, Nidda 6b).
So far, so good. Where there is no dispute, the SA cites only one view; where there is, he cites both views and favors the majority view. But se'ifim 10 and 12 present problems. In se'if 12, which corresponds to rule 4, two opinions are duly brought - yet the SA seems to favor the opinion of the Tanna Kamma, which is that of the minority of Rishonim! And se'if 10 discusses the mishna's rule number 3 - one that seems to be the subject of dispute. Yet the SA brings only one opinion - that of the Tanna Kamma!
It seems we have to take into account that there are really THREE opinions:
1. Most Rishonim: Rebbe Yosi, the accepted opinion, requires HUMAN effort; apes, tilted barrels and dipping in a vessel are all invalid.
2. Rambam: HUMAN effort is unnecessary according to the accepted view of Tanna Kamma. However, "koach noten," a POURER'S effort, is still required. Thus, a tilted barrel is acceptable, since effort was necessary to tilt it in the first place, and even an ape is OK since the ape does exert effort. But merely dunking the hands is not valid.
3. Behag, Rashba: no effort is necessary at all. Even dunking is acceptable.
Let's try again to fit the background into the SA's rulings:
In se'if 8 regarding dunking the hands, the SA records a dispute because the opinion of the Bahag and Rashba is really a "da'at yachid" - a lone view. This is acceptable only in case of hardship.
In se'if 10 regarding tilting a barrel, no dispute is recorded.
In se'if 12 the SA favors the lenient opinion regarding an ape. Since there is "koach noten" (of the ape), the Rambam joins the Bahag in this case. According to the Beit Yosef this is a sufficient "coalition" to create a balanced dispute of the Rishonim, and so we may be lenient in the case of a Rabbinic decree - such as washing for bread. The Rema is stringent, because in his opinion there is not a balanced "machloket rishonim" but rather a clear majority in favor of Rebbe Yosi.
For the same reason we can easily understand why the SA is lenient in se'if 10 regarding a tilted barrel.
We are still stumped by the fact that in se'if 10 the SA does not even mention the stringent opinion, and the Rema does not dispute the lenient ruling. The Acharonim suggested various ways to resolve this conundrum:
1. The SA is talking about a different kind of tilting than the mishna - an active tilting which involves ongoing human effort, much like the barrel on the knees which is acceptable to all. But the tilting referred to in the mishna is indeed a subject of dispute (Bach). The problem is that this contradicts the Beit Yosef who seemingly DOES consider the tilting a machloket rishonim. (The Bach emends the text of the Beit Yosef.) Furthermore, the text of the SA seems carefully worded to indicate that the human effort is completed after the original tilting.
2. The SA records the stringent opinion regarding the ape only in order to explicitly reject it. Since there is a certain amount of human effort in the tilting, it is obvious that we may be lenient in accordance with one "coalition" of Rishonim. But the case of the ape seems more difficult since there is no human. So the SA explains that EVEN THOUGH there is a stringent view, we adopt the lenient one (Drisha). This explanation still doesn't explain why the Rema is silent in se'if 10. (Could it be that when he says "yesh lehachmir" in se'if 12 he includes se'if 10 as well? No, because he is certainly lenient in se'if 11.)
3. We should use this very contradiction to rule AGAINST the SA and forbid tilting the barrel just as we [Ashkenazim] forbid using an ape. This is the thrust of the BH d.h. alta lo netila. This solves the question of how to rule, but leaves open the question of what the SA and Rema had in mind when they WERE lenient.
4. Even Rebbe Yosi permits tilting the barrel and then washing from it. After all, there is human effort in the original tilting. This is the thrust of the MB s.k. 65. This leaves open the question of what "these two" rules are which Rebbe Yosi disputes in the mishna. (This problem is hinted at in the BH.)
There actually is an opinion that "these two" refers to an ape and to a deaf-mute/deranged/minor. According to this view, Rebbe Yosi does indeed agree that tilting the barrel is permissible! This is the view of the Raah - Rav Aharon HaLevi in Bedek HaBayit VI:4. However, the Raah rules in favor of Tanna Kamma, so his explanation could hardly serve as a basis for failing to mention those Rishonim who rule like Rebbe Yosi.
INTENTION (KAVANA) IN TEVILA
This interesting subject warrants a long discussion, but we will be brief to keep the shiur of reasonable length.
1. Purification of the body in a mikveh in order to eat teruma always requires intention, and the intention may be either of the person immersing or of the person who dunks him/her (Chullin 31a).
2. Some Rishonim rule that a woman going to the mikveh to become permitted to her husband also requires one side's intention; others rule that in this case bediavad the immersion is valid without any intention at all (BY and SA YD 198:48).
3. Washing hands for trumah according to Rebbe Yosi requires the intention of BOTH the one washing AND the one pouring (Tosefta Yadayim 1:7).
4. The gemara in Chullin 31b suggests that no intention whatsoever is required for washing for bread. This is no problem for those authorities who rule like Tanna Kamma; those who rule like Rebbe Yosi explain that washing for bread is more lenient than washing for trumah.
5. However, the Rashba concludes that since Rebbe Yosi requires intention of BOTH washer AND pourer, the Tanna Kamma requires intention of at least one, and thus he rules that if neither had intention to wash for bread the hands are not purified. (The Beit Yosef tries to harmonize this with the gemara in Chullin.)
This explains the ruling of the SA, Rema and MB in se'if 13.
TWO WASHINGS
What happens if there is specific intention NOT to purify the hands for bread? This could come in handy if a person is washing hands from the bathroom or waking right before a meal, and wants to be sure he can make the blessing on washing for bread - the first washing could be done with specific intention not to purify the hands for bread. The halakha of what to do in this situation is in siman 165, and no one suggests this solution. Perhaps this is evidence that washing is kosher even with negative intention.
MIKVAOT AND MAYANOT
Just as the MB in the first part of our siman deals with the basic laws of the tuma and tahara of utensils, so the MB in the last part deals with the complex laws of mikvaot and springs fit for immersion. Most of the rules we will explain are actually mentioned in the MB, but the MB is not really trying to present these laws to someone who is NOT familiar with them but rather to demonstrate their application for someone who IS familiar with them. Thus, a short introduction is in order.
PURIFICATION BY IMMERSION
Apart from tum'at met, all tum'ot of people and utensils can be purified by immersion (tevila). Two kinds of bodies of water are fit for such immersion: a "mikveh" (water collected in one place) and a ma'ayan (spring, flowing water which originates in the earth). Most tum'ot are purified by either, but a "zav" is purified ONLY in a spring.
MIKVEH
1. Rainwater, by definition not spring water, can never be a ma'ayan, and can purify only in a mikveh. It follows that rain water can never purify if it is flowing, but only when it is collected. (See MB 86, 87.) The water must be collected in the ground, not in a vessel. (See MB 89.)
The sea is considered a "mikveh," but lakes are generally NOT mikvaot since usually water flows out somewhere.
2. According to Torah law, 40 se'ah of water (about
3. Water which was drawn by human effort (sheuvin) are unfit for a mikveh. According to most Rishonim, even deoraita a mikveh of sheuvin is invalid; according to the Rambam and Rashba, it is kosher min haTorah and unfit derabanan. (See MB 90. We have an interesting paradox in that the Raavad who holds that a mikveh of sheuvin is unfit min haTorah for tevila holds that it is fit for washing hands, whereas the Rambam who rules that such a mikveh is kosher min haTorah disqualifies it for the hands.)
4. "Hamshakha" refers to taking drawn water (sheuvin) and pouring it into the mikveh so that it flows over the ground before entering the mikveh. Such water is not entirely like sheuvin. If MOST of the 40 se'ah are filled by rainwater, then the remainder may be made up by hamshakha. A few Rishonim hold that hamshakha makes the water like ordinary rain water and that the entire mikveh may be filled through hamshakha. (See MB 41, 42.)
MA'AYAN
When it rains, rainwater washes directly into the river. Since rainwater does not purify when flowing but only in a mikveh, if run-off makes up most of the water, the river would be unfit for immersion. The gemara concludes that this generally doesn't happen, because whenever there is a lot of rain there is a commensurate strengthening of the spring. Many Rishonim rule that even so, we may not immerse in a river at a time where there is significant wash-off from rains.
A river has a certain size and volume when there are no rains washing into it. At a TIME when we can be sure that most of the water is from the source, and in a PLACE where the river flows even when there are no rains, then according to all opinions we may immerse in a river.
Regarding washing hands, we permit washing in ANY river, and the SA ponders permitting even flash floods (se'if 15).
2. According to some Rishonim, there is no specific volume requirement for a ma'ayan. All that is necessary is that there is enough water to immerse the person or object. Other Rishonim rule that for a person, 40 se'ah are required, but not for objects. (See MB 79.)
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!