Simanim 162:5-end and 163 Drying Hands after Washing continued
Mishna Berura
Yeshivat Har Etzion
SHIUR
#98: Simanim
162:5-END, 163
by Rabbi Asher
Meir
SIMAN 162 -
DRYING HANDS AFTER WASHING
SE'IF 4 - ONE
HAND WASHES THE OTHER
In se'if 4, the
SA discusses ways in which improper hand washing can result in a previously
washed hand becoming defiled by the tamei water from the other hand. As we
learned last week, if the first pouring is less than a revi'it, then while the
hand is purified, the water on it becomes tamei; if the other hand touches this
water then it becomes defiled by the water.
The MB (s.k.
49, citing Magen Avraham) points out that the same problem exists if the hand
comes into contact with tamei water via the cup handle. If I take the cup in my
left hand and pour less than a revi'it on my right hand, then the right HAND is
purified but the WATER on the hand is tamei. Then I take the cup in my right
hand and pour on my left hand; now the left hand is in the same state. In the
meantime, the tamei water from the first washing of the right hand has wet the
cup handle.
If I now return
the cup to the left hand to wash off the tamei water from the right hand, the
right hand becomes completely tahor - but the LEFT hand has become completely
defiled by the wet handle! Pouring another less-than-revi'it of water on it by
pouring from the right hand will leave the left hand with tamei water on it even
though it has been washed twice, and furthermore, transferring the cup to the
right hand will defile that hand too. In the end, after the entire elaborate
hand washing process, the hands are in the same tamei state in which they
began!
Actually, the
MB's exact words are "the handle of the cup becomes tamei." This suggests that
the problem exists even if the handle is dried off between hands. However, as
the Chazon Ish points out, this interpretation is halakhically untenable.
Practically all utensils are tamei nowadays; our only concern in washing for
bread is for tum'a which arises from the hands via the washing process
itself.
SE'IF 7 -
TOUCHING THE UNWASHED PART OF THE HAND AFTER WASHING
The SA
indicates that touching the unwashed part of the hand during washing can
re-defile the hands, even if the water on the hands is pure. The reason is that
the unwashed PART of the hand is still tamei. It follows that this caution
applies even AFTER hand washing - for instance, if the hands become wet during
the meal.
In order to
understand this se'if, we need to review the dispute of the Rishonim regarding
how much of the hand needs to be washed. According to the Rif and Rashba, the
entire hand up to the wrist needs to be washed. According to the Rosh, only the fingers
require washing.
We might think
that "tum'at yadayim" applies, as the name suggests, to the entire hand, and
only to the hand. It would follow that according to the Rif, the problem can not
arise, because the entire hand requires washing and the arm is not subject to
tum'a. But the Rosh does need to worry, because the palm and back of the hand
are subject to tum'at yadayim but were never purified.
In fact, the
problem does NOT arise according to the Rosh, and CAN arise according to the
Rif! The Beur Halakha points out that the Rosh himself understood that just as
washing is required only for the fingers, likewise tum'at yadayim only applies
there (alternatively, we could say that washing the FINGERS purifies the entire
HAND). Indeed, we learned last week that the Rosh is worried about tum'a from
the unwashed part of the hand only because of the tamei water that dripped there
- not because that part of the hand is itself tamei. Whereas we learned last
week that according to the Arukh,
even the forearm is subject to tum'at yadayim.
Practically
speaking, the two main approaches le-halakha are those of the Rosh and the
Rashba. The Rashba holds that the entire hand needs washing and that only the
hand is subject to tum'a, and the Rosh holds that only the fingers need washing
and only the fingers are subject to tum'a. We can easily see that this se'if
applies to neither of these approaches - neither leaves an unwashed but tamei
"remnant" after a kosher washing.
So what is the
source of the SA's "mystery shita" which warns against rubbing the hands in the
middle of washing? The Beit Yosef says that the source for avoiding rubbing the
hands after washing is from the Raavad, as cited by the Kol Bo. According to
this approach, only the fingers require washing but the entire hand is subject
to tum'a. (We learned last week that this is also how the Rashba understood the
ruling of Rav in the gemara - a ruling which the Rashba nevertheless
rejects.)
Surprisingly,
the Beur Halakha indicates that this se'if is based on the Rashba. We have seen,
however, that according to the Rashba the problem doesn't arise! Perhaps the
Beur Halakha's intention is as
follows: Our custom to be lenient and permit washing only the fingers is
based on two foundations:
1. The Rosh and
many other Rishonim rule that only the fingers require
washing.
2. While the
Rashba REQUIRES washing the entire hand, he could recognize that washing the
fingers only is partially
effective, and can rid at
least the fingers themselves of tum'at yadayim.
So we really
have TWO opinions to rely on. But if one hand touches the unwashed part of the
other hand, then we are on safe ground according to the Rosh, but NOT according
to the Rashba - even "bediavad."
SE'IF 10 -
BANDAGES
The SA here
rules that the place of a bandage does not require netilat yadayim. Yet in 161:1
we learned that netilat yadayim is not effective when a bandage is worn, because
it interferes with the netila!
The MB there
explained that our siman is talking about a bandage which is very painful to
remove. The person would never think of removing it, and so the place of the
wound is in effect "decommissioned." In fact, the Rosh, who is the source of
this ruling, likens the place of the wound to a missing
limb!
The fact that
the bandage is unlikely to be removed implies a second leniency as well: even if
we consider that part of the hand tamei, it is unlikely to come in contact with
food.
(The MB on
siman 161 seems to understand that both reasons are really the same: since it
hurts to remove the bandage, there is no worry that the food will be defiled by
contact with the place of the wound, and therefore no washing is necessary
there. However, the words of the Rosh likening the wound to a missing limb could
support the interpretation that the "decommissioning" of the wound is a separate
reason for leniency.)
AN OCCASION TO
REFLECT
The Pri Megadim
on our siman (MZ 7) writes: "After the many details explained in this chapter
and those preceding it, the average person should reflect a bit and consider:
[Perhaps] all my life I have never washed my hands
properly!"
The Pri
Megadim's main concern is that the entire hand should be washed. Even though a
small interposition (chatzitza) does not disqualify immersion in a mikveh, if
even a tiny part of the body is out of the water altogether the immersion is
certainly invalid. Likewise, the Pri Megadim seems to imply that if even the
slightest bit of the hand (or according to the lenient view, the fingers) does
not come in contact with the water, the washing may be
invalid.
Even if a
person is scrupulous to use the right amount of the right kind of water in the
right kind of cup, and then is careful to avoid anything which would allow tum'a
to return to the purified hands, the whole process can be endangered by not
washing thoroughly enough.
The Pri Megadim
does say that rubbing the hands in the way described by the Rema at the end of
se'if 2 can help overcome this difficulty, because the rubbing can be considered
as a continuation of the washing. (The MB seems to understand the Rema a little
differently.)
This is another
good reason to wash the entire hand. Washing only the fingers is likely to
result in missing some part of the fingers. Someone who tries to wash the entire
hand, however, is likely to cover at least the fingers.
SIMAN 163 -
EATING BREAD WHEN THERE IS NO WATER AVAILABLE
We saw in siman
158:8 that "Someone who is in the desert or a dangerous place, and he doesn't
have any water, is exempt from netilat yadayim." In this siman we learn that
even if there is NO danger, there is a limit to how much effort we need to
invest in finding water for washing.
COVERING THE
HANDS WHEN EATING WITHOUT WASHING
The SA rules
that when we can't (or don't need to) find water, we need to cover the hands.
The implication is that this way of avoiding tum'at yadayim is permissible only
when there is no water. This subject is discussed in the gemara, Chullin
107b:
Rav Tachlifa
bar Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: They permitted [wrapping hands in] a cloth
for eaters of teruma, but not for eaters of taharot.
(The
continuation of this same gemara is the source for the rule in se'if 2 that
washing is always required for the one eating, not for the one serving the
food.)
Rashi explains
that "eaters of taharot" refers to the custom of "chaverim" who would eat
ordinary food in ritual purity, just as Kohanim eat teruma. Even so, Shmuel
says, a chaver is still not as scrupulous as a Kohen, and we are afraid that he
will end up touching the food despite the cloth.
The Beit Yosef
understands that Rashi means to limit the prohibition specifically to chaverim.
But for eating ordinary bread, wrapping the hands is permissible. The
requirement of netilat yadayim is because of "serakh teruma," the resemblance to
teruma, and so it shouldn't be more stringent than the rule for ACTUAL
teruma.
This is
certainly the understanding of the Rambam, who rules explicitly that any person
may eat bread by wrapping his hands instead of washing them. (Berakhot 6:18,
Shaar Avot HaTum'a 8:9. The Rambam uses the word "loat" to mean "wrap." This is
why the MB uses this unusual term.) It would seem to follow that the Rambam does
NOT require one to walk a mile, or any distance at all, for washing water! How
would the Rambam understand the gemara which DOES impose this requirement
(Chullin 122b)? One possibility is that there is a COMPLETE exemption if the
water is distant - even covering the hands is unnecessary. However, since the
Rambam doesn't mention the mile/four mile shiur at all (at least the Ein Mishpat
says he doesn't), it seems he understood that the halakhic conclusion is against
the gemara's ruling.
However, the
Beit Yosef says that most Rishonim, including the Raavad, the Rosh and Rabbeinu
Yonah, forbid using a cloth instead of washing. The Rosh reasons that if we are
afraid that even a chaver eating taharot may be careless and touch the food with
his fingers, certainly we need to be stringent with an ordinary Jew eating
ordinary bread. This explains the ruling of the SA, that covering the hands is
only permissible when there is no water around.
We now know
that wrapping the hands is not permissible when there IS water - is it necessary
when there ISN'T water? Maybe the rule that exempts us from netilat yadayim when
there is no water exempts us from the entire decree of "serakh teruma"! The
Arukh rules that although we needn't go a long distance for water, we need at
any rate to wrap our hands, and this is the ruling of the
SA.
WRAPPING THE
HANDS VERSUS RELYING ON LENIENT APPROACHES
The Pri Megadim
suggests that it is better to wrap the hands than to wash with water which is
usually considered unfit; we could extend this idea and say that in any case
where we are compelled to rely on a minority opinion we should also wrap our
hands. We already saw this in the MB (159:21 and
elsewhere).