Simanim 4 Hand-Washing
Mishna Berura
Yeshivat Har Etzion
SHIUR
#3: Siman 4
Pages
13-21
Rav
Yosef Zvi Rimon
Siman 4: Hand-Washing
----------------------
Why do we wash our hands with a berakha in the
morning?
A. Rambam, Hilkhot Tefilla
4:1-2
"Five things
prevent one from praying despite the fact that the time for prayer has arrived,
and they are: purification of the hands in what manner? One must wash his hands with water until
the joint, and then pray ..."
What, according to the Rambam, is the purpose of this hand-washing? (See Berakhot 15a.) This implies that there are additional
times during the day when this would be true.
The Rosh (Berakhot 9:23) writes as follows:
"Because one's
hands are 'askaniot' (in motion even while one is asleep), and it is
inconceivable that they did not come into contact with unclean parts of the body
during the night, [the Sages] instituted a berakha before he recites the Shema
and prays."
This explains why we only make this berakha in the morning, before
shacharit. Still, it does appear
that one who relieves himself before mincha or ma'ariv should make this berakha,
and in fact the Rosh goes on to make this point explicitly. (We do not follow this ruling; see
below.)
B. There is another possible reason for the
fact that we say this berakha before shacharit alone. The Rashba (responsa, vol. I, 191)
writes:
"We have said
in the chapter called 'Haya Korei' (Berakhot 15a): 'One who washes his hands and
puts on tefillin and recites the Shema - this is complete acceptance of the yoke
of Heaven' ... The choice of the verb 'notel' for hand-washing instead of
'rochetz' implies that one must wash his hands in the morning with a
vessel.
"And if you
ask, why is there a difference in this regard between the morning prayer and
that of the afternoon and the evening?
One would answer, it is because in the morning we are as if created anew,
as it is written, 'They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness'
(Eikha 3:23) - we must thank the Blessed One for having created us for His
honor, to serve Him and to bless in His name. And it is for this purpose that [the
Sages] instituted all those berakhot which we make each and every morning, and
thus we must partake of His holiness and wash our hands with a vessel, like a
kohen who washes his hands at the [Temple] laver before his
service."
In a number of places (4:3; Bi'ur Halakha s.v. Ve-yitlem on S.A. 4:13;
Bi'ur Halakha s.v. Ve-afilu on S.A. 4:1; and more) the M.B. makes it clear that
he views the opinions of the Rosh and the Rashba to be fundamentally opposed,
with the Rosh championing the idea of tefilla as the reason behind the berakha,
while the Rashba espouses the idea of rebirth. Are these two explanations necessarily
mutually exclusive? Reread the
Rashba, then see the Arukh Ha-shulchan 4:6 for a different perspective in which
the Rashba agrees that tefilla is the focus of the berakha and the notion of
"beria chadasha" (a new creature) serves only to explain why it is required for
shacharit alone and not mincha or ma'ariv.
C. Yet a third reason for this berakha is
something that was discussed in siman 1: the ruach ra'a, or harmful spirit. A glance at the Tur will reveal that
this is the sole reason he mentions!
However, the Arukh Ha-shulchan (4:3) infers from the fact that the Tur
permitted wiping one's hands on a stone as an alternative to hand-washing in the
absence of water (something relevant only to tefilla and cleanliness and not to
ruach ra'a) that the Tur did indeed consider preparation for tefilla to be one
of the purposes of the berakha.
The M.B. (4:8) asserts that "for the sake of a ruach ra'a they would not
have instituted a berakha." The
Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 6:2), in discussing mayim acharonim (the customary
hand-washing after a meal), indicates that for hand-washing that is done to
guard against a danger, as opposed to one performed in obedience to rabbinic
command, one does not recite a berakha.
This reasoning applies equally well to ruach ra'a and thus serves to
explain the M.B.'s statement.
When must one
wash hands?
Intuitively, one would say that according to the Rashba, one should wash
as soon as possible after rising, while according to the Rosh it must be done
adjacent to tefilla (at least according to the way the M.B. understood the
Rashba).
Read the Shulkhan Arukh, siman 6, and the Mishna Berura there. Then return to our siman and read the
Bi'ur Halakha, se'if 1, s.v. Ve-afilu.
Try to distinguish clearly between the case of one who tarries for some
time before praying, relieving himself again in the meantime - a soldier who
must go on patrol early in the morning is a good example - and the normal
situation of one who goes straight to tefilla.
See the Arukh Ha-shulchan (4:5) who rules clearly in favor of saying the
berakha upon arising. (And see the
book Hilkhot Tzava, in the comments of R. Mordekhai Eliahu, that Sephardim
always do so.)
Must the
berakha immediately follow the washing?
For one who does choose to recite the berakha upon arrival at the
synagogue, is it sufficient that he washed his hands earlier in the morning, or
must he wash them again? A related
question may be asked regarding one who makes this berakha at home - must the
berakha precede the drying of his hands, or can there be a small interval
between the washing and the berakha?
The Rambam wrote in his responsa (siman
"That custom
held in Damascus and other eastern cities that the cantor begins the service
with the blessing of "al netilat yadayim" ... is without question a blessing in
vain... And even though it is their
custom, they must abandon it..."
However, the Maharam Chalawa (Pesachim 7b) thought
differently:
"The daily
morning berakhot are in fact blessings of praise for the natural order, [e.g.]
whether one heard the cry of the rooster or not ... And even "al netilat
yadayim" should be said in the synagogue for it is one of the blessings of
praise..."
The Rambam appears to be consistent in his opinion (Hilkhot Tefilla 7:9)
that each of these morning berakhot is not recited unless one is personally
obligated to do so (only one who actually heard a rooster may say "she-natan
la-sekhvi bina," etc.).
Accordingly, one may say "al netilat yadayim" only in the context of
hand-washing. Rabbeinu David
(Pesachim 7b), while disagreeing with the Rambam about the berakhot in general
(which is how we rule), sees "al netilat yadayim" as unique in that it is a
birkat ha-mitzva, as opposed to a blessing of praise, and therefore it indeed
must be adjacent to the hand-washing.
In practice, one should ideally recite the berakha immediately after
washing his hands. See the M.B. 4:2
for a discussion of whether it should be before the drying of the hands or
after.
Must one who
remained awake all night wash his hands?
The Shulchan Arukh 4:13 leaves the issue unresolved, while the Rema rules
that he should wash but refrain from reciting the berakha. For the preferred solution, see M.B.
4:30.
What about the
other berakhot?
The morning berakhot: There is a difference of opinion regarding this
matter between the Shulchan Arukh and the Rama (46:8). In practice, even Sephardim follow the
Rama (cf. Kaf Ha-chayim and others).
Though this might seem to resolve the issue in favor of saying the
berakhot, the M.B. still has some uncertainty about two of them. The Arukh Ha-shulchan resolves this
uncertainty; yet, it is still preferable to follow the advice of the
M.B.
The blessings over the Torah: See M.B. 47:28 which describes the debate
surrounding these berakhot, which revolves around the question: why do we recite
birkot ha-Torah every morning? Is
it the night that constitutes a break in our learning, or the sleep? The M.B. cites a ruling of R. Akiva
Eiger that there is a certain circumstance in which one who stayed awake all
night must nevertheless, according to all opinions, say the berakha. Can you explain this according to the
two possibilities mentioned above ("night" and "sleep")?
In practice, nearly all the berakhot can be said by an individual who did
not sleep, including "al netilat yadayim" and "asher yatzar" - if he relieved
himself. On the other hand, he
should preferably find someone to say "ha-ma'avir sheina" and "Elokai netzor"
for him; if this is impossible, he has on whom to rely (the Arukh Ha-shulchan)
if he says it for himself.
Regarding birkot ha-Torah, if he slept at all, even on the preceding day,
he should recite them; otherwise, he should either find someone to say it for
him or intend to fulfill his obligation with "Ahavat Raba" and learn immediately
afterwards.
Tzitzit will be discussed when, be-ezrat Hashem, we reach siman
8:16. (We rule that he should not
recite the berakha, but one who wears a tallit gadol should have his tallit
katan in mind during that berakha - M.B.8:42.)
Must one wash
hands three times when coming out of the bathroom?
The M.B. (4:39) is lenient on this point, though he does cite the
stringent opinion. In practice,
many do consider it sufficient to simply wash hands under the tap. It is important to note, however, that
one who exits the bathroom before tefilla should at that point wash with a
vessel (unless he does so in any case before each
tefilla).
R. Ovadia Yosef requires a threefold washing after relieving oneself
(though he waives this for one who went into the bathroom but did not relieve
himself).
One who relieves himself outdoors should rub his hands on earth or any
other abrasive substance before saying "asher yatzar." He can even say it without cleaning his
hands if, while urinating, he did not touch covered parts of his body, unless he
was in a bathroom (Beit Yosef in the name of R. Yaakov; Shulchan Arukh
7:2).
Where may one
wash hands?
The gemara in Berakhot 26a tells us:
"Said Rava,
'These Persian toilets, even when they contain excrement, are considered as if
they are sealed.'"
Rashi explains,
"They were dug
into the ground, with the mouth of the hole at a distance from the hole itself
which was on a slant so that the excrement would roll down into the
hole."
This law regarding "Persian toilets" was accepted as halakha by the
Shulchan Arukh (83:4) who ruled that one may even recite the Shema in such a
bathroom. What would you say this
implies about our bathrooms today?
Many Poskim including the Eretz Tzvi (responsa 110;111) and the Minchat
Yitzchak (vol. I, 60) draw the obvious conclusion. However, there are those who draw a
distinction due to the fact that in our toilets the excrement does not descend
immediately but rather remains in place until it is flushed (Yaskil Avdi vol.
VI, OC 13).
There are those who see room for leniency in a different direction. They point out that in our bathrooms the
majority usage revolves around the "bath" aspect and thus the room is not to be
halakhically considered a "beit kiseh," toilet room. This opinion is found in the responsa of
Va-ya'an David and in volume XIV of Az Nidberu.
It follows that in a bathroom with no toilet one may certainly wash his
hands. This is the preferred
practice, but one who washes them in a bathroom with a toilet has on whom to
rely. This ruling is found in
Yechaveh Da'at vol. III, 1. And it
appears that one should ideally put down the toilet cover when so
doing.
Next week:
Simanim 5 - 7 (pages 21-25).
(This shiur was
translated by Pnina Baumgarten.)