Skip to main content

Speaking after Netillat Yadayim and Mayim Acharonim

Text file


Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

          Although "mayim acharonim," the ritual washing of hands before birkat ha-mazon, is not obligatory today the way it once was (its main purpose was to protect the eyes from dangerous Sodom salt [Eruvin 17b] which is no longer in use nowadays), it is still practiced by many, especially on Shabbat.  However, it frequently happens that the mayim acharonim container is passed around the table while "Shir Ha-ma'alot" is being sung so that people continue to sing after they wash.  This, according to many Acharonim (see the Mishna Berura 179:2, who ruled this way), is an improper interruption between washing and birkat ha-mazon.  According to these Poskim one may not speak at this time, just as one may not speak between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi.  We will examine the sources and attempt to find a way of justifying this common practice, of continuing to sing "Shir Hama'alot" after washing mayim acharonim.

A. "THE BERAKHA MUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW WASHING"

          The gemara in Berakhot (42a) says,

There are three instances where one thing should immediately follow another: immediately after laying on of hands ("semikha") one should slaughter [a sacrifice]; immediately after [mentioning the] redemption ("ge'ula") one should pray [the silent prayer]; and IMMEDIATELY AFTER HAND-WASHING ("NETILLAT YADAYIM") ONE SHOULD MAKE THE BLESSING ("BERAKHA").

          Which "hand washing" does this refer to, and which blessing?  From the context it is clearly related to mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon, as Rashi notes.

          The Rosh and other Rishonim rule stringently (in accordance with the Yerushalmi) that ha-motzi must also immediately follow netillat yadayim.  The Tur (OC 066) writes:

"My father, the Rosh, z"l, would make sure also not to interrupt or speak between the first hand washing and ha-motzi.  When he had a meal with others he would be the last to wash his hands, in order to avoid interruptions or speaking.  The Yerushalmi, too, implies that 'The blessing should immediately follow hand washing' refers to washing before the meal, for it says, 'One who makes the blessing immediately after washing will not be during the whole of the meal.'"

          The Rosh as quoted by the Tur introduces a stringent definition of "interruption" - even speaking is forbidden.  According to the Rosh even SPEECH is forbidden.  This, to the best of my knowledge, does not appear in other Rishonim with regard to washing either before or after the meal.

          The Shulchan Arukh quotes the Tur's ruling forbidding interruptions between washing and the beginning of the meal, prefacing it with "some say" (usually indicative of an opinion that is not the authoritative one) but adding, "and it is preferable to be careful [about this]."

          In summary, everyone agrees that one must not interrupt between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon.  There are those who apply this law to netillat yadayim as well, while the Rosh expands it to include speaking.

          Our question now revolves around the opinion of the Rosh.  Rashi (Berakhot 42a) and the Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 6:20) seem to understand that the need for "immediacy" forbids only EATING. The Kesef Mishneh explicitly states that according to them it is permissible to speak between washing and birkat ha-mazon.  [The Kesef Mishneh explains that they base themselves on another gemara, "One should not speak in the presence of the cup (of wine) of birkat ha-mazon."  Only when the cup of wine is poured does it become forbidden to speak; before it is permissible, even after having washed one's hands.]  Is it possible to attribute such a position to the Rosh?

B. THE POSKIM: SPEAKING AFTER MAYIM ACHARONIM

          As stated above, the Shulchan Arukh (OC 166) recommends following the Rosh.  Nevertheless, in OC 179 he rules:

"If one finished eating and washed his hands for mayim acharonim, he may not eat or drink until after birkat ha-mazon."

          This is based on Rashi and the Rambam quoted above (A).  The Magen Avraham notes from the Shulchan Arukh (as the Kesef Mishneh deduced from the Rambam) that only eating is forbidden after washing; speaking is permissible.  However, asks the Magen Avraham, how can the Shulchan Arukh both forbid speaking after netillat yadayim before the meal (like the Rosh) and permit it after mayim acharonim (like the Rambam and Rashi)?  Therefore the Magen Avraham (quoted by the Mishna Berura) rules that speaking is also forbidden between washing and birkat ha-mazon.

          It is curious that the Beit Yosef himself (in OC 179) raised the Magen Avraham's problem and came to a similar conclusion.  When he compiled the Shulchan Arukh, though, he ignored the inconsistency, ruling one way with regard to netillat yadayim and another with regard to mayim acharonim.  Apparently he did not consider this problem insurmountable and was able to justify distinguishing between the two situations.  We will attempt to reconcile the seeming contradiction between the two rulings of the Shulchan Arukh and differentiate between interrupting between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi on the one hand - when even speech is prohibited - and mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon - when it is only prohibited to eat.

C. SPEAKING AFTER NETILLAT YADAYIM

          The Tur (OC 179) rules against the Rashi we quoted above and permits eating between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon (as long as a blessing is made beforehand.  The Beit Yosef argues forcefully, eventually stating:

"One should not interrupt between mayim acharonim and the berakha, EVEN THROUGH SPEAKING, as we say ...  'The berakha should immediately follow netillat yadayim.'  This seems to be, according to all, referring to mayim acharonim, for even the Rosh, who holds that it refers to netillat yadayim, does not mean that it ONLY refers to netillat yadayim, but that it ALSO refers to netillat yadayim...  Apparently nothing should come between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon, even speaking, and certainly not eating."

          The Beit Yosef here accepts the opinion of those Acharonim that rule that it is forbidden to speak after mayim acharonim, and proves that it is forbidden to eat afterwards also.

          There are a group of Acharonim (the Derisha and the Taz), though, who take a curious position.  Despite agreeing with the Beit Yosef that it is forbidden to speak between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon, they justify the Tur's ruling that it is permissible to eat (denying the Beit Yosef's proofs)!  Is eating not a much more intense interruption than speaking is?  Why permit eating and prohibit speaking?

          The argument between these Acharonim and the Beit Yosef hinges on a conceptual disagreement regarding why there are any limitations at all on activity between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon.  The Taz and the Derisha view the prohibition against interruptions as one of the requirements of BIRKAT HA-MAZON.  Mayim acharonim, because it prepares for birkat ha-mazon, is intrinsically connected with it and must be united with it.  There is therefore a prohibition on even speaking after mayim acharonim, since the slightest interruption interferes with the union between them.  However, if one decides to prolong his meal by eating after mayim acharonim he may do so, as long as he washes again before birkat ha-mazon.  Of course, if one speaks after mayim acharonim he must also wash again, but there is a also a PROHIBITION against speaking, not against eating.  [He must make a blessing before the food because he broke the connection between the original ha-motzi and his present eating.]

          The Beit Yosef sees the rules against interruptions as stemming from a totally different source: "derekh eretz" (here, etiquette) - proper decorum at a meal.  The Sages gave the meal and its concomitant eating and the mitzvot (washing and blessings) an order that should not be altered.  One may not speak or eat after mayim acharonim for this reason - it disturbs the proper order of the meal.  This is how Rashi (Berakhot 52b) explains why one cannot pour a cup of wine between washing before the meal and making ha-motzi - because "this is one of the rules of a meal ("hilkhot se'uda")."  The proper sequence entails washing and then making ha-motzi without introducing anything in between. 

          In short, speaking after mayim acharonim is against the rules of a meal, according to the Beit Yosef, while others hold that if one speaks after mayim acharonim, it is birkat ha-mazon that becomes flawed (i.e., it was not connected to its preparatory stage).

D.  WASHING BEFORE VS. WASHING AFTER THE MEAL

          This distinction, whether washing and making a berakha must be juxtaposed because of the intrinsic connection between them or in order to retain the proper order of the meal, is the key to resolving the seemingly contradictory rulings of the Shulchan Arukh: (1) OC 166, which prohibits speaking between washing and ha-motzi; and (2) OC 179, which prohibits eating but allows speaking, after mayim acharonim.

          There is more reason to be restrictive about interruptions if the two activities to be juxtaposed are intrinsically connected than if one if to follow the other according to the order of the meal.  If one activity is viewed as a preparatory stage for the next, even the slightest break between the two is problematic.  Therefore the Taz and Derisha (quoted above) rule that even speaking is forbidden after mayim acharonim; it is intrinsically connected to birkat ha-mazon and must be closely joined with it.

          The Shulchan Arukh's rulings are understandable if we make the following two assumptions: (1) that netillat yadayim and ha-motzi are organically connected; and (2) that mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon are not organically connected, yet must be done consecutively, following the Sages' order of the meal.  Therefore, between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi one cannot even speak, in order to preserve the unity between them.  It is permissible to speak between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon, but eating between the two introduces a foreign element into the meal, which does not then conform to against the proper order that the Sages determined.  Is there basis for assumption (1)?  (To view mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon as merely ordered one after the other is a legitimate, minimal assumption; to posit a connection between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi [to the degree of forbidding speaking between them] is a more radical statement that demands justification.)

          Even though Rashi commented that netillat yadayim immediately preceding the meal is merely "one of the laws of the meal," ("me-hilkhot se'uda"), seeing the two as intrinsically connected and inseparable is a defensible position.  The most obvious connection is that washing hands makes eating bread possible (to be sure, the Rishonim debate how exactly it does so - through removing second level impurity of the hands, through addition of holiness, or though physical cleanliness.).

          The Rosh explicitly refers to the netillat yadayim - ha-motzi connection.  In his commentary on Chullin, explaining why it is permissible even to eat between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon, he writes:

"Nowhere do we find that interruptions between any action (referring to mayim acharonim) and the blessing after eating are problematic.  We only find such a rule between an act and the blessing before eating, like BETWEEN NETILLAT YADAYIM AND THE BLESSING OF HA-MOTZI - AND EATING."

          The Rosh here alludes to his own custom of not interrupting between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi.  He likens this prohibited interruption to that between the blessing made before eating and eating itself.  It is clear that he views netillat yadayim as an act of preparation for eating bread, just like the blessing is a preparation for eating.  This approach goes against Rashi's explanation of "The blessing should immediately follow netillat yadayim," quoted above.

          To completely explain the Shulchan Arukh we must determine that mayim acharonim is NOT intrinsically connected to birkat ha-mazon while netillat yadayim is connected to ha-motzi.  Ostensibly, there is a beraita (Berakhot 53b) that equates the two:

"'You should sanctify yourselves' - this refers to washing before the meal; 'and you should be holy' - this refers to washing after the meal; 'for holy' - this refers to oil; 'am I, Hashem' - this refers to the blessing."

          This might not be referring to the essential reason behind mayim acharonim, though.  The main reason for mayim acharonim is protection from Sodom salt (Eiruvin 17b); this explains why it is not obligatory today and why there is no blessing over it (see Tur OC 181).  The Rosh (Berakhot 8:6) himself clearly concludes that the source quoted is only an "asmakhta" (not a derivation from the verse, but a connection of the law to the verse).  Therefore he holds that in the absence of the danger of Sodom salt mayim acharonim is not obligatory, unless a custom to continue doing it has taken hold (similar to using oil on the hands after the meal, quoted by the beraita but only obligatory where a custom has taken hold).  Since according to the letter of the law one can recite birkat ha-mazon without having washed mayim acharonim it is not considered a preparatory stage of birkat ha-mazon, even where it has become a custom.  It follows that the rule that demands juxtaposing mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon does not forbid interruptions because the two are intrinsically connected, but rather because they happen to be ordered one after the other in the Sages' conception of the meal.  It follows that the we are more lax with regard to interruptions between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon (permitting speaking) than we are between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi.

          The Beit Yosef originally did forbid speaking between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon, seeing it as a foreign element that even disturbs the order of the meal (see above).  However, his conclusions in the Shulchan Arukh match the approach of the Rosh, i.e., that we are only stringent about interruptions of speech between two elements that are intrinsically connected.  This is not the case in his eyes, with mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon.  Those that argue with the Rosh and prohibit speech after mayim acharonim still adopt his position with regard to what is when speech is considered an interruption (only between two intrinsically connected things).  They believe, though, that mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon are intrinsically united, based on the verse quoted in the beraita in Berakhot.  Even though this derasha does not carry with it the force of obligation, they reason, it still is relevant for determining the close relationship between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon.

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS

          Concerning our original question - Is it permissible to continue singing "Shir Ha-ma'alot" after mayim acharonim?  Is this not considered an interruption?:

          A case can certainly made for justifying this practice:

1.  According to Rashi and the Rambam there is no prohibition against speaking between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon.

2.  Until Acharonim extrapolated from the Rosh's comments about speaking between netillat yadayim and ha-motzi there was no one among the Rishonim that voiced a dissenting opinion to the above. 

3.  Even so, the Shulchan Arukh was able to avoid making the connection and permitted speaking between mayim acharonim and birkat ha-mazon despite quoting the Rosh's approach about not speaking before ha-motzi.  [The Arukh Ha-shulchan (OC 181) also ruled like the Shulchan Arukh, but offers another way of explaining the seemingly contradictory rulings.]

4.  With regard to "Shir Ha-ma'alot" there is an extra reason to be lenient: the Maharshal's ruling (34) which permits speaking about Torah after netillat yadayim and before ha-motzi.

          Even so, it is certainly preferable to follow the stringent opinion and wash mayim acharonim after "Shir Ha-ma'alot" has finished completely, if this can be done without causing offense to the other diners.

(This article first appeared in Daf Kesher #254, Tishrei 5751, vol. 3, pp. 163-167.)

 

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!