Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 159 - Keilim With Which One May Wash His Hands; How Water Must Reach One’s Hands

SECTION 159 The Keilim With Which One May Wash His Hands; How Water Must Reach One’s Hands. (1–25)

1 One may only wash his hands using a container, a k’li.1 [The rationale is that our Sages] used the sprinkling of water [mixed with the ashes of the red heifer,]2 or the sanctification of the hands and feet [of the kohanim] in the [Beis] HaMikdash,as the prototype upon which they based the practice of washing one’s hands. Both of these practices required a kli.

The sanctification of [a kohen’s] hands and feet required a k’li, as it is written:3 “And you shall make a basin… and they shall wash from it.” And with regard to the sprinkling of the water [of the ashes of the red heifer, the water for the sprinkling must be sanctified in a k’li, as] it is written:4 “You shall place on it living water in a k’li.”

2 All keilim are acceptable [for this purpose], even keilim made from animal turds, stone, or earth,5 although they are not considered as keilim with regard to [susceptibility to] ritual impurity.6

3 The k’li must hold a reviis7[of liquid].8 If it does not hold a reviis, it may not be used for the washing of hands even if one wishes to fill it two or three times.

4 A k’li with a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter, i.e., if one would press it down into water, water would enter [through the hole], is no longer considered as a valid k’li.9 Such a hole is larger than one through which liquid in the k’li could seep out.10

One may not wash his hands from [such a k’li] if he washes from the opening on the top of the k’li, even if it could contain a reviis in the portion below the hole. [The rationale is that] the water is not being poured on the person’s hands from a k’li.11

([This ruling applies] even if the water in the k’li is entirely below the hole. Nevertheless, [the water is unacceptable] because it is being poured on one’s hands via an entity [the portion of the k’li with the hole] that is not a k’li. For via the k’li, [i.e., the portion of the k’li below the hole,] the water would not be poured directly on one’s hands that are located near the opening of the k’li. [To explain:] If [the portion of the k’li above the hole] did not exist and the water would be poured from a place below the hole, the water would not be poured over the person’s hands were he to hold his hands in the place where he is holding them, near the opening of the k’li, when he pours the water from above, via the opening of the k’li.12

The only way [pouring from such a k’li would be acceptable] would be if one lifted the bottom of the k’li [considerably] higher than its opening. In such an instance, even if the portion of the k’li above the hole did not exist at all, the water would be poured from above through the hole over his hands, as it is pouring over his hands now through the opening.

The same law applies even if the person does not lift the k’li so high, but the hole is close to the opening of the k’li so that when the person lifts the bottom of the k’li slightly, [high enough so] that the water would pour on his hands, even if the portion of the k’li above the hole over which the water pours did not exist. [This is acceptable even though the pouring is made possible by] the portions of the k’li at the side of the flow of the water that are above the hole and which prevent the water from spreading out to the sides [and thus not flowing over his hands]. Although the water is being prevented from spreading sideways by an entity that is not a k’li, this is not significant as will be explained.)13

If, [however,] one washed his hands [using water that flowed] through the hole, it is acceptable in all instances, since the k’li holds a reviis below the hole.14 Needless to say, this applies if one breaks off and removes the portion of the k’li above the hole.)15

5 Such a k’li may not be used for washing one’s hands if it does not hold a reviis in the portion below the hole. [This ruling applies] even if the k’li could hold a reviis when it is leaning on its side, for example, one adjusted and widened the base upon which the k’li is placed so that water will not spill from it when it is leaned to its side. [This ruling] also applies to a barrel that was split lengthwise, which could hold water when it is lying on its side even when it is not supported by anything else. [The rationale for the prohibition is that] a k’li that cannot hold liquid while it is standing on its base, only when it is tilted on its side, does not have the halachic status of a k’li. [Instead, it is considered] a broken k’li, since it is not used when it is standing on its base.

There are authorities who are lenient [and permit the use of] any broken k’li, provided it can hold a reviis without being supported by another object. One may rely on their words and rule leniently [since the matter is only a question of] Rabbinic Law.16

If, however, [the broken k’li] can hold a reviis only when supported by another object, all authorities agree that one may not wash his hands from it.17 [Indeed, this law applies] even if [a k’li] was intact, without a hole, but originally, it was made to contain liquids without being supported and then its base was damaged slightly [and it could only contain them when supported. Such a k’li is not fit to be used for washing].18

6 Based on the above concepts, the cover of a barrel that holds a reviis may not be used for washing, because it is pointed and cannot hold a reviis unless it is supported. If the bottom of the cover was broadened to the extent that it could hold a reviis even unsupported, one may wash from it. Although originally, it was not made to serve as a k’li, but rather as a covering, since, at present, it was adjusted to serve as a k’li, [it is acceptable].

Conversely, any cover that was not adjusted so that it could contain liquids, may not be used for washing, even though it could contain liquids when set down without support, e.g., the covers of cups and the like.19

There are authorities who rule leniently regarding all covers for keilim and maintain that they are considered as having been made to hold liquids, since it is common to put small amounts of liquids in them occasionally. [This ruling can be applied] even to a cover that cannot stand without being supported because it has a protrusion on its other side, e.g., the cover to a pot, for it is common at times (to designate it for this purpose,) and turn it upside down on top of the pot and place some sauce in it20 [to warm]. Therefore, in the event that it can stand unsupported, even though it was not adjusted to serve as a k’li, e.g., its protrusion was broken as a matter of course, one may use it for washing one’s hands. One should, [however,] be stringent and follow the former view.21

7 When a k’li cannot stand straight without being supported, but even when it is not supported and water will pour out of it, a reviis will still remain [in the kli], the water it retains while leaning on its side may be used for washing one’s hands. The additional water that it can contain when it is held level by hand may not be used for washing one’s hands, since it is not coming via the medium of a k’li.

Similarly, if there was a hole in a k’li and the water was poured out through the hole, only the water that is below the hole may be used for washing one’s hands. The water that is above the hole is not coming via the medium of a k’li, even though it is poured through the hole.22

8 When a flask or a purse – i.e. two types of leather pouches – was adjusted and a stand was made for it, it may be used for washing one’s hands. Even if it was damaged at its opening or at its side, as long as it can hold a reviis below the damaged portion, [it may be used for washing one’s hands].23

If, however, a sack or a basket was adjusted to stand without support and was coated with tar to the extent that it could hold liquid, it may not be used for the washing of hands. [The rationale is that,] by and large, such articles are not used to contain liquids.

The same law applies to felt hats, even if they are so firm that water will not seep through them. Nevertheless, they are [disqualified, because] they are not made to contain liquids. Nonetheless, in a pressing situation, it is permitted to use them for washing, for wayfarers often drink from them. Therefore, they are not entirely analogous to sacks and baskets, which are not commonly used to contain liquids at all. [As such, the practice of one] who uses sacks and baskets for such a purpose is deemed inconsequential in light of the conduct of people at large.

There are some authorities who forbid [using felt hats for washing] even in a pressing situation, since they were not originally made to contain liquids at all, nor are they so designated at present. They are not comparable to the covers of keilim that can stand without support, which are permitted by some authorities to be used for washing, because a small amount of liquid is occasionally placed in them. Hats, by contrast, are very infrequently used as keilim, except by wayfarers, and their practice is deemed inconsequential in light of the conduct of people at large. (Moreover, even [the wayfarers themselves] never set aside [their felt hats] for this purpose. Instead, they drink from them only on rare occasions, in pressing situations.)

{According to those who forbid the use of the covers of keilim even though they can stand without support as long as they have not been adjusted to serve as keilim, it is forbidden to use hats for washing, even in a pressing situation, even according to the first opinion.24 (As mentioned above,25 weight should be given to their opinion.)}

9 When a k’li was originally made in a manner that it could not stand without support26 and it is used only when supported, the [inability to stand on its own does] not disqualify it as a k’li. [The rationale is that] it was originally made in this manner and this is the primary manner in which it is used.27

10[Extending] this logic, one may use [the following type] of k’li for washing: Its base is full of holes and it has a narrow [neck and] opening. When a person places his finger over the opening, the water will not flow out through the holes28 and when he removes his finger, it will. Even though the k’li will not hold anything [unless the person holds his finger there], since it is made to hold water in such a fashion and this is its primary function, it is considered as a k’li.

However, [a container that has a portion] that was not made to contain liquids [may not be used for the washing of hands]. The fact that it was originally designed in such a manner and its primary function is to be used in this manner is of no consequence. For example, there are pitchers whose rims are not entirely level. Instead, a spout from which the liquid is poured projects upward, reaching above [the rim of] the k’li itself. [Since the portion that projects upward was not made to hold liquid, that portion of the pitcher is not considered as a k’li, even though it was originally made this way.] (Or to cite other examples: the rim of the k’li is not of a uniform height, but instead, is higher on one side and lower on the other side. Alternatively, it has protrusions jutting out and there is sufficient space between one protrusion and another for water to enter. In such an instance, [when] washing, one may not [pour the water] from the higher portion, only from the lower portion.)29 Needless to say, when flasks have holes on their side near their openings, [when] washing, one may [pour the water] only from the hole, for [the portion] from the hole upward is not considered as part of a k’li. Although the flask was originally made in this fashion, the portion above the hole [is not considered as part of the k’li], since it is not fit to hold liquids from the hole upward.

When a k’li, however, has a wooden plug on its lower portion,30 it is permitted to wash one’s hands from it by pulling out the plug even though the water comes from the portion above the plug. [The rationale is that] this k’li was made to hold [liquids] when plugged and this is the primary manner in which it is used. Even if, originally, the k’li was entirely intact and then, a hole was made and the wooden plug inserted into it, [it is acceptable,] for this is the initial existence of its renovated state. [It is as if] it is presently made into a new k’li to be used via the hole and the plug.

[Moreover,] even if one did not make a plug, but rather sealed the hole entirely so that it would not open again, sealing it is effective in causing [the container] to be considered as a k’li, just as a plug does. [This applies] even if [the hole] was not sealed with tar or the like, but rather, one plugged it tightly with a piece of wood (if the k’li was made of wood).31

Plugging the hole with a rag, by contrast, is not effective in causing [a damaged container] to be considered as a valid k’li, because it is merely a temporary repair that is not likely to endure.32 (The above also applies if one sealed the hole with mud. This is also a temporary repair for a k’li that is used with water. Therefore it is not effective with regard to the washing of hands.)33 Moreover, even [when a hole] is sealed soundly, with tar or the like, it is not effective [in rendering a k’li valid for washing one’s hands] if [one’s intent was only] to seal it temporarily and open it afterwards.

For an earthenware k’li, sealing is effective only when one uses tar, sulfur, lime mixed with gypsum,34 tin, lead, or paste used by scribes to fasten their papers together35 (needless to say, glue is an effective seal), but not other substances. Sealing glass keilim is ineffective in having them considered as valid keilim, even if one uses tin, lead, or the like.36

Similarly, with regard to metal keilim that are used for hot liquids, e.g., a kettle or the like, tar or other substances that will soften in hot water are not effective [as a seal] to render them as a valid k’li for the washing of hands unless one designates such a k’li to be used [solely] for the washing of hands.37 Otherwise, the seal will not endure. The same applies with regard to an earthenware kettle, a pot, or the like.38 Tar and the like are effective, however, for sealing other metal keilim [which will not be used with heat].

There are authorities who rule that sealing a k’li with tar and the like is not effective except for an earthenware k’li (and a metal k’li),39 but not for a wooden k’li.40Indeed, even a wooden k’li that is entirely intact but has a base made from slats of wood stuck together with tar, may not be used for washing hands, even though it was originally fashioned in this manner. The plug [mentioned previously] was allowed because it is made of wood and wood serves as an effective seal for wood.41

11 There are authorities who maintain that the measure of “a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter”42 was specified only with regard to [the disqualification of] an intact k’li in which a hole was made. A gistera, by contrast, [is disqualified] when it has a hole large enough to enable liquid to seep out.43

What is meant by a gistera? Any k’li that is somewhat broken,44 even if only the handles that are used to carry it from place to place are broken. [The rationale is that when] a hole large enough for liquids to seep out is made in an intact k’li, the perforated vessel is used for liquids by placing a broken k’li under it to serve as a base and collect the liquid that seeps out. However, one broken k’li is not [commonly] used as a base for a second broken k’li. Weight should be given to this opinion.

12 There are authorities who maintain that the measure of “a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter” was specified only with regard to the disqualification of a k’li with a hole. When, by contrast, a k’li is cracked, it is disqualified if the crack enables liquid to seep out.45 Other authorities, [however,] maintain that there is no difference between a perforated k’li and a cracked or split k’li. [They maintain that] a k’li is never disqualified as a k’li unless liquid can seep into it. [Until it reaches that stage], it is fit to be used by placing a gistera under it to serve as a base. [The halachah follows] this view.

Whenever water steadily drips from a hole or a crack, it is clear that [the hole or crack] also enables liquid to enter46 and thus [the k’li] is disqualified according to all opinions.

13 A person should not fill his hands with water and pour it over the hands of another, for one’s hands should be washed only from a k’li.47Similarly, if one washed one of his hands from a k’li and then poured water from the washed hand over the second hand, the washing is not valid.

There are authorities who deem the latter washing as valid. [Their rationale is that] since the washing of the first hand was from a k’li, the washing of the second hand is considered as coming by means of a k’li. When, by contrast, another person pours water over a person’s hands from his hands, that water did not reach the hands of [the second] person by means of a k’li. Instead, the water [merely] came to that [the first] person from a k’li. The custom in previous eras was to rule leniently [and follow the second opinion]. Nevertheless, fundamentally, [the halachah follows] the first view and one should therefore rule stringently [in this matter] as an initial preference.

Even those who permitted such a washing ruled so only when one’s first hand became purified, i.e., one poured an entire reviis over it all at once, thereby purifying that hand. He then collected additional water in [this hand] and poured more than a reviis of [this water] over the second hand at one time as well. Alternatively, [such a washing would be acceptable if] he poured less [than a reviis of] water [on the second hand], but he poured water over the second hand twice successively,48 and then rubbed his hands together, so that water reached every portion of the second hand that requires washing.49

If, however, one poured less than a reviis on his first hand, the water on it becomes impure50 and when he pours that water on the second hand, the water imparts impurity to his second hand.51 Moreover, the second hand imparts impurity to the water on the first hand when he rubs them together. When he then pours water over his hands a second time to purify the water from the first washing, this pouring is not at all effective in purifying the water on the first hand from the impurity it contracted from the second hand. For the water from the second pouring purifies the water from the first pouring only when it contracted impurity from the hand on which it was poured and not when it contracted impurity from another hand.52 The first hand thus remains impure until it is dried thoroughly from the water that was on it and then washed a second time in the proper manner. Similarly, the water of the second washing is not effective in purifying the second hand which contracted impurity from the water of the first hand. [Instead,] it also must be dried and then washed again.

[If one initially poured less than a reviis on one hand,] even if he poured water on it a second time before he poured water with it on the second hand, [the washing is not valid]. For when he rubs his hands together, the second hand imparts impurity to the water poured from the first hand and this water then imparts impurity to the first hand [when the hands are rubbed together]. When, by contrast, one pours a reviis over a hand at one time, that water never contracts impurity from the person’s hands, not from the hand that he pours it over, nor from the hand with which he rubbed it.53

The above applies provided one poured the reviis of water over the entire area of the first hand that must be washed (and then collects additional water in that hand to rub over the second hand). If, however, he merely collects a reviis of waterin the palm of his hand and then rubs both hands with it, this washing is not effective, because as soon as he received the water in his palm, the water became impure. [Although our Sages] declared that a reviis of water never contracts impurity,54 [this applies] only when one washes in the accepted manner, i.e., when one pours the water over the entire surface of his hand, thereby purifying it. If, however, one pours water [merely] on a portion of one’s hand, that portion remains impure according to the opinion that one’s hands [only become purified when the water is poured on the entire hand at one time and it] does not become purified portion by portion, as explained in sec. 162[:7]. Afterwards, the water [that contracted impurity from his hand] imparts impurity to [the remainder of his] hands. Thus when one rubs this water over the entire surface of his hands, their entire surface becomes impure and he must dry them [before washing them again].

Other authorities maintain that [the lenient view] that permits [washing the second hand with water collected in the first] granted that leniency only when one [initially] purified his first hand by pouring a reviis over it or poured water over it twice, and then he collected additional water in his hand and poured either a reviis or two pourings over the entire area of the second hand. If, however, he rubbed the second hand with the first so that the water from the [reviis or the] first and second pourings would reach the entire surface of his hand, the washing is not considered as valid. [The rationale is that] the water [from the first pouring on the second hand] imparts impurity to the first hand due to that water’s contact with the second hand. True, this water came from the reviis with which the first hand was purified.55 Nevertheless, since only a small amount of it remained [in his first hand] and he poured this on his second hand, the water becomes impure because of its contact with the second hand, since there is less than a reviis. This water then imparts impurity to the first hand when that hand touches [the impure water upon the second hand] when the person rubs his hands together.56 (Fundamentally, [the halachah follows] this view.

According to all opinions, if one washed both his hands at the same time, i.e., another person poured water over them, both hands are deemed as one hand and rubbing them together with this water — so that the water reaches the entire area of both hands — does not cause either hand to impart impurity to the other. [This ruling applies] even when the entire reviis is not poured over them, as will be explained in sec. 162[:11]. It is of no consequence that the water did not reach the entire area of the hands via a k’li, but rather as a result of [the hands] being rubbed together.)

14 The water must reach the person’s hands from a k’li via “the power of one who pours it”57 and not as a matter of course. [This is necessary, because] it is stated58 concerning the sprinkling of the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer:59 “A person who is pure shall sprinkle on the one who is impure….”

Therefore, [the following rule applies when] there is a conduit60 into which water is drawn [by bucket] from a river and through which the water [then] flows to irrigate a field. One cannot place his hands into this conduit, or under it, so that the water will flow over his hands when it reaches them, because the water is not coming by virtue of “the power of a person.” [Although the water was originally poured into the conduit by a person,] the influence of his original power has already ceased.

If a person places his hands close to the place where the water is being poured [into the conduit], even if he does not place them directly under the flow of the water itself, the washing is valid. As long as the water is still close to the place where it was [first] poured, it is still considered as coming by virtue of “the power of a person.” Although the conduit that prevents the water from spreading out to the area on the sides of the river61 is not considered as a k’li,62that is of no consequence, since the primary flow of the water comes via a k’li.63

15 If a person immersed his hands in the conduit, they do not become purified as a result of the immersion,64 because the water [in the conduit] has been drawn.65

When does the above apply? When the person drawing the water pours it directly into the conduit itself. If, however, he pours it on the ground outside, [but near] the conduit and has it flow [on its own] into the conduit, one who immerses his hands [in this water] purifies them. For drawn water that was caused to flow over earth66 is acceptable for [an immersion that takes the place of] the washing of hands, [since] it is a Rabbinic ordinance.67 [This ruling applies] even according to the authorities who disqualify [such water for use in a mikveh] for the immersion of one’s entire body, [for that] is required by Scriptural Law. [These authorities maintain that] the majority of a mikveh must be rainwater and only the lesser portion may be water that was poured and caused to flow [on the earth], as stated in Yoreh Deah, sec. 201.68 Nevertheless, [even considering this leniency, for the immersion of the person’s hands to be valid,] the conduit must contain 40 seah of water69 and one must dam the conduit to hold back the flow of the water, causing it to be contained and stationary, as will be explained.70

16 [Leniency was also granted to permit the immersion of one’s hands in the following situation:] One was drawing water [from a river] with a bucket that had a hole in its bottom large enough to enable water to seep in.71 While he was pouring water into the conduit from the opening of the bucket, water was dripping out to the river. He may immerse his hands [in the conduit] at the time [another person] is pouring water into it and it is considered as if he immersed his hands in the river. [The rationale is that] the water dripping at the back of the bucket joins the water of the bucket to the water of the river and the column of water being poured from the bucket connects the water in the conduit to the water in the bucket. Thus the water in the conduit is considered as connected to the water in the river. [True,] a column of water is not considered as connecting [two bodies of water] with regard to the immersion of one’s entire body.72 Moreover, the water dripping from the back of the bucket cannot even be considered as a column of water if the hole [in the bucket] is only large enough to enable water to enter, for in that instance, the water will [only] descend drop by drop [and not in a steady flow]. Nevertheless, with regard to [an immersion that takes the place of] the washing of hands, [the Sages] ruled leniently and allowed such a minimal connection.

Based on the above, when a person is journeying on a ship at sea73 and cannot immerse his hands in the sea,74 he should take a container that has a hole large enough for water to enter and draw water from the sea with it. He may immerse his hands in it, because the water in the container is connected to the water of the sea, because it is seeping into it through the hole. (If, however, it is easy for the person to immerse his hands in the sea, he should not do as above, for there are authorities who differ. They maintain that a column of water is not considered as connecting [two bodies of water] with regard to [an immersion that takes the place of] the washing of one’s hands just as it is not considered as a connection with regard to the immersion of one’s entire body. Although fundamentally, [the halachah follows] the first view, where possible, one should [be stringent, following the advice:]75 “Be good; do not be called evil.”) One may not, however, draw water from the sea with a container that it is intact and wash his hands with it in the prescribed manner, because the sea water is salty and unfit for the washing of hands. It is only fit to be used via immersion, as stated in sec. 160[:12].

17 One who hews out a receptacle from stones that are permanently affixed to a wall and then makes a spigot [for it] may not wash his hands from such a receptacle.76 Since [the stones] are permanently affixed to the wall, they are considered as part of the wall. Even though a receptacle was hewn out of them, they are not considered in the category of keilim.77 If, however, one first hewed out a receptacle [in the stones] and then attached them to the wall, one may use them for washing his hands. [They are accept­able,] because they were considered as keilim before they were attached to the wall.78 Similarly, a k’li that is attached to the earth may be used for washing one’s hands.

The above applies provided [the receptacle] has [a spout and] a plug and one washes his hands by removing the plug for each pouring. This is considered as washing one’s hands via “the power of a person,” as will be explained.79 If, however, one dips his hands into the receptacle and splashed them in the water, this is not considered as washing, but rather something akin to immersion, for the receptacle is affixed to [the wall and thus considered as attached to] the earth. [It is not acceptable,] for an immersion in drawn water is invalid.

If, however, the receptacle is not attached to the earth, [dipping one’s hands into the receptacle] is considered as washing, even though the water is not poured over his hands by human power.80 For both washing one’s hands from a k’li and inserting one’s hands into a k’li are considered as washing with a k’li. This does not apply with regard to the conduit [described above]. Since it does not have four walls, it is not considered as a k’li.81Therefore, it was deemed necessary for the person to place his hands [in the conduit] near the place where water was poured from the bucket so that water will pass over his hands via “the power of a person” pouring it from a k’li. So, too, whenever a person holds his hands outside a k’li, the water must be poured over his hands via “the power of a person” pouring it from a k’li. When however, one inserts his hands into a k’li, it is not necessary for a person to cause water to pass over them. The k’li must, however, contain the minimum measure of water, a reviis; it need not contain 40 seah, the measure required for immersion.

There are, however, other authorities who maintain that washing one’s hands is valid only when water passes over one’s hand due to “the power of a person,” as is true with regard to the sanctification of the hands and feet [of a kohen] in the Sanctuary,82 as it is written: “They shall wash from it,” i.e., from it, but not in it.83 For in [a k’li], one is not washing [with water poured] by human power. When, by contrast, [one’s hands are] outside the k’li, andhe washes them by removing the plug from the spout that emerges from the k’li, [the washing is valid, for the water] is considered as coming from human power, as will be explained.

In a pressing situation, one may rely on the first opinion [and immerse his hands in a k’li]; he may [also] recite the blessing Al netilas yadayim.84If, afterwards, the opportunity to wash in the ordinary manner arises, he should wash again,85 without reciting the blessing.86 There are authorities who forbid [washing in the above manner], even in a pressing situation, because [they maintain that] fundamentally, [the halachah follows the] second view. (Weight should be given to their words and one should not recite a blessing when washing in this manner. Instead, one should wash without reciting a blessing and wrap his hands in a cloth and eat, for there is an authority who permits eating [when one hands are wrapped] in a cloth in all instances, as will be explained in sec. 163.)87

18 When a barrel contains water, one may place it upon his knees and [pour it], washing his hands from it.88 The fact that his knees help him pour the water causes the pouring to be considered as coming via human power. If, however, the barrel was lying on the ground because it rolled over due to factors [not associated with human activity] and water was flowing out from it or if the barrel was standing upright, but water was flowing out of the hole because the plug fell out due to factors [not associated with human activity], a person who places his hands [under the flow of the water] is not considered to have performed a valid washing.

If, by contrast, the person removed the plug and had the water flow over his hands, removing the object that prevented the flow of the water is considered as if he poured water [over his hands] by hand. Nevertheless, one must replace and remove the plug for every pouring of water from the hole, for it is only the first outflow that is considered as coming as a result of human power.89 Afterwards, the water is considered as flowing on its own accord.

Therefore, when a person washes from a washbasin that has a stopcock90 attached to it that serves like a plug, he must turn the stopcock several times when washing each hand. For the flow of the water is minimal and the first outflow from the hole does not suffice to cover the entire area of the hand that is required to be washed.91

19 When one tilts a barrel full of water and then withdraws, taking no further action, and the barrel continues pouring water the entire day because he [originally] tilted it, [a person who] washes his hands from [the barrel] is considered to have performed a valid washing.92 [The rationale is that] all the water that is flowing from the barrel is flowing as a result of the person’s power, for by tilting the barrel, he moved all the water in the barrel. In contrast, [with regard to the removal of] the plug [mentioned in the previous subsection], the person did not perform a deed involving the water itself. He merely removed an obstacle that prevented it from flowing. Therefore, only the first immediate outflow from the hole that he opened is considered [to be flowing] as a result of his power.

20 There are authorities who consider a washing valid if a monkey poured water over one’s hands. [Their rationale is that our Sages] required only that the water be poured via the power of one who pours it, whoever or whatever the pourer may be.93 Others require that the water come via the power of a human exclusively, as is required with regard to [the sprinkling of] the water of the red heifer.94 Weight should be given to their words at the outset, but after the fact, one may rely on the first opinion and rule leniently, because the matter is one of Rabbinic Law.95

[Even according to the first opinion,] the person washing his hands must have the intent that he is washing to be fit to partake [of bread], as explained in sec. 158[:13].96 When, by contrast, another person pours water over one’s hands, the intent of the person pouring [validates the washing], even though the person whose hands are being washed has no intent at all.

If a child less than six [years of age] pours the water, there is an authority who maintains that his act has the same halachic status as that of a monkey, since he does not possess [developed] understanding at all and his intent is of no consequence.97 From six years of age onward, his intent – and similarly, that of a deaf-mute or an intellectually or emotionally challenged individual and even that of a non-Jew – is effective, even though the person whose hands are being washed does not have the intent [that this washing is in preparation for partaking of bread].98

If the person whose hands are being washed has the intent [that the washing is in preparation for partaking of bread], he may have his hands washed with water poured by a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally challenged individual, a minor [above the age of six], or a non-Jew, even though they have no intent at all. For with regard to the requirement that the water for washing come via human power, [the actions] of the above are considered as [having been performed by] human power.

Similarly, one may wash [with water poured by] a woman in the nidah state, if the woman pouring is his daughter or his maid-servant.99 [Seemingly, this would be problematic,] for a woman in the nidah state and similarly, a non-Jew, impart impurity to objects they carry and thus the water in the container would contract impurity even if the woman or the non-Jew did not touch it. How then could the water purify the person’s hands, even [if only] to partake of ordinary food? The washing of hands was instituted as an extension [of the restrictions that involve] terumah100 and such hands would be disqualified for terumah since they contracted impurity from the impure water. Nevertheless, [in resolution, it can be explained] that since we are all impure because of contact with a human corpse101 and thus it is impossible for us to have water that is ritually pure, there is no need to be concerned about the impurity imparted by a non-Jew or a woman in the nidah state.

There are authorities who rule stringently with regard to [washing with water poured by a woman in the nidah state and a non-Jew] since it is possible to avoid contact with such impurity102 and we do not draw a comparison to a situation where a difficulty is avoidable from one in which it is unavoidable.103 It is desirable to take their ruling into consideration and not to wash with water poured by a woman in the nidah state or a non-Jew. If, however, a non-Jew brought water in a container and then the person poured the water himself, one need not show concern, (for this is also considered like an unavoidable situation). If, however, one can show care in this regard as well, he is worthy of [Divine] favor.104

21 When a person immerses his hands in the waters of a mikveh, his hands are pure,105 even though the water is not poured over his hands by human power. If his entire body can be purified through immersion, surely his hands can! [The above applies provided the water of the mikveh] is fit for him to immerse his entire body, i.e., it comprises at least 40 seah. If, however, the water comprises less than 40 seah or it is flowing [out of the reservoir], it is unacceptable for immersing one’s hands.106

There are authorities who maintain that even if the water comprises only a reviis, since the water is not drawn and it is on the earth, it is acceptable for the immersion of hands. Their rationale is that, according to Scriptural Law, 40 seah is not required for any immersion other than the immersion of one’s entire body, for this is the measure of water required in order to submerge one’s entire body at one time.107 [Thus this measure is necessary,] for one may not immerse an entity portion by portion. For the immersion of keilim, by contrast, a reviis of rainwater on the earth is sufficient provided the k’li is [totally] submerged in the water, e.g., a needle or a fork-like tool.108 It is merely that the Sages declared that no distinction be made between the immersion of a person’s body and the immersion of keilim and required 40 seah for all [immersions].109 Since Scriptural Law only requires a reviis for the immersion of keilim, that amount certainly suffices for [an immersion that takes the place of] washing one’s hands, which is [merely] a Rabbinic ordinance, provided one’s hands can be submerged in that amount of water. After the fact,110 one may rely on their words and rule leniently in a matter of Rabbinic Law, but as an initial preference, one should be stringent and follow the first approach.

22 When does the above apply? With regard to the waters of a mikveh, i.e., rainwater, melted snow, or the like that were allowed to collect and gather in a pool. All authorities agree, by contrast, that the waters of a natural spring are acceptable for the immersion of one’s hands [regardless of the specific volume of the water] as long as one’s hands can be entirely submerged in them at one time. [The rationale is that] there are authorities who deem such an immersion acceptable even for a person’s entire body, even if the water does not comprise 40 seah, as long as his entire body can be submerged in it at one time, e.g., a short person, as stated in Yoreh Deah, sec. 201.111 This applies even if [the spring water] is flowing.112

There is, however, room for doubt whether [the authorities who follow] the second opinion [mentioned in the previous subsection] would also rule leniently with regard to immersing one’s hands in rainwater, melted snow, or the like that is flowing, as they ruled leniently with regard to immersion in less than 40 seah. For it could be said that they were not lenient when such water was flowing, since immersion [in such water] is invalid even for keilim according to Scriptural Law.113 (Therefore, [a person who immersed his hands in such water] should wash them again as required by law. He should not recite a blessing [on this washing] if he recited a blessing over [the immersion that took the place of] the first washing, for perhaps [that immersion] and the blessing were valid. [Therefore, we follow the principle:] When there is a doubt regarding the recitation of a blessing, we rule leniently.)

23 All the above applies with regard to [immersing one’s hands in] the waters of a mikveh. Drawn water, by contrast, is unacceptable for the immersion of one’s hands even if it is gathered in a pool114 [that] contains 40 seah. Other authorities, however, validate [an immersion of one’s hands in] 40 seah of drawn water [collected] on the earth, because such water is fit for the immersion of one who had a seminal emission, who is required to immerse to [permit him to] recite words of Torah according to the ordinance of Ezra, as explained in sec. 88[:1].115 (Fundamentally, [the halachah follows] the first view.)

Water in a k’li that is attached to the earth is invalid for the immersion of hands according to all opinions.116 (This applies even to rain water, for there is no concept of immersion in keilim, as will be explained in Yoreh Deah, sec. 201.)117

When drawn water has been caused to flow over the ground, all authorities agree that it is acceptable for [an immersion that takes the place of] washing hands as stated above.118

24 A person should not scoop up water from a river with one hand and pour it over his other hand. [The rationale is that in such a situation,] he is neither washing his hands [in the prescribed manner] nor immersing them, for washing must be performed from a k’li and his hand is not a k’li.119If, however, he washed one hand from a k’li and immersed the other, his hands are pure120 and he may recite the blessing, Al netilas yadayim.

If, however, one immerses both his hands, there are authorities who maintain that he should not recite the blessing, Al netilas yadayim [“concerning the washing of hands”],but rather [conclude the blessing with the phrase] Al tevilas yadayim [“concerning the immersion of hands”] or Al shetifas yadayim [“concerning the rinsing of hands”. The rationale is that] the wording netilah [translated as “washing”] was ordained to refer to the natla, the k’li [with which one washes his hands].

Others maintain that [whether washing or immersing one’s hands] one should [always] use the wording Al netilas yadayim, [asking rhetorically:] Where were we commanded concerning the immersion of hands? We were, however, commanded concerning the washing of hands and [that also includes immersing them], for a more comprehensive practice includes a less inclusive one,121 for we are immersing our hands because of the command to wash them. There is an authority who resolved the matter [as follows]: If one immerses his hands in water that is fit to be used for washing hands, he should recite Al netilas yadayim. If, however, he immerses his hands in water that is fit for immersion, but not for washing, as explained in sec. 160[:9ff.], he should recite Al tevilas yadayim. (One who recites Al shetifas yadayim fulfills his obligation according to all authorities.)122

25 When a person immerses his hands, he need not do so twice as is required when washing, i.e., if a reviis was not used, a second washing is required to purify the water from the first washing that remained on one’s hands.123 Similarly, there is no necessity to dry one’s hands as explained in sec. 158[:17]. Similarly, there is no obligation to raise up one’s hands, as will be stated in sec. 162[:6].