Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 160 - Which Water is Acceptable for Washing and Which is Disqualified

SECTION 160 Which Water is Acceptable for Washing and Which is Disqualified. (1–19)

1 Water whose appearance has changed — whether because of [the conditions of] the place where it is located or because another substance, e.g., ink, tree sap, wine or beer, fell into it and changed its appearance — is disqualified for the washing of hands.1 If, however, earth or mud fell into it, even though this made the water murky, it is acceptable,2 as will be explained.3 ([The rationale is that] since water surfaces amidst earth and mud, it is common for [such discoloration] to occur. Therefore, this is not considered a change). If the appearance of water changes because of smoke or another factor, it is disqualified. If, however, its appearance changed naturally [and not due to outside influences], it is acceptable. Even when the water’s appearance changed in a manner that disqualifies it, if it later reverts to its normal appearance, it becomes acceptable again.

2 If one performed work with water or steeped his bread into it — even if he intended to steep the bread in one container and it fell into another — the water is disqualified for the washing of hands.1 [The rationale is that] once a person performs a task that fulfills a need with water, the water [used for this task] is considered as drainage water, designated for disposal. And drainage water may not be used for the washing of hands.

If, however, the person had absolutely no intent to steep the bread, but it fell into water and was steeped there, the water is acceptable; this does not cause it [to be considered] as drainage water. There is an authority that disqualifies even such water, but one should rule leniently in matters of Rabbinic Law.4

3 If one rinsed utensils or vegetables in water, the water is disqualified.1 If, however, the utensils had been washed previously or were new, or the vegetables had been washed previously and were already clean, the water is acceptable.1 Rinsing these articles is not considered as performing work that would disqualify the water and have it deemed as drainage water, since this act is unnecessary; even without doing so, they were already clean.

Nevertheless, soaking vegetables in water so that they will not wilt or placing utensils that split in the summer [heat] into water so that they would [absorb itand] seal is considered as performing work [with the water] and disqualifies it. Similarly, placing a container of wine into water to cool is considered as work and disqualifies the water. Placing live fish into water so that they will not die, by contrast, is not considered as performing work [with the water], because the water has no effect on them at all; it merely saves them from dying. Thus the water is not considered as drainage water.

Similarly, if one placed an aromatic substance in water so that it will become fragrant, the water is acceptable. It is not considered as drainage water, which is repugnant. In this instance, by contrast, one’s intent was to enhance the water.5

4 Placing meat into a container of water with measuring marks, so that the water will ascend to the measuring marks, enabling one to know its weight, is considered as performing work with the water and disqualifies it for the washing of hands.6 (If, however, one knew the weight of the water and [used it to] weigh the meat [on a balance scale], it is acceptable, because work was not performed with the actual substance of the water.6

5 If a baker dipped loaves into water, it is disqualified7 even though its appearance has not changed. If, however, he dipped his hand into water and spread it over the surface of the loaves or scooped out water with his cupped hands, it is not considered as if work has been performed with the water that remained in the container. For dipping one’s hands in water is not considered as performing work [with the water], unless one actually rinses them — and [even then, only] when they were soiled. Therefore the water is acceptable if its appearance has not changed. If, however, he rinsed his hands in water [to cleanse them] from the dough sticking to them, the water is disqualified, even though its appearance has not changed.

There are authorities who maintain that washing one’s hands is not considered as work [performed with the water] that disqualifies it for the washing of hands, [as evidenced by the fact that] the person still seeks to use this water to wash his hands. ([According to this view,] the disqualification [of water with which] work was performed is not because the water is then considered as drainage water, but rather because performing work with water removes it from the halachic category of water.8 Rinsing or washing9 one’s hands with water does not remove it from the halachic category of water with regard to the washing of hands.)9

According to this view, it is not forbidden to wash one’s hands with water used by another person to wash his hands that was collected in receptacle [because the washing of hands does not cause water to be categorized as drainage water. This leniency would not apply, however,] if the person washed his hands with less than a reviis of water, [since in such an instance,] the other person’s [hands] impart impurity to the water [with which he washed].10 The water of the second pouring purifies only the water on the hands [of the person washing, but not the water collected in the receptacle].11 If, however, one poured an entire reviis over his hands at one time, the water does not contract impurity and it is permitted [to be used by another person].

Fundamentally, [the halachah] follows the first opinion. (It is only when four or five people wash their hands at the same time that their hands are considered as one hand12 and therefore we are not concerned that this is considered as [having performed] work [with the water]. Otherwise, we show such concern.) Therefore, it is forbidden to wash one’s hands with water that was collected in a container after another person used it to wash his hands, even if he poured a reviis over them at one time. [It is considered as if] work was performed with [the water], because it purified the other person’s hands, [enabling him] to partake [of bread. Hence,] it is considered as drainage water.

6 Nevertheless, a person who emerges from the lavatory can draw water with his hands from a bucket to purify his hands.13 The remainder of the water in the bucket remains acceptable for washing one’s hands for a meal.14 ([The rationale is that the person] did not purify his hands with the water that remained in the bucket, but rather, with the water on his hands. If, by contrast, the person immersed [his hands] in the bucket to cleanse them, work has been performed with all of the water in the bucket.15 [This ruling applies] even if the person’s hands were not actually soiled. Nevertheless, since he must cleanse them with water because they touched a place of filth,16 the water is considered as drainage water,17 as [is the law] when one uses it for his other needs. [The rationale: Since this ruling applies] even when [one uses the water] for an optional matter, as stated above,18 how much more so does it apply when he uses it for an obligatory cleansing! [This situation] is not analogous to rinsing previously rinsed containers,19 [for in that instance,] further rinsing is not necessary.)

7 Water that is before a blacksmith is disqualified [for washing], because it is known that it was used for work, i.e., placing a [red-hot] iron [implement] in it.20

Water that is before a barber is disqualified if its appearance changes. If not, it is acceptable. [The rationale is: Although] the barber dips his hands into it to moisten the person’s hair, this is comparable to a baker] who dips his hands into water to spread on the loaves, in which instance, work was not performed with the remaining water.21

8 When a small amount of water that was disqualified was mixed with acceptable water, its presence is considered inconsequential because of the larger amount of acceptable water.22 Even if the disqualified water completes [the required] measure of a reviis,23 there is no concern with regard to washing one’s hands for ordinary foods.

Therefore, water from which a domesticated animal, a non-domesticated animal, or a fowl drank should not be disqualified because work — their drinking — was performed with the small amount of water that returns from their mouth to the water [in the container]. For the manner in which domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and fowl drink is that they lift up their mouths after they have taken in [some] of the water and water spills from their mouths. [Nevertheless, the water in the container is not disqualified,] because the water [that returns] is considered inconsequential, because of the larger amount of [acceptable] water.

There are authorities who disqualify water from which a dog or a pig drank, because it becomes repugnant and it is considered as drainage water. Weight should be given to their words.

9 The performance of work disqualifies only drawn water.24 [This applies] whether the water was in a container or on the ground25 when work was performed with it and afterwards, a person gathers it in a k’li to wash with. If, however, one performs work with the water of a mikveh or a natural spring while it is still attached [to its source], the water is not disqualified.

A change in the appearance of water,26 by contrast, disqualifies such water even though it is still attached [to its source]. When does this apply? When one takes that water [out and uses it] to wash. One is, however, permitted to immerse his hands in such water if it is acceptable for the immersion of one’s entire body,27 e.g. a natural stream whose water is not disqualified by a change in appearance, or a mikveh whose water’s appearance changed because of an entity that is not substantial, e.g., one washed baskets used for olives or grapes in it, or paint fell into it,28 as explained in Yoreh Deah, sec. 201.29

10 Our Sages ordained that the water used for the washing of hands must be fit for an animal to drink.1 If water is so salty, bitter, or fetid that a dog could not drink from it, it is disqualified for the washing of hands, even though it is acceptable for the water of a mikveh for the immersion of one’s entire body and, needless to say, for the immersion of one’s hands.

When water is murky because it is mixed with mud, it is acceptable both for washing hands and for immersion if a dog could drink from it. If a dog could not drink from it, it is unacceptable for either.

11 [Water from] the hot springs of Tiberias is bitter and is not fit for a dog to drink even after it has cooled. Therefore, it may not be used for the washing of hands. One may, however, immerse30 in these waters when they are in their original place,31 even if they do not comprise 40 seah, for even the smallest amount of [water in] a natural spring imparts purity.32

If, however, one diverted such water along the ground, through a trench in the earth, to a reservoir outside its original place, separating it from the hot spring, one may not immerse27 in it if it does not comprise 40 seah. [This ruling applies] even according to the authorities who maintain that 40 seah are not required for the immersion of one’s hands in the water of other mikvaos, as explained in sec. 159[:21]. In this instance, [our Sages] decreed [such an immersion as invalid], lest one wash his hands with such water from a k’li. For [an unlearned person] will say: What is the difference between washing my hands with such water from a k’li or immersing my hands in it? It comprises less than 40 seah [in any case], and thus is not acceptable for the immersion of one’s entire body and yet it is acceptable for the immersion of hands.33

When, by contrast, the water comprises 40 seah, the measure of an acceptable mikveh, one will not take the leniency of washing his hands with such water with a k’li on the basis of the leniency of immersing one’s hands in it, since it comprises the measure of an acceptable mikveh and is fit for the immersion of one’s entire body.34

Accordingly, when the water in a trench is connected directly to the water of a flowing hot spring in a manner that it is acceptable to immerse one’s entire body [in the water in the trench], one may also immerse his hands. There are authorities who maintain that in this instance as well, there is room for concern lest an [unlearned] person come to wash with such water with a k’li, for he will not realize that the water is [fit for immersion only because it is] connected to the waters of the spring and he will say: What is the difference between washing my hands with such water with a k’li or immersing my hands in it? [After all,] it comprises less than the measure of a mikveh, 40 seah. As an initial preference, weight should be given to their words.35

12 [With regard to the above,] the intent is not only the hot springs of Tiberias. Instead, the same law applies to all water that is not fit for a dog to drink and does not comprise 40 seah. Even though this water is connected to a mikveh that comprises 40 seah, one should be stringent and not immerse [his hands] in it.36

[Conversely,] any water from a hot spring that would be fit for a dog to drink when it is cold, may be used for [immersion and even] for the washing of hands from a k’li. How much more so [may one wash with] water heated by fire,37 even while it is still hot.

Sea water is salty and is not fit for a dog to drink. [Therefore,] one may not wash his hands with it with a k’li38unless he distills it, for then it is fit [for drinking].

13 [Even if there are multiple doubts concerning the validity of the washing of one’s hands, the washing is acceptable. For example,] there was a question whether work was performed with the water used for the washing of a person’s hands. Furthermore, even if one would say that work was not performed with it, there was doubt whether the water comprised the required measure or not. Nevertheless, the person’s hands are deemed pure. Even if one is unsure whether or not he washed his hands, his hands are deemed pure. For whenever there is a question regarding whether one’s hands are pure — even if the question involves an unresolved difference of opinion among the halachic authorities — one’s hands are deemed pure. [The rationale is that] the fundamental requirement to wash one’s hands is of Rabbinic origin and whenever there is a doubt regarding a point of Rabbinic origin, we rule leniently.

There is an authority who maintains that, despite the above, if the person has other water readily accessible, he is instructed: “Arise, wash, and extricate yourself from the doubt.”39 ([This ruling was given when there is a doubt whether he washed appropriately or not.] If, by contrast, the person knows that he washed as required by law and then a doubt arose, e.g., perhaps he diverted his attention from his hands or not,40 or even if he knows that he did not divert his attention from them, but he extended his hand close to a place of filth and there is a question whether he touched it or not, he is not required to wash his hands again, even to remove the doubt. [The rationale is that, after he washed as required, his hands are deemed fit to eat with] and it is presumed that they remain in that state, [unless it is known that their status has changed].

14 When snow, hail, frost, ice, and salt41 are crushed to the extent that they produce water, [the water] may be used for the washing of hands if it comprises the required measure. Similarly, one may wash with liquids produced by crushing any entity that was created from water, e.g., red midges or fish oil.42

When does the [requirement to crush the above entities] apply? When one washes with a k’li and pours the liquid over his hands. Then the entities must be crushed, because washing one’s hands may be performed only with water. There are, however, authorities who permit immersing one’s hands in 40 seah [of these substances] that is collected on the ground, even though they were not crushed. [Thus, if] there is 40 seah of snow attached as a single entity lying on the surface of the earth, even if it is very shallow, one may immerse his hands in it.

Other authorities maintain that immersion must be in water. Snow and the like may be counted to complete the measure of 40 seah [for a mikveh] even when they are not crushed.43 Nevertheless, one may immerse in them only after they have been crushed to the extent that they become water. In a pressing situation, one may rely on the first opinion and rule leniently, [since the matter involves a question of] Rabbinic Law.44

15 There are authorities who maintain that one may wash his hands only with water and not with other liquids45 or fruit juice. [The rationale is that our Sages] ordained the washing of one’s hands for ordinary food to parallel the immersion [that was required to partake of] terumah, and a mikveh may be made only from water.46 Indeed, water that does not have the appearance of water is not acceptable.47 How much more so are other liquids and fruit juice [unacceptable]. ([Moreover, this ruling applies] even to white wine whose appearance resembles water. [The rationale:] If [the halachah] is particular about requiring the appearance of water, how much more so [is it particular about] requiring the substance of the water.)

There are [other] authorities who deem all fruit juices acceptable for the washing of hands, [explaining that] a change from the natural appearance [of water] was considered a disqualifying factor only for water whose appearance changed. Fruit juice, however, is considered as water when there is no change in its natural appearance.48 Indeed, the Hebrew term for “fruit juice,” mei peiros, literally means “the water of fruit.”

[Even according to this view,] one may not wash his hands with wine, even white wine, whether pure wine or wine blended with water, because it is not referred to as water at all.49 Needless to say, oil and honey [are] also disqualified, because they do not cleanse. Nevertheless, mead and beer may be used for the washing of hands,50 because they are primarily water. Although their appearance has changed, there is no need for concern, because their quality has been upgraded.

Other authorities maintain that even wine — whether pure or mixed with water — is acceptable for the washing of one’s hands. It is only that, initially, it is forbidden to wash [with wine], so that one will not treat [wine] disrespectfully, [since it is] an important entity whose status has been upgraded51 to the extent that a specific blessing, Borei pri hagafen, was designated for it. (In contrast, it is permitted to wash with other fruit juices if one does not have water [available], as stated in sec. 17152 and sec. 181[:8].)53 After the fact, however, if one washed his hands with wine, even red wine, his hands are pure.

In a pressing situation, [since this is a point of] Rabbinic Law, one may rely on the lenient views and wash with fruit juice, beer, and mead even as an initial preference. (If one washed] with wine, after the fact, [the washing is valid].)

16 The measure of water to be used for the washing of hands is no less than a reviis — (a fourth) of a log.54 (This is the measure required by Scriptural Law for the purification of keilim through immersion [in a mikveh].)55

Our Sages required only that the k’li from which one is washing contain a reviis [of water]. There is, however, no necessity that one pour the entire reviis over his hands unless he desires to purify his hands with one pouring. If, however, he wishes to pour water over them twice, it is only necessary [to pour] each time enough water to cover the entire portion of the hand that must be washed. The water that remains in the k’li may be used to wash the hands of another person if it is sufficient [to cover his hands. This ruling] applies even if this water does not comprise a reviis, since it comes from a “remainder of [a measure of] purity,” i.e., the reviis that was present when the first person washed.56

[The above applies] when both come to wash at the same time. Even though they wash one after the other, the remainder of the measure of purity used by the first is effective in purifying the hands of the second, [although it presently] comprises less than a reviis.

There are authorities who maintain that when they wash one after another, the remainder of the measure of purity used by the first is not effective [in purifying the hands of the second] unless the water descends in one flow from [the hands of] the first to [those of] the second. For example, the first person stretched out his hands to [have them] washed, a [third] person poured water over them, and then a second person stretched out his hands under the hands of the first. The flow of water descended over the hands of the first and from them to the hands of the second. In this instance, both individuals’ hands are pure. Although the amount of water that remained in the k’li at the time the water reached the hands of the second person was less than a reviis, his hands are pure, because [the water] came from a “remainder [of a measure] of purity,” [i.e., the original reviis].

[The above applies] provided the second person stretched out his hands near the hands of the first person. Under such circumstances, [their hands] are considered as one hand. If, however, [the second person’s] hands were distant from the first person’s hands, the washing is not valid, because [the second person is considered to be] washing with the water with which the other [already] washed. ([Such water] is disqualified [for washing] even if it comprises a reviis,57 because work was performed with it, as explained above.)58

Even when [the two people’s] hands are held close to each other, [our Sages] did not permit such a washing unless initially, they intended to wash their hands as one, by way of the water flowing down from the first person’s hands to the second’s. Under such circumstances, their hands are considered as one hand for this washing, even though the second person did not stretch out his hands until after the first began washing his hands. If, however, the first person intended to wash only his own hands, but after he began washing, the second person stretched out his hands below those [of the first person], they are not considered as one hand. Therefore, (unless the person pouring the water over their hands, pours an entire reviis at one time,) the second person’s hands become impure, because of the impure water that descends from the hands of the first person. [Accordingly, the second person] must dry [his hands]59 and then wash them again. (Even if an entire reviis is poured at once, the second person must wash his hands again.60 It is just that [in this instance] he is not required to dry them first.)

(Fundamentally, the halachah follows the second opinion. Nevertheless, in a pressing situation, one may rely on the first opinion and rule leniently, [since the matter involves] Rabbinic Law.)

17 More than two people, however, may not wash their hands from one reviis.54 [Indeed,] even a reviis and a half [is insufficient for more than two people]; there must be at least a half a log.61[True,] the Sages did not specify a minimum measure that must reach a person’s hands, only that there be a reviis in the k’li [from which one was washing]. Nevertheless, the Sages were concerned that if many people would wash with a small measure of water, they will not be meticulous about washing the entire portion of the hand required to be washed. [They feared] that each one would use but a small amount of water, so that some water would remain for the others. Nonetheless, [there is a way that three people may wash] if [a k’li] contains [only] a reviis and a half. The first person should wash with a half a reviis.62 Thus there would remain a reviis in the k’li. The other two could then both wash with this reviis in the manner described [in the previous subsection], as they could have had the k’li only contained a reviis at the outset.

If [the k’li contained] half a log, even four people may wash in the manner described, but not five, lest they use too small an amount of water. If [the k’li contained] a log, many people could wash from it, as long as there is sufficient water for each of them to pour water on his hands two or three times, as will be explained in section 162.

Similarly, [it is acceptable] for four or five people to place their hands next to each other or above each other and wash at one time,63 for they are all considered as one hand. They do not impart impurity to each other. [Thisruling applies] provided they hold their hands loosely so that the water can reach every hand individually without another hand intervening.

18 The measure of a reviis mentioned above has to be collected in one k’li. If one washed with an eighth of a log64[from one k’li] and then another eighth of a log [from another k’li], his hands retain their impure status. ([This law applies] even when he washed with both [eighths] at the same time, for example, other people poured them over his hands and the flow [from the two pourings] was combined.)

19 The specified measure of a reviis is sufficient whether a person washes both hands or only one hand, whether the hands are those of a large person or of a small person.

When two people wash their hands [in the following manner]: first, one washes one hand and then the second washes one hand; afterwards, the second person washes his other hand, they are considered as three people. The second person’s other hand is considered as the hand of a third person, since originally he only washed one hand. Therefore if the k’li from which they washed contained half a log, his hands are pure. If not, the second hand [of the second person] is not pure. For more than two people may not wash with less than half a log, lest they wash with a small amount of water.65 In this instance, as well, there is room for concern that he will wash with a small amount of water, since he is not washing both of his hands at the same time.