Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 164 - License to Make a Stipulation Regarding the Washing of One’s Hands

SECTION 164 License to Make a Stipulation Regarding the Washing of One’s Hands. (1–2)

1 A person may wash his hands in the morning1 and stipulate [that on the basis of this washing, he will be able to partake of bread throughout] the entire day.2 [This ruling applies] even when he is not in a pressing situation,3 provided he does not divert his attention from guarding [his hands] from touching places of filth. If he wears gloves, then there is no more effective protection than this. Nevertheless, if water becomes readily available to him without having to seek it out, it is preferable for him to wash again, but not to recite a blessing.4

Making a stipulation is effective not only regarding the morning washing, but regarding any washing, at any time throughout the day, [even when] it was not performed for the sake of eating bread, e.g., [one washed to partake of] food dipped in liquid or he [washed after he] used the lavatory. [When washing,] he may stipulate that [the washing is also] for the sake of eating bread later. [That stipulation is necessary,] because one must wash his hands with the intent [that the washing will enable him to partake of bread], as stated in sec. 158[:13].5 Even though one should not recite the blessing Al netilas yadayim when washing before partaking of food dipped in liquid or after using the lavatory, and, when he eats [bread], he should also not recite the blessing Al netilas yadayim for his previous washing, [the fact that the blessing is not recited] is of no consequence. [The rationale is that] he is exempt from washing [at this time], since his hands have been minded [the entire time].6

One is, however, forbidden to wash [earlier] only for the sake of eating bread later, for the Sages ordained that the meal should follow directly after the washing.7 When, by contrast, one washes for a purpose other than for a meal, but stipulates that he be able to eat later on the basis of this washing, he is not obligated to eat at the time of washing. Afterwards, when he is ready to eat, he is exempt from [the obligation to] wash and our Sages’ ordinance [to partake of bread immediately after washing] does not apply to him at all. For our Sages ordained that one must eat immediately after [washing] only when one washes in order to eat. This person, by contrast, did not wash for eating, but for another purpose.

If, however, one washed his hands for [one] meal and he was mindful of his hands, that washing is also effective with regard to a later meal. Indeed, [in this instance,] it is not even necessary to make a stipulation, for a stipulation is necessary only [because one must wash with] the intent [to eat] and this person had that intent when he performed this washing.

At present, it is customary not to make stipulations with regard to washing, for there are authorities who maintain that a stipulation is effective only in a pressing situation. [Their rationale is that] they were concerned that when others would see a person partake of a meal without washing, they would think that he was a non-Jew and feed him forbidden food. Nevertheless, if a person is travelling in a carriage together with a non-Jew who will not wait for him [to wash], that is considered a pressing situation [and he may rely on a stipulation, as described above].

2 If a person who is in the midst of a meal remembers that he touched a place of filth [after the initial washing], he must wash his hands again and recite the blessing Al netilas yadayim. If he touched such a place while a piece of bread is in his mouth, he should not swallow it until he washes his hands. The intent is not only a place of actual filth, but even [if he only touches] his calf, thigh, or [other] parts of the body that are usually covered. [They are considered like “places of filth,”] because dried perspiration is found there. This ruling also applies if one scratched his head or anything similar.8 (If, however, he merely rubbed his hand [on the hair] on his head from above, e.g., to dry it,9 but did not actually scratch within the hair on his scalp, there is no need for concern.)

Other authorities maintain that one should not recite a blessing for the washing of one’s hands in the middle of a meal, because [the blessing] was ordained only at the beginning of the meal. [They maintain that a second blessing is recited] only if one interrupted his meal, applied himself to another matter, and [thus] diverted his attention from watching over his hands.10 [In such a situation,] he must wash again and recite the blessing Al netilas yadayim, because it is considered as [if he began] a new meal, since he applied himself to another matter in the interim. Touching a place of filth — and even relieving oneself — does not, by contrast, warrant the recitation of a blessing for the washing of one’s hands.11

([The rationale is that] a person who performs one mitzvah twice does not recite a blessing the second time unless:

a) [after performing the mitzvah once], he applied himself to another matter, diverted his attention from [that mitzvah], and then changed his mind [and performed the mitzvah again];12 or

b) the mitzvah ceased on its own accord, [as it were,] and then, he performed it again, e.g., a person’s tallis slipped off him and fell, as explained in sec. 8[:23-6].13

[In this instance,] by contrast, the person either consciously interrupted the purity of his hands with the intent of purifying them again afterwards, or did so entirely unintentionally. Consciously, he would not have had them contract impurity except with the intent of purifying them again afterwards.14

[Accordingly, his actions] are not considered an interruption of the purity of [his hands] that requires him to recite a blessing when he purifies them again, since he did not divert his attention from their purification. [This premise is supported by the following law:] Even one who consciously removes his tallis without any intent [to put it on again] is not required to recite a second blessing if he is wearing a tallis katan [at that time]. For by doing so, he reveals his intent that he is not diverting his attention from this mitzvah even though he is not thinking about the tallis [he removed] at all and does not know whether he will wrap himself in it again [later on], as explained there. How much more so [is this true in this instance], when it is evident that he will return to the mitzvah, i.e., the purification of his hands, because he is taking part in a meal and has the intent of eating [further].)

(Weight should be given to their words and a lenient position taken with regard to a doubt whether to recite a blessing.)15