Berachot - Chapter Six

The commentaries explain that the modifying clause is added to include two types of grain products mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 9, that resemble bread, but do not require the blessing hamotzi unless they are eaten as the basis for an entire meal. When the blessing hamotzi is recited over them, the ritual washing of the hands is also required. Otherwise, it is not (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:1).

This washing is not intended for the purpose of cleanliness. Rather, it is a ritual matter and, therefore, requires adherence to all the particular laws mentioned in this chapter.

Shabbat 14b, 15a states that the washing of the hands before partaking of sacrificial offerings was instituted by King Solomon. Hillel and Shammai extended the practice to include terumah, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach widened its scope to include even unconsecrated foods (Chulin 106a). The latter decree was also intended to remind the priests to keep their hands ritually pure while partaking of terumah. It was, however, instituted not only for the priests, but for the nation as a whole (even though non-priests may not partake of terumah), so that it would be a universally accepted practice. Even after the destruction of the Temple, when it was no longer possible to practice ritual purity, this mitzvah was continued in the hope that the Temple will soon be rebuilt, and the priests will resume their previous obligations (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 158:1; Mishnah Berurah 158:1).

This washing, referred to as mayim acharonim, is discussed in Halachot 2 and 3.

Terumah or sacrificial offerings.

See the notes to Halachah 4.

Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 7:8), where the Rambam explains that “’hands are busy’—i.e., frequently touching [objects]—and it is possible that one touched an impure substance without realizing it.” See also Chapter 7, Note 17.

Or washed (Mishnah Berurah 158:12).

Liquid in this instance refers to wine, honey, olive oil, milk, dew, and water (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:4).

This practice was instituted in respect for the terumah separated from olive oil and wine. It was extended to all liquids because the laws governing the contraction of ritual impurity by liquids are more severe than those involving other foods (Rabbenu Yonah; Levush, Orach Chayim 158:3). Tosafot, Pesachim 115b, explain that after the destruction of the Temple, the practice of washing before partaking of fruits dipped in liquid was discontinued because we are all ritually impure. Although most authorities do not accept this position, they respect it to the extent that they state that a blessing should not be made before such a washing. In practice, however, there are many who are not precise in washing in these circumstances. There is, nevertheless, one instance when this practice is observed universally: At the Pesach seder, we wash before dipping the karpas in salt water.

The Rambam requires that a blessing be recited in both the instances mentioned in the previous halachah. As mentioned in the commentary, our practice is to recite a blessing only before partaking of bread, and not before partaking of foods dipped in liquids.

See Hilchot Kri’at Shema 3:1.

See Hilchot Tefillah 4:2-3. The Radbaz (Responsum 1365) states that although the Rambam requires washing before the Afternoon and Evening Services, a blessing should be recited only when washing before the Morning service.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 158:11, based on Tosafot, Berachot 51a) states that it is not customary to recite the blessing before washing, lest one’s hands be dirty. At present, Ashkenazic custom (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 158:16; Mishnah Berurah 158:40) is to recite the blessing after washing, but before drying one’s hands.

The word “washing” is not a precise translation of the Hebrew נטילת. Rabbenu Asher (Berachot, Chapter 9) explains that this term was used because in Talmudic times, the utensil with which it was customary to wash one’s hands was called נטלא. The Sages phrased the blessing in this manner to emphasize that the mere rinsing of one’s hands is insufficient and one must use such a utensil.

With the following sentence, the Rambam is explaining why a blessing is recited, despite the fact that this commandment was instituted by the Sages and not by God, Himself.

. In Chapter 11, Halachah 3, the Rambam interprets the blessing recited over Rabbinic commandments as follows: “Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to follow the instructions of the Sages who commanded us concerning....”

Note the explanation of this proof-text in Hilchot Mamrim 1:1-2.

Although the Ra’avad protests strongly the Rambam’s ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 181:7). (The difference between the Ra’avad and the Rambam revolves around the rationale for this washing. See Note 24 below.)

As mentioned in the following halachah. (See also Chapter 11, Halachah 4.)

For as Chulin 10a states, “Danger is more serious than a prohibition.”

This washing, referred to as mayim emtzayim, is mentioned in Chulin 105a, b and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, sec. 173). At present, this practice is generally not followed.

There are no fruits that are eaten as terumah according to Scriptural Law. (It is wine and oil, not grapes and olives, which carry such an obligation.) Therefore, the Sages did not impose an obligation to wash before eating from such food if it was not consecrated (Rabbenu Yonah, Berachot, ch. 8).

The Tur (Orach Chayim 181:1), the Ra’avad, and others offer a different rationale for this washing, quoting Berachot 53a’s interpretation of Leviticus 11:44: “’Make yourselves holy,’ this refers to the first washing; ‘And you shall be holy,’ this refers to the second washing.” They explain that this washing is necessary as a token of respect to clean one’s hands before reciting grace.

Note Hilchot Melachim 6:13, which mentions other Rabbinic prohibitions that are relaxed in wartime.
See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 158:8) which draws parallels to these laws and frees a person in a desert or in another dangerous situation from the obligation to wash his hands.

Although Rabbenu Asher maintains that it is only necessary to wash to the point of connection between the fingers and the hand, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 161:4) accepts the Rambam’s decision. Nevertheless, when a person has only a limited supply of water, he may rely on Rabbenu Asher’s opinion (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 161:8; Mishnah Berurah 161:22).

It is preferable to pour a generous quantity of water over one’s hands (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 158:10). Rav Chisda would say: “I wash with a full handful of water and [God] grants me a full handful of goodness” (Shabbat 62b).

One fourth of a larger measure known as a log. In contemporary measure, a revi’it is equivalent to 86.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah.

The Rambam’s decision differs from that of the Ra’avad, Rashi, the Rashba, and many other authorities. The other authorities maintain that as long as the vessel from which the water is poured contains a revi’it, two people may have their hands washed from it. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 160:13) accepts the latter view.
Significantly, the Rambam mentions washing the hands only once before partaking of food. In Hilchot Mikveot 11:3, where he mentions the washing of the hands within the context of ritual purity, he mentions the need to wash hands twice: once to purify the hands, and once to wash off the water used to purify them. (See Halachah 10 and notes.) In these halachot, he makes no mention of a second washing, seeming to imply that it is unnecessary to do so. (Rav Kapach adds that it is customary in certain Yemenite groups to wash only once before meals, and bases this practice on the Rambam’s decision.)
The Shulchan Aruch and the Rama (Orach Chayim 162:2) mention washing the hands two or three times before partaking of a meal. This is the accepted practice in almost all communities at present.

In Hilchot Mikveot 1:12, the Rambam provides this general rule:
Any substance that intervenes [between one’s flesh and the water] and disturbs one nullifies the immersion, even if it covers only a minor portion of one’s flesh.... Any substance that covers the major portion of one’s flesh nullifies the immersion, even though it does not disturb one.
In Chapter 2 of those halachot, the Rambam mentions a long list of particular substances that nullify immersions, including filth, mud, and dough.

This implies that one should clean one’s hands before washing them for this ritual purpose. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, 161) discusses the particular laws regarding intervening substances.

This includes ice and snow, which can be used to make up the measure of a mikveh (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:3).

Note the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama (Orach Chayim 160:12), which discuss the use of wine, beer, and fruit juices for washing hands.

I.e., whether before a meal or in preparation for prayer.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this expression indicates that it is not necessary to wash one’s hands a second time (see the notes to the previous halachah) or to dry them before partaking of the food. When washing one’s hands for food, this is required because the water used for the first washing that remains on the hands becomes ritually impure. In contrast, the water that remains on one’s hands after immersion in a mikveh is pure. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 159:19.)

A mikveh must have at least 40 se’ah of water that has flowed into it by natural means. In contemporary measurements, 331 liters according to Shiurei Torah, and 648 liters according to the Chazon Ish.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this applies only to water that does not emanate from a natural spring. When a person immerses his hands in such a spring, all that is necessary is that there be sufficient water to cover his hands. (See also Hilchot Mikveot 9:8.)
Significantly, Rabbenu Yonah maintains that it is acceptable to immerse one’s hands in a mikveh containing even less than 40 se’ah. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:14) accepts this view, although the Rama favors the Rambam’s position.

Which is unacceptable for ritual immersion.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, and maintains that one may immerse one’s hands in water poured into a pool in the ground. He supports his position by referring to the immersion of a ba’al keri (see Hilchot Tefillah 4:4-5), which is acceptable even in such a pool. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 8:1.) Nevertheless, most authorities accept the Rambam’s decision. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 159:23; Be’ur Halachah 159.)

See Halachot 7-9.

See Halachot 4 and 10.

See Halachot 11-12. The Rashba quotes the Halachot Gedolot as explaining that it is necessary to wash with a vessel, because the washing of hands is derived from the sanctification of the priest’s hands in the Temple.

See Halachot 13-14.

The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 160) states that this concept is derived from the laws of the ki’or (the basin in the Temple from which the priests washed their hands). If its water changed color, it could no longer be used.

E.g., ink or another coloring fell into it.

It became rusty from a metal container. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 160:3, which state that water that has become murky from mud or dirt is acceptable, because even this is often the color of natural stream water.
If after water was disqualified because of an abnormal color, its color reverts to the norm, it can be used to wash one’s hands (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:1; Mishnah Berurah 160:5).

See Hilchot Rotzeach USh’mirat HaNefesh 11:6-16, which discusses the prohibition of water left uncovered. This prohibition was enacted out of fear of the possibility that a poisonous snake or the like released venom into the water.

The Tur (Orach Chayim 160) notes that since the presence of poisonous snakes and the like is no longer widespread, the prohibition against drinking—and hence, washing with—such water need not be observed at present. This ruling is accepted by the later authorities.

The Rambam is implying that the water in a mikveh or in a natural stream remains acceptable for washing although it was used for other tasks (Kessef Mishneh).

If, however, the bread fell into the water accidentally, the water is not disqualified (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:2; Mishnah Berurah 160:8).

The Rama (Orach Chayim 160:2) states that even if the baker washed his hands in the water, the water does not become unacceptable. The Turei Zahav (160:3) refutes this ruling. His opinion is accepted by the later authorities.

Slightly murky water is acceptable, as mentioned above. The determining factor is whether or not a dog will drink from the water.

Since a mikveh containing such water is acceptable for the immersion of one’s entire body, it is surely acceptable for the immersion of hands, which is only a Rabbinic commandment.

These hot springs have a high mineral content and are very bitter.

The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as referring to a stream that was diverted into a trench that does not contain forty se’ah. Although logically, this would be acceptable for the immersion of hands, the Sages forbade using such water, lest one also immerse one’s hands in a container of water. Significantly, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 160:7), Rav Yosef Caro adds a further point, that the water was cut off from its source.

I.e., the washing before partaking of bread.

I.e., the washing after the meal (see Halachah 17); alternatively, the second pouring of water over one’s hands, as mentioned in the notes to Halachah 4. Note the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh.

In both instances, one must pour at least a revi’it of water over one’s hands in a single pouring. In the first instance, while the water is being poured one gradually moves one’s hands under the water, while in the second instance, one pours hurriedly, but forcefully, over the entire hand at once.

I.e., several people stand with their hands outstretched, and a person pours water over their hands.

Although the water first passes over the hands of one person, it is still acceptable for the person whose hands are held below, because as long as it contains the required quantity and comes in one continuous stream, it does not become impure.
Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 160:16 and the Mishnah Berurah 160:68, 72 state that the two people must originally have the intention to wash their hands as one, and must hold their hands close together. Otherwise, it is considered as if the second person washed with the water that was rendered impure by the first person’s washing.

Note the difference of opinion on this issue between the Rambam and the other Halachic authorities mentioned in the notes to Halachah 4.

This halachah revolves around the third rule mentioned in Halachah 6, that one must wash one’s hands from a vessel.

Because they are not vessels and were not made with the intent of containing water (Kessef Mishneh).

Broken shards of an earthenware container that are still capable of holding water.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s interpretation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yadayim 1:2 which is the source for this halachah).

Although some commentaries state that this also refers to shards, others, to avoid redundancy, state that it is referring to unshaped pieces of earthenware.

These usually contain a handle on their top, and thus cannot stand erect when turned upside down.

By breaking the handle so that it could stand erect.

Although the covering was not originally made to contain liquid, since it was modified with that intention and, in its present state, it can contain a revi’it without being supported, it is acceptable.

By having a stand erected for it (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol).

The Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 159) questions why any modification is necessary for a wine-pouch, since it is also originally made with the intention of containing liquids. It explains that generally, if left uncovered, without a stand, a pouch will not be able to contain water. Hence, unless a stand is made for it, it is unacceptable.

And the holes in them filled with tar to prevent water from flowing out.

The Bayit Chadash explains the difference between these and the former two instances: The covering of a jug and a wine pouch are made for the purpose of containing of liquids. Accordingly, although without modification they cannot serve that purpose in a manner acceptable for use in washing hands, once they are modified, they are acceptable. In contrast, a sack or a basket is never used to contain liquids. Therefore, even after modification, it is unacceptable.

See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:6).

Hilchot Keilim, Chapters 6, 11, and 19, relates the following general principle: Once a vessel is broken to the point that it can no longer serve its original purpose, it is no longer considered a vessel and can no longer contract ritual impurity.
Chulin 107a mentions that a vessel that is used for containing liquids becomes disqualified when it contains a hole large enough to allow liquids to enter when the vessel is placed within them.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that the Rambam would consider a vessel acceptable if the hole is on the side and the portion of the vessel below the hole contains more than a revi’it of liquid.
In contrast, in his Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 159), he explains that the Rambam would disqualify such a utensil because even though it can still contain a sufficient amount of liquid, it is a broken vessel and, as such, unsuitable for use for this mitzvah. In his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:1-2), he rules that a hole on the side disqualifies a vessel unless one is able to pour water through the hole.

e.g., utensils made from mud without being fired in a kiln.

Although utensils made from these substances are not categorized as “vessels” with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, they are acceptable for this purpose.

As mentioned in the previous halachah.

I.e., is too small to contain this amount of water.

I.e., in actual fact it does not contain that amount of water.

This refers to pouring the first amount of water over one’s hands. According to our custom of pouring water twice (or three times) over our hands, the second pouring need not contain a revi’it. (See Hilchot Mikveot 11:8.)

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam on this matter. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 159:12) quotes both views.

Although the water was originally poured by “human power,” unless one’s hands are close to the place where the bucket is poured, it is considered that the “human power” has ceased and the water is flowing because of the force of gravity.

The governing principle for the Rambam’s ruling is that washing hands is a Rabbinic commandment, and we fulfill the rule, “When there is a doubt concerning a Rabbinic injunction, the lenient perspective should be taken.” The Ra’avad does not object to the Rambam’s ruling. However, he adds that when a person has other water available, he should wash again to remove the doubt. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 160:11) accepts the Rambam’s ruling, but also mentions the Ra’avad’s view.

The water with which one washes one’s hands becomes impure. Hence, if it flows past the wrist and then returns to one’s hands, it can cause them to become impure. By holding one’s hands upward, one insures that any water that has flowed past the wrist will not return.
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 4, it is customary to wash our hands at least twice: once to purify them and once to wash off the impure water. Nevertheless, this second washing is considered effective only on one’s hands. If any water from the first washing rose above one’s wrist and returned—even if water from the second washing also rose above one’s wrist—one’s hands become impure (Hilchot Mikvaot 11:4; Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 162). This law applies, however, only when one pours less than a revi’it of water over one’s entire hand(s) the first time. If one pours an entire revi’it over one’s entire hand(s) at one time, that water remains pure (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 162:1).

If one would hold them upward, it would be possible for the water containing the dangerous salt to collect between one’s fingers (Kessef Mishneh).

Chulin 105b relates that a spirit of impurity rests over the water used to wash one’s hands after eating. Accordingly, this water should be collected in a container and poured out, rather than left on the ground where a person could step in it and become adversely affected.

There are, however, some Ashkenazic authorities who rule that such water should not be used to wash hands. If there is other water available, their opinion should be respected. If not, one may rely on the Rambam and the other authorities who accept his ruling (Mishnah Berurah 160:27).

On the contrary, rather than remove the filth, the hot water causes it to be absorbed by the skin. (See Chulin 105b; Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 181.)

A stipulation is necessary because we are required to have the intent to purify our hands when washing them. The stipulation reflects our intent that our hands be pure for all the situations for which washing is required (Magen Avraham 164:2).

The same principle applies if a person washes his hands in the middle of the day. For example, a person who washes his hands after using the lavatory and desires to eat shortly afterwards, may have in mind that the washing will be effective for the meal.
Although this is halachically acceptable even when there is no shortage of water (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 164:1), it is customary to wash one’s hands before eating because of the impression it may create (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 164:1) or because one may have diverted his attention from his hands (Mishnah Berurah 164:3).

Although he does not know for sure that his hands have touched something that causes them to become impure, he must wash. Taharot 7:8 states that “hands are busy” and there is reason to suspect that they touched something impure.

I.e., before prayer or before eating.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 163:1) accepts the Rambam’s ruling only when water is not easily available.

We do not wash because of ritual purity, but because of a Rabbinic decree instituted to keep us conscious of the obligation to do so for sacred foods. The Rabbis applied this decree to the person eating alone.

The obligation to wash lies with the person who is eating, as explained in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, by giving him food when he does not wash, one violates the prohibition, “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.” (See Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 299.)

Eduyot 5:6 states that Elazar ben Chanoch was placed under a ban of ostracism for casting aspersions on the practice of washing before eating.

Among them: Sotah 4b: “Whoever eats bread without washing hands is considered as if he consorted with a prostitute.... Whoever treats the washing of hands with disdain will be uprooted from this world.” Shabbat 62b: “Whoever treats the washing of hands with disdain will become poor.”

The commentaries cite the following passage from Eruvin 21b as the source for the Rambam’s statements:
Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned and Rabbi Yehoshua Hagarsi would attend him.... [Rabbi Akiva] asked him: “Give me water so that I can wash my hands.”
He answered: “There is not enough to drink, let alone to use for the washing of hands.” He replied: “What can I do? [Ignoring this command] makes one liable for death.

In his Beit Yosef and his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 158:12-13), Rav Yosef Caro explains that the reason for drying the hands is that the water that remains on one’s hands after washing the first time becomes impure. For this reason, if one immersed one’s hands in a mikveh or poured an entire revi’it over them, there is no obligation to dry them. The Maharshal and the Radbaz (Vol. I, Responsum 15) explain that the Rambam (and his source, Sotah 4b) are not referring to ritual purity and impurity. Rather, it is distasteful and undignified to eat bread without first drying one’s hands.

Rabbenu Manoach and the Radbaz (loc. cit.) explain that drying one’s hands is a gesture of respect for the blessing. The Kolbo quotes the Ra’avad as maintaining that drying one’s hands is not required. The Tur (Orach Chayim 181) does not mention the matter at all, and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 181:8) quotes both opinions.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 179:1) quotes this ruling within the context of the law that washing after the meal constitutes a definite diversion of one’s attention from eating. Should one desire to eat anything afterward, a new blessing is required. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 181:6 and the Mishnah Berurah 179:1 also mention that one should not speak. Nevertheless, if an interruption was made, one may rectify the situation by washing a second time.