Mayim Acharonim
[1] (Halacha 1023)
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Chullin1 states: 'For acharonim - one washes only into a vessel [placed beneath them to catch them. Rashi], and some say: one does not wash onto the ground, what is the difference between them? The difference between them is wood chips (kinsa) [if he places wood shavings and splinters beneath them: according to the one who says a vessel, this is not a vessel; and according to the one who says one does not wash onto the ground, this is fine. And below it explains that this is because a ruach ra'ah rests upon them when they are on the ground. Rashi].
And further in the Gemara2: 'Abaye said: Initially I thought that the reason mayim acharonim are not washed onto the ground is because of grime; Mar said to me: it is because a ruach ra'ah rests upon them'.
> Thus we have seen in the Gemara that when mayim acharonim are on the ground a ruach ra'ah rests upon them, and there are two views in the Gemara as to whether one must wash specifically into a vessel or whether one may also wash onto the ground, provided one places something on the ground - wood and the like.
The Rishonim disagreed as to the halachic ruling, for the Rambam3 wrote: 'And acharonim are washed only into a vessel'.
And the Kesef Mishneh explained: 'It appears that Rabbeinu rules stringently, and I do not know why, since it is a Rabbinic matter; and perhaps the reason is that the first version is the plain version of the Gemara, while the other is stated as "some say." Alternatively, one may say that since it is a matter of danger he ruled stringently, for it explains there that the reason one does not wash onto the ground is because of a ruach ra'ah'.
And the Derishah4 wrote like the second reason of the Kesef Mishneh: 'And it appears in my humble opinion that the reason of the Rambam is that since the reason is due to a ruach ra'ah, it is not appropriate to be lenient in this even though it is Rabbinic, for danger is treated stringently'.
But many Rishonim ruled leniently that a vessel is not required and one may wash onto wood that is placed on the ground, as the Ra'avad5 wrote: 'Mayim acharonim are washed only either into a vessel or onto wood chips, and likewise onto stones or onto potsherds, because of the ruach ra'ah'.
And the Chinuch6 wrote: 'Mayim acharonim are an obligation .. and they should fall into a vessel or onto anything that interposes between them and the ground, such as splinters and the like'.
And so wrote the Rashba7: 'Mayim acharonim are washed only into a vessel, and some say one does not wash onto the ground; what is the difference between them? The difference between them is wood chips. And we adopt the lenient view; therefore they may be washed either into a vessel or onto wood chips'.
And the Mordechai8: 'And mayim acharonim .. and one does not wash onto the ground except into a vessel or onto wood chips'.
And so wrote the Tur9: 'And they are not washed onto the ground because a ruach ra'ah rests upon them, but if one washes onto thin pieces of wood or the like, it is fine'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote: 'It is implied for Rabbeinu that since it is a Rabbinic matter we adopt the lenient view, and such is the opinion of the Rashba in Toras HaBayis; but the Rambam wrote in chapter 6 of Hilchos Brochos that mayim acharonim are washed only into a vessel' [and see what was written above in the Kesef Mishneh].
And as the halacha, the Mechaber10 wrote: 'Mayim acharonim are not washed onto the ground but into a vessel, because of the ruach ra'ah that rests upon them; and if one has no vessel, he washes onto thin pieces of wood and the like'.
And the Gra explained: 'But the Rambam ruled like the first version, and it is written in the Kesef Mishneh that his reason is that since the first version is the plain [statement] of the Gemara, and moreover, in a matter of danger we follow the stringent view, as he wrote in the first chapter there; and so he ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, and in the case where one has no [vessel] he ruled that one may rely on the Rashba and the Tur'.
And so wrote the Pri Megadim11: 'And know that in the Tur it is implied that even lechatchilah, onto splinters and flooring it is fine, while in the Shulchan Aruch [it is only] if one has no vessel, for he was concerned for the Rambam - see the Beis Yosef. Also, danger is more stringent than a prohibition, and one may say a doubt is treated stringently, and this requires further study. Therefore, when one has a vessel he needs specifically a vessel - understand this'.
And similarly the Ma'amar Mordechai12 wrote: 'Therefore it appears that Maran did not rule like the words of the Tur and the Rashba, for according to them it is [equally acceptable] to wash onto wood as into a vessel, and even not under pressing circumstances one may wash via wood chips; whereas Maran began and said that one washes only into a vessel, like the words of the Rambam, except that afterward he wrote that if one has no vessel he washes onto thin pieces of wood, for in such a case one may indeed rely on the reasoning of the Rashba and the Tur'.
That is to say, the Mechaber wrote that one should lechatchilah be concerned for the opinion of the Rambam, and bedieved he relied on the other Rishonim.
> Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed whether the washing of mayim acharonim must be into a vessel or whether it may also be onto wood that interposes from the ground; and the Mechaber ruled to be concerned lechatchilah to wash into a vessel, and if not, one may rely on the views that permit onto wood. In the next halacha we will see what the Acharonim wrote regarding this law.
Notes:
1 105a ↩
2 105b ↩
3 Hilchos Brochos 6:16 ↩
4 OC §181 s.k. 4 ↩
5 Tamim De'im §66 ↩
6 Eikev, mitzvah 430 ↩
7 Toras HaBayis HaAroch, Bayis 6 Sha'ar 3 (71b) ↩
8 Brochos, remez 207 ↩
9 OC §181 ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch OC ibid. 2 ↩
11 Eshel Avraham, OC ibid. s.k. 10 ↩
12 OC ibid. s.k. 2 ↩
[2] (Halacha 1024)
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim disagreed whether the washing of mayim acharonim must be into a vessel or whether it may also be onto wood that interposes from the ground; and the Mechaber ruled to be concerned lechatchilah to wash into a vessel, and when this is not possible he washes onto wood.
From Rashi's words cited in the previous halacha it appears that the ruach ra'ah applies only to mayim acharonim when they are on the ground, however the Levush1 wrote: 'One does not wash onto the ground but into a vessel, because a ruach ra'ah rests upon them and there is danger to those who pass over them; and if one has no vessel he washes onto thin pieces of wood and the like, so that they should not collect in great quantity in one place'.
And some have inferred from the wording of the Levush that he held that a ruach ra'ah rests upon the washing water even when it is not on the ground [and the washing onto wood is only so that it should not collect], as follows below.
On the other hand, the Magen Avraham2 wrote: 'Thin pieces of wood. And the same applies to anything that interposes between it and the ground [Chinuch], and it is implied that even when there is flooring it is permitted, for a ruach ra'ah rests only on the ground. The Chayat wrote that in a place where people do not pass to and fro, one may wash onto the ground; and therefore it appears to me that beneath the table it is permitted, and even though sometimes the table is removed, in any case they will have dried in the interim'.
And so wrote the Shevet Mussar3: 'And he should wash into a vessel, for this is the portion of the Left Side from the meal; and when one gives it a portion of the offerings, it is permitted to wash mayim acharonim onto ground that has flooring over it, for a ruach ra'ah does not rest upon flooring; and beneath the ground it is permitted even onto the actual ground'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote on the Magen Avraham: 'When the ground is floored, one may wash acharonim onto the flooring, for a ruach ra'ah rests only when they lie on the ground without flooring. See what was written in os 10 on this. And in the Levush it is implied that flooring is forbidden [but in my view it is fine], and so it is implied in the Gemara, which did not forbid [onto] flooring'4.
And the Mishnah Berurah5 was even concerned in practice for the words of the Levush: 'And some are lenient to wash even onto flooring if one has no vessel to wash into, for they hold that a ruach ra'ah rests upon them specifically on the actual ground; but according to what the Levush wrote, one should be stringent in this'. And he explained in the Sha'ar HaTziyun6: 'For one who examines the Levush there will readily see that he holds that the ruach ra'ah rests even when one washes them into a vessel, except that it is guarded in the vessel so that people should not tread upon it [but Rashi's wording is forced according to him, see there]; and accordingly one should not be lenient to pour them onto flooring'.
However, as the halacha, the Alter Rebbe7 ruled like the words of the Magen Avraham: 'Mayim acharonim are not washed onto the ground but into a vessel, because of the ruach ra'ah that rests upon them when they are on the ground; and if one has no vessel he washes onto thin pieces of wood and the like, and the same applies to anything that interposes between them and the ground, even flooring, for a ruach ra'ah is only on the ground. And in a place where people do not pass, one may wash them onto the ground; therefore it is permitted to wash them beneath the table, and even though sometimes the table is removed, in any case they will have dried in the interim'.
> Thus we have seen that according to the Alter Rebbe a ruach ra'ah does not rest upon the water when one does not wash it onto the ground8.
Except that Rav Chaim Palagi9 wrote, cited in the Kaf HaChaim (Sofer)10: 'But it is good to remove it from before him at the time of the bracha and set it aside off the table'.
And so wrote the Gr"ach Naeh11: 'And in the Kaf HaChaim on the Shulchan Aruch he cited from the Kaf HaChaim Palagi that it is good to remove the vessel with the mayim acharonim from the table during Birkas HaMazon, and so is the custom'.
Except that we have already seen that according to the words of the Alter Rebbe a ruach ra'ah does not rest upon the water12, unless they were poured onto the ground; and thus in this water there is no ruach ra'ah13.
> Thus, since a ruach ra'ah does not rest upon mayim acharonim that were washed into a vessel, there is no need to remove the vessel from the table.
--------------
Notes:
1 OC §181:2 ↩
2 §181 s.k. 2 ↩
3 ch. 31 ↩
4 And see also the Yad Eliyahu [Rogler] (Pesakim §17 os 6): 'It appears to me that it is forbidden to wash mayim acharonim onto flooring, for specifically wood chips, which are not nullified to the ground, constitute an interposition, whereas flooring is regarded as packed-down ground; and this is also proven from the fact that [the Gemara] did not say "the difference between them is flooring." And it is forced to say that it is teaching a novelty, namely that even wood chips are significant enough to separate from the ground. And the Magen Avraham wrote the opposite; however, there is no practical difference at all, for when one has a vessel he certainly needs a vessel, since one must be concerned for the first version, that danger is stringent, etc.' ↩
5 ibid. s.k. 6 ↩
6 s.k. 17 ↩
7 ibid. 2 ↩
8 See the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch) §181: 'Regarding washing mayim acharonim into a kosher vessel, it appears that there is no strict requirement, since we hold like the one who is lenient with wood chips; there is reasoning to say that a ruach ra'ah rests upon mayim acharonim only on the ground, and I was awakened to this by the distinguished Rav Yisrael Moshe נ"י. But according to what the Pri Megadim wrote, that lechatchilah one is concerned for the opinion of the Rambam that specifically a vessel [is required], and like the first version at the beginning of chapter Kol HaBasar in the Shas, it is proper to seek out some vessel that is not [otherwise] kosher [for use].' And in the sefer Bekodesh Penimah (p. 19) it is brought that in the Rebbe's home they used a vessel deeper than a kitchen vessel, and it seemingly accords with the words of the Alter Rebbe, and not like what the Eshel Avraham wrote. And see also the Ikarei HaDat (OC §9 os 17) that if one has no special vessel for mayim acharonim, or if he is too lazy to rise and has no one to serve him, he may do it in the food bowl he ate from. And note that these matters also accord with our custom to pass the fingers with the remnants of the mayim acharonim over the lips, contrary to what is written in the Kaf HaChaim Palagi (§25 os 2); and see also what is written in Chikrei Minhagim (Gurary) vol. 2 §45 p. 39 onward ↩
9 Kaf HaChaim §25 os 3 ↩
10 s.k. 8 ↩
11 Ketzos HaShulchan §43, Badei HaShulchan os 10 ↩
12 And see also above, note 8, that the opinion of the Gr"ach Palagi is that one should not pass the fingers with the remnants of the water over the lips, but according to our custom it is done so ↩
13 And see the Shu"t Yabia Omer (vol. 5 OC §2), who cited the Ikarei HaDat there that there is no spirit of impurity in water in a vessel, and wrote: 'Consequently, when one washes mayim acharonim into a vessel no ruach ra'ah rests there, since they were not spilled onto the actual ground, and consequently it is obvious that one may afterward use the vessel after rinsing it well. See there. And accordingly it appears that even according to what the Chida wrote in Kesher Godel (§1 os 5), that it is forbidden to recite a bracha or read facing the water of the morning netilas yadayim .. nevertheless one may recite Birkas HaMazon when the plate with the mayim acharonim in it rests on the table, and there is no concern in this by law, since there is no ruach ra'ah there at all; and only as a preferable practice and because of repugnance is it customary to remove that plate to the side. And as the Kaf HaChaim Palagi wrote' ↩
[3] (Halacha 1026)
Question: Why do we wash the hands for mayim acharonim?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'Our Rabbis taught: oil holds back the bracha, the words of Rabbi Zilai; Rabbi Zivai says it does not hold back; Rabbi Acha says: good oil holds back; Rabbi Zuhamai says: just as one who is soiled is unfit for the [Temple] service, so soiled hands are unfit for a bracha. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: I know neither Zilai nor Zivai nor Zuhamai, but I know a baraisa; for Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and some say it was taught in a baraisa: "וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם" (And you shall sanctify yourselves) - these are mayim rishonim; "וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" (and you shall be holy) - these are mayim acharonim; "כִּי קָדוֹשׁ" (for [I am] holy) - this is oil; "אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם" (I am Hashem your God) - this is the bracha'2.
And the Gemara in Maseches Chullin3 states: 'Rav Yehuda the son of Rabbi Chiya said: Why did they say mayim acharonim are an obligation - because there is Sodomite salt which blinds the eyes. Abaye said: and it is found like a grain in a kor. Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: what about all [other] salt? He said to him: it is not necessary [to be concerned]'.
> Thus we have seen that there are two sources in the Gemara for the matter of mayim acharonim: in the Gemara in Brochos it is derived from pesukim, and in the Gemara in Chullin it is said that it is an obligation due to the danger of Sodomite salt.
The Rishonim discussed: a) the fact that there are two different sources for mayim acharonim. b) whether one recites a bracha over mayim acharonim. c) whether this applies in our times. As follows:
a) Two sources for the law of mayim acharonim
Rabbeinu Yonah4 raised a difficulty: '"and you shall be holy" - these are mayim acharonim; for they contain holiness, in that they remove the grime from one's hands. And here there is a difficulty, for here it is implied that mayim acharonim are a mitzvah because of holiness, while in chapter Kol HaBasar it is implied that they are an obligation because of the danger, for it is said there: why did they say mayim acharonim are an obligation? Because a person eats salt after his seudah, and there is Sodomite salt in it which blinds the eyes'.
In explaining this matter we find several approaches among the Rishonim:
1) In the name of the Ba'alei HaTosafos, it is explained that there is here both a mitzvah and an obligation, as Rabbeinu Yonah wrote: 'And the Rabbis of France resolve that there is no difficulty at all, for because of holiness they said it is a mitzvah, and because of the danger of Sodomite salt they added and said it is an obligation'.
And so wrote the Rosh5: 'And one may say: because of holiness they said they are a mitzvah, and because of the danger of Sodomite salt they added to make it an obligation'.
2) The author of the She'iltos6 wrote: 'And they are required to wash their hands, for Rav Yehuda bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: whoever washes his hands at the end is first prepared for the bracha; and from the fact that he said "first" we learn that all of them are required to wash their hands; in any case we learn that if they wish, they may recite the bracha first and afterward wash their hands - the choice is theirs. And when? At a time when they did not eat something soiling; but if they ate something soiling, we hold that soiled hands are unfit for a bracha'.
And Rabbeinu Yonah wrote [and similarly the Rosh]: 'But from what Rav Acha Mishabcha Gaon wrote we have learned the essence of this matter, namely that what we say here, that it is a mitzvah because of holiness, is said only of the one reciting the bracha, for since he mentions the Name he must wash his hands before he recites the bracha; but the washing of the others is not because of holiness but only because of the danger; and what we say in Kol HaBasar, that they are an obligation because of the danger, is not said of the one reciting the bracha but of the others, and on this basis he wrote in the She'iltos that the one reciting the bracha washes his hands before the bracha, [while] the others - if they wish, before the bracha, if they wish, after the bracha; for it is implied that the one [reciting] must wash his hands first, since he has to mention the Name, but the others, since it is only because of danger, if they wish before the bracha, if they wish after the bracha ..'.
Thus, according to this, upon the one reciting the bracha himself there is a mitzvah, while upon the rest of those seated it is because of danger, and there is a difference between them as to when the time of washing is.
3) And some distinguished between one whose hands are soiled because he ate something moist, in which case he is obligated because of the mitzvah, and one who ate salt, in which case he is obligated because of the danger, as the Ra'avad7 wrote, cited by the Rashba8: 'Mayim acharonim do not require a bracha, and specifically when one did not eat a moist food, so that the hands are not soiled from it and the water comes only as a remedy against Sodomite salt which blinds the eyes; but if one ate a moist food so that the hands are soiled from it, a bracha is required, as it is written "וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם [קְדֹשִׁים]" (And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be [holy]) etc., and we expound "and you shall sanctify yourselves" - these are mayim rishonim; "and you shall be holy" - these are mayim acharonim; and concerning them they said mayim rishonim are a mitzvah, mayim acharonim an obligation - for the rishonim, if he wishes he eats and if he wishes he does not eat, therefore they are not an obligation; but mayim acharonim, since he has eaten, he becomes obligated in the bracha and cannot recite the bracha with soiled hands until he washes his hands, therefore an obligation ..'.
And the Meiri9 wrote: 'And the washing after the meal is because of Sodomite salt, for it was their custom to eat salt after the seudah, and they were concerned lest there be mixed into it grains of Sodomite salt which blinds the eyes, and his hands would touch it, and afterward his hands would touch his eyes; and this washing is not a mitzvah but an obligation, in order to guard oneself from harm. And the third washing is for the one who recites Birkas HaMazon, even if he did not eat salt, if he ate something soiling, as they said in chapter Elu Devarim that soiled hands are unfit for a bracha; and this is what they derived from "and you shall be holy." And "something soiling" - the great commentators explained it to be all moist foods with which the hands become moistened, and in the She'iltos it is explained as anything that is not offered upon the altar, as we explained in chapter Elu Devarim, and this does not appear correct at all. And these two washings are called in the language of the Talmud "mayim acharonim"'.
Thus we have seen three approaches among the Rishonim to explain why the law of washing mayim acharonim appears in two places in the Gemara, and with a different rationale. And in the next halacha we will see the words of the Rishonim regarding the obligation of the bracha.
--------------
Notes:
1 53b ↩
2 The Rishonim disagreed whether these derashos are a full derivation (Rashba Chullin ibid., Yere'im §23, and see Yad David Brochos, 2nd ed. 53b), or whether it is merely an asmachta (Tosafos Chullin ibid., Ra'ah and Rosh in Brochos) ↩
3 105a ↩
4 Brochos 40a in the Rif pagination ↩
5 Brochos ch. 8 §6 ↩
6 Parshas Yisro, She'ilta 54 ↩
7 Tamim De'im §66. And see also the Hasagos HaRa'avad, Hilchos Brochos 6:2 ↩
8 Chullin ibid. ↩
9 Kuntres Beis Yad. And see also Chullin 105a, the fourth and fifth washings ↩
[4] (Halacha 1027)
b) A bracha over mayim acharonim
Regarding a bracha over mayim acharonim we find many approaches among the Rishonim - whether one recites a bracha at all, and in which situations, [and what is the text of the bracha], as follows:
1) Some wrote that one does not recite a bracha over mayim acharonim, since it is a washing instituted because of danger, as it is written in Halachos Gedolos1, cited in Tosafos2: 'And since mayim acharonim are an obligation, why do they not require a bracha? They are an obligation because of danger, for Rav Yehuda the son of Rav Chiya said: why did they say mayim acharonim? There is Sodomite salt and it blinds the eyes'.
And so wrote the Rambam3: 'And mayim acharonim - one does not recite a bracha over them, for they are only because of the danger, and therefore a person is obligated to be especially careful with them'.
And it is written in the Machzor Vitry4: 'And after the meal a person is obligated to wash his hands, and he need not recite a bracha. For Rabbah bar Avin said in the name of Rav Yitzchak .. and acharonim are an obligation and do not require a bracha. For there is no way to say "and commanded us." And were one to recite the bracha, the Name of Heaven would be found [uttered] in vain'.
2) The Ra'avad in his glosses on the Rambam there .. agreed that in the case where one washes only because of the Sodomite salt he does not recite a bracha, but he held that in a case where his hands are soiled, one must recite a bracha: 'I heard in the practices of the early Geonim, who wrote regarding mayim acharonim a bracha on washing the hands, and, by my life, these are correct matters, for the Sages expounded both of them from a single pasuk, "and you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy," and likewise they said hands that are soiled are unfit for a bracha; and in truth and with clarity, if one ate something that has grime on it, he must recite a bracha over washing them, and if he ate dry foods it does not require a bracha, for they are only because of a remedy; and so I composed in my work, and this is the essential [ruling]'.
And in his sefer Tamim De'im5 he wrote as above, and added to explain the text of the bracha: 'And I heard that in the pesakim of early authorities, over mayim rishonim one recites "al netilas yadayim," and over the acharonim one recites "al rechitzas yadayim," and reason inclines so: the rishonim, on account of the natla, which is a vessel, or on account of the fact that one must raise his hands upward, are called "netilah"; but the acharonim, which are for cleansing the grime, and one is not particular about them regarding a natla nor about raising the hands, are called "rechitzah"'.
3) And some wrote to distinguish between the one reciting Birkas HaMazon, who does recite a bracha, and the listeners, who do not recite a bracha, as the Ra'aviah6 wrote: 'Acharonim are an obligation, because of the danger of the salt, and one does not recite a bracha over them; and so in Halachos Gedolos .. And in the name of Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Malki Tzedek I heard that one does recite a bracha over them, for the Rabbis leaned them on the pasuk "and you shall sanctify yourselves" - these are mayim rishonim, "and you shall be holy" - these are mayim acharonim .. And this is not correct, for if so, we should also recite a bracha over the oil, for it too is leaned there upon the pasuk "for I am holy, I am Hashem your God" - this is the bracha. But some of my teachers used to say that for the one reciting Birkas HaMazon, it is a mitzvah for him to recite a bracha over them, for we learn in chapter Elu Devarim that soiled hands are unfit for a bracha, and the pasuk too refers to the one reciting the bracha; but for the rest, for whom it is only because of danger, no. And in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchum in parashas Vayisa Meshalo it is stated explicitly that over mayim acharonim too one is obligated to recite a bracha, by a kal vachomer: if over [mayim rishonim, which one may eat if he wishes and not eat if he wishes, one recites a bracha, then over acharonim all the more so]'.
And he further wrote7: 'And in the laws of netilas yadayim I wrote that in the Midrash Tanchuma in parashas Vayisa Meshalo Vayomer it is said that mayim acharonim require a bracha, even though they are an obligation. And we also say soiled hands are unfit for a bracha, and therefore it appears that the one reciting the Birkas HaZimun is fitting for him to wash his hands and recite a bracha over them. And moreover, they leaned it on a pasuk'.
4) The Mordechai in Brochos8 wrote to distinguish between an individual and a case where there is a zimun: 'And Rav Moshe Kohen used to say that an individual certainly does not recite a bracha over mayim acharonim, but in a Birkas HaZimun one does recite a bracha over them, as it is said9 that Rabbi said to Rav: rise, wash your hands, etc.; and it is said in Tanchuma: if over mayim rishonim, which one may eat if he wishes [and not eat if he wishes, one recites a bracha], acharonim all the more so; and moreover it is written "שְׂאוּ יְדֵכֶם קֹדֶשׁ" (Lift up your hands in holiness) etc.'.
5) But some wrote that one always recites a bracha over mayim acharonim, as the Yere'im10 wrote: 'And we learned from this baraisa that one must recite a bracha over mayim acharonim, for they are a mitzvah, from "and you shall be holy," and it is holiness and separation to wash the hands after eating, even not in a place of the danger of salt. And that which the Sages said in Chullin, "mayim acharonim are an obligation," means one must be more careful with them than with mayim rishonim. And so I heard in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak ben Malki Tzedek that one recites a bracha over mayim acharonim, while Rav Yehudai Gaon explained that one does not recite a bracha, for they were instituted only because of the danger of Sodomite salt - this is his response'.
And so wrote the Tur11 in the name of the Rama: 'And the Rama wrote: since it is an obligation, one must recite a bracha over them, and some of the Geonim wrote that one should recite over them "al rechitzas yadayim." And in Halachos Gedolos it is written that since they are only for a person's need, because of Sodomite salt, they do not require a bracha. And so wrote Rav Amram, that one does not recite a bracha over them, neither with the language "netilah" nor "rechitzah" nor "shetifah," and he gave a mnemonic for the matter: "b'shamta nun-reish-shin" ..'.
Except that Rabbeinu Yonah12 wrote that nowadays the custom is not to recite a bracha: 'And regarding reciting a bracha over mayim acharonim, it would appear that the one reciting Birkas HaMazon, since there is a mitzvah in the matter, should recite a bracha; but the world already has the custom not to recite a bracha. The Rabbis of France give a reason for the matter: because in their days it was their custom to bring fragrant oil after the washing to remove the grime from the hands, and they would recite a bracha; but now, since we do not perform the mitzvah properly, as we have no fragrant oil, the people have the custom that even the one reciting Birkas HaMazon does not recite a bracha over mayim acharonim'.
> Thus we have seen the views of the Rishonim regarding the bracha over mayim acharonim; in the next halacha we will see from the words of the Rishonim regarding the very custom of mayim acharonim nowadays, and afterward we will see how the halacha was ruled in all this.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Brochos ch. 6 ↩
2 Chullin 105a ↩
3 Hilchos Brochos 6:2 ↩
4 §54 ↩
5 §66, and see also Meiri Brochos, Kuntres Beis Yad ↩
6 Teshuvos U'Vi'urei Sugyos §1109 ↩
7 Vol. 1 Brochos §145 ↩
8 Remez 191 ↩
9 Brochos 43a ↩
10 §23 ↩
11 OC §181 ↩
12 Brochos 40a in the Rif pagination ↩
[5] (Halacha 1028)
c) Whether the obligation of mayim acharonim applies in our times:
Tosafos in Brochos1 wrote: '"and you shall be holy" - these are mayim acharonim - specifically for them, who were accustomed to wash their hands after the meal because of Sodomite salt; but we, among whom Sodomite salt is not found and who are not accustomed to wash after the seudah, the washing does not hold us back from reciting a bracha; however, delicate people who are accustomed to wash their hands after the seudah - the washing certainly holds them back from reciting Birkas HaMazon, and they must wash their hands before Birkas HaMazon'.
And the Mordechai2 explained: 'And now, for us, since Sodomite salt is not found among us, we are not accustomed to wash, since it serves no need, just as we find regarding water, wine, and milk, which the Sages forbade because of exposure, and for us, among whom there are no snakes and scorpions, exposure is permitted; yet those who recite Birkas HaMazon, who must wash because their hands are soiled - and we say, just as one who is soiled is unfit for the [Temple] service, so one who is soiled is unfit for a bracha, and the Rabbis leaned it on the pesukim, as it is written "and you shall sanctify yourselves" - these are mayim rishonim, "and you shall be holy" - these are mayim acharonim. And some explain that even the one reciting need not wash, for certainly at the time when they were accustomed to mayim acharonim, this [uncleanliness] was considered soiling before washing, but now that they are not accustomed to wash at the end, it is not considered soiling, just as we are not accustomed to anoint the one reciting the bracha with oil as they used to do, and they leaned it on a pasuk. Nonetheless, one who is accustomed to mayim acharonim is forbidden to recite the bracha until he washes, as we say in chapter Keitzad Mevarchin3: since they are accustomed to oil, the oil holds us back'.
This minhag is cited in the Or Zarua4, Rosh5, Hagahos Maimoniyos6, Hagahos Rabbeinu Peretz on the Smak7, Nimukei Yosef8.
> Thus we have seen that several of the Rishonim wrote that: a. since Sodomite salt is not found, and b. there is no regular practice to wash the hands at the end of the meal, therefore there is no obligation of mayim acharonim. (And some wrote that even according to this custom, one who is accustomed to wash at the end of the meal is obligated to wash before the bracha).
Except that the Rif wrote9 wrote: 'And even if one did not eat salt, the Rabbis established it as an obligation because10 mayim rishonim [once] fed pork, [and] mayim acharonim killed a person, etc.'. And it is understood from his words that mayim acharonim are a fixed enactment and do not change on account of not eating salt, [and not like the Mordechai wrote], and thus it makes no difference that Sodomite salt is not found.
And as the Maharshal11 wrote: 'But I do not understand the basis on which they became lenient regarding mayim acharonim, for the Rif wrote as follows: even though one did not eat salt, the Sages established it as an obligation, because of an incident that occurred, that mayim rishonim fed pork and the acharonim killed a person; and the expression "established it as an obligation" implies that even for [later] generations it is an obligation, and with this same expression he wrote12 regarding [the evening prayer that it was originally] optional, and nowadays they established it as an obligation; and the reason he did not write "and nowadays etc." here is that from the outset it too was an obligation, unlike the evening prayer, which was optional at the outset. And especially since Rabbeinu Yonah13 wrote as follows: the Rambam says, even though nowadays we have no Sodomite salt, there is other salt like Sodomite salt, and if one passes his hands over his eyes it will blind his eyes; and he was the father of all naturalists; therefore it appears that one should not be lenient in them at all. And I saw my father-in-law, the Maharr"k of Yerushalayim, who was meticulous that after finishing the seudah they would bring him the cup for Birkas HaMazon full of water, and he would rinse it with his hand, and incidentally he washed his hands with it for mayim acharonim, thereby performing two mitzvos at once - the rinsing of the cup and the sanctity of mayim acharonim - and so I too practice after him'.
Also in the words of the Zohar14 the importance of mayim acharonim is explained: 'After a person eats and takes pleasure, he must give a portion of the residue to that [Other] Side, and what is it? Mayim acharonim - that grime of the hands which must be given to that Side as the portion it requires. And therefore they are certainly an obligation (chovah); an obligation they are, and in the place of "chovah" (guilt) they rest, and it is a duty upon a person to give it this portion, and therefore there is no need to recite a bracha at all, for a bracha is not upon that Side; and for this reason a person must not give the food that is on his table to that filth of excrement, and all the more so [not] into his innards, and all the more so since it is a purification (some versions: benefit) to a person and health and repair of his body'15.
And the Shelah16 wrote: And in place of the limbs and fats mentioned above, these are the mayim acharonim, which are an obligation. And the words of the Tolaas Yaakov17 are as follows: [and] according to the way of truth, mayim rishonim are a mitzvah, a hint to the supernal luminaries, which are the place of the mitzvos, and therefore we raise our hands upward, as it is said18 "וְאֶשָּׂא כַפַּי אֶל מִצְוֺתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר אָהָבְתִּי" (And I will lift up my hands to Your mitzvos, which I love), so that all of them should be blessed from the Source, so that nourishment and abundance should be found for all the worlds, for nourishment depends on mayim rishonim. And they said in the Midrash of Rashb"i, of blessed memory: and the acharonim are an obligation (chovah), they are the lower crowns called "chovah," [for] they incline a person toward the side of guilt (chovah); and because mayim acharonim are the [Other Side's] portion in the meal, they are called "chovah," and it is a duty (chovah) upon us to give them this portion, which is the grime of the hands (in the secret of the ten fingers, in the secret of the grime that clings to the arms of the world). And for this reason, I say that one should not recite Birkas HaMazon before he washes, for one may not come before the King to bless Him with soiled hands .. And one must lower his hands with mayim acharonim .. to hint to those matters that are below everything, end of quote. And you, my sons, may Hashem preserve you, be careful with mayim acharonim. And although Tosafos, the Rosh, and the Mordechai wrote at the end of chapter Elu Devarim that nowadays the world does not practice them etc., do not heed their words in this, for had they seen the Zohar on this matter, they would not have written what they wrote'.
Also Rabbeinu Yaakov MiMarvish, of the Ba'alei HaTosafos, wrote in the Shu"t Min HaShamayim19: 'And we were further in doubt regarding mayim acharonim, for there are among the Sages who say that among us there is no [need for] cleanliness of the hands, since we have no fragrant oil, and there is no need to be concerned for mayim acharonim20; and on this I asked whether there is substance to their words or not. And they answered: Who is it that spoke and Hashem did not command - mayim rishonim and acharonim are a matter of holiness, and anything of holiness, one who is lenient in it, they shorten for him his days and his years - thus they answered in truth'.
And it is cited in the Sefer Chareidim21: 'Mayim acharonim are an obligation and are a matter of holiness, and one who is lenient in them, they shorten his days and his years - thus they answered from Heaven by means of a dream-question from the brother-in-law of the Rav the Mordechai22 and in the Zohar too he is very stringent'.
> Thus we have seen that there are Rishonim who wrote that since there is no Sodomite salt, the custom is not to perform mayim acharonim; and on the other hand there are Rishonim from whose words it is explained that the enactment of mayim acharonim is always an obligation, and so it is according to the Zohar and the Mekubalim. In the next halacha we will see the words of the Shulchan Aruch and the practice in practice.
Notes:
1 53b. And see also Tosafos Eruvin 17b, and Chullin 105a ↩
2 Brochos, remez 207, and see also remez 191 ↩
3 42a ↩
4 Hilchos Netilas Yadayim §72 ↩
5 Brochos ch. 8 §6 ↩
6 Hilchos Brochos 6:2 ↩
7 Mitzvah 181, gloss 12 ↩
8 (Shitas HaKadmonim) Chullin 105a ↩
9 Chullin 37b ↩
10 106a ↩
11 Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin ch. 8 §10 ↩
12 Brochos 19a in the Rif pagination ↩
13 Ibid., 40b ↩
14 Terumah 154b. And see also Zohar Chadash Rus 87a ↩
15 The Chida wrote in Tziporen Shamir os 67: 'One should wash mayim acharonim even though the reason of Sodomite salt does not apply, such as when one ate only bread and the like, for there is a great reason according to the holy Zohar and the writings of the Arizal (Ta'amei HaMitzvos, parashas Eikev)' ↩
16 Sha'ar HaOsios, os HaKuf - Kedushas HaAchilah ↩
17 Sod Birkas HaNehenin ↩
18 Tehillim 119:48 ↩
19 §57 ↩
20 In the Paris manuscript the preface to the question is cited in a different version: 'Others say that mayim acharonim are because of Sodomite salt, and now that it is not found and a person does not eat salt after his eating as the Rabbis said, there is no need for netilas yadayim at the end' ↩
21 Mitzvos Aseh MiDivrei Kabbalah U'MiDivrei Soferim ch. 5 os 4 ↩
22 Seemingly he confused Rabbeinu Yaakov MiMarvish with Rabbeinu Yaakov MiKorbeil, who was the brother-in-law of the Mordechai ↩
[6] (Halacha 1029)
In the previous halachos we saw the views of the Rishonim regarding mayim acharonim, and in this halacha we will see how it was ruled in practice:
The Sephardic minhag: The Mechaber1 wrote: 'Mayim acharonim are an obligation'. And in se'if 7 he wrote: 'One recites no bracha at all over mayim acharonim'. And in se'if 10 he wrote: 'Some are not accustomed to wash mayim acharonim, and even for those who are so accustomed, a person who is fastidious and accustomed to wash his hands after the meal - for him the hands are soiled, and he must wash his hands before Birkas HaMazon'.
And the Acharonim understood from his words that the essential view is that mayim acharonim are an obligation, as the Toras Chaim2 wrote: 'And therefore it appears that one who eats and whose hands are soiled must wash mayim acharonim before he recites Birkas HaMazon, even if there is no concern for Sodomite salt; and so it is written in the Shulchan Aruch §181 that mayim acharonim are an obligation, and he wrote there at the end of the siman that some are not accustomed to wash mayim acharonim, etc.'.
And so wrote the Shu"t Nachpeh BaKesef3: 'And regarding mayim acharonim, Maran ruled in the Shulchan Aruch §181:1 that they are an obligation, implying even in the present time, except that in se'if 10 he wrote that some have the custom not to wash mayim acharonim, and the Magen Avraham wrote the reason is because there is no Sodomite salt; and it appears that Maran was not satisfied with this custom, and therefore he first ruled plainly that they are an obligation. And there is no difficulty from that which is different regarding exposure, which is permitted since there are no snakes, because Rabbeinu Yonah wrote in the name of the Rambam that even though we have no Sodomite salt, one should be concerned lest other salt be of a nature like Sodomite salt - see there in the Beis Yosef who cited him. He also wrote there in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham, who wrote in the name of the Rif, that even if one did not eat salt he is obligated to wash his hands, because mayim acharonim [once] even killed a person - see there. And therefore he ruled plainly that they are an obligation, and so it is proper to be careful to wash mayim acharonim for this reason, and all the more so since there is in them a hidden secret, as is known to those knowledgeable in the esoteric; and so we practice, and understand this'.
> And so the Sephardic poskim held in practice, that it is an obligation to perform mayim acharonim4.
The Ashkenazic minhag: From the practices of the Maharash of Neustadt5 it appears that although the Maharash himself washed his hands because of the bracha, the public did not practice this, and his words are: 'He forgot that he had not washed his hands after the meal, mayim acharonim, until after he recited Birkas HaMazon, and then he remembered that he had not washed his hands after the meal, and even so he did not wash his hands. And I asked: whether he did not wash afterward because he holds that mayim acharonim are only because of Birkas HaMazon, and he told me yes, that this is the reason. But his son, the scholar Rabbi Yudel, and I did not wash our hands after the meal, and so too the rest of those seated, neither on the first night nor on the second night; only he alone, who was to recite the Birkas HaZimun, washed his hands after the meal'.
And the Rema wrote in the Darchei Moshe6: 'However, the minhag is like the words of Tosafos'.
And so wrote his disciple the Levush7: 'And nowadays we do not practice mayim acharonim, because we are not accustomed to be so particular about soiled hands, and also the blinding salt is not found among us at all, therefore they did not practice them'.
[In the commentary of the Gra8 he wrote to disagree with what Tosafos wrote: 'But all this is not so, and what Tosafos wrote at the end of the first chapter of Eruvin 17b .. their words are rejected from their very foundation, for there [the Gemara] refers to the mishnah that "four things they exempted in the [military] camp" etc. .. and Abaye said there that mayim acharonim were not exempted in the camp, because they are an obligation on account of Sodomite salt, as Rav Chiya bar Ashi explained there; and if there were not the reason of Sodomite salt, then they would be exempt in the camp from mayim acharonim just as from mayim rishonim; but not in a camp they are obligated in mayim acharonim just as in mayim rishonim .. and this is the essential [view]'.
And in the Aruch HaShulchan9 he wrote that Tosafos too wrote this only in order to find merit for the custom that existed in their time: 'Rather, even according to the view of Tosafos that there is no obligation in the present time, there is no doubt that they wrote this in order to find merit for that which they did not practice in their days, but even our teachers Tosafos concede that it is required also in the present time, for who says that Sodomite salt is not found even now; and it appears to me that salt from sea-water contains a concern of Sodomite salt, and that which they wrote that nowadays there is no Sodomite salt is because in their country they used to eat salt quarried from the mountains, and so it is there even now, but in our country there are many who eat salt from water, and in this there is a concern of Sodomite salt .. and therefore one should be very careful in this, and so all who fear Hashem practice, and every householder should warn the members of his household to be careful in this'].
The Magen Avraham10 wrote: 'And it appears to me that nowadays the rishonim are preferable, even for one who is careful with the acharonim, for [the acharonim] are not so much of an obligation, since there is no Sodomite salt'. And further on11 he referred to the words of the Mekubalim and the Maharshal: 'And one must wash. It is implied in the Tur specifically the one reciting the bracha; however, the Mekubalim wrote that every person should be careful with mayim acharonim, and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo, that he was accustomed to rinse the cup and wash his hands with the water'.
And in the Kav HaYashar12 he wrote: 'And incidentally I have come to arouse the world regarding the matter of mayim acharonim; I have seen the world being lenient in this, and they are liable for their souls, until they transgress the words of Chazal .. And in the Zohar and in the sifrei kabbalah there is a great secret in this - why it is more of an obligation to wash mayim acharonim than the rishonim'.
And the words of the Alter Rebbe13 are as follows [and in his words there is a treatment of all the sugyos brought in the previous halachos from the words of the Rishonim]: 'Mayim acharonim are a mitzvah because of holiness, to sanctify oneself to bless Hashem for the food, for the hands, which are soiled from the dirt of the food, are unfit for a bracha. And they further added to make it an obligation even upon those who do not mention Hashem's Name in Birkas HaMazon but only listen to the one reciting - because they said "after all your eating, eat salt," and there is Sodomite salt which blinds the eyes, and there is a concern lest he touched with his hands a grain of Sodomite salt, or other salt whose nature is like Sodomite salt that was mixed into the salt they ate after the meal, and when he afterward places his hands on his eyes it will blind them, if he does not wash his hands first. Therefore they should not recite a bracha over this washing, just as one does not recite a bracha over guarding against other dangers, such as one who strains water at night because of the danger of a leech and the like; but the one reciting the bracha, who washes his hands because of a mitzvah and holiness, it would have been fitting for him to recite a bracha over it, except that since nowadays we do not perform the mitzvah according to the enactment of the Sages and their custom, who used to anoint the hands with fragrant oil after the washing to remove the grime from the hands, and nowadays we have no fragrant oil, and since we do not perform the mitzvah properly, they had the custom not to recite a bracha, even the one reciting Birkas HaMazon'.
And at the end of the siman he wrote: 'Some are not accustomed to wash mayim acharonim, because Sodomite salt is not found among us, and regarding soiled hands they are not concerned, since nowadays people are not particular to wash them from the dirt of the food, [so] this is not called grime for us. Nevertheless, one who is fastidious and accustomed to wash his hands after the meal - for him they are soiled hands, and he must wash them before Birkas HaMazon, and even if he wishes to recite a bracha over wine in the middle of the meal, he should wipe them before he recites the bracha; but it is proper for every person to be careful with mayim acharonim'.
> Thus we have seen that although Tosafos wrote that mayim acharonim are not practiced, and the Rema and the Levush wrote in accordance with their words, nonetheless in practice most poskim wrote that one must be careful with mayim acharonim [some wrote that it is an obligation by law, and some warned about it at least on account of the words of the Zohar and the writings of the Arizal]
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch OC §181:1 ↩
2 Chullin 105a ↩
3 Vol. 1, 153d ↩
4 See the Chida in Birkei Yosef ibid. s.k. 7, Tziporen Shamir os 67. And in the Kaf HaChaim (Palagi) §25 os 8. Ben Ish Chai, year 1, Shelach Lecha §6. Kaf HaChaim (Sofer) on the Shulchan Aruch ibid. s.k. 1 and 27 ↩
5 §302 os 9. And similarly in the practices of the Maharil, Seder HaHaggadah os 41 ↩
6 OC ibid. 1 ↩
7 OC ibid. se'if 9 ↩
8 OC ibid. se'if 10. Cited by the Mishnah Berurah ibid. s.k. 22 ↩
9 Ibid. se'if 5 ↩
10 Ibid. at the beginning of the siman ↩
11 s.k. 10 ↩
12 ch. 13 ↩
13 Shulchan Aruch ibid. se'if 1 ↩
[7] (Halacha 1030)
Question: May one wash mayim acharonim with hot water?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Chullin1 states: 'Mayim rishonim one washes either with hot or with cold [water], acharonim one washes only with cold, because hot water softens [=eshtant, they soften the hands and absorb into them the grime of the cooked food. Rashi] the hands and does not remove the grime; mayim rishonim one washes either with hot or with cold. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: they taught this only where the hand is not scalded by them [=burned; if the hand is scalded by them they are nullified and have changed from the category of water], but if the hand is scalded by them, one does not wash with them; and some teach it on the latter clause: acharonim one washes only with cold, but with hot, no; Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: they taught this only where the hand is scalded by them, but where the hand is not scalded by them, one washes; from which it follows that for rishonim, even though the hand is scalded by them, it is permitted'.
> It is explained from the words of the Gemara that according to the first version - mayim rishonim may be used even with hot water, provided the hand is not scalded by them, [while] mayim acharonim are permitted only with cold. And according to the second version - mayim rishonim are permitted with hot water even where the hand is scalded by them, [while] mayim acharonim are permitted with hot water where the hand is not scalded by them.
And further in the Gemara2 it is stated: 'It was said, [regarding] water heated by fire: Chizkiyah said one does not wash from them for the hands, and Rabbi Yochanan said one washes from them for the hands. Rabbi Yochanan said: I asked Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi, who ate taharos, and he said to me: all the notables of the Galil do so'.
And Rashi wrote on the words of Chizkiyah: 'One does not wash from them - mayim rishonim, and he disagrees with the above, and Chizkiyah is a tanna'. That is to say, Chizkiyah disagrees even with the first version and forbids hot water for mayim rishonim, even where the hand is not scalded by them.
But Tosafos disagreed with Rashi3: 'And that which was taught above, "mayim rishonim one washes either with hot or with cold," Chizkiyah establishes according to the first version of Rabbi Yannai above, where the hand is not scalded, and here he speaks where the hand is scalded by them; and Rabbi Yochanan, who permits here, [holds] like the latter version, which establishes that even though the hand is scalded it is permitted; and it was for naught that Rashi explained that Chizkiyah is a tanna and disagrees with the baraisa above'.
> That is to say, according to Tosafos this is all one sugya, except that Chizkiyah ruled like the first version, and Rabbi Yochanan like the latter version.
And the Rashba4 wrote: 'And we hold like Rabbi Yochanan, and it accords with the latter version above, and it is proper, for in matters of Rabbinic law one follows the lenient view, and the latter version is the lenient one'.
And so they ruled like the latter version: the Rif5, Rosh6, Ran7, Meiri8, Riaz9.
And the words of the Rambam10 are: 'And acharonim are not washed with hot water, that is, when it is hot such that the hand is scalded by it, because it does not remove the grime, since one cannot rub with it; but if it was lukewarm, one washes from it at the end'.
And the Kesef Mishneh wrote: 'And Rabbeinu ruled like the latter version. And Rabbeinu wrote "water heated by fire" to exclude the hot springs of Teveryah, as he wrote nearby, and one must be precise in Rabbeinu's language as to why he wrote "but if it was lukewarm etc.," for from what he wrote "that is, when it is hot etc." we already learn this. And it is possible that he needed [to state it] in order to permit washing with them lechatchilah, so that it should not occur to us that lechatchilah one should not wash with lukewarm water, lest one come to wash with hot'.
However, there are Rishonim who ruled stringently like the first version, as it is written in the Piskei HaRid11: 'From which it follows that acharonim, even though the hand is not scalded by them, are forbidden'.
And so it is explained in several Rishonim who wrote that one should not wash with hot [water], but only with cold/cool [water], as the Smak12, Chinuch13, Ra'avad14, Orchos Chaim15 wrote.
As the halacha, the Mechaber16 wrote: 'One does not wash with hot [water] by which the hand is burned, because they soften the hands and do not remove the grime'. And so ruled the Levush17.
But the Maharshal18 cited the words of Tosafos in explaining the dispute of Chizkiyah and Rabbi Yochanan, and wrote: 'And I am astonished, how it could have occurred [to anyone] that it was hidden from Rashi, of blessed memory, to resolve that Chizkiyah holds like the first version; rather, it is because Rashi holds that Chizkiyah and Rabbi Yochanan certainly disagree regarding hot [water] where the hand is not scalded by it, since Rabbi Yochanan said, "I asked Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi, who ate taharos, and he said to me all the men of the Galil do so" - and was it their way to wash with hot [water] where the hand is scalded by it? And even above they disagree only [if] it happened so by chance, or under pressing circumstances, but it does not stand to reason at all to say that they were always accustomed thus, to burn their hands with hot [water]; rather, the men of the Galil used to wash with hot [water] where the hand is not scalded by it, and they did so out of pleasure [and] great cleanliness; and if so, Chizkiyah, who forbids even such a case, then disagrees with the baraisa above, which said "mayim rishonim one washes either with hot or with cold," rather he is a tanna and disagrees. And for this reason it appears that the halacha is like the first version, which permits [regarding mayim rishonim] only hot [water] where the hand is not scalded by it, and not like the latter version .. and so wrote the Semag19 regarding water heated by fire ..'.
> Thus the Maharshal disagrees with the Mechaber and holds that the halacha is like the first version, and accordingly mayim acharonim require specifically cold [water].
The Magen Avraham20 cited his words: 'And the Rash"l ruled specifically with cold [water]'. And the Mishnah Berurah21 wrote: 'But lukewarm [water], that is, where the hand is not scalded by it, is permitted; and the Rash"l ruled specifically with cold [water], however, if one has only this lukewarm [water], one certainly should not be stringent'.
However, the Alter Rebbe22 ruled like the Mechaber and the Levush, that it is permitted with hot water where the hand is not scalded by it: 'One does not wash with hot [water] by which the hand is scalded, because they soften the hands and do not remove the grime; and some forbid even hot [water] where the hand is not scalded by it, but one may be lenient in matters of Rabbinic law'.
> Thus, in practice, one may wash the hands for mayim acharonim with hot water, provided the hand is not scalded by it
Notes:
1 105b ↩
2 106a ↩
3 Chullin 106a ↩
4 Chullin 106a. And see also Toras HaBayis, Bayis 6 Sha'ar 2, 70b ↩
5 Chullin 37b ↩
6 Chullin ch. 8 §6 ↩
7 Chullin 105b ↩
8 Ibid. And in Kuntres Beis Yad, the fifth sha'ar, ↩
9 Brochos ch. 8, Hilchos Netilas Yadayim os 20 ↩
10 Hilchos Brochos 6:16 ↩
11 Chullin, first and second editions, 105b ↩
12 Mitzvah 181, ↩
13 Eikev, mitzvah 430 ↩
14 Tamim De'im §66 ↩
15 Hilchos Netilas Yadayim os 31 ↩
16 Shulchan Aruch OC §181:3 ↩
17 Ibid. se'if 3 ↩
18 Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin ch. 8 §11 ↩
19 Asin 27 ↩
20 OC ibid. s.k. 3 ↩
21 Ibid. s.k. 27 ↩
22 Shulchan Aruch ibid. se'if 3 ↩
[8] (Halacha 1031)
Question: Are all types of water valid for mayim acharonim?
Answer: The Ra'avad1 wrote: 'Mayim rishonim - water from which a cow would bend down and drink may be used to wash the hands, and if not, one does not wash. Mayim acharonim - even though they are very turbid and a cow would not bend down and drink from them [in the Kolbo2, and in the Orchos Chaim3: such as if they were putrid or bitter or salty] one washes. Mayim rishonim are not washed with the hot springs of Teveryah when they are not in vessels, even if they are cold, because they are bitter and neither a dog nor a cow would bend down and drink from them. Mayim acharonim - if they are cold, one washes from them'.
And so wrote the Rashba4: 'And the sum of these matters applies only to mayim rishonim, but for mayim acharonim they do not require a measure - rather, whatever suffices to remove the grime, and even if labor was performed with them, or their appearance changed, they are valid for them'.
And the Meiri5 wrote: 'But for mayim acharonim, even if their appearance changed, or labor was performed with them, or they became unfit for an animal's drinking, they are valid'.
However, in the Piskei Riaz6, cited in the Shiltei Giborim7, he wrote: 'And it appears to me that mayim rishonim differ from mayim acharonim only in these matters that we have written, but in the rest of the matters they are equal, for just as mayim rishonim are washed only with water fit for an animal's drinking and must come by human force, so mayim acharonim are like them, as is explained in the Kuntres HaRe'ayos, in chapter Kol HaBasar, in the second proof'.
The view of the Rambam: The Rambam8 wrote: 'And any water that has become unfit for a dog's drinking, such as if it was bitter or salty or turbid or its smell was foul, such that a dog would not drink from it - in vessels it is invalid for netilas yadayim, and in [natural] ground [pools] it is valid for immersion. The hot springs of Teveryah, in their place one may immerse the hands in them, but if one took from them in a vessel, or diverted from them a cubit to another place, one does not wash from them either rishonim or acharonim, because they are not fit for an animal's drinking'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote9: 'The Rashba wrote in Toras HaBayis that all the [types of] water that are unfit for mayim rishonim are fit for mayim acharonim when they are cold, for they all remove the zuhama, end quote. And so it is implied from the words of the Gemara and the poskim, except that the Rambam wrote regarding the hot springs of Teveria that if one took from them in a vessel or removed them a cubit away to another place, one may not use them either for rishonim or for acharonim, since they are not fit for an animal to drink, end quote. And it is a wondrous thing — whence did he [derive] to invalidate mayim acharonim because they are not fit for an animal to drink; however it is possible that he does not speak of the water after the seudah, but rather of the mayim rishonim, over which one must pour on his hands twice, and the second pouring is called "mayim acharonim," as in that which we learned in the second chapter of Yadayim10, that the mayim acharonim do not purify anything but the water that is upon the hands'11.
The Lechem Mishneh wrote to explain: 'This is with regard to the rishonim .. the hot springs of Teveria are unfit because they are bitter and not fit for drinking, but one should not invalidate the hot springs of Teveria for acharonim on that account, rather the reason regarding the acharonim is because they are hot, and hot [water] that the hand recoils from is unfit for acharonim as is explained in the chapter Kol HaBasar, and as our master, of blessed memory, wrote below in this chapter; and the hot springs of Teveria certainly — the hand recoils from them, for one who cooks in them on Shabbos is liable to makkas mardus, since he transgresses a Rabbinic prohibition, as was explained in these Hilchos Shabbos — this appears clear to me in the words of our master, of blessed memory. And with this the difficulty and wonderment that the great Rav, the Maharik, of blessed memory, raised in OC siman 181 is removed — namely, whence did our master, of blessed memory, [derive] to invalidate mayim acharonim because they are not fit for an animal to drink; for certainly it is not our master's intent to invalidate them on that account, for if so he would not have written this disqualification specifically regarding the hot springs of Teveria — he should have written it regarding "and all water that has become unfit for a dog to drink" etc.; but rather certainly his reasoning is as I have written. And the explanation of his words is thus: the hot springs of Teveria, when they are in their place, then one may immerse in them for [the purpose of] rishonim even though for mayim acharonim they are of no use at all; but if one took [from them] etc., then neither for rishonim nor for acharonim may one use them, and the reason for the rishonim is because they are not fit for an animal to drink etc.'.
> If so, the commentators are divided in explaining the Rambam, who wrote that the hot springs of Teveria are unfit for mayim acharonim because they are not fit for an animal to drink. According to the Beis Yosef, the Rambam did not speak about mayim acharonim, but rather his intent is to the second pouring of mayim rishonim; and according to the Lechem Mishneh, the Rambam invalidated for mayim acharonim only the hot springs of Teveria, since they are hot in a manner that the hand recoils, and as was explained in the previous halacha that this is unfit. If so, according to both explanations the Rambam agrees with the principle of the Raavad and the Rashba that things which are unfit for mayim rishonim are not unfit for mayim acharonim.
And as a practical ruling there are poskim12 who cited the words of the Riaz as halacha, that anything which is unfit for mayim rishonim is likewise unfit for mayim acharonim.
But the Magen Avraham13 wrote in accordance with the words of the Raavad that for mayim acharonim it is permitted to use even things that are unfit for mayim rishonim: 'With any type of liquid. And the same applies to water that is unfit for rishonim'.
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe14: 'And likewise water that is unfit for rishonim on account of [prior] use (melacha) or a change of appearance is fit for acharonim'.
[However the Alter Rebbe did not write regarding water unfit for an animal to drink (as he wrote in siman 160, se'ifim 10–11) — bitter or salty water, the hot springs of Teveria, and the like15].
> If so, in practice, even water that is unfit for netilas yadayim for a seudah is fit for mayim acharonim - even [water] with which melacha was done or whose appearance changed, and the like.
--------------
Notes:
1 Tamim De'im 66 ↩
2 siman 23 ↩
3 Hilchos Netilas Yadayim, os 31 ↩
4 Toras HaBayis HaAroch, Bayis 6, Sha'ar 2 (70b) ↩
5 Berachos – Kuntres Beis Yad ↩
6 Berachos ch. 8, Hilchos Netilas Yadayim, os 20 ↩
7 Berachos ch. 8, 40b ↩
8 Hilchos Brochos ch. 6, halacha 9 ↩
9 OC siman 181, and so too in the Kesef Mishneh ↩
10 Mishnah 2 ↩
11 The Lechem Mishneh wondered at it: 'And how greatly I wondered at what he, of blessed memory, answered — that "mayim sheniyim" (second waters) are called "acharonim" — for regarding chullin one does not need second [waters] at all according to our master; and if his intent is to say that when one comes to divide the revi'is into two and give a little at a time, that the water one uses the second time may not be used — it is still difficult: why did our master, of blessed memory, write this law specifically regarding the hot springs of Teveria? Regarding all the laws that pertain to the mayim rishonim he should have said that those pertain to the second waters when one gives twice upon his hands from one revi'is regarding chullin; and he should have written as he wrote regarding terumah in chapter 11 of Hilchos Mikvaos, that all the laws that apply to the mayim rishonim apply to the second waters, and given a general rule for all the laws' ↩
12 Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, os 2. Olas Tamid s.k. 3. Be'er Heitev s.k. 8. Chesed La'alafim s.k. 6. Ben Ish Chai, Shelach Lecha 11 ↩
13 OC siman 162 s.k. 7 ↩
14 ibid. se'if 8 ↩
15 It requires examination whether his intent is to be stringent in this (and it is possible that he was concerned only in this [case] due to the combination of the approach of the Riaz, who was stringent in everything, and the Rambam, who was stringent regarding the hot springs of Teveria since they are not fit for an animal) and therefore he wrote to be lenient only regarding [water] unfit on account of melacha and change of appearance; or that his intent is to permit everything, as is the plain meaning of the words of the M.A., and especially since in the source-references of the first edition *M.A.* is cited; and this still requires further study ↩
[9] (Halacha 1032)
Question: Are other liquids likewise fit for mayim acharonim?
Answer: The Raavad wrote1, and the Kolbo cited him2: 'For mayim rishonim, oil and other liquids do not purify the hands. [For] mayim acharonim, [one may use] any type of liquid, because they remove the zuhama. And I wonder about wine — how is wine different that it should be fit for netilas yadayim more than other liquids? And it is possible [that it is fit] because washing with wine resembles washing with water in cleaning the hands, which is not the case with oil and honey, since they are oily and clear and do not clean well ..'.
And the Meiri3 wrote: 'For rishonim no liquid purifies except water, or wine according to some; for acharonim, even oil and other liquids'.
And in Sefer HaBatim4 he wrote: 'For mayim rishonim the other liquids do not purify the hands except wine as we explained, but mayim acharonim may be used with any type of liquid'.
As a practical ruling the Beis Yosef5 wrote: 'And it is further written there [= Shulchan Shel Arba]: mayim rishonim [require] specifically water and not other liquids; [for mayim] acharonim, even other liquids such as wine and milk, for it is only to remove the zuhama, end quote .. And our master [= the Tur] already wrote in siman 171 that one does not wash the hands with wine, whether undiluted or diluted, even a washing that is not for the need of eating, and there the reason is explained'.
And in the Shulchan Aruch6 he wrote: 'Mayim acharonim may be washed with any type of liquid'.
And the Levush7 wrote: 'And one may wash with any type of liquid, for they too clean the hands of the zuhama like water, except for wine, for even though it cleans, one does not wash with it, on account of the disgrace of the wine'.
The Acharonim discussed the words of the Shulchan Aruch — how they reconcile with what is written in the Beis Yosef and with what he ruled in the Shulchan Aruch in siman 160 and siman 171, as follows:
For the poskim discussed the use of wine and other liquids in the washing of mayim rishonim, as explained in siman 160, and in the rinsing of the hands in siman 171. For regarding netilas yadayim it is written in siman 160, se'if 12: 'And there are those who say that wine is fit for netilas yadayim .. except that it is forbidden to do so lechatchilah, so that one should not appear to disparage an important thing that was elevated in status to the point that it establishes a bracha of its own; and there is one who says that all fruit juices are fit for netilas yadayim in a time of pressing need'.
And in siman 171, se'if 1, regarding rinsing the hands, he wrote: 'And one does not wash the hands with wine whether undiluted or diluted, even a washing that is not for the need of eating; and one does not throw bread, on account of disgracing food'. And the commentators wrote that the reason of disgracing food applies also to other liquids and not only to wine.
> If so, we have found two restrictions regarding rinsing the hands: 1) a general restriction on all liquids on account of disparaging food; 2) an additional restriction on wine on account of its importance, having been elevated in status.
But here, regarding mayim acharonim, the Mechaber did not mention these restrictions at all, and the Derishah8 wrote [and see also the Nachalas Tzvi9]: 'It ostensibly implies [= from the words of the Beis Yosef regarding mayim acharonim] that he speaks specifically of wine, and because wine is important and establishes a bracha of its own, but regarding other liquids he agrees that one may wash, in accordance with the view of the other poskim, and as the Rashba wrote explicitly in Toras HaBayis HaKatzar [giving] this reason, and the Beis Yosef cited it in siman 160 .. but in siman 171 .. he concludes and writes that what the Sages said, "and one does not wash the hands with wine," is on account of wasting food etc.; accordingly it appears that the same law applies to other liquids — one does not insert his hands to wash with them lechatchilah; but in the Shulchan Aruch in this siman, se'if 9, he ruled that mayim acharonim may be washed with any type of liquid'.
However the Maamar Mordechai10 wrote: 'For it is obvious that even the Tur, of blessed memory, agrees that all liquids are fit for washing mayim acharonim, and that if one washed his hands with them he has fulfilled [his obligation] and need not wash again; except that it is improper to do so lechatchilah on account of wasting food, as the reason is explained there. And behold, even the Rashba, of blessed memory, who deemed wine fit for mayim rishonim, nevertheless agrees that lechatchilah one should not do so, on account of disgrace, but rather he holds that it is fit for netilas yadayim, and the practical difference [is] bedieved or in a pressing situation where one has no water. And behold, the Kolbo and the author of Shulchan Shel Arba, of blessed memory, likewise wrote only that they are fit for mayim acharonim, but nevertheless they would agree that lechatchilah one should not do so, on account of disgracing food; therefore the matter is clear that what our master, of blessed memory, wrote, "and our master already wrote" etc., is only to alert the ear of the student that even though they are fit, nevertheless for another reason one should be careful not to wash with them, and the practical difference is at any rate regarding bedieved or where one has no water ..'.
> That is, according to the Maamar Mordechai, the intent of the Beis Yosef is that lechatchilah one should not wash with other liquids, and bedieved or when one has no water he fulfills [his obligation] with any liquid; and this is also the intent of the Mechaber here who wrote that one washes — meaning in a case where one has no water and the like.
And so wrote the Pri Megadim11 on the words of the Mechaber: 'And it speaks of [a case] where one has no water but only liquids — then it is permitted; but if he has water, one should not wash with liquids'.
And the Ben Ish Chai12 wrote: 'And if he has no water he should wash with other liquids and even with wine, since he has no [other way] to wash otherwise'.
However the Alter Rebbe in siman 18113 wrote: 'Mayim acharonim may be washed with any type of liquid even with oil, honey, and milk, because they remove the zuhama, except for wine, with which one does not wash on account of its importance, as was explained in siman 160 and 171'.
Ostensibly, from the plain meaning of his wording it appears that one may wash lechatchilah with any liquid; but some have written14 that even according to his words, it is only when one has no water. And see what he wrote regarding netilas yadayim in siman 16015: '(which is not the case with other fruit juices, with which one is permitted to wash if he has no water as written in siman 171 and 181)'. And accordingly, regarding other liquids, where the entire reason is only on account of disgracing food, it is permitted to wash with them lechatchilah in a case where one has no water, which is not the case with wine, in which there is also the reason of importance — one may not wash with it.
> If so, in practice, lechatchilah one must wash his hands with water; and when one has no water16 according to the Mechaber he may wash with any liquid including wine, and according to the Alter Rebbe he may wash with other liquids, except for wine.
Notes:
1 Tamim De'im siman 66 ↩
2 siman 23 ↩
3 Berachos – Kuntres Beis Yad ↩
4 Netilas Yadayim, Sha'ar 5 ↩
5 OC siman 181 ↩
6 OC ibid. se'if 9 ↩
7 OC ibid. se'if 7 ↩
8 OC ibid. s.k. 6 ↩
9 OC ibid. s.k. 9 ↩
10 OC ibid. s.k. 7 ↩
11 Eshel Avraham s.k. 7. The Ketzos HaShulchan cited it in siman 43, Badei HaShulchan s.k. 6 ↩
12 Year 1, Shelach Lecha, se'if 11 ↩
13 se'if 8 ↩
14 See Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe with the notes of Rav Alashvili, note 51 ↩
15 se'if 15 ↩
16 And see Piskei Teshuvos (OC ibid. os 12), who wrote that in a case where there is no concern of disgracing food — for example, a little liquid (less than a revi'is) that remained in the cup after drinking, which would go to waste anyway — it is ostensibly permitted lechatchilah to wash mayim acharonim with it; but some have written that nevertheless one must wash specifically with water when he has water at hand ↩
[10] (Halacha 1033)
Question: One who is stuck without any liquid — may he do mayim acharonim with saliva?
Answer: The Eshel Avraham (Butchatch)1 wrote, and the Responsa Maharsham cited him2: 'Regarding the cleaning of hands by means of saliva (I saw one great man, may his light shine, who relied on saliva after touching lice, with regard to the words of the holy Torah), [it appears] that one should not innovate a halacha based on what our Sages, of blessed memory, said3 — that for tefillah [one travels] four mil ahead and one mil behind for the sake of water. And why should one not clean his hands with his saliva? For it is possible that our Sages, of blessed memory, informed us [of this] regarding one who has no saliva in his mouth for whatever reason; or perhaps there are times when there is one whose mouth pains him from opening it and from bringing out his saliva, and it is for such a one that we needed the halacha of four mil. And in any case it appears that according to all, cleaning of the hands may be [accomplished] by means of saliva'.
And he further wrote4: 'Even though our Sages, of blessed memory, said that for tefillah [one travels] three mil ahead and one mil behind — regarding water for washing specifically, and that cleaning does not suffice — nevertheless it appears that saliva is effective just like actual water, and just as [any liquid] is effective, as any fruit juice and liquid in the world is [effective] for tefillah, so it is in this. And also regarding netilas yadayim for a seudah some say that fruit juice is effective, and all the more so in this; and the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, are [referring to a case] where [the hands] are very dirty and the saliva in his mouth over the course of a three-mil walk does not suffice for him'.
> If so, according to the Eshel Avraham and the Maharsham, in a place where there is no water, saliva is effective like fruit juice.
However in the Responsa Pnei Mevin5 he wrote: 'Behold, at the end of the first chapter of Eruvin, folio 17, we learned in the Mishnah [that soldiers in a camp] are exempt from washing the hands, and Abaye said: they taught [this] only regarding mayim rishonim, but mayim acharonim are obligatory .. And if it were so that one could wash with saliva for mayim acharonim — and you have no greater time of pressing need than a [military] camp — rather, perforce, that saliva is of no use. And ostensibly one could bring a proof that saliva is effective, for in Eruvin folio 21 the Rabbis taught: it happened with Rabbi Akiva, who was imprisoned in the prison etc., and he said to Rabbi Yehoshua, "Give me water that I may wash my hands." He said to him, "There is not enough to drink; [would there be enough] to wash your hands?" He said to him, "What can I do, when for [neglecting] them one is liable to death? Better that I die my own [natural] death than that I transgress the opinion of my colleagues." They said: he tasted nothing until [Rabbi Yehoshua] brought him water. And the Maharsha, in Chiddushei Aggados6, asked: surely mayim acharonim are more stringent than mayim rishonim! And he was forced to answer that he was asked about mayim acharonim. And if we were to say that saliva is effective in place of mayim acharonim, the Maharsha's difficulty is not difficult, for Rabbi Akiva gave up his life only over mayim rishonim, since for mayim acharonim one could take saliva; and if so, there would be a proof that it is permitted to take saliva. However the truth and the correct [view] is that saliva is not effective, for in Berachos folio 53 we derive from "והייתם קדושים" ("and you shall be holy") — these are mayim acharonim — and it is required on account of Birkas HaMazon, as the Derishah wrote at length in siman 181, see there; and saliva, which is not a manner of holiness and is of no use for anything of holiness, to clean his hands — therefore it is plain, in my humble opinion, that saliva is not effective for mayim acharonim'.
Many authors7 discussed the words of the Pnei Mevin, both regarding his proofs and regarding the conclusion of his words; however below we will write, from among their words, mainly the points relevant in practice:
The Minchas Elazar8, even though he refuted his proofs, nevertheless agreed with him that this is not a manner of holiness: 'And even though there is no proof for the matter to compel [it], nevertheless there is support from that spitting of the yevamah [in chalitzah] — even though the mitzvos have no [known] reason and are decrees of Scripture, nevertheless the plain meaning of the verse in its reasoning appears [to be] that she spits before the yavam in a manner of disgrace toward him, since he did not wish to establish a name for his brother in Israel, and thus shall the Beis Din say, "so shall be done to the man who will not build [his brother's house]" etc. Even though one could say that only the act of spitting [is disgraceful] and not the saliva in itself, nevertheless we find in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter HaRoeh9 that spitting [is forbidden on the Temple Mount] by a kal vachomer, to forbid [it] on the Temple Mount because it is disgusting, and see there10 that in a synagogue they permitted spitting, like a shoe, which is forbidden on the Temple Mount and permitted in a synagogue; and also a shoe that one takes in his hand and removes requires that he wash his hands afterward, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch11, and see there in the Magen Avraham — and spitting resembles a shoe somewhat in this. In any case it is a support for the matter that saliva does not clean and purify; but it appears more explicit from what we say there in the Gemara: "spitting, which is disgusting before the Holy One, blessed be He, all the more so" etc., end of the Gemara's words. And since we derive in the Gemara from "והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני ה' אלקיכם" ("And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy, for I, Hashem your God, am holy") that this refers to mayim acharonim, and the verse concludes "אני ה' אלקיכם" ("I am Hashem your God"), and with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He, saliva is disgusting as mentioned from the Gemara — if so, how is it possible to say that one may fulfill mayim acharonim with saliva, since they derived it from that verse "and you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy, for I, Hashem your God, am holy" as mentioned — and in any case there is support also from this'.
And in She'eris Yehudah (Blum)12 he wrote: 'However his words are correct, that one should not wash his hands for mayim acharonim with saliva, for "הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך" ("Offer it now to your governor — will he be pleased with you") etc. and not only before a king of flesh and blood does one not do so, but even before a simple person they do not do so, and all the more so before the King of kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And oil in which there was a mouse — one does not kindle it in a synagogue because it is disgusting13, and this too is disgusting, as Rashi wrote in Shabbos 121, end of side b, s.v. "rok" (saliva) .. And our Sages, of blessed memory, said at the end of the chapter Elu Devarim14: just as one who is soiled is unfit for the [Temple] service, so is he unfit for a bracha; and when his hands are full of saliva they too are soiled hands, and on the contrary [it is] unfit for a bracha and we should not say that it is a preparation for a bracha15.
However in Toras Yekusiel (Rosenberg)16 he wrote to him that the primary [view] is like the words of the Eshel Avraham and the Maharsham: 'And in my humble opinion, with the pardon of his honored Torah, this ruling is not to be relied upon at all, for where did he find this comparison that saliva is not a thing of holiness when it comes from the source of the mouth, a protected place — and any such novel [ruling] requires a proof. First, let me inform him that when I was in Sanz .. I found in his beis medrash a book of practices of the Gaon of the generation and his holiness, the Daas Kedoshim, may his memory be for a blessing, named Eshel Avraham, and there it is written, saying, that one may be lenient regarding washing with saliva for several things in a place where water is required; and he dwelt upon this difficulty — that there is no proof from the fact that in the [military] camp they did not exempt from mayim acharonim: (a) for one could say that for this very reason they did not exempt, [namely] because it is possible with saliva; (b) one could say [the halacha comes to] exclude one who has no saliva and the like; and indeed saliva is effective wherever washing is required, and a kal vachomer regarding cleaning the nose, which is a mere stringency — according to all, netilas yadayim with saliva is effective — end of the words of his holiness in the aforementioned holy book. And it is worthwhile to rely on him even when it is not a time of pressing need .. This is the ruling that emerges: in my humble opinion it is a complete permission to wash one's hands, however many times, with saliva in a place where water is not available to him and when one touches the nose within [it] in the middle of study, it is difficult to be careful to clean with water each time if he has none — certainly one may be lenient with saliva without any concern, in accordance with the rulings of the Eshel Avraham and the Maharsham; and this, in my humble opinion, is a clear ruling, with the help of Heaven; and I am strongly confident that his honored excellency will concede, "concessions of the Rabbis," that is [only] in their lifetime'.
> If so, the Acharonim are divided as to whether, in a place where there is no water, it is permitted to do mayim acharonim by means of saliva; and in practice it appears17 that certainly when one has other liquids he should clean with them and not with saliva, but in a case where he has nothing at all it is preferable to clean with saliva rather than to omit mayim acharonim altogether.
Notes:
1 OC siman 4 ↩
2 vol. 3, siman 241 ↩
3 Pesachim 46a ↩
4 siman 92, se'if 4 ↩
5 Chelek Orach Chaim, siman 32 ↩
6 They already noted (Minchas Elazar) that this is not found in the Maharsha, and in She'eris Yehudah he wrote that it is in the Rif in Ein Yaakov ↩
7 And see also Olas Yitzchak (Ratzabi) vol. 1, siman 44, os 5 ↩
8 Responsa vol. 3, siman 54. [And see that he wrote: 'But since we rule in the Shulchan Aruch there (se'if 3) that one does not wash for mayim acharonim with hot [water], for it bubbles and does not remove the zuhama, and see there in the Magen Avraham (s.k. 3) in the name of the Maharshal that it must be specifically cold — therefore one could say, since saliva is not cold, and as we rule in several places regarding the warmth of saliva concerning the lung that it is lukewarm, and if so, since it does not remove the zuhama [when it is] only [effective when] specifically cold, therefore one is not permitted to wash mayim acharonim with saliva, which is lukewarm and not cold. But see what is written in Toras Yekusiel and in Be'er Sarim (vol. 3, siman 32) to refute [this], for as a practical ruling [see halacha number 1030] only heat that the hand recoils from is ineffective for mayim acharonim ↩
9 Berachos 54a ↩
10 62b ↩
11 siman 4, se'if 18 ↩
12 Responsa, siman 17 ↩
13 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 154, se'if 12 ↩
14 Berachos 53b ↩
15 And see there that he discussed at length also from the law that it is forbidden to mention the Divine Name over the spitting, and if so one would have to wait, and we hold [that] a bracha [must come] immediately after washing, see there ↩
16 Responsa, siman 6 ↩
17 And as written in Halacha Berurah ibid. se'if 3. And not like what is written in Piskei Teshuvos ibid. os 12 ↩
[11] (Halacha 1034)
Question: Up to where is the place of washing, and how much water is needed for mayim acharonim? [A]
Answer: The Raavad wrote1, and so wrote the Rashba2: 'Mayim rishonim require a revi'is .. mayim acharonim require only that one rinse the hands with them. Mayim rishonim require that one make an interruption with them. Mayim acharonim do not require that one make an interruption with them. And it is explained in the Yerushalmi: what is [meant by] "to interrupt"? That one must wash and repeat [the washing], as we learned: the mayim rishonim purify the hands, the second [waters] purify the water that is upon the hand .. Mayim rishonim require washing up to the joint — meaning up to the palm of the hand, the place where the fingers end. Mayim acharonim require only up to the middle joint, and that suffices, for the food does not reach from here onward; and if it did reach [further], washing is required'.
And so wrote the Meiri3: 'The first — rishonim require a measure, that is, a revi'is; and acharonim require no measure, only enough that [the hands] be rinsed with them. The second — mayim rishonim require that one make an interruption, that is, that one wash and interrupt and repeat; acharonim need no interruption .. The eighteenth — rishonim [reach] up to the third joint according to some, and according to some up to the end of the palm of the hand; acharonim up to the second joint'.
And the Mordechai4, and the Beis Yosef cited him5, wrote: 'And one need pour upon his hands only once as we said above ..'.
> If so, we have seen: (a) that there is no [minimum] measure for mayim acharonim; (b) that a single washing suffices; (c) that the washing is up to the middle joint, unless [the hands] became dirtied from food above the middle joint.
But regarding the place of washing, it is written in Shulchan Shel Arba6: 'Mayim rishonim [reach] up to the joint, which is the place where the hand ends, where the hand and the forearm bone are joined; acharonim require only the palm of the hand, at the place where the fingers end, and there are those who say that this is the place [that is] the measure for mayim rishonim — the place where the fingers end — and the measure of the joint for mayim acharonim is the middle division of the fingers, since mayim acharonim are only to remove the zuhama, and from there upward the food does not touch them'.
However the Tur7 wrote in accordance with the words of the Raavad and the Rashba: 'And one need wash only up to the second joint of the fingers'.
And the Beis Yosef explained: 'So wrote the Rashba in Toras HaBayis, and the reason is because the dirt of the food does not reach above there; and in Sefer Shulchan Shel Arba he wrote that there are those who say one must wash up to the place where the fingers end, and with regard to halacha we hold in accordance with the words of the Rashba and our master [= the Tur]'.
And as a practical ruling the Mechaber8 wrote: 'One need wash only up to the second joint of the fingers'.
And the Magen Avraham9 explained: 'For above the joint the dirt of the food does not reach'. And the Eliyah Rabbah10 wrote: 'And if the food reaches from here onward, washing is required [also above] [Kolbo there]'.
And regarding the thumb the Mishnah Berurah11 wrote: 'And of the thumb one must wash the first joint'.
However, regarding the very law that one interrupts up to the second joint of the fingers, the Mishnah Berurah12 wrote: 'See the Biur HaGra, from which it is proven [according to what was explained in Damesek Eliezer] that this law depends on the aforementioned dispute in siman 161, se'if 4, that according to the first opinion there, the law regarding the washing of mayim acharonim would be up to the end of the knuckles of the fingers with the palm of the hand. And it is good to conduct oneself thus lechatchilah, to fulfill [the view of] all, when one has water'13.
And so it is written in the Kaf HaChaim14, based on the writings of the Arizal: 'However, in Sefer Shulchan [Shel] Arba he wrote that there are those who say one must wash up to the place where the fingers end, and the Beis Yosef cited it. And so he wrote above in siman 157, os 21, in the name of the Ari, of blessed memory, that for the mayim acharonim one must wash the 14 joints of the hand, that is, all the fingers, which have 14 joints as is known .. And we already wrote above in siman 25, os 75, that a matter which is not explicitly mentioned in the Gemara and about which the poskim are divided — the view of the Mekubalim decides [it], see there. And regarding the view of our master, of blessed memory, too, one could say that had he seen the words of the Ari, of blessed memory, in Shaar HaMitzvos, he would have ruled like him, and therefore with regard to the practical law one must wash all the fingers, that is, up to the palm of the hand, in accordance with the words of the Ari, of blessed memory, who wrote the mystical [meaning] of the matters'.
And regarding the quantity of the pourings it is written in the glosses of Mohara Azulai15: 'And the divine [sage], the honored Mahari"a, of blessed memory, wrote that one must pour upon his hands twice, alternately'.
The Alter Rebbe ruled in accordance with the words of most of the Rishonim and the Mechaber, and this is his wording16: 'One need wash only up to the second joint of the fingers, for above it the dirt of the food does not reach. And one need pour upon it only once. And there is no [minimum] measure for the water of this washing, and it is not like mayim rishonim, whose measure is not less than a revi'is'.
> If so, as a practical ruling there is no [minimum] measure for mayim acharonim17, and a single pouring suffices, and the washing [extends] up to the second joint of the fingers. In the next halacha we will see further approaches according to Kabbalah, and the Chabad minhag as a practical ruling.
--------------
Notes:
1 Tamim De'im siman 66 ↩
2 Toras HaBayis HaAroch, Bayis 6, Sha'ar 1, 69a, and Sha'ar 2, 70b ↩
3 Berachos – Kuntres Beis Yad ↩
4 Berachos, remez 207 ↩
5 OC siman 181 ↩
6 Sha'ar 1 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 181, se'if 4 ↩
8 ibid. s.k. 4 ↩
9 ibid. s.k. 5 ↩
10 ibid. s.k. 10 ↩
11 Biur Halacha there ↩
12 And the Mishnah Berurah wrote there: 'And the practice I have seen is evil in my eyes — that there are people who are careful about the washing of the mayim acharonim but do not fulfill the obligation of the law at all, for they place only a few drops of water on the tips of the fingers, [such] that it does not even reach the end of the first joint, and at times they suffice with a mere contact with water, and their hands remain soiled with the zuhama of the food as at first; and in truth, by law one must wash at least up to the end of the two joints of the fingers, as above' ↩
13 ibid. s.k. 17 ↩
14 on the Levush, os 4 ↩
15 Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 4 ↩
16 The Aruch HaShulchan wrote there, se'if 8: 'And know that I have seen that there are those who insist that there not be a revi'is in mayim acharonim, but specifically less than a revi'is, and I have not found this anywhere; and several of the great ones of the generation did not conduct themselves thus, and would wash with a revi'is and more than a revi'is [and I heard some reason for this, and it was not accepted by me]' ↩
[12] (Halacha 1035)
Question: Up to where is the place of washing, and how much water is needed for mayim acharonim? [B]
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that some wrote that one must wash all the fingers of the hand for mayim acharonim, but as a practical ruling one must wash up to the second joint of the fingers.
However we find several poskim who wrote that one must minimize the mayim acharonim, since according to the Zohar this water is a portion of the sitra achra, as the Chida wrote in Moreh B'Etzba1, cited also in Chesed La'alafim2: 'And one should be careful that the water be little, for it is the portion of the sitra achra, and if one adds, they add for him to cling to it'.
And in the Haggadah Simchas HaRegel3 he wrote: 'And they must be few upon the tips of his fingers so that there not be much nourishment for the sitra achra; and we have heard that with the pious Rav, our teacher Rabbi Yehudah Chavilyo, of blessed memory, a wondrous incident occurred in this [matter]'.
And likewise we find several of the great ones of Israel who insisted that the water be little, as written in Darkei Chaim (Zimetbaum)4, that our holy master, the author of the Divrei Chaim of Sanz, insisted not to place much mayim acharonim on the table'.
And so it is written in Darkei Chaim V'Shalom5 regarding the conduct of the holy Rav, the author of the Minchas Elazar: 'He would take only a little mayim acharonim'6.
And in practice it is written in Hayom Yom7: 'For the mayim acharonim one washes the tips of the fingers'8.
★ ★ ★
Question: Must one wash the lips with mayim acharonim?
Answer: The Gemara in tractate Yoma9 relates: 'Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah, and Rabbi Yosi were traveling on the road. Rabbi Meir would scrutinize names; Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi would not scrutinize names. When they arrived at a certain place, they sought lodging, and it was given to them. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Kidor. He said: Learn from this that he is a wicked man, as it is said, "כי דור תהפכת המה" ("for they are a generation of perversions"). Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi entrusted their purses to him; Rabbi Meir did not entrust his purse to him. He went and placed it at the grave of his [Kidor's] father. [Kidor] appeared to him in his dream: Come, take the purse that lies at the head of that man. The next day he said to them: Thus it appeared to me in my dream! They said to him: A dream of the eve of Shabbos has no substance. Rabbi Meir went and guarded it the entire day and brought it [back]. The next day they said to him [Kidor]: Give us our purses! He said to them: These things never were. Rabbi Meir said to them: Why did you not scrutinize the name? They said to him: Why did you, master, not tell us? He said to them: I would say [that there is] a suspicion; but did I say to establish [him as certainly wicked]? They dragged him and brought him into a shop; they saw lentils on his mustache they went and gave this sign to his wife, and took their purses and brought [them back]. He went and killed his wife. This is [what is taught in a baraisa] .. the mayim acharonim killed the person'.
And Rashi wrote: 'The mayim acharonim killed the person — this is the wife of this one, for had he washed mayim acharonim in the manner of those who wash their hands to wipe their mustache with moist hands, the lentils would not have been visible'.
If so, we see from the words of Rashi that their minhag with mayim acharonim was to wash the lips as well.
And so it is written in Mekor Chaim (Bachrach)10: 'One should also wash the lip and the lips and [it has] a proper reason, and all the more so for one who recites Birkas HaMazon with a zimun, for the letters בומ"ץ are the letters of the lip, and also the beard moves with the lower jaw — except for [the letters] אל"ת מח"ס — and this, in my humble opinion, is [like] a "krokodeli"'.
And so it is written in the Responsa His'orerus Teshuvah11: 'That those who practice to wash mayim acharonim must also wash his mouth, to clean what is stuck to it from the remnants of food; and so I saw the honored [conduct of] my master, my father, my teacher [= the Chasam Sofer], may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing, may his merit protect us, conduct himself; and so it appears from Rashi in Yoma there'.
And so it is written in the siddur Tzelosa D'Avraham (Landau)12, that the Rebbe of Tchechnov practiced [thus], for he would wash around his lips.
But in Kaf HaChaim (Palagi)13 he wrote: 'When he washes his hands for mayim acharonim he should say this: "ח'לק א'דם ר'שע מאלהים ונחלת אמרו מאל" ("This is the portion of a wicked man from God, and the heritage of his decree from the Almighty"), and he should have in mind the initial letters אח"ר, which is the sitra achra — so wrote the disciples of the Ari .. And for this reason one must be careful to place little water on his hands, and not give much to the sitra achra, and according to this it appears that those who wash their lips too with mayim acharonim do not act well, for it is specifically to the tips of his fingers that permission was given to give a portion to the sitra achra, and not in his mouth and his lips, and if he wishes to wash his hands and mouth well, and with much water, he should do so before or after; and from the words of Rashi in Yoma folio 83, side b, there is no proof to the contrary, and study [this] well'.
And the Ben Ish Chai14 cited it: 'One should be careful that the mayim acharonim be little and not increase them, for they are the portion of the sitra achra; and if his hands are very soiled from the food, and likewise his mouth and mustache, which require much water in their washing, it is good that he wash them before the washing of mayim acharonim, with the intent to eat more afterward, and these will be like "middle waters" (mayim emtza'im); and likewise he should do [thus]: after he washes them he should eat a piece of bread from the table, so that that washing not be considered mayim acharonim; and after he eats the piece of bread and the like, he should wash mayim acharonim, a little, and recite Birkas HaMazon'15.
However in practice it is written in Hayom Yom there: 'And afterward one passes them, while they are still moist, over the lips'.
> If so, our minhag is to wash only the tips of the fingers and afterward to pass [them] over the lips.
--------------
Notes:
1 os 114 ↩
2 siman 181, s.k. 1 ↩
3 before Birkas HaMazon ↩
4 os 76 ↩
5 os 303 ↩
6 And Piskei Teshuvos wrote in siman 181, note 36, that so is the universal practice ↩
7 4 Kislev, cited in Sefer HaMinhagim p. 22 ↩
8 In issue 620 of Hiskashrus, the Rishg wrote to explain that our minhag is founded on the fact that by law there is today no obligation of mayim acharonim [see halacha number 1028] (and he further cited the words of the Mor U'Ketzia, who wrote an additional reason, that today one does not eat with the hands but with eating utensils), and since the entire reason is according to the mystical [tradition], and according to the mystical [tradition] this is an evil portion, for the sitra achra, therefore one minimizes it ↩
9 83b ↩
10 vol. 2, Kitzur Halachos, siman 181, se'if 1 ↩
11 vol. 1, siman 63 ↩
12 vol. 2, p. 481 ↩
13 siman 25, os 2. But see halacha 1024 that according to the Alter Rebbe there is no ruach ra'ah in water that is in a vessel ↩
14 Year 1, Shelach Lecha, se'if 8 ↩
15 And see what is written in Halichos Olam, vol. 2, Parashas Shelach, os 2 ↩
[13] (Halacha 1036)
Question: How must the hands be at the time of the washing of mayim acharonim?
Answer: The Gemara in tractate Sotah1 says: 'Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: mayim rishonim — one must raise his hands upward; mayim acharonim — one must lower his hands downward'.
And Rashi explained: 'One must lower his hands downward — so that the zuhama of the food on his hands should go down, for they are [meant] to remove the zuhama'.
And so wrote the Rambam2: 'Mayim rishonim — one must raise his hands upward, so that the water not go out beyond the joint and return and defile the hands; and acharonim — one must lower his hands downward, so that all the force of the salt should leave [from] upon his hands'.
[An explanation according to the mystical [approach] the Maharal wrote in Chiddushei Aggados: for mayim rishonim one should raise his hand, etc. The explanation: for it is fitting that the mayim rishonim be raised, for so is fitting for the hands, since it is called "netilas yadayim," and the term "netilah" means raising, as in3 "וינטלם וינשאם כל ימי עולם" ("and He bore them and lifted them all the days of old"), and it is written4 "וישא את ידיו" ("and he lifted his hands"), and it is written "שאו ידיכם קודש" ("lift your hands in holiness")5, for [in] netilas yadayim the left is with the right, and it is written6 "ימין ה' רוממה" ("the right hand of Hashem is exalted"), and therefore one must raise his hands. And these matters are exceedingly, exceedingly deep, for mayim rishonim are from the side of the right, and the right elevates and raises the holiness; whereas mayim acharonim are because of the Sodomite salt, and it is from the side of the left, and just as the right elevates in holiness, so the left brings down forcefully every thing. And even though in the baraisa the reason for the mayim rishonim is explained — that the water should not return and defile the hand — behold, Rav did not explain a reason; and why did he not explain the reason as in the baraisa, and on the contrary an Amora must explain his words? Only because his words are according to [hidden] wisdom'7].
And as a practical ruling the Mechaber8 wrote: 'One must lower the tips of his fingers downward, so that the zuhama should go down'.
And the Maharshal9 wrote, and the Magen Avraham10 cited him: 'But nevertheless one does not wash from within the vessel, as the gentiles wash — even with mayim acharonim it is not proper, for this water receives the zuhama, and the hands receive [it] again from it'.
[And the Kaf HaChaim11 wrote: 'And accordingly it appears that if there was much water, in a manner that even if the water returns to his hands there will be no zuhama in it, even with mayim acharonim it is permitted to wash from within the vessel; however, according to the mystical [meaning] of the matters, that they are the portion of the sitra achra, it appears that it must be specifically by pouring'. And in Shulchan HaTahor12 he wrote: 'It is forbidden to swish his hands within the vessel, for this is worth nothing, since we require a washing from vessel to vessel'].
On the other hand, the Eliyah Rabbah13 commented on the words of the Maharshal: 'And in truth his reasoning is not compelling, for since it cleans the hands, perhaps it is permitted even with acharonim, and furthermore, the poskim wrote that the middle [waters] and the acharonim are completely alike, except for what was mentioned explicitly, and as was explained in siman 173'.
The Alter Rebbe14 wrote: 'One must lower the tips of his fingers downward at the time of the washing, so that the zuhama should go down (and therefore one should not wash his hands within the vessel, but rather should pour upon them, so that the zuhama should go down)'.
That is, the Alter Rebbe wrote the law of the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch, and added in parentheses the words of the Maharshal; and it is possible that the Alter Rebbe was in doubt regarding this law, based on what the Eliyah Rabbah wrote, or the Kaf HaChaim based on the mystical [tradition].
And in Chikrei Halachos (Pikarski)15 he wrote to explain that since the Alter Rebbe already wrote in se'if 1 the words of Rabbeinu Yonah — that the reason we do not recite a bracha over the mayim acharonim is because we do not perform the mitzvah properly, for we do not anoint the hands with fragrant oil to remove the zuhama — 'if so, one could say [that] because today we do not entirely remove the zuhama, it is possible that today it is permitted even to wash within the vessel, and our master, of blessed memory, is in doubt about this, and therefore he brackets this law that it is forbidden to wash within the vessel; and this is clear and simple'.
> If so, in practice, in the washing of mayim acharonim the hands must be lowered downward.
Notes:
1 4b ↩
2 Hilchos Brochos ch. 6, halacha 16 ↩
3 Yeshaya 63:9 ↩
4 Vayikra 9:22 ↩
5 Tehillim 134:2 ↩
6 ibid. 118:16 ↩
7 And he further wrote there: 'And that which they said that a person must raise his hands when he washes mayim rishonim — for [in] netilas yadayim with mayim rishonim, then the left with the right is exalted and raises them in holiness from the side of the right; and the opposite of this is mayim acharonim, because of the Sodomite salt, and then the right with the left pushes away and removes the zuhama' ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 181, se'if 5 ↩
9 Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin ch. 8, siman 10 ↩
10 OC ibid. s.k. 1 ↩
11 ibid. s.k. 9 ↩
12 OC ibid. se'if 3 ↩
13 OC ibid. s.k. 9 ↩
14 Shulchan Aruch OC ibid. se'if 5 ↩
15 vol. 8, 16a ↩
[14] (Halacha 1037)
Question: Must one dry the hands after the washing?
Answer: The Rambam1 wrote: 'And anyone who washes his hands at the end dries [them] and afterward recites the bracha'.
And so it is explained in the Maharil2, who wrote: 'It is written in the small Or Zarua [= so it is in Hagahos Ashri3] regarding netilas yadayim, and this is its wording: one should not recite a bracha until after drying. Mahar"i Segal said that he posed a difficulty to the Maharash, of blessed memory: it is stated in Tosafos, first chapter of Pesachim, that one recites the bracha before drying, and for this reason it is "over l'asiyasan" (prior to the performance). And he answered him that it is stated in the large Or Zarua4 that this refers to mayim acharonim, and "one should not recite a bracha" means one should not recite Birkas HaMazon; and study [this] well'.
But the Raavad5 wrote regarding water: 'rishonim require drying for eating; mayim acharonim do not require [drying] for the bracha'.
And so wrote the Rashba6: 'But mayim acharonim do not require drying'7. And so wrote other Rishonim8.
And the Meiri9 wrote: 'The sixteenth: rishonim require drying for eating; acharonim do not require drying for the bracha; and this is not in accordance with the view of the great authors'.
As a practical ruling the Mechaber10 wrote: 'There are those who say that mayim acharonim do not require drying; and according to the Rambam one dries [them] and afterward recites the bracha'.
And in siman 17311 he wrote: 'All the matters that apply to the acharonim apply to the middle [waters] whether to be lenient or stringent, except for a diversion of attention (hesech hadaas), which invalidates regarding the middle [waters], since one still wishes to eat and his hands require guarding; and except for the drying of the hands, for the middle [waters] require drying like the rishonim'.
And the Mishnah Berurah12 wrote: 'And see above, at the end of siman 173, [that] the view of the Mechaber implies to be lenient in this'13.
The Maharshal14 wrote, and the Magen Avraham15 cited him: 'And even though the Rambam wrote, and this is his wording, "anyone who washes his hands at the end dries [them] and afterward recites the bracha," this is specifically for the one reciting the bracha, for it is not fitting to recite [a bracha] with the Divine Name without drying, [in the manner of] "הכון לקראת אלהיך" ("prepare to meet your God"), but the others do not require drying'.
But the Machatzis HaShekel wrote, and so wrote the Pri Megadim in Eshel Avraham there: 'And if so, [this applies] specifically for them, for only one would recite the bracha, and the rest fulfilled [their obligation] by listening, as written in siman 183, se'if 7. But according to our minhag, based on what the Acharonim wrote there, that even [when] they make a zimun together, nevertheless each one recites the bracha for himself — if so, all of them require drying, even according to the Maharshal'.
On the other hand, the Eliyah Rabbah16 wrote: 'It also appears to me, as a practical ruling, that the first opinion is the primary one, for it is the view of most poskim17 — the Kolbo in the name of the Raavad, and Orchos Chaim [Hilchos Netilas Yadayim, os 31], and Sefer Shulchan Shel Arba, and so the Rashba wrote explicitly'.
And in practice the Alter Rebbe18 wrote: 'There are those who say that mayim acharonim do not require drying; and there is one who says that the one reciting the bracha dries his hands first and afterward recites the bracha, but those seated [at the table] need not dry [them] according to all, and even regarding the one reciting the bracha one may be lenient in [these] Rabbinic matters see siman 173'.
From the words of the Alter Rebbe, who wrote that even regarding the one reciting the bracha one may be lenient in Rabbinic matters, it is understood that this [applies] even today, when everyone recites the bracha, and not like what the Machatzis HaShekel and the Pri Megadim wrote.
> If so, in practice, by law one need not dry the hands after the washing of mayim acharonim.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Brochos ch. 6, halacha 20 ↩
2 Hilchos Netilas Yadayim, os 1. See Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, OC siman 181, os 5. Toras Chaim (Sofer) there, s.k. 7 ↩
3 Berachos ch. 2, siman 11, at its end ↩
4 However in the Or Zarua (vol. 1, siman 79) before us it is explicit that it refers to mayim rishonim ↩
5 Tamim De'im siman 66 ↩
6 Toras HaBayis HaAroch, Bayis 6, Sha'ar 2, 70b, and in Toras HaBayis HaKatzar 71a ↩
7 The Beis Yosef (OC siman 181) wrote: *'it is implied* from the words of the Rashba in Toras HaBayis that for mayim acharonim one need not dry his hands'. And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote (there, s.k. 8): 'And therefore I wonder at our master the Beis Yosef, who wrote that this is [merely] implied from the Rashba, *when he wrote it explicitly in two places'* ↩
8 See Shulchan Shel Arba, Sha'ar 1. Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Netilas Yadayim, siman 31. Kolbo, siman 23 ↩
9 Berachos – Kuntres Beis Yad ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 181, se'if 8 ↩
11 se'if 3 ↩
12 siman 181, s.k. 19 ↩
13 And see what is written in Halacha Berurah, siman 181, Berur Halacha, os 14, that the primary [view] in the opinion of the Mechaber is to be lenient ↩
14 Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin ch. 8, siman 10 ↩
15 siman 181, s.k. 6 ↩
16 ibid. s.k. 8 ↩
17 But see Toras Chaim Sofer there, what he noted on his words ↩
18 ibid. se'if 7 ↩
[15] (Halacha 1038)
Question: Are women also obligated in mayim acharonim?
Answer: The Yaavetz wrote in Mor U'Ketzia1: 'But I have another reason to distinguish between their time and our time, for they were accustomed to eat with their fingers, without spoon and fork, as stated in Nedarim2, that one said to his fellow, "How long will you feed me your saliva?" — [it is] in such a case that it is obligatory, because the zuhama is abundant, [and] for this reason they were stringent about it. This is not the case with us in this country, where our manner is to eat with spoons and forks, and we do not, for the most part, hold the food with the hands — it stands to reason that washing is not required, even according to the view of the masters of Kabbalah, for the reason is nothing but on account of the zuhama. However, if one is not careful not to touch the food except by means of some other thing, he certainly must always wash. But one who is certain that he did not touch [it] — it is plain to me that there is no place for this washing at all. And perhaps for this reason our fastidious women do not practice the washing of mayim acharonim. But those who are not careful to eat with spoon and fork, and whose hands are not clean, certainly they too are obligated in the washing of mayim acharonim like men, without any difference, and one must inform them.
If so, it is explained from the words of the Mor U'Ketzia that essentially women too are obligated in mayim acharonim, [except that they were accustomed to be lenient since one eats with cutlery].
And thus many poskim held in practice that women are obligated in mayim acharonim, as explained in Toras Chaim (Sofer)3: 'And in the washing of mayim acharonim certainly women too are obligated for it is on account of the Sodomite salt that one became obligated, and what difference is there between a woman and a man'.
[In the Aruch HaShulchan4 he wrote: 'And every head of household should admonish the members of his household to be careful in this'].
Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, in the Responsa Salmas Chaim5, was asked: 'Regarding mayim acharonim for women, for ostensibly, whether according to the reason "והייתם קדושים" ("and you shall be holy") — these are mayim acharonim — or according to the reason of the Sodomite salt, a woman is equal to a man'. And he answered to this: 'It is already self-evident and correct, there is no doubt'.
And so wrote many poskim, as explained in Revavos Efraim6, [and] Rav Ovadia Yosef in Halichos Olam7. And in Maamar Mordechai (Eliyahu)8 he wrote: 'Women too are obligated in mayim acharonim like men, and perhaps more than them, since they are more careful in cleanliness (acharonim)'.
And in Halichos Bas Yisrael9 he wrote in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that women are obligated, but 'he added that it is possible that the women who are not particular to wash for mayim acharonim rely on the incident brought in the Gemara — [that] mayim acharonim removed a woman from her husband, and even killed the person10 — and for this reason they refrain from taking this washing upon themselves; but in his opinion they have nothing on which to rely, and in a place where the men practice to wash, the women too should practice thus'.
And in Shevet HaKehosi11 he wrote: '(a) Women who are not careful not to touch the food except by means of some other thing are obligated in the washing of mayim acharonim by law, like men. (b) And it is good that all women wash mayim acharonim, by virtue of the reason according to Kabbalah, which is to give a portion to the sitra achra so that they not be harmed, God forbid'.
And in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos12 he wrote: 'I have not found any basis to distinguish between men and women, except for those who imagine that mayim acharonim are merely a stringency, and in accordance with the approach of Tosafos that Sodomite salt is not found among us; and therefore, even though in the Shulchan Aruch, at the beginning of siman 181, he ruled like the Rambam and the other poskim that even nowadays mayim acharonim are obligatory, nevertheless at the end of the siman the approach of Tosafos is brought, that there are those who practice not to wash; and even though the Magen Avraham wrote in the name of the Mekubalim, and [so] in the Birkei Yosef, to be stringent in this. [See in the Magen Avraham in the name of the Mekubalim that its obligation is very stringent.] Nevertheless women have not been accustomed [to observe] stringencies whose basis is in the secret of Hashem; but according to the approach of the Gra, may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing, mayim acharonim are an obligation by law, [and] it is obvious that it applies to women as to men. And I have also seen among Chassidim and men of [good] deeds that women too practiced mayim acharonim; and therefore, even though there is a basis and a primary [ground] by law for women not to wash — since according to their approach it is only a stringency, as stated — nevertheless when they are stringent they will receive their reward for it, provided that it not stand out in a manner that would appear as haughtiness. And all this [is] when the hands are clean; but it is common that the hands are soiled from food, and then it is explicit in the Gemara, Berachos 53[b], that it is forbidden to recite a bracha with soiled hands, and in the holy Zohar, Parashas Balak (186), he is stringent that one is liable to death if he recites a bracha, and one must dry [them] well, as explained in the Rambam, chapter 6 of Brochos (halacha 20); and in this women are obligated, for this is an obligation of washing by law, and it is proper to admonish them regarding it'.
On the other hand, in Shevet HaLevi13 he justified the minhag that women do not wash mayim acharonim: 'Regarding mayim acharonim there is no difference between men and women according to the primary law; indeed, according to the poskim in OC at the end of siman 181 that even in our time the obligation of mayim acharonim applies — the minhag that the women do not wash so much is based on the Shulchan Aruch there, that in our time mayim acharonim do not apply at all and one is only stringent upon oneself, and women did not accept [it] upon themselves'.
> If so, we have seen that according to the primary law most poskim held that women are obligated in mayim acharonim like men; however the minhag of many women is that they do not wash mayim acharonim14, [and it appears that this is widespread among Anash], and there are those who justified the minhag.
--------------
Notes:
1 OC siman 181 ↩
2 49b ↩
3 OC ibid. s.k. 1 ↩
4 OC ibid. se'if 5. (However there is no clear proof in his wording, but several poskim understood him thus, that his intent is to include women) ↩
5 OC siman 174, and so it is written in Hanhagos U'Pesakim (Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld), Hilchos Mayim Acharonim ↩
6 vol. 1, siman 140, os 3 ↩
7 vol. 2, Parashas Shelach Lecha, note 1. And see Yalkut Yosef, Hilchos Netilas Yadayim, siman 181, note 2. And Halacha Berurah, siman 181, os 1 ↩
8 vol. 2, OC siman 18 ↩
9 p. 58 ↩
10 Chullin 106a. Yoma 83b ↩
11 Responsa, vol. 1, siman 93 ↩
12 vol. 1, siman 174 ↩
13 Responsa, vol. 4, siman 23 ↩
14 And see in Halichos Bas Yisrael there, in the name of the Rav, Rabbi Yonah Mertzbach, who said that the minhag was in Ashkenaz, even in the homes of those who tremble at the word of Hashem, that the women did not wash their hands for mayim acharonim ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupEating Salt at the End of the Seudah
[1] (Halacha 1025)
Question: Must one eat salt and drink water at the conclusion of the seudah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Brochos1 states: 'And Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Chiya: After all your eating, eat salt, and after all your drinking, drink water, and you will not be harmed. It was likewise taught in a Baraisa: After all your eating, eat salt, and after all your drinking, drink water, and you will not be harmed. It was taught in another Baraisa: One who ate any food but did not eat salt, or drank any beverage but did not drink water — during the day he should be concerned about bad breath, and at night he should be concerned about askara. The Rabbis taught: One who softens his food with water will not come to intestinal illness. And how much? Rav Chisda said: A pitcher per loaf.'
However, several of the Rishonim wrote that nowadays this minhag is not practiced, as the Tosafos wrote2: 'Or alternatively, because we are not accustomed to dip our fingers in salt after eating.'
And so wrote the Mordechai3: 'The Ri explained that this applies only to them, who were accustomed to wash their hands after the seudah because of Sodomite salt, for in their days they were accustomed to dip in salt, as we say, "After your eating, eat salt." But we, among whom Sodomite salt is not found, and who are not accustomed to dip in salt after the seudah — the washing does not prevent us from making a bracha.'
And regarding the reason for the minhag, the Shibbolei HaLeket wrote4, and the Beis Yosef cited it5: 'The Rabbis taught: One who ate any food but did not eat salt, or drank any beverage but did not drink water — during the day he should be concerned about bad breath, and at night he should be concerned about bad breath and about askara. And the great authorities of blessed memory wrote that since, if he does not eat and if he does not drink there is danger, he need not make any bracha — just as is the law regarding one who drinks a beverage for medicinal purposes, who need not make a bracha. And one who eats salt after his eating should not eat it with the thumb, for it is harmful in that it brings the burial of children; nor with the little finger, for it is harmful in that it brings poverty; nor with the index finger, for it is harmful in that it brings a bad reputation; but rather with the middle finger and the ring finger. And now the world does not practice [eating] salt, because of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes.'6.
However, the Rema in Darkei Moshe7 wrote a different reason: 'And it appears to me to reconcile the minhag that they were not accustomed to eat salt and to drink water8 after the seudah, because in their days there was no salt in their bread, as written above siman 167, and therefore they were accustomed to eat salt at the end, for it is possible that even in their other foods they were not accustomed to put salt; but in this time, when there is salt in every bread, as explained above .. there is no need to eat salt at the end. And so it is regarding the drinking of water, for all our beverages are mostly water, such as beer or honey-drink and the like, therefore we do not need to drink water at the end, as stated above.'
And the Ma'adanei Yom Tov wrote9: 'And it appears to me [there is] support and proof for his words from our master [=the Rosh], and likewise the Rif, who omitted it and did not write this.'
As a matter of halacha, the Mechaber10 cited the law of the Gemara: 'One who ate any food but did not eat salt, or drank any beverage but did not drink water — during the day he should be concerned about bad breath, and at night about bad breath and about askara. And one who eats salt after his eating should not eat it with the thumb, for it is harmful in that it brings the burial of children; nor with the little finger, for it is harmful in that it brings poverty; nor with the index finger, for it is harmful in that it brings ש"ר11; but rather with the middle finger and the ring finger.'
And the Rema wrote: 'And see above siman 170 as to why we are not accustomed to eat salt and drink water.'
And there12 he wrote: 'After all your eating, eat salt, and after all your drinking, drink water, as will be explained below siman 179. And it appears to me [that this applies] specifically when there was no salt in the bread or in the foods he ate, and likewise when he did not drink a beverage that contains water; but otherwise there is nothing to be concerned about. And so we are accustomed not to be careful about eating salt and drinking water after the seudah, for the reason explained.'
However, the Magen Avraham wrote13: 'One who ate any food etc. And nowadays the natures have changed.'
And the Machatzis HaShekel wrote: 'He gave a different reason from what the Rema wrote above siman 170 as to why we do not practice thus, and see there.'
And it is explained in the Pri Megadim14 that there is a practical difference between the explanation of the Rema and the explanation of the Magen Avraham: 'And the Rabbi [Rema] in siman 170 paragraph 22 gave a different reason — that our bread contains salt, and our beverages contain water. And the Magen Avraham wrote that even if there is no salt and he drank fruit juice and the like [the same applies].'15.
> That is to say, according to the Rema's approach, in a case where one drank fruit juice and ate food without salt, he would be required to fulfill the minhag, whereas according to the Magen Avraham there is no need at all, because of the change in nature.
The Alter Rebbe16 wrote like the words of the Magen Avraham: 'After all your eating, eat salt, and after all your drinking, drink water, and you will not be harmed. One who ate any food but did not eat salt, or drank any beverage but did not drink water — during the day he should be concerned about bad breath, and at night about bad breath and about askara; and anyone who softens his food with water will not come to intestinal illness. And one who eats salt after his eating should not eat it with the thumb, because it is harmful in that it brings the burial of children; nor with the little finger, because it is harmful in that it brings poverty; nor with the index finger, because it is harmful in that it brings a bad boil; but rather with the middle finger and the ring finger. And nowadays they do not practice at all the eating of salt17 after the seudah, and they are not harmed, because the natures have changed, as explained in siman 173.'
> Thus it is explained in the poskim that nowadays we do not practice the minhag of eating salt at the conclusion of the seudah, and some have written likewise regarding the drinking of water.
--------------
Notes:
1 מ, א ↩
2 עירובין יז, ב ↩
3 ברכות רמז קצא ↩
4 סדר ברכות סי' קמט ↩
5 או"ח סי' קעט ↩
6 However, this requires explanation, for the Tosafos wrote that Sodomite salt is not found, and if so, why should this be a reason not to eat salt? And this requires further examination. ↩
7 או"ח סי' קעט אות ב ↩
8 To note that the Shibbolei HaLeket wrote only that they were not accustomed [to eat] salt, which fits his approach that the concern is on account of the Sodomite salt; however, the Rema wrote also regarding water, which fits his approach that the reason we do not practice it is because there is already salt and water in our foods and beverages. ↩
9 ברכות פ"ו סי' כב אות ח ↩
10 שו"ע או"ח סי' קעט ס"ו. וראה שו"ת רב פעלים ח"ד או"ח סי' ט ↩
11 We find in the words of the poskim several approaches as to how to decipher these abbreviations: 1) Some wrote (Levush OC there paragraph 6; Maztik Bracha there note 3): *a bad reputation (לשם רע)*. 2) Some wrote (see Malbushei Yom Tov note 3; א"ר ס"ק ט; and so the Alter Rebbe held) *a bad boil (לשחין רע)*. 3) Some wrote (see Ruach Chaim (Palagi) note 4): *bloodshed (לשפיכות דמים)*. ↩
12 סי' קע ס"ב ↩
13 סי' קעט ס"ק ח ↩
14 א"א סי' קעט ס"ק ח ↩
15 The Eshel Avraham (Butshatsh) siman 170 wrote: 'That which our Sages of blessed memory said, "he drank but did not drink water" etc. — it appears that this is only with beverages such as wine, apple wine, and that which is pressed from other fruits, where there is no water at all, for fruit juice has no character of water at all; whereas beverages that are mixed with water, even if fruit juice is the majority, are nonetheless considered as if he drank water. And similarly, regarding that which our Sages of blessed memory said, "he ate but did not eat salt," there is reliance on the small amount of salt in the bread, as the poskim of blessed memory wrote [siman 167 paragraph 5] regarding dipping the HaMotzi [bread] in salt, that when there is salt in the bread it is not necessary, and so it is regarding water — well [understood].' ↩
16 שו"ע או"ח סי' קעט ס"ח ↩
17 To note that the Alter Rebbe related only to salt and not to water, like the words of the Shibbolei HaLeket (and in the notes of the Ra'a to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, note 59, it is written that one may say this is because it is the usual practice to drink water after the seudah on account of thirst). ↩