2:
We recall that originally the requirement to wash the hands before eating bread only applied to bread made from produce which was Terumah, the priestly donative, and it was only subsequently that the requirement was extended to all produce. Our mishnah is concerned with a priest who wishes to eat bread made from Terumah produce and he knows that only one of his hands is ritually impure (or possibly he does not have enough water to wash both hands). Thus Tanna Kamma says that if a priest washes only one hand and only pours water over it once his hand is ritually pure enough to eat Terumah. (Priests - but not lay people - were required to pour water twice over their hands - the first time to purify the hands and the second time to purify the droplets of water left on the hand which had contracted the original impurity when the water came into contact with the hand [see paragraph 16 on 1:1].) Rambam explains that the requirement for a second washing only applies when washing both hands at the same time insofar as the water rendered impure by contact with an impure hand passes on to the other and cannot therefore render it pure, and the second hand will only become ritually pure after the second water has been poured. However, says Rambam, if one is washing only one hand none of this applies and even if the second water used was less than 'one quarter' the hand is still ritually pure.

3:
Where Rabbi Me'ir disagrees with Tanna Kamma is when both hands were washed from one jug of water. According to the Gemara [Chagigah 24b] when both hands are known to the priest to be ritually impure each one must be washed separately. Therefore, it follows, according to Tanna Kamma that for each hand only one wash is really needed (because the sullied water does not reach the other hand) and therefore for the second water less than 'one quarter' is quite acceptable. Rabbi Me'ir requires the second water to contain the minimum of 'one quarter', because he considers the droplets left on the hands to be impure and therefore at least 'one quarter' is required to purify the droplets of water. Halakhah, of course, follows Tanna Kamma.

4:
The same discrepancy applies to the seifa of our mishnah. We must obviously assume that the water poured over the hands was collected in a basin before being disposed of. If the priest's loaf of bread accidentally falls into the water thus collected in the basin Tanna Kamma holds that it is ritually pure and acceptable for eating (halakhically, not aesthetically - we must assume a very hungry priest). Rabbi Ovadya of Bertinoro in his commentary on our mishnah explains that according to Tanna Kamma if the first water was sufficient to render the priest's hand pure it must also have been sufficient to render itself pure. Rabbi Yosé disagrees with Tanna Kamma; he holds that the after passing over the impure hands the water has assumed their impurity at the same time as removing from the hands. Here, too, halakhah follows Tanna Kamma.

5:
I must say that when going into the minutiae of our mishnah I sometimes asked myself how relevant and important these minor details were to the sages. I shall address this question next.

Naomi Koltun-Fromm writes:

I'm not sure I can answer or address Marc's questions - though I certainly applaud his efforts to think through this complicated issue in modern theology and practice (keep on thinking!) Rather I would like to address the issue of ritual purity 'in context' that is in the biblical texts - and later in the rabbinic text. According to the biblical texts, to purify ritually - i.e. through waiting, bathing or the ashes of the red heifer does only that: purify - it does not sanctify. It prepares one, perhaps, for sanctification, but the very act of purifying does not necessarily mean that the person or thing purified will actually be sanctified or come in contact or near to the holy. The 'be holy for I am holy' texts do not directly imply purity - but encompass all sorts of other behaviors (avoidance of idolatry, incest and murder for instance - but keeping the sabbath and honoring one's elders too). Hence in my reading of the the biblical texts there are different acts by which one ritually purifies and by which one sanctifies (or becomes holy). What is of course tricky about the texts is that there seem to be some acts that do both! Which is where the hand washing comes in. One can argue both ways, I think. There is ample evidence in the biblical text that the word kadosh sometimes means to make holy and sometimes means to purify. But how do the rabbis understand it? Are they preparing their hands for a holy act by ritually purifying them separately from the rest of their bodies or are they indeed sanctifying their hands - creating holiness where it wasn't before - having moved beyond the biblical text both in understanding and ritual (since hand washing is not a biblical injunction). I bring this all up to help (but probably more to confuse!) the issues in the mishnah - as well as for Marc. What do the rabbis mean when they say kadosh in reference to hand washing? What is Marc's understanding of the purpose of washing the hands? Is he purifying or sanctifying and to what end? And does it all matter? does this help or hinder his want/need to bring purity/holiness back into everyday life? To sum up (perhaps - I am still working through these issues myself) I see a distinction between purity and holiness in the biblical texts. Marc addresses the issue as if they are the same thing: 'Given that the Jewish people as a whole are considered in a state of ritual impurity, but our hands may be purified through 'netilat yadayyim', shall we then learn out from this that at this time we release holiness in the world primarily through the work of our (sanctified) hands? What is the moral and ethical relevance of one's hands being ritually clean if they are attached to 'unclean' bodies?' He is not alone, Modern Biblical scholars and theologians often confuse/conflate the two. What do the rabbis do? [many rabbinic scholars will argue that they do not confuse the two - but I have not done the research myself] Has there been a developmental change over time (and into our own times? Such that popular/scholarly opinion is that they are one and the same?

Benjamin Fleischer writes:

What Marc is doing is a (warm fuzzy) reinterpretation of an outdated concept. Just like some Jews today perform 'Mayyim Aĥronim' for Kabbalistic reasons and not to remove the Sodomite salt, Marc proposes keeping some Rabbinic enactments related to purity for New-Age ideas rather than their original purposes. It seems to me that the Rabbis were very much neurotic regarding tum'ah, so much so that they created special purity groups (Ĥaverot) and laws to maintain this state (which only has ramifications with regard to heqdesh). This impurity was felt very much a disease. Anyone could have it and you didn't want to catch it. I agree that Environmentalism and Moralism are important concepts, but I would think that coming into contact with 'unclean ideas' should make one impure. (Though one might cleanse oneself symbolically by some simple ritual as washing one's hands, this has nothing to do with Seder Tohorot). Now, I grant that one might feel somewhat sickly after a Knesset hearing on any given topic, but the normal reaction is to vent with friends and go out and do something, not to dip in a ritually-specified container of water. I liked Marc's idea about pure hands on an impure body ('shall we then learn out from this that at this time we release holiness in the world primarily through the work of our (sanctified) hands?'), but I must add (that as far as I know), the hands are not pure, it is just that they are not Rabbinically impure. I don't think that helps his case. Psychologically, I like washing my hands in the morning, much as I enjoy the prayer that thanks God for returning to me my pure soul. I understand that symbolically as that every day is a new start. But taken to its extreme, Marc's idea would have me washing my hands incessantly in this crazy world of ours.

2:
In order to understand the reisha of our mishnah let us imagine that a priest holds out his hands over the ground so that the 'waiter' can pour over them the 'first water'. This water, of course, forms a puddle on the ground and since it has contracted the impurity which was on the priest's hands the puddle contains impure water and renders impure a Terumah loaf that might fall into it.

3:
Let us assume that before the priest has the 'second water' poured over his hands by the 'waiter' he has slightly shifted his position so that the second water makes a new puddle. If the Terumah loaf falls into this puddle it remains pure, since the 'second water' is deemed to be pure.

4:
As I wrote this previous explanation I began to ask myself whether this was logical. For if the purpose of the 'second water' is to remove the impurity in the drops of the 'first water' left on the hand surely the 'second water' must now have contracted the impurity inherent in those drops. So how can the puddle created by the 'second water' be considered pure? I found one commentator who relates to this problem, Rabbi YomTov Lipmann Heller [Central Europe, 1579 - 1654 CE], whose commentary is known as Tosafot YomTov. I find his explanation quite extraordinary in that it completely ignores the ritualistic aspect of Tum'ah and Tahorah and returns to the issue of hygiene! He says that the main object [ikkar tum'at yadayyim] of the exercise is to remove the impurities of dirt, sweat and so forth. This is done by the 'first water' and therefore the 'second water' may be considered pure.

Rémy Landau writes:

It's amazing that the balance between ritual and spirituality is not being more closely examined in our studies. The ancient priests and prophets were at loggerheads over these very issues and the pages of Tanach are testament to the depth of feeling held by both sides. I have been awed in the manner that our Talmudists eventually reconciled these two fundamentally opposing views into a cohesive religious system. I'm a bit nervous over Marc's comments because these tend to elevate ritual over and above spiritual development. Marc's tenet appears to be that there cannot be spiritual elevation without the consummate attention to ritualistic practices, such as washing of the hands, and possibly a whole lot more of time consuming activities. A very old Rabbinic debate appears to centre on the issue of what has more value, the study of Torah (in its most expansive meaning) or the performance of mitzvot? This question, of course, has led to lengthy debate without resolution. Consequently, I believe that Marc's suggestions, while deserving of some consideration, do not lead to any particularly meaningful understanding of our mystical heritage.

I interpose:

The dilemma to which Rémy refers is to be found in the Gemara [Kiddushin 40b] where we also find its resolution, so the matter is not unresolved as Rémy would suggest:

I have to disagree with Benjamin Fleisher's opening statement (though not the rest of what he says). I think that the whole history of Judaism is full of people doing '(warm fuzzy) reinterpretation' of outdated concepts. Yes, the sages were nutty about tum'ah. In the archeological digs at Tzippori, Rabbi Me'ir's hometown, there are hundreds of mikves. You can imagine the folks there going for a dunk after every step they took. But as times change, Jewish practice changes, and in every generation, people devise new explanations for what they do do and what they don't do. What we have today as the body of Jewish halakhic literature is just a fraction of the shaylot v'teshuvot which were handed down over the centuries, and many of them were saved by chance. Traditions that were saved were not necessarily as meaningful originally as we have made them. Like the joke about the woman who always cuts off the turkey's tail when she cooks it, and is convinced that this is part of kashrut: her husband is suspicious and interrogates her mother, who is also insistent that this is how her mother taught her what must be done. He then goes to the nursing home, where his wife's grandmother, in a rare moment of lucidity, says, 'Oh yes, my mother's roasting pan was a little bit too small for a whole turkey!'

Ze'ev Orzech writes concerning the seifa of a previous mishnah in which Rabbi Yosé rejects the appropriateness of water being poured either by the tilting of a cask or by a monkey:

Does Rabbi Yosé really insist that a 'waiter' pour the water over our hands and reject the knee-held cask because the water was not poured by such a waiter, as you suggest, or is it the absence of ko'aĥ adam (or possibly the lack of dignity) which makes him reject that case?

I respond:

The classical commentators explain his objection as being based on his understanding that the water must reach the hands through human effort [ko'aĥ adam], and this requirement is not fulfilled in either case.

But, we should note that Halakhah does not follow Rabbi Yosĥ. We can extrapolate the cask into a more modern idiom. It is customary to use a special 'natla' to pour water over the hands. but if no 'natla' is available (nor anything to replace it, such as a cup or glass) would it be permissible to hold one's hands underneath water running from a faucet? The act of opening the faucet so that the water flows may be considered ko'aĥ adam but that would only apply to the first hand. Thus, when using a faucet after the first hand has been washed the faucet should be closed and then opened again for the second hand.

6:
Before we pour water over our hands for 'netilat yadayyim' we must remove from our hands anything that would otherwise prevent the water from touching the skin. The most obvious example is a ring: rings must be removed before 'netilat yadayyim'. Where it is impractical to remove the 'barrier', such as when the barrier is elastoplast or a gauze bandage covering a wound, 'netilat yadayyim' cannot be done according to halakhah.

7:
This if the water contained a splinter of wood of little pieces of gravel they effectively form a barrier when they reach the hand and thus disqualify the 'netilat yadayyim'. In his commentary on our mishnah Rambam laconically notes that this is the case even though the 'barrier' is very loose and very temporary.

8:
Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el seeks to limit the 'barrier' problem. He says that if what comes with the water is something that is to be found in water naturally - small reptilia for example - they do not count as a disqualifying barrier. His view is contrary to that of Tanna Kamma and therefore is not accepted halakhah.

9:
I mentioned before that as we go through these mishnayot some of us at least must be asking ourselves whether the sages really took these matters as seriously as the content of the mishmayot suggests. They did - surprising as it may seem to modern susceptibilities. In order to illustrate the lengths to which the sages were prepared to take this matter I quote from an account given in the Gemara [Eruvin 21b].

After the collapse of the Bar-Kokhba revolt in the summer of the year 135 CE the Roman Emperor Hadrian [in power 117-138 CE] effectively proscribed the practice of Judaism. He had sound reasons for doing this, from his point of view. The putting down of the Bar-Kokhba revolt and the re-establishment of Pax Romana in the newly coined 'Palestina' had been very costly both economically and in terms of manpower. Other imperial projects had been put on hold, sometimes with possibly disastrous consequences from the Roman point of view. For example, Hadrian had to remove his Number 1 crack General together with his legions from the task of keeping the Scots out of England and transport them all the way to Eretz-Israel in order to deal with Shim'on Bar-Koziba and his rebels.

Rabbi Akiva had wholeheartedly supported the revolt against the Romans. He had even hailed Bar-Kozeba himself as the Messiah and, despite his advanced age, had made an enormous contribution to the effort of raising money from European Jewry. After the collapse of the revolt Akiva refused to recognise the validity of the laws outlawing the practice of Judaism. In particular, he refused to comply with the law that forbade the teaching of Judaism. So it was only a matter of time before he was arrested and tried before Tinneius Rufus.

During the pre-trial period Rabbi Akiva was kept in prison. He was now extremely advanced in years. (By the summer of 136 he had to be approaching his 90th year if he had not already passed it.) A baraita relates that

You wrote that 'According to the Torah one's hands can only contract ritual impurity if they come into contact with a "prime source" of ritual impurity and not with any lesser level of ritual impurity.' Although objects can transfer impurity to humans, surely the natlah is not such a prime source. Why then does it have two handles?

I respond:

I must confess that although Ze'ev sent me this same question twice I do not understand its intention. Of course a natla [large special cup used for 'netilat yadayyim'] is not a 'prime source of ritual impurity'. It (usually) has two handles because most human beings have two hands. It is convenient to hold the natla in one's left hand when pouring water over the right hand, and vice-versa. Jews invented ergonomics long before modern science made it into a fetish!

2:
The first clause of our mishnah is germane to some aspects of the discussion which will be presented below. It discusses how much of the hand must be washed with water during 'netilat yadayyim' for it to render the hands ritually pure. Our mishnah says that the water must reach 'the join'. This is enigmatic: which join? Later authorities have given three different views. One view is that the phrase 'the join' refers to the join in the middle of the fingers. Another view is that the phrase refers to the place where the fingers join the main part of the hand. A third view is that it refers to where the hand is joined to the arm. I think one can say that the poskim [decisors] accept all these views, but in descending order. Where there is no problem ideally the water should cover the whole hand up to the wrist. If there are problems less of the hand may be washed - the fingers up to the palm or even only the tips of the fingers up to the first join.

3:
The next part of our mishnah is concerned with the effect of the second water poured by a priest who is about to consume terumah produce. Let us imagine one who poured the first water over his hand up to the join (wherever that might be) but when he poured the second water it went beyond the area covered by the first water. When the droplets of this second water fall back on the area covered by the first water do they disqualify the 'netilah' (because they contracted impurity from the unwashed part of the hand and they then imparted that impurity when they came into contact again with the area originally washed? The answer of our mishnah is that these droplets do not disqualify the 'netilah', because the only part of the hand that need concern us as regards ritual impurity is the part that reaches 'up to the join'. Beyond the join, wherever that may be, will have no effect.

4:
The next possibility discussed by our mishnah is a case where both the first and the second water reached beyond the join. In such a case the 'netilah' is not deemed effective since the first water absorbed the impurity residing in the hand up to the join and never lost it when it reached outside that area. On falling back within the area it imparts the impurity once again so the second water cannot be effective any way.

5:
The third scenario presented is where the first water was poured over one hand and the second water over both. In such a case, says our mishnah, the 'netilah' is not effective because as far as the 'other' hand is concerned the 'second' water is in fact 'first' water, which will retain its impurity until it is washed away by the second water - which never comes.

6:
However, where the first water is poured over both hands simultaneously and the second water over each hand separately they are both pure because the second water has purified the first water in both cases.

7:
If one only does 'netilah' for one hand which then comes into contact with the other which is still ritually impure it is obvious that the first hand absorbs the impurity from the unwashed hand.

8:
If, after performing a valid 'netilah', one 'dries' the hands by rubbing them on one's head or scraping them on a wall this does not invalidate the 'netilah', since - as far as 'netilat yadayyim' is concerned - neither is considered to be impure. (Remember: as far as 'netilat yadayyim' is concerned the only part of the human body that is ritually impure is the hand up to the join.)

9:
The seifa of our mishnah returns us to the first mishnah of this tractate. It is now made clear that several people may wash their hands simultaneously from the same water. The only consideration is that they not be touching so that the water can reach all hands freely. The transference of ritual impurity from one washed hand to another is not a consideration.

Ed Spitz writes:

How can you say 'netilat yadayyim' if you have a ring that is too small to remove from your hand?

I respond:

If the ring is too small to remove it means that it will also prevent the water from reaching the skin underneath it. In such a case it seems to me that one should do 'netilat yadayyim' as usual, pouring water up to the wrist. The water will certainly be effective up to the join in the middle of the finger, as we explained above, and the rest of the hand 'beyond the join' will not impart impurity to the rest of the water.

I wrote: Before we pour water over our hands for netilat yadayyim we must remove from our hands anything that would otherwise prevent the water from touching the skin. The most obvious example is a ring: rings must be removed before netilat yadayyim.

Zackary Berger writes:

Is this really true? I know the practice of many men and women is to leave their wedding rings on at all times; indeed, the SA OH 161:1-3 says: Chapter 161 Section 1 A chazitza [anything that divides between your flesh and the water], if it is on most of the hand, or a person is meticulous about getting it off, it is not acceptable to wash your hands. If it is on a small portion of your hand and most people do not care that it is there, you can wash your hands as is. Chapter 161 Section 2 If some people are meticulous about it and others not, then if you are meticulous about it, for you it is a chazitza. Chapter 161 Section 3 Women should take off their rings when they wash since they are meticulous when they knead dough not to get them dirty. Even if the rings are not so tight and the water can get through, they should still be removed since we don't know the exact amount of looseness needed. That is to say, if one does not remove the ring at all, it would not be considered a khatsitsah.

I respond:

Zackary mentioned that he was using an online translation because he didn't have his books available. I do not know the source of this 'translation', but what it is translating cannot be the Shulĥan Arukh of Rabbi Yosef Karo!

Section 1 refers to dirt under the fingernails or on the hand that the workman is so used to that he doesn't consider it dirt: like paint left on the hand of a painter. It is this that is not considered to be chatzitzah!

Section 2 is a continuation of section 1 and is still referring to dirt. Some people will consider having paint on their hands to be dirty: they must remove it before 'netilat yadayyim'. Others are so used to it, let's say for professional reasons, that they do not consider it to be dirt: they do not have to remove it before 'netilat yadayyim'.

Section 3 is concerned with the very point that I was making! Here is a translation of my Shulĥan Arukh:

Marc Kivel writes:

Thank you for posting my original note and a variety of responses to it. A few comments on those responses follows.

I agree that while we can choose to read in the relationship of holiness and ritual purity, it is not a foregone conclusion that our ancestors saw this 'obvious' connection. Having said that, perhaps I would have done better to have asked 'Is there benefit in "conflating" these values in our time?' For those who feel that 'netilat yadayyim' is an outdated practice, I ask what other practices do you feel to be 'outdated' and what is your standard for 'datedness' other than personal preference? This may be fine for personal paskening, but not for the guidance of a congegation or a community.

I also note that one person's 'New Age' is another person's thoughtful reconsideration of past practice - the fact that Orthodox Jews routinely ritually wash in the mornings and before consumimg bread at a meal suggests this is hardly cutting edge innovation! As for arguing that adopting a regimen of ritualized spiritual cleansing would be impractical given the pervasive level of pollution in our lives, I cannot decide if this is an argument from 'personal inconvenience' or an unwillingness to thoughtfully consider and challenge accepted/unacceptable reality. If one would have to run and wash constantly due to one's activities and associates, perhaps this should indicate a change of lifestyle and associates is needed from a Mussarist perspective as well?

Some may question adoption of another ritual as injurious to spiritual growth. I am amazed! I find that all living is spiritual when the proper kavvanah is brought to the matter at hand. If we want to be sure not to 'pollute' the 'spiritual' with 'ritual', I know where we can latch on to some fine 19th Century Classical Reform Prayerbooks cheap....ritual is not the problem: ignorance, lack of kavvanah, lack of a spiritual guide and lack of personal self-disipline seem to be the real threats.

2:
We learned in Chapter 1 that water that had been used for some other purpose may not be used for 'netilat yadayyim'. It also stands to reason that if water had contracted ritual impurity itself it could not be used to render the hands ritually pure through netilat yadayyim'. Our present mishnah deals with situations in which the status of the water is uncertain. If we do not know whether the water we have used for 'netilat yadayyim' is acceptable for the purpose or not what shall be the status of the hands just washed? Our mishnah teaches that in all cases of such uncertainty the hands are held to be ritually pure.

3:netilat yadayyim' before eating. The sages first decreed that a priest must do 'netilat yadayyim' before eating terumah; that decree was then extended to include all the (non- priestly) members of his household; that decree was then extended to require 'netilat yadayyim' of all people - priests or non-priests - and before eating any kind of bread - be it from terumah produce or otherwise.

4:
If the washing of the hands before eating bread is a rabbinical decree, and does not derive directly from the Torah, it is but logical that the sages should agree that the most liberal of views should prevail in all cases of ritual uncertainty. If you are not sure whether the water is acceptable or that there is the right amount - at least one quarter of a 'log' - you may assume that your hands are ritually pure, according to our mishnah. This is stated quite explicitly in Mishnah Tahorot, Chapter Four, Mishnah 7 (where a long list of 'doubts' in other halakhic spheres is also given, and all cases are judged on the side of liberality.)

5:
Rabbi Yosé disagrees with Tanna Kamma in one regard. He understands that the sages say that benefit of the doubt is to be used when it is not certain whether 'they have contracted ritual impurity [from some other source] or whether they have imparted ritual impurity [to some other object]'. In such circumstances Rabbi Yosé agrees with Tanna Kamma that the sages accepted that the hands are to be judged ritually pure. But in the case of 'whether they have become ritually pure' themselves, through 'netilat yadayyim', the sages do not urge benefit of the doubt and hold the hands to to impure. Halakhah, of course, follows Tanna Kamma.

6:
The last part of our mishnah seems to be very convoluted, but if we present its content in a more modern format it becomes quite clear. The purpose of the seifa of our mishnah is to remove any doubt as to the liberal judgement of the sages in cases of doubt. In a modern presentation the seifa of our mishnah would look something like this:-

It is said that he tasted nothing until he gave him the water and he washed his hands. When the sages heard of this they said: ... if this is the case when someone is imprisoned is it not even more applicable to someone who is not imprisoned?

On that I commented:

What Rabbi Akiva meant was that in order to give greater preponderance to their rules (remember, it was the sages who introduced the requirement for 'netilat yadayyim', not the Torah) they declared that anyone who disobeyed their injunctions was worthy of death at the hand of heaven. Therefore, it would be better that he 'die at his own hand', because he had been caught by the Romans teaching Torah when he could have remained free by not teaching, than that he should deserve death at the hand of God by not keeping a command of the sages, of whom he was one.

Josh Greenfield writes:

This is a memorable story - but one that I have always found a bit difficult to understand. Shouldn't the rabbinically-instituted requirement to wash before bread be superseded by the need for Rabbi Akiva to eat in order to stay alive? (In other words, the question seems to be not at whose hands should he die, but how he should live.)

I respond:

All that Rabbi Akiva means is that since he has to die anyway (at the hands of the Romans) he would prefer that it be because he defied the Romans and taught Torah publicly rather than it be because he had defied his colleagues, the sages.

This concludes our study of the Second Chapter of this tractate.