Daf Ditty Chagigah 18: Hand Washing (and its obsessions)

1
MISHNA: One must wash his hands by pouring a quarter-log of water over them before eating
non-sacred food, and for tithes and for teruma; but for eating sacrificial food one must
immerse one’s hands in purification waters, such as those of a ritual bath. And with regard to
one who wishes to touch the purification waters of the red heifer used for sprinkling, concerning
which the Sages ordained further measures of sanctity, if one’s hands were rendered impure
even by rabbinical ritual impurity, which usually only renders the hands impure, his entire body
is rendered impure, and he must immerse himself in a ritual bath.

The mishna continues to list additional differences between various levels of ritual purity: If one
immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food, he assumes a presumptive status of ritual
purity for non-sacred food, and it is prohibited for him to eat tithes, as he did not purify himself
with the intention of eating tithes. If one immersed to eat tithes, he assumes a presumptive
status for tithes, but he is prohibited from eating teruma. If one immersed for teruma, he
assumes a presumptive status for teruma, but he is prohibited from eating sacrificial food. If
he immersed for sacrificial food, he assumes a presumptive status for sacrificial food, but he
is prohibited from coming in contact with the purification waters.

The principle is as follows: One who immersed to eat a food in a stringent category is permitted
to eat a food in a lenient one.

Another principle: One who immersed without the intention to assume a presumptive status of
ritual purity, i.e., one who immersed but did not intend to purify himself, it is as though he has
not immersed at all.

2
The mishna continues: The garments of an am ha’aretz, one who is not careful with regard to the
laws of ritual purity, are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a
zav. That is considered a primary level of impurity for individuals who are scrupulous with
regard to impurity [Perushim].

The garments of Perushim are considered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who eat
teruma; the garments of those who eat teruma are considered impure by the treading of a zav
for those who eat sacrificial food; and likewise the garments of those who eat sacrificial food
are considered impure by the treading of a zav for those dealing with the preparation of the
purification waters.

The mishna relates: Yosef ben Yoezer was the most pious member of the priesthood and was
extremely careful to eat teruma in a state of ritual purity, and yet his cloth was considered impure
by the treading of a zav for those who ate sacrificial food.

Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred food while following the laws of ritual purity for
sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered impure by the treading
of a zav for those preparing the purification waters.

Rabbi Noson Sherman and Meir Zlotowitz write:1

1
Mesorah Publications, Chagigah introduction

3
4
5
Summary

Introduction2

From here until the end of the tractate the mishnah teaches laws of purity and impurity. The reason
why these laws are here is that when Israel would come to Jerusalem and to the Temple for the
festival they had to be pure in order to eat their sacrifices. They would immerse their vessels to
purify them before Yom Tov. During the festival all of the people of Israel acted like the Pharisees
and were extra stringent on eating only while in a state of ritual purity. Our mishnah deals with the
topic of washing hands versus washing one’s whole body. There are some foods which only
required one’s hands to be washed while holier foods required one to immerse one’s entire body.

They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for
terumah [heave-offering]

2
https://www.sefaria.org/Chagigah.18b.1?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-
_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi&with=Mishnah%20Chagigah&lang2=en&p3=Mishnah_Chagigah.2.5&ven3=William_Davidso
n_Edition_-_English&vhe3=Torat_Emet_357&lang3=bi&w3=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mishnah&lang4=en

6
One of the things that the Pharisees were famous for was washing their hands before they ate even
regular unconsecrated food. There is nothing wrong with eating impure food, but the Pharisees
wished to preserve the laws of purity on a higher level than was required. During the festival, in
Jerusalem everyone was expected to purify their hands before eating, even unconsecrated food.
Second tithe and terumah are holy and therefore they certainly require one to wash one’s hands
before being touched. The handwashing referred to here is done with water poured over one’s
hands with a vessel.

But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh]

Before eating sacred food, such as the thanksgiving offering eaten by Israelites and the sin and
guilt offerings eaten by the priests the hands must be immersed in a valid mikveh. In the Talmud
they debate what this section refers to. According to one opinion this clause refers only to hands
which were certainly made impure. Unless one knows that one’s hands had become impure, it
would be sufficient to wash them with a vessel. According to the other opinion, in all cases before
one eats sacrificial meat one must wash hands by immersing them in the mikveh.

With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s
[whole] body is impure

The “water of purification” refers to the water with the red heifer’s ashes in it used to purify people
who had contracted a serious level of impurity. One who comes to prepare the waters must be
completely pure. If his hands had become impure then his whole body was also considered impure,
and he would have to immerse his whole body.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

The Gemora cites several Scriptural verses illustrating that it is forbidden to perform labor during
Chol Hamoed (Intermediary Days).4

The Gemora concludes: The Torah delegated the authority to the Chachamim to decide which days
are Yom Tov (through their declaration of Rosh Chodesh) and all types of labor is forbidden, and
which days are Chol Hamoed when certain types of work are permitted; and it was entrusted to
the Chachamim to decide which type of labor is prohibited during Chol Hamoed and which types
will be permitted. (18a) The Mishna had stated: It is permitted to eulogize and fast on the Day of
Slaughter in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who claimed that Shavuos is always
on a Sunday.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: There was once an incident where Alexa died in the city of Lod,
and everyone came to eulogize him. Rabbi Tarfon prevented them from doing so because it was
the Festival of Shavuos. The Gemora analyzes the braisa: The braisa cannot be referring to the
actual day of Shavuos because they would not have even attempted to eulogize him then; it

3
https://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Chagigah_18.pdf
4
https://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Chagigah_18.pdf

7
obviously is referring to the Day of Slaughter and nevertheless, Rabbi Tarfon ruled that eulogies
are forbidden. This contradicts the ruling of our Mishna.

The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to a case where Shavuos fell out during a weekday
and the Day of Slaughter was not on a Sunday; there was no reason to permit eulogizing on that
day. The Mishna was referring to a case where Shavuos fell out on Shabbos and the Day of
Slaughter was on Sunday; they permitted eulogies on that day to counter the opinion of the
Sadducees, who claimed that Shavuos is always on a Sunday.

The Mishna states: One is required to wash his hands before involving himself with chulin, maaser
(maaser sheini, a tenth of one’s produce that he brings to Yerushalayim and eats there in the first,
second, fourth and fifth years of the Shemitah cycle) and terumah. (The Chachamim declared that
unrinsed hands are considered tamei because they probably touched unclean parts of his body.
They decreed that only his hands will be rendered tamei, but not the rest of his body.)

If he wants to eat Kodoshim (sacrifices that are eaten by the owner or the Kohen); he must immerse
his hands in a body of water that contains forty se’ah. Prior to handling the chatas water (the water
and ashes mixture of the parah adumah used to purify people and tools that have been contaminated
through corpse-tumah).

The Mishna continues: One who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for
chulin, is prohibited from eating maaser sheini; one who immersed himself with the intention of
purifying himself for maaser sheini, is prohibited from eating terumah; one who immersed himself
with the intention of purifying himself for terumah, is prohibited from eating kodoshim; one who
immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for kodoshim, is prohibited from
handling the chatas water. (An immersion with the intention of becoming pure for items of lesser
stringency will not be effective for items of greater stringency.) If he immerses himself with the
intention of becoming pure for items of a greater stringency, he is permitted to eat items that have
a lesser degree of stringency. If he immersed himself with no intention whatsoever (only to wash
himself); it is regarded as if he didn’t immerse himself at all.

The Mishna continues: The clothing of an am haaretz (one who is not particular in regard to the
laws of tumah and tahara) is regarded as tumas midras (objects that become tamei when a zav,
zavah or niddah place their weight on them – they are classified as an av hatumah and have the
ability to contaminate people or utensils) for the perushim (people that are meticulous about eating
their chulin in a state of tahara). The clothing of the perushim is regarded as tumas madras for
those that are eating terumah. The clothing of those eating terumah is regarded as tumas madras
for those that are eating kodoshim. The clothing of those eating kodoshim is regarded as tumas
madras for those that are handling the chatas water.

The Mishna concludes: Yosef ben Yoezer was the most devout Kohen, but his napkin was regarded
as tumas madras for those that are eating kodoshim. Yochanan ben Gudgeda used to eat all his
chulin food as if it was kodoshim his entire lifetime and yet his napkin was regarded as tumas
madras for those that are handling the chatas water.

8
The Gemora asks: Do chulin and maaser require the washing of one’s hands? The Gemora cites a
Mishna in Bikkurim which explicitly states that one must wash his hands for terumah but not for
maaser or chulin. The Gemora answers: There is actually a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the
Chachamim if one is required to wash his hands prior to eating maaser.

The Gemora asks: The contradiction regarding maaser has been answered, but not the
contradiction pertaining to chulin. The Gemora answers: Our Mishna is referring to eating bread;
one is required to wash his hands prior to eating bread, even if it is only chulin. The Mishna in
Bikkurim is discussing the eating of other produce; there it is not necessary to wash one’s hands.

PLACING A STUMBLING BLOCK BY A RABBINIC PROHIBITION

There is a matter of dispute among the Rishonim if the prohibition against performing labor on
Chol Hamoed (the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkos) is Biblical (Rashi) or Rabbinic
(Tosfos). Our Gemora cites Scriptural verses illustrating that it is forbidden to perform labor during
Chol Hamoed.

Tosfos states that it is implicit from the Gemora that this is a Biblical prohibition. Tosfos asks: It
is permitted to work on Chol Hamoed to prevent an irretrievable loss or various types of labor; this
would be understandable if the prohibition would be Rabbinic in nature, however, if it is a Biblical
prohibition, where do we find distinctions in the types of work that some will be forbidden, and
some will be permitted?

Tosfos concludes that the prohibition against working during Chol Hamoed is only a Rabbinic
injunction and the verses cited are merely Scriptural supports for this decree. Tosfos asks from a
Gemora in Avodah Zarah (22a) which states that there would be a prohibition of placing a
stumbling block before a blind man (lifnei iver) by performing labor on Chol Hamoed. (One is
forbidden from assisting another fellow to violate a prohibition, where the sinner could not
accomplish the transgression without his aid.) The Reshash explains Tosfos: The prohibition of
lifnei iver is only applicable by a Biblical prohibition and not when it pertains to a Rabbinical
injunction; accordingly, Tosfos asks why the Gemora states that lifnei iver applies by the
prohibition of working on Chol Hamoed, when that is only a Rabbinic injunction.

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah (22a) states explicitly that the commandment of lifnei iver applies by a
Rabbinic prohibition, as well. The Steipler Gaon explains a different Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 15b)
that Tosfos is uncertain regarding this principle, and it is indeed a dispute among two answers in
Tosfos if lifnei iver applies by a Rabbinic prohibition or not.

This principle requires an explanation. Why should lifnei iver not apply by a Rabbinic prohibition?
One is forbidden from providing flawed advice to his fellow (the Minchas Chinuch discusses if
giving shoddy counsel violates this prohibition); every Rabbinic decree entails a Biblical
prohibition of not swaying from the words of our sages. What is the logic to differentiate between
assisting someone to violate a Biblical prohibition or one that is merely Rabbinic?

9
 THE PROHIBITION OF MELACHAH ON CHOL HA'MO'ED
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

The Gemara cites numerous verses as sources that Melachah is prohibited on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The
Gemara reasons that the laws of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed cannot be as strict as they are on
Yom Tov, and it concludes that while the verses do not mention which Melachos are prohibited
on Chol ha'Mo'ed, the Torah empowered the Rabanan with the authority to determine which
Melachos are permitted, and which are prohibited.

Is the prohibition of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed an Isur d'Oraisa or an Isur d'Rabanan?

The words of the Gemara imply that it is an Isur d'Oraisa, because the Gemara makes no mention
that these verses are only an Asmachta. Moreover, earlier in the Gemara Rebbi Yochanan asks
what the verse means when it refers to Sukos as "Chag ha'Asif." He says that it cannot mean that
Sukos is the festival on which Asifah is done, because Asifah is a Melachah which is prohibited
during the entire festival, on Yom Tov and on Chol ha'Mo'ed.

Rather, "Chag ha'Asif" must mean the festival which comes during the season of Asifah. Reish
Lakish makes a similar inference from the words "Chag ha'Katzir" with which the Torah refers to
Shavuos. Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish clearly imply that Melachah is prohibited on Chol
ha'Mo'ed mid'Oraisa.

If the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is only mid'Rabanan, then Rebbi Yochanan and Reish
Lakish have no reason to assert that the verse cannot refer to Asifah or Ketzirah during Sukos
itself; the Melachah of Asifah or Ketzirah is permitted mid'Oraisa on Chol ha'Mo'ed. It must be
that they maintain that the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Oraisa.

This also seems clear from the Gemara in Moed Katan (11b) which says that the Isur of Melachah
during Chol ha'Mo'ed is more stringent than the Isur of Melachah during Aveilus, because the
former is Asur mid'Oraisa while the latter is not.
However, other evidence suggests that the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is only
mid'Rabanan. The Gemara in Moed Katan (13a) says that Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is prohibited
because of Tircha (to prevent excessive exertion during Chol ha'Mo'ed), but when a financial loss
is involved the Rabanan permitted one to do Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The Gemara there clearly
maintains that the Isur is only mid'Rabanan, because if it would have been mid'Oraisa the Rabanan
would not have been able to permit a Melachah merely because of a financial loss.

Moreover, the Yerushalmi (Moed Katan 2:3) quotes an Amora who says, "If my colleagues would
join me, I would permit Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The only reason it is prohibited is in order
that people rejoice in the festival and spend their time immersed in learning Torah. Nowadays,
though, people eat and drink excessively and act frivolously during the festival." Why does this
Amora suggest permitting Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed if the Isur is mid'Oraisa?

10
Third, RABEINU TAM asks that if the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Oraisa, why
should Melachah be forbidden in some circumstances and permitted in others (such as for a Davar
ha'Aved)? No Melachah d'Oraisa applies in a partial manner.

Various opinions are expressed by the Rishonim with regard to the status of the Isur of Melachah
on Chol ha'Mo'ed.

TOSFOS (in the name of RABEINU TAM and RIVAM) and the ROSH (Moed Katan 1:1) rule
that the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is only mid'Rabanan. All of the verses cited in the
Gemara as sources for the Isur are Asmachtas.

When the Gemara says that the verses of "Chag ha'Asif" and "Chag ha'Katzir" cannot mean that
Asifah and Ketzirah are done on Chol ha'Moed, it means that the Tana'im would not have quoted
verses as Asmachta for the Isur d'Rabanan of Melachah if there was another verse that clearly
states that Melachah is permitted on Chol ha'Mo'ed. (See TAZ in YD 117, OC 588, and CM 1 who
discuss whether the Rabanan have the authority in general to prohibit what the Torah explicitly
permits.) Alternatively, the RITVA (Moed Katan 2a) cites those who answer that the Gemara here
is expressing the exclusive opinion of Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. The other Amora'im do
not accept the view that Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is Asur mid'Oraisa.

How do Tosfos and the Rosh understand the Gemara in Moed Katan (11b) which says that the Isur
of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Oraisa? Tosfos explains that when the Gemara there says
that Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is Asur mid'Oraisa, it means that the Rabanan prohibited
Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed based on an Asmachta in the Torah (but not that it is actually
mid'Oraisa). This is in contrast to Melachah during Aveilus, which is Asur mid'Rabanan and has
no Asmachta.

A number of Rishonim agree that Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is Asur only mid'Rabanan, including
the BEHAG cited by the Ritva (Moed Katan 2a), the SEMAG, and the TASHBATZ.

The Rishonim write that this is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 7:1), who
writes that the Rabanan prohibited Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed so that those days would not be
treated like ordinary weekdays that have no Kedushah. The Rambam continues and says that if a
person transgresses and does Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed, he is punished with Mallkus d'Rabanan
because the prohibition is "mi ‘Divrei Sofrim."

(This is the way the MAGID MISHNEH, RAMBAN (Avodah Zarah 22a), and RITVA (Moed
Katan 2a) understand the Rambam.)

Other Rishonim maintain that Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is Asur mid'Oraisa. Among these
Rishonim are RASHI (Moed Katan 11b, DH Ela Afilu), the RIF (Moed Katan 2a, according to
the Girsa of the TUR OC 536), the RAMBAN and RASHBA (Avodah Zarah 22a), and
the RITVA (Moed Katan 2a).

How do these Rishonim address the proofs of Tosfos that the prohibition is only mid'Rabanan?
Tosfos proves that the prohibition is mid'Rabanan from the Yerushalmi which quotes an Amora

11
who says that he would have annulled the Isur of Melachah, and from the Gemara in Moed Katan
(13a) which says that the Rabanan did not prohibit the Melachah in certain situations because the
prohibition is only because of Tircha. The RAMBAN (beginning of Moed Katan) answers that
there are certain Melachos which the Torah did not prohibit on Chol ha'Mo'ed, and it is to those
Melachos which the Yerushalmi and the Gemara in Moed Katan (13a) refer.

Which Melachos are Asur mid'Oraisa and which are Asur mid'Rabanan, according to the Ramban?
The Ramban writes that any Melachah not needed for a Davar ha'Aved (financial loss) or Tzorech
ha'Mo'ed (necessity of the festival) is Asur mid'Oraisa. A Melachah which is needed for a Davar
ha'Aved or Tzorech ha'Mo'ed is Mutar mid'Oraisa, unless it involves a Meleches Uman
(professional labor), in which case it is Asur mid'Rabanan. Similarly, if it is needed for a Davar
ha'Aved but involves excessive Tircha, it is Asur mid'Rabanan.

The Ramban in Avodah Zarah further limits the Isur d'Oraisa and says that it applies only to
Melachah which involves toiling in the field in a laborious manner ("Meleches Karka d'Tirchasa
Merubah"). Every other type of Melachah is Asur only mid'Rabanan.

How do these Rishonim address the other proof of Tosfos, that Melachah must be Asur only
mid'Rabanan because there is no Melachah which applies only partially, in some instances and not
in others? Tosfos asserts that since the prohibition of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed does not apply
to Davar ha'Aved, it must be that the Isur is not d'Oraisa.

The TUREI EVEN and others challenge Tosfos' proof. An obvious example of a Melachah
d'Oraisa which has only partial application is Melachah done on Yom Tov for food preparation
(Meleches Ochel Nefesh), such as cooking. When such a Melachah is done for the sake of food
preparation, it is permitted, but when the same Melachah is done for a purpose other than food
preparation, it is prohibited! Even though the principle of "Mitoch" (Beitzah 12a) applies and
permits a Melachah which is normally done for Ochel Nefesh to be done for a different purpose,
the principle of "Mitoch" permits the Melachah only when it is done for some necessity of Yom
Tov.

Baking bread or cooking food for the day after Yom Tov is Asur mid'Oraisa and is punishable with
Malkus (Pesachim 46b)! The Melachah of cooking is an example of a Melachah which has partial
application; when it is done for the next day it is Asur mid'Oraisa, but when it is done for Yom
Tov it is entirely permitted. (According to Beis Shamai in Beitzah (12a), even if one cooks food
for Yom Tov but not for the sake of eating it but for another purpose, the act is Asur mid'Oraisa.
Beis Shamai does not agree with the principle of "Mitoch.")

The MITZPEH EISAN explains that Tosfos means that on Yom Tov, the allowance to do
Melachah for Ochel Nefesh is not because the Torah's prohibition of Melachah does not apply to
food preparation. Rather, there is a prohibition (to cook, bake, etc.), but the need for Simchas Yom
Tov (according to Beis Shamai, or any need of Yom Tov according to Beis Hillel) overrides the
prohibition and permits the Melachah to be done. It is not a case of a Melachah which is permitted
entirely in one instance (for Ochel Nefesh) and prohibited in another (for purposes other than Ochel
Nefesh); rather, the prohibition applies in all instances, but the Torah suspends the prohibition
under certain circumstances in order to enable the person to fulfill a different Mitzvah.

12
In contrast, in the case of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed there is no reason why a Davar ha'Aved
should override an Isur d'Oraisa; preventing a financial loss is not a Mitzvah like Simchas Yom
Tov. The Torah should not recognize the need of a Davar ha'Aved as valid grounds to permit a
Melachah to be done, because the need of a Davar ha'Aved involves no Mitzvah. Therefore,
Tosfos' question remains: how can the Torah permit a Melachah in one instance and prohibit it in
another?

If this is the intent of Tosfos' question, perhaps the other Rishonim would answer his question as
follows. The HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS (Hilchos Yom Tov 6:40) writes that Melachah for the
sake of a Davar ha'Aved does involve a Mitzvah. The reason why Melachah is forbidden on Chol
ha'Mo'ed is to ensure that people involve themselves in Torah learning with Simchah. Doing a
Melachah for a Davar ha'Aved is permitted so that one can study Torah with joy; if Melachah
would be prohibited in the case of a Davar ha'Aved, one's mind would be on the financial loss that
he sustains.

A Melachah for a Davar ha'Aved which involves excessive Tircha is forbidden because the
Simchah one obtains by avoiding the financial loss is lost through the excessive exertion that the
Melachah involves. According to this understanding, it is possible that the Isur of Melachah on
Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Oraisa and extends even to a Davar ha'Aved, but there is another factor --
studying Torah with Simchah on Yom Tov -- which overrides that Isur and permits Melachah to
be done.

A number of Acharonim (see KEREN ORAH to Moed Katan 2a, BIRKEI YOSEF to OC 530)
suggest that the RAMBAM also maintains that the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is
mid'Oraisa, like the straightforward reading of the Gemara. When the Rambam calls the Isur
"Divrei Sofrim," he does not mean that the Isur is mid'Rabanan. Rather, "Divrei Sofrim" refers to
any law that is not written explicitly in the Torah but is learned through the Thirteen Attributes
through which Torah law is derived (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh ha'Rishon).

The Rambam says that one is punished only with Malkus d'Rabanan, because the Rambam
maintains that one does not receive Malkus d'Oraisa for the transgression of a prohibition derived
through the Thirteen Attributes, even though the prohibition is mid'Oraisa (as the Rambam writes
with regard to the Isur of deriving benefit from a mixture of meat and milk, which is mid'Oraisa
but is derived through the Thirteen Attributes).

The Keren Orah cites support for this position from the Perush ha'Mishnayos (beginning of Moed
Katan), where the Rambam clearly refers to the Isur of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed as "Divrei
Kabalah," a term which the Rambam always uses to refer to an Isur d'Oraisa (a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai).

HALACHAH: The BI'UR HALACHAH (beginning of OC 530) writes that the most obvious
practical difference between whether the Isur is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan is what to do in the
case of a doubt. If the Isur is mid'Oraisa, one must be stringent (because Safek d'Oraisa
l'Chumra). If it is mid'Rabanan, one may be lenient (because Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula). The
Bi'ur Halachah concludes that since many Rishonim maintain that the Isur of Melachah on

13
Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Oraisa, one should not be lenient in the case of a doubt except where a
great necessity is involved.

"NETILAS YADAYIM" FOR CHULIN AND FOR MA'ASER

The Mishnah states that Chulin and Ma'aser require Netilas Yadayim. The Gemara asks that the
Mishnah in Bikurim, however, states that Chulin and Ma'aser do not need Netilas Yadayim. The
Gemara resolves the contradiction by citing a Mishnah in Parah in which Rebbi Meir and the
Rabanan argue about whether Netilas Yadayim is needed for Ma'aser. The Gemara initially
suggests that the Mishnah here, which requires Netilas Yadayim for Ma'aser, follows the opinion
of the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Parah.

(The Gemara concludes that both Mishnayos follow the view of Rebbi Meir, who says that neither
Chulin nor Ma'aser needs Netilas Yadayim, except when one eats bread of Chulin or Ma'aser in a
meal. The Mishnah in Bikurim which says that Netilas Yadayim is not necessary for Chulin or
Ma'aser refers specifically to fruit. The Mishnah here refers to bread of Chulin and Ma'aser, and
thus it says that Netilas Yadayim is necessary. See Charts.)

WHEN IS NETILAS YADAYIM NEEDED FOR

TERUMAH, MA'ASER, AND CHULIN?

* = This is the case of our Mishnah

** = This is the case of the Mishnah in Bikurim

14
(1) Rebbi Meir does not require Netilas Yadayim, while the Chachamim do. (Actually, the
Mishnah in Parah does not mention washing the hands. It seems to refer either to washing the
hands when the hands are Tamei, or to Tevilah when the entire body is Tamei
(2) TOSFOS (DH Ha b'Nahama) points out that the Gemara also could have answered that the
Mishnah, which requires Netilah, discusses only these cases, while the Mishnah in Bikurim, which
does not require Netilah, discusses washing hands in order to touch bread or fruit of Chulin or
Ma'aser.
(3) This is how most Rishonim understand the Gemara. The TOSFOS RID, however, asserts that
it is never necessary to wash the hands in order to eat fruit of Ma'aser. If one's entire body is Tamei,
Tevilah is required, of course. If only one's hands are Tamei, nothing at all is required and one is
permitted to eat Ma'aser without Netilah.

It is evident that the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Parah, who argue with Rebbi Meir, maintain
that a person is not allowed to eat Ma'aser (fruit or bread) when he is Tamei with a Tum'ah
d'Rabanan (and he is a Sheni l'Tum'ah) until he washes his hands with Netilas Yadayim. One
may touch Ma'aser without Netilas Yadayim, as the Gemara later explains, but he may not eat it
until after he washes his hands.

Since the Chachamim in the Mishnah here discuss Netilas Yadayim, washing the hands, their
ruling apparently applies even to a Tum'ah d'Rabanan which affects only the hands (and not the
entire body). This is problematic, however, because if only one's hands are Tamei, why do the
Chachamim prohibit one from eating fruit of Ma'aser without Netilas Yadayim? It would have
been logical for the Chachamim to prohibit one from eating Ma'aser when his entire body is Tamei
d'Rabanan; the Chachamim enacted that a person who is Tamei may not eat certain things because
of their Kedushah. Similarly, it would have been logical for the Chachamim to decree that one
who touches Ma'aser with Tamei hands renders it Tamei (or Pasul). What, though, is the logic
behind their prohibition against eating fruits of Ma'aser with Tamei hands and a Tahor body?

The CHAZON ISH (Machshirin 3:7 and cited in He'oros to Maseches Chagigah) explains that the
Chachamim enacted that one must wash his hands before he eats bread of Chulin because of
"Serach Terumah." Although the bread does not become Tamei when one touches or eats it with
Tamei hands, the Chachamim enacted an obligation of Netilas Yadayim before he eats bread
because of the obligation that applies to Kohanim (mid'Oraisa) to make their hands Tahor before
they eat Terumah. However, the Chachamim instituted this enactment only for eating bread, and
not for touching bread, touching fruit, or eating fruit (even though Kohanim may not
even touch Terumah before they wash their hands).

Similarly, the Chachamim's prohibition against eating Ma'aser without Netilas Yadayim is not due
to Tum'ah (i.e. lest one make the Ma'aser Tamei). Rather, it is an enactment of Netilas Yadayim
due to "Serach Terumah." One must wash his hands when he eats Ma'aser just as he must wash

15
when he eats bread of Chulin. However, for Ma'aser the Chachamim added that one must wash
even when he eats fruit of Ma'aser (and not just bread).

The ME'IRI writes that although Chulin and Ma'aser normally cannot become Tamei as a Shelishi
l'Tum'ah through contact with one's Tamei hands, nevertheless the Chachamim enacted that
it can become Tamei (as a Shelishi) when one touches it after he starts to eat it. Accordingly, one's
Tamei hands indeed render the food Tamei through touch, but only from the time that he begins
to eat it (see following Insight).

The TOSFOS RID explains the Gemara differently. He says that when the Mishnah in Parah says
that a person who is Tamei mid'Rabanan may not eat Ma'aser according to the Chachamim, it
refers only to when his entire body is Tamei. If his hands alone are Tamei, then he may eat Ma'aser
without Netilas Yadayim since the Ma'aser cannot become Tamei through contact with a Sheni
l'Tum'ah.

(The Tosfos Rid understands that this is the way the Gemara refutes the assertion that the Mishnah
requires Netilas Yadayim for Ma'aser because it follows the view of the Chachamim in Parah. The
Gemara originally assumed that the Chachamim require Tevilah or Netilas Yadayim
for touching Ma'aser. Once it proves that the prohibition applies only to eating Ma'aser, it is
obvious that it applies only if the person's entire body is Tamei. Consequently, that prohibition
cannot be related to the prohibition of the Mishnah here, which mentions specifically Netilas
Yadayim and not Tevilah.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

The intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkot – the days of hol ha-mo’ed – are difficult to define.
While not fully days of Yom Tov, neither are they regular days of the week. This necessitates the
establishment of halakhic boundaries to guide us in our activities on those days. On Chol
HaMoed there is no restriction on work in terms of the 39 categories of forbidden
activities of Shabbat; rather, what is forbidden is toil, which is defined by the strain and difficulty
involved, as well as by the level of professional expertise necessary to perform the task.

Who establishes what falls into the category of forbidden activities on these days?
According to Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, it appears that melacha is forbidden on a Biblical
level, and, in fact, a series of baraitot appear on our daf that quote passages from the Torah as
sources for this ruling. Tosafot note, however, that most of the Sages believe that work is forbidden
on Chol HaMoed only on a Rabbinic level, and the pesukim from the Torah that are quoted here
play the role of asmachta – a secondary support for the rulings of the Rabbis.

The last baraita supports this view. The source-text that it brings is from Sefer Devarim (16:8),
which teaches that on Pesach we are commanded to eat matzah for six days, and on the seventh
day is a solemn assembly to God (“u-bayom ha-shevi’i atzeret la-Shem”) on which no work can
be done. In this case, the beginning of the clause – u-bayom -appears to connect the seventh day,
which is Yom Tov, to the previous days, while the second word – ha-shevi’i – seems to emphasize
the uniqueness of the seventh day. These contradictory inferences are reconciled by the baraita in

16
its conclusion – that the days of Chol HaMoed are given over to the discretion of the Sages. They
are the ones who decide how to best keep the individual focused on the holiday, which activities
are permitted or forbidden on which days of Yom Tov.

There are conflicting views among the Rishonim regarding the basis of the prohibition against
performing ‫ מלאכה‬on Chol Hamoed.5

Our Gemara implies that it is a Torah-level prohibition, as the Gemara searches and finds a
scriptural basis for it. However, Rambam (Hilchos Yom Tov, Ch. 7:1), and Rabeinu Tam
hold that this is a rabbinic injunction. They maintain that the Torah does
not use the word “‫“ שבתון‬in reference to Chol Hamoed, thus, the prohibition against work is not a
Torah-level restriction.

However, because we find that the Torah refers to Chol Hamoed as “a holy occasion” (see Vayikra
23:4), and it is in fact a time to bring the festival offering in the Beis Hamikdash, the sages forbade
performing ‫ מלאכה‬so that it not be the same as any regular weekday. Nevertheless, the sages did
not give Chol Hamoed as stringent a ruling as Yom Tov itself. They were lenient with respect to
five specific areas.

They are something that will cause a loss if not done now, work necessary for the festival itself,
work done by a laborer who has nothing to eat, needs of the community, and work done in an
unprofessional manner.

As a practical matter, Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 545:9) discusses recording Torah thoughts on Chol
Hamoed. “If one hears a novel Torah thought on Chol Hamoed, he may record it in writing on
Chol Hamoed.”

Mishnah Berura (ibid, #47) rules that this halacha applies not only if one happens to hear a ‫חידוש‬
,but also a person may even plan and arrange to attend a shiur where he will hear things that he
will want to record. However, the writing should not be done using standard, square letters (a ‫שי וי‬
should be used).

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Chagiga%20018.pdf

17
Taz writes that his father-in-law, the Bach, wrote his novella on Chol Hamoed, and Ritva writes
that his teachers allowed him to write his Torah insights on Chol Hamoed. Shaarei Teshuva cites
who asked his rabbis if he could write his Torah thoughts on Chol Hamoed.

They answered that if performing labor is allowed to avoid a financial loss, it would certainly be
permitted and encouraged to record words of Torah, which are more precious than the greatest
treasure of riches.

That it is prohibited to perform melachah on Chol Hamoed.

The Rashba (1) was asked whether one should wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed and he responded
that it is prohibited. The reason is that there is a Biblical prohibition against performing melachah
on Chol Hamoed that does not involve a financial loss.

As such, Chol Hamoed is considered an ‫— אות‬a sign, the same as Shabbos and Yom Tov; therefore
one should not don his tefillin. The Ritva, (2) however, disagrees with Rashba and maintains that
despite the prohibition against performing melachah Chol Hamoed is not considered an ‫ אות‬and
there is not a restriction against wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed. Furthermore, the Yerushalmi5
indicates clearly that one should don tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

The Beis Yosef (3) cites different opinions on this issue and notes that historically the custom was
to wear tefillin, but that is no longer the prevailing custom. The reason for the change was the
discovery of the comments of R’ Shimon bar Yochai in the Zohar who maintains that it is
prohibited to wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed.

Consequently, since there was no explicit ruling in the Bavli regarding this matter, who has the
audacity to disagree with R’ Shimon bar Yochai who uses such strong language in his opposition
to the practice?

The Rema (4) writes that the custom in Ashkenazi countries is to wear tefillin and even to recite a
beracha on the tefillin, although the beracha should be recited quietly. Mishnah Berurah5 and
others follow the opinion of the Taz, (6) who suggests that it is better not to recite a beracha when
donning tefillin on Chol Hamoed.
Additionally, one should have in mind the following stipulation: If there is an obligation to wear
tefillin then this should be considered a fulfillment of the mitzvah and if there is no mitzvah then
there isn’t intent to fulfill the mitzvah. The rationale is that it is not necessary to recite the beracha
to fulfill the mitzvah; therefore since the matter involves a debate one should be cautious and not
recite the beracha.

18
On our daf we find that there are levels of relative impurity of garments that ascend as one rises
through progressively higher levels of taharah.

Someone asked Rav Pinchas of Koretz, zt”l, “Why am I having more trouble with one child more
than my other children? This one seems so much more sensitive and takes everything to heart.
What does this signify?” The tzaddik replied, “The more potential invested in one’s neshamah, the
more nervous and confused one is liable to become. Even the minor disturbances which most
people hardly notice can throw a person with a more sensitive nature.

A more material-oriented neshamah can be in a place that is filled with distractions and not become
at all confused by them. Such a person can be in a house full of non-Jews and still be able to pray
and learn with his usual level of devotion, while a higher neshamah may feel that this seals his lips
completely. This neshamah which is distracted easily and harder to deal with is actually closer to
higher things, and this is why lower things confuse it. Rav Pinchas continued:

“We see this from the Gemara in Chagiga 18b which states that even the clothing of Kohanim
which must be guarded from defilement so that they may eat terumah can defile one who wears
these same garments and render him unable to eat from the korbanos. The garments of one who
guards from defilement so that he can eat from the korbanos can defile one who then seeks to
deal with the water that has been sanctified by the ashes of a parah adumah. There are levels
upon levels, and the more sanctified the neshamah, the more it must be guarded from impurity.
Impurity on the personal level refers to confused thoughts.

Rav Pinchas concluded, “You must make time and invest extra effort in this particular child—
you can see from his very sensitivity that he has much more potential than your other children!”

19
 Wash your hands.
SUE PARKER GERSON WRITES:6

“Wash your hands!” This universal cry of parents to children the world over is no doubt familiar
to many of us. In my house growing up, this was inevitably followed by “With soap!” There’s
good reason for this practice. Research suggests that on average, our hands carry approximately
3,200 different germs belonging to more than 150 species. Washing our hands even without
soap can help to mitigate the spread of illness and disease.

Well before modern science proved its efficacy, Jewish tradition mandated ritual hand washing
(and in some cases, immersing in a mikveh, or Jewish ritual bath) in a number of
circumstances. The mishnah at the top of today’s daf enumerates a number of categories of food
that require hand washing before they can be eaten.

One must wash his hands before eating chullin (non-sacred food), and for tithes and
for terumah; but for eating sacrificial food one must immerse one’s hands in purification
waters.

6
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/chagigah-18/

20
According to the mishnah, normal food, plus food that was donated to the priests, required washing
before it could be eaten. Food that comes from sacrifices carries an even more significant
obligation, immersion in a mikveh, before it could be eaten.

Later on our daf, the Gemara records a possible conflict between this mishnah with another
teaching, from a mishnah in Tractate Bikkurim, which suggests that hand washing is not required
for tithing and non-sacred foods. In trying to sort out the different cases the two mishnahs are
referring to, the Gemara states:

Here the mishnah is dealing with eating bread, which requires washing one’s hands whereas
there, in Bikkurim, the mishnah is referring to eating non-sacred fruit, for which one need not
wash his hands, for Rav Nahman said: Anyone who washes his hands for fruit is of the haughty
of spirit.

Rav Nahman disparages hand washing for non-sacred fruit as being extra because it’s not required
by the rabbis. But elsewhere the Gemara suggests that washing before bread is of crucial
importance. In Tractate Sotah, we learn this:

Concerning anyone who eats bread without washing his hands, it is as if he engaged in sexual
intercourse with a prostitute.

We’re left with an important question: Why is hand washing seen as so consequential as to be
equated to fornication? Isn’t that itself a little extra?

This shocking comparison clues us into the fact that in the time of the Talmud, hand washing
wasn’t just about cleanliness. It was also about godliness — namely, the removal of ritual
impurities prior to eating food. As we have learned in many places during the past two years of
our Daf Yomi cycle, ritual impurity can be transferred by a person to various objects, including
food. And that ritual impurity can then be transferred to other people and objects, which in the
time of the Temple would have prevented them from engaging in a number of ritual (and personal)
practices.

Even today, when we have no Temple and everyone and everything are presumed to be in a general
state of ritual impurity, and all of our food is non-sacred, we still practice ritual hand-washing
before eating bread. The practice, known as Netilat Yadayim (literally, “raising hands”), is
performed with a blessing before eating any food that requires the Hamotzi blessing.

Although the sages of the Talmud were unfamiliar with germ theory, they were cognizant of the
invisible forces that resulted in ritual impurity. And at least one scholar has suggested that the
ancients’ understanding of illness and ritual impurity may have similar roots.

Whatever the origin of impurity, sources across the generations agree with your mother: Wash
your hands.

21
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7
One of the first questions that a gym instructor or personal trainer might ask a new client is what
is their goals: Do they want to build muscle tone? Increase fitness? Or lose weight?

In principle, these goals can overlap with one another. Still, what the instructor or trainer wishes
to know when asking these questions is: ‘What is the intention of the client?’ and ‘What is
motivating them?’ because the energy we put into things differs greatly when we are motivated
and when we are not.

I mention this in light of a teaching in the Mishna (Chagigah 2:6) found in today’s daf (Chagigah
18b) which states that:

‘If someone immersed with the intention of eating chullin (non-sacred food), then they assume a
presumptive status of ritual purity for chullin and are prohibited from eating ma’aser (tithes). If
someone immersed with the intention to eat ma’aser, then they assume a presumptive status of
ritual purity for ma’aser and are prohibited from eating teruma. If someone immersed with the
intention for eating teruma, then they assume a presumptive status of ritual purity for teruma, and
are prohibited from eating kodesh (sacrificial food). If someone immersed with the intention of
eating kodesh, then they assume a presumptive status for kodesh and are prohibited from coming
into contact with the chatat (purification) waters.’

What this comes to teach us is that, at least in the realm of spiritual purification, immersion requires
‘kavanah’ (intention) such that if someone is focused on one level of spiritual purification, their
immersion is ineffective to help them achieve a further level of spiritual purification because this
goal was not their intention.

In a similar manner to our physical improvement, the energy we put into our spiritual lives differs
greatly when we are motivated and when we are not, and just as goals are helpful for physical
fitness, they are also helpful for spiritual growth. Given this, as we start a new week, it is
worthwhile asking ourselves: What are our goals?

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

22
 Netilat Yadayim

Rav David Brofsky writes:8

Introduction

Last week, we introduced the mitzva of netilat yadayim, the ritual washing of one’s hands
before eating bread. We noted that the Talmud attributes great importance to this mitzva.

The gemara suggests two reasons for this enactment. One passage (Chullin 105b–106a)
relates netilat yadayim to the laws of tuma and tahara; in order to accustom kohanim to purify
their hands before eating teruma (see Shabbat 13b and Eiruvin 21b), the Rabbis obligated
everyone to wash their hands before eating bread. This enactment is observed even after the

8
https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-07-netilat-yadayim-2

23
destruction of the Beit Ha-Mikdash so that we will be ready for the speedy rebuilding of the
Temple. Another passage (Berakhot 53b) describes the ritual washing of the hands as an act of
“sanctification.”

We questioned whether one must wash his hands for even a small quantity of bread, a ke-
zayit, or only for a piece of bread the volume of a ke-beitza. The Shulchan Arukh cites the view of
the Sefer Ha-Roke’ach, ruling that “if one eats less than a ke-beitza, one should wash without
recited the blessing” (158:2). Finally, we noted that the Mishna Berura (158:10) concludes that
one should preferably follow the more stringent opinions and wash without a blessing even for
bread less than the size of a ke-zayit. The Arukh Ha-Shulchan (158:3) reports that that was
apparently not the custom.

This week we will discuss the manner in which netilat yadayim is performed.

Netilat Yadayim From a Keli (Vessel)

Netilat Yadayim may be performed from a vessel or by immersing one’s hands in a

valid mikve, river, lake, or sea.

The Talmud (Chullin 107) discusses the types of vessels that may be used for netilat
yadayim. The Rashba (s.v. megufat) explains that the Rabbis required a vessel for netilat
yadayim before eating bread, just as there is a requirement of a vessel for the “mei chatat” (the
water sprinkled during the purification process involving the para aduma) and the “kiddush
yadayim ve-raglayim,” the ritual washing of the hands and feet performed by the kohanim in
the Beit Ha-Mikdash.

The vessel, often known as the “natla,” must contain at least a revi’it (86 ml; some require
150 ml) of water (Chullin 107a). A vessel which contains less than a revi’it of water cannot be
used for netilat yadayim.

The mishna (Yadayim 1:2) teaches that “water may be poured over the hands out of any
kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal ordure, out of vessels made of stone, or out of
vessels made of clay.” The Rash Mi-Shantz, in his commentary to this mishna, notes that even
vessels which are not susceptible to the laws of tuma are considered vessels for netilat

24
yadayim (see also Para 5:5). The Acharonim (Tzitz Eliezer 12:23; Az Nidberu 6:48) write that one
may even use a disposable plastic or paper cup for netilat yadayim.

One should preferably use a vessel which has no cracks or holes. If there is a hole in the
vessel that is “kones mashkeh” – that is, if water would enter the vessel through the hole were the
vessel to be immersed in water – the vessel is invalid. The Mishna Berura (7) explains that if drops
of water continuously leak from the hole when the vessel if filled with water, the vessel is
considered to be “kones mashkeh” and is invalid.

If the hole is so large than one can pour water through it, if the vessel contains a revi’it of
water under the hole, one may wash his hands by pouring water through the hole onto his hands.

Similarly, if there is a hole in the rim of the vessel or if there is a spout, as long as the vessel
contains a revi’it of water under the hole or spout, one may wash his hand with the vessel, pouring
the water through the hole of spout (Shulchan Arukh 159:2-3). One may not pour the water from
the higher part of the rim, as that section of the vessel is not considered to be part of the keli, as it
cannot contain water.

A vessel which cannot stand on its own and can only contain a revi’it if it leans on another
vessel or a wall may not be used for netilat yadayim. However, if the vessel was intentionally made
this way, such as a ladle, it may be used for netilat yadayim (Shulchan Arukh 159:5).

Leather canteens which collapse when emptied may not be used

for netilat yadayim (see Mishna Berura 18). Similarly, plastic bags may not be used for netilat
yadayim.

A vessel which was not intended to hold liquids may not be used for netilat
ydayim. Therefore, one may not wash one’s hands from a hat or yarmulka (Shulchan Arukh 159:4;
see Mishna Berura 20). The Mishna Berura (15) cites a debate regarding whether one may wash
his hands from a pot cover that is occasionally used to hold liquids.

One may wash his hands from a water bottle, as long at the water covers the entire hand.
Preferably, there should be a continual (even if slow) flow of water.

25
Washing One’s Hands in a Ma’ayan or Mikve

In order to purify one’s hands before eating bread, one may also immerse them in a natural
spring, river, sea, or a kosher mikve.

The gemara (Chullin 106a) cites R. Papa, who asserts that all agree that one may immerse
his hands in a natural spring, such as the hot springs of Tiberias (chamei Tiveria). The Shulchan
Arukh (159:14; see also Mikva’ot 1:7) rules that one may even immerse one’s hands in
a ma’ayan that contains less than 40 se’ah, the minimum amount of water required when one
immerses his body in a mikve.

Similarly, one can immerse his hands in an ocean or lake, or even in a mikve.
The Rishonim debate whether in this case the mikve, which collects standing rainwater, must
contain a minimum of 40 se’ah. Some Rishonim (Rashi, Chullin 106a, s.v. chamei,
and Chagiga 18b, s.v. u-lekodesh; Mordekhai, Berakhot 202) explain that one must immerse his
hands in a mikve that contains enough water in which to immerse one’s body, a minimum of
40 se’ah. However, the Beit Yosef (159) cites the Talmidei Rabbenu Yona (Berakhot 41a, s.v. ve-
nireh), who insist that although forty se’ah are required mi-derabbanan when immersing vessels
(tevilat keilim) in a mikve, the Rabbis did not require forty se’ah for the ritual washing of one’s
hands. Rather, as long as one covers his hands completely in a revi’it of water, one fulfills the
obligation of netilat yadayim. The Beit Yosef (15) suggests that these Rishonim may also differ as
to whether one may immerse his hands in less than 40 se’ah of running rainwater that is not
collected in an “ashboren” (a standing pool).

The Rishonim also disagree regarding whether one may immerse his hands in a pool of
40 se’ah of mayim she’uvim, “drawn water,” which is generally invalid for a mikve. While the
Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 6:5) writes that one may not immerse his hands in a mikve containing
less than 40 se’ah or in a collection of mayim she’uvim of more than 40 se’ah, the Ra’avad
disagrees in his glosses to the Rambam. All agree that one may not immerse in 40 se’ah of mayim
she’uvim collected in a vessel, such as a bathtub, that is attached to the ground.

The Shulchan Arukh (159) relates to each of these cases. Regarding whether one may
immerse his hands in less than 40 se’ah of spring water (ma’ayan), the Shulchan Arukh (14) cites
both opinions and concludes that the halakha is in accordance with the more lenient opinion. The

26
Rema, however, writes that preferably one should be stringent. The Shulchan Arukh (15) also cites
the doubt regarding immersing one’s hands in less than 40 se’ah of running rainwater.
Regarding mayim she’uvim, the Shulchan Arukh (16) cites the debate between the Rambam and
Ra’avad regarding whether one may immerse one’s hands in 40 se’ah of standing mayim she’uvim.
In practice, one may immerse one’s hands in a valid mikve, a spring containing 40 se’ah, a river,
lake, or sea.

The Rishonim disagree as to what blessing one who immerses his hands should recite. The
Rashba (Chullin 107a; see also Responsa 1:190 and 7:534), as well as the Talmidei Rabbeinu
Yona (Berakhot 41a, s.v. u-leinyan), rules that one should always recite “al netilat yadayim.” The
Shulchan Arukh (159:19) rules in accordance with this view.
Other Rishonim (Mordekhai, Berakhot 202; Agur, Hilkhot Netilat Yadayim 199) write that one
should recite “al tevilat yadayim” or even “al shetifat yadayim.” R. Moshe Isselis, in his comments
on the Tur (Darkhei Moshe 159), cites these views, and implies that one should say “al shetifat
yadayim” before immersing one’s hands. In his comments to the Shulchan Arukh (Rema 159:19),
he writes that one should say either “al shetifat yadayim” or “al tevilat yadayim.” The Mishna
Berura (97) records that the Acharonim conclude that the blessing “al netilat yadayim” should
always be said, even if one immerses his hands.

Interestingly, the Mordekhai (Berakhot 202) writes that one who immerses his hands does
not need to immerse the hands two times or raise his hands, and, based upon the
Tosefta (Yadayim 2:1), does not need to dry his hands. The Shulchan Arukh (159:20) records this
as well.

Eating a Sandwich Wrapped in a Napkin?

RABBI DR. ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY WRITES:9

9
https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-eating-sandwich-wrapped-napkin/

27
 Instead of washing netilat yadayim before eating bread, one could hold a sandwich with a
napkin.

Fact: There is a requirement to wash before eating bread and only under certain limited
circumstances may one cover one’s hands in lieu of washing.

Background: The obligation to wash one’s hands from a vessel before eating bread1 is an early
and important rabbinic enactment that was instituted for a variety of reasons (MB 158:1).

One reason is “srach terumah”—to accustom ourselves to acting in the manner of eating terumah.
In clarifying the mishnah (Chagigah 2:5), the Gemara (Chagigah 18b) explains that
for chullin (non-holy food) one is required to wash one’s hands prior to eating bread only, and this
applies only if one eats it himself; for terumah (tithes, which have holiness and may be eaten only
by Kohanim and their families in a state of ritual purity in the time of the Temple) even prior to
touching the food one would have to wash his hands. Because of an earlier decree (Shabbat 14b)
regulating how tumah (impurity) is transmitted, Kohanim, their wives and their children must
wash their hands before touching or eating terumah. Although today Kohanim do not eat terumah,
in anticipation that such will change at a moment’s notice, Chazal mandated that everyone wash
their hands before eating bread. This applies despite the fact that there is no Mikdash presently,
and even to those living outside of the Land of Israel, in order that everyone will be accustomed
to this ritual when the Beit Hamikdash is rebuilt (see Aruch Hashulchan, OC 158:1-3).

Another reason for the requirement to wash one’s hands before eating bread is cleanliness and
holiness. The Gemara (Chullin 106a) refers to washing one’s hands as a “mitzvah,”
which Tosafot (s.v. mitzvah) explains the rabbis instituted for the purpose of cleanliness. The
Gemara (Berachot 53b) understood the verse (Vayikra 11:44)2 “For I am Hashem, your God, and
you shall sanctify yourself” to be teaching that one must wash one’s hands before eating and
reciting the blessing. This washing is an act of cleanliness, and cleanliness leads to purity and
purity leads to separation (perishah) and holiness (kedushah). Thus, some hold that if in the middle
of the meal one’s hands become soiled—for example after one uses the bathroom—he should wash
his hands again, in some cases with a berachah (Shulchan Aruch, OC 164:2; MB 164:13; Teshuvot
V’hanhagot 1:168).

An additional reason for washing is because a person’s table affords atonement (by using it for
hospitality) just as the altar did (Chagigah 27a). Therefore, just as the Kohanim washed before
beginning their service on the altar, one should wash before approaching his table.

The prescribed method of washing before eating bread is to pour at least one revi’it (about four
ounces) of water, all at once, from a vessel onto the unobstructed (Shulchan
Aruch, OC 161:1, MB ibid.) right hand, covering the entire hand until the wrist (or at least until
the knuckles—Shulchan Aruch, OC 161:4). If there is sufficient water, one should pour a second
time on the right hand (MB 162:21), then repeat on the left hand.3 He should (preferably) rub his
hands together (shifshuf; Rema, OC 162:2; MB 162:24), recite the berachah “al netilat yadayim”
(Shulchan Aruch and Rema, OC 158:11; Aruch Hashulchan, OC 158:16) and dry his
hands (Sotah 4b; MB 158:42). One should not speak or allow for too long a delay between washing
and making the blessing of Hamotzi (Shulchan Aruch, OC 166:1); if, however, one did speak but
there was no “interruption of thought,” he need not wash again (MB 166:6).

28
The requirement is to wash both hands, even if one plans on eating with only one. The Mishnah
Berurah (158:4) explains that this is because one might accidentally touch the bread with the
unwashed hand.4 The Chazon Ish (OC 23:13, s.v. katav haMishnah Berurah) agrees with the
halachah, but says the reason for this is more fundamental. The halachah requires (Shulchan
Aruch, OC 163:2) one who eats to wash both hands even if he does not touch the food. Thus, one
feeding a sick person need not wash his hands,5 but the individual who is eating is obligated to
wash whether he uses one hand, two hands or no hands at all if he is being fed.

In situations where water is not readily available,6 what is one to do? The Shulchan
Aruch (OC 158:8), based on a discussion in Eruvin (17a) about those in a military camp, states
that one who is in a desert or a dangerous place and has no water is exempt from washing his
hands. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 158:14) understands this to mean that such a person is entirely
exempt from this obligation. The Mishnah Berurah (158:36) disagrees and says that such a person
falls under the category of one who can obtain water only with effort and he therefore must cover
his hands before eating.

The Gemara (Chullin 107b) discusses the permissibility of wrapping one’s hands (see Rashi) and
then eating bread without washing. The Rambam (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot
Hatumah 8:9; Hilchot Berachot 6:18) understands the gemara’s discussion to relate to those who
took it upon themselves to maintain an elevated level of ritual purity even when eating non-holy
food. [Different levels of purity are required for eating food with different levels of holiness.
Examples of holy food include korbanot, terumah, ma’aser sheni, et cetera. Even in the centuries
following the destruction of the Second Temple, there were those individuals who, in order to
accustom themselves to remain at a high level of ritual purity, took it upon themselves to eat even
non-holy food while maintaining a high level of ritual purity.]

However, for individuals who do not maintain this stringency, Rambam suggests that covering
one’s hands is a legitimate alternative to washing one’s hands.7 Most other authorities disagree
with the Rambam and understand that covering one’s hands is not a valid option prior to eating
bread unless there are extenuating circumstances. The Tur (OC 163) states unequivocally: “It is
forbidden to eat without washing, even if one wants to wrap his hands in a cloth or eat with a spoon
and not touch the bread.”8 More recently Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky wrote (Shoneh Halachot 163:1):
“One who has access to water is forbidden to eat bread using a napkin.”

Only in a situation where water is not readily available, such as a traveler who will not find water
for a distance of 4 mil (a mil is approximately between 0.6 and 0.9 miles) ahead (Chullin 122b) or
1 mil back,9 and is very hungry, may avail himself of the leniency to cover his hands (Shulchan
Aruch, OC 163:1). Both hands must be wrapped until the point where one would wash (Sha’ar
haTziyun 163:7) or gloves may be put on and bread may then be eaten. The Rema (OC 163:1)
seems to offer a leniency by permitting the use of a spoon, a novel suggestion (Biur Halachah 163,
s.v. yadav) that is rejected by many Acharonim including the Gra (Sha’ar haTziyun 163:4).
The Mishnah Berurah (163:7) says it is preferable not to use silverware, but rather to wrap one’s
hands with a napkin. Rabbi Eliezer Yehudah Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 8:7:6; cf. Avnei
Yishpeh 2:11) compares wrapping the bread (instead of one’s hands) to using silverware and thus,
when faced with no other option, he allows one to wrap the bread, relying on the Rema who permits
the use of a spoon in lieu of washing. The Aruch Hashulchan (OC 163:2) equates one who is
traveling with a group and fears to stay alone, or one with a wound on his hand that makes it

29
difficult to properly wash, to a traveler who does not have water readily available; in such cases,
he may thus rely on the Rambam and wrap his hands.

How to apply the rule regarding a traveler to one who is not traveling yet has difficulty obtaining
water is a matter of debate. The Magen Avraham (163:1), Aruch Hashulchan (OC 163:2)
and Shulchan Aruch Harav (163:1) say that such an individual must nonetheless also travel
four mil to find water. On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah (163:3) posits that all of the major
Acharonim (see e.g., Chayei Adam 40:11) maintain that such an individual need only travel
one mil.

The Peri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 163:1; cf. Chayei Adam 37:1) suggests that wrapping one’s
hands is preferable to washing with water that is deemed unfit for netilat yadayim. Wrapping is
also preferred when the washing can only take place in a non-ideal manner (and no berachah is
recited), such as with a questionable utensil.10

A modern situation that could raise these halachot is flying. An airplane bathroom may be akin to
the “beit hakisei” of the Talmud and thus engender halachic questions regarding washing.10 An
airplane bathroom may be regarded as a situation where water is lacking, for which the solution
may be wrapping one’s hands. Thus, on an airplane, where washing in the bathroom is less than
ideal, it may be appropriate to wrap one’s hands before eating bread, or to do so in conjunction
with washing in a less-than-ideal manner. (Consult your posek before flying.)

Another, less preferred solution (see Tzitz Eliezer 8:7:7) can be used if one knows that he will be
in a situation without water. One can have in mind when he washes his hands in the morning that
he will be careful that his hands not touch any covered parts of the body during the day, and then
the morning washing could serve to cover the washing before eating bread (Shulchan
Aruch, OC 164:1). However, because it is difficult to guarantee that one’s hands will remain
“pure,” the Aruch Hashulchan (OC 164:3) observes that people do not rely on this leniency. In a
questionable situation this leniency can be relied upon along with covering one’s hands.

Some are more lenient with regard to handwashing. The Magen Avraham (163:1) says that one
may wrap his hands even if one is only uncertain if water will be available. Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch
says (Teshuvot V’hanhagot 1:167) that one need not go “knocking on doors” to find water, and
Rabbi Chaim Yisrael Pesach Feinhandler (Avnei Yishpeh 2:11) says one need not spend money to
find water but may rely instead on the wrapping solution; however, many other posekim frown
upon using this leniency unless it is absolutely necessary. Commenting on the statement of
the Shulchan Aruch that if there is no water within four mil one may wrap his hands with a napkin,
the Gra (OC 163:1 s.v. yi’toal) says simply: “but otherwise it is prohibited to [eat without
washing] using a napkin.”

The Mishnah Berurah (163:3) says that many Acharonim permit wrapping one’s hands even if an
individual is merely unsure if he will find water, but notes (Biur Halachah 163, s.v. im) that
the Chayei Adam (40:11) approves of this only if one is truly famished; further, the Ritva says that
even if one is certain that he will not find water, one should not be lenient unless he is weak from
traveling. The Biur Halachah repeats this in the next section (s.v. b’rachok) where he again says
it applies only if one is very hungry. The Ateret Zekeinim (on Shulchan Aruch, OC 163, s.v. im)

10
MB 159:21, quoting Chayei Adam 37:1

30
citing the Maharshal, says that even in cases where it is permitted, one who is stringent should be
blessed.

These rules apply equally to men and women. It seems that in certain times and places, women
specifically were lax regarding this obligation and thus the Ben Ish Chai (year 1, Shmini:2) says to
adjure the men to instruct the women and children in his household regarding this obligation.
Similarly, the Kaf Hachaim (158:74 end) says to inform women about the punishment for those
who don’t wash so that they will be exceedingly careful not to eat bread without washing.

The rabbis treat the washing of the hands before eating bread with considerable seriousness and
speak harshly of one who is not scrupulous in observing this halachah.

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 158:9; cf. Rambam, Berachot 6:19) writes that one who denigrates this
obligation is deserving of excommunication (Mishnah, Eduyot 5:6), will come to
poverty (Shabbat 62b) and is uprooted from the world11 (Sotah 4b). The Gemara enjoins one to be
generous in the amount of water used for washing and mentions that Rav Chisda washed with
abundant water and was blessed with abundant good from Heaven (Shabbat 62b; Shulchan
Aruch, OC 158:10).

The Gemara also relates that Rabbi Akiva regarded this halachah so seriously that when he was
imprisoned by the Romans for teaching Torah and had a limited water supply, he was willing to
forgo drinking in order to wash his hands.11

He stated, possibly meant hyperbolically, that he will use the limited water to wash because it was
preferable that the die of thirst rather than violate the rabbinic ordinance of eating without washing.
Tiferet Shmuel (Rabbi Aharon Shmuel Koidonover [Maharshak] seventeenth century;
to Chullin 8:1 [to Rosh]) quotes the above and says that wise folk never availed themselves of
leniencies; only the fools did.

Part of the explanation for Chazal’s focus on handwashing may be based on the significance of the
human hand; human hands are unique. We are among the few species with an opposable thumb.
And humans are the only animal in which the small and ring fingers can reach across the palm to
meet the thumb, what is known as “ulnar opposition.” These features enable us to use our hands
for untold tasks, great and small, and have contributed to man’s ability to fulfill God’s mandate of
conquering the world. It also means that the human hands are always active. Chazal attached great
significance to our active hands and created a series of complex laws regarding their ritual purity,
so complex as to necessitate an entire tractate called Yadayim. Every time a Jew eats bread and
washes his hands, he is reminded of the complex tasks that went into making the uniquely human
product of bread and of God’s wondrous creation of the human hand.

Notes
1. This washing is distinct from the other required washings, such as upon arising, after touching shoes, before davening,
before duchening, after getting a haircut or leaving the cemetery. Each has different reasons that in turn lead to
different halachot. This article is only about washing before eating bread.

11
Eruvin 21b; see Rambam, Hilchot Berachot 6:19; Yabia Omer 6:YD:13:13

31
2. Torah Temimah, note 199 to Vayikra 11:44 explains that the derivation is from this verse in conjunction with Vayikra 20:7.

3. I.e., twice on the right and then twice on the left, not alternating as is done with other washings such as negel
vasser (MB 4:10).

4. Shulchan Aruch Harav 163:1 seems to agree with the Mishnah Berurah’s reasoning.

5. See Nishmat Avraham, vol. 1, p. 81-83 about permission to feed a sick person who will not wash or say berachot.

5. Lack of a utensil would seem to trigger the same rules as lack of water (Tzitz Eliezer 8:7:8).

7. That is how most commentators understand the Rambam.

7. The Bach understood this to apply even if the individual has no water available.

9. Usually understood to be the travel time and effort involved, as opposed to the distance (Biur Halachah 163,
s.v. b’rachok; Shu”t Az Nidbaru 6:66). Ben Ish Chai (Year 1, Shemini:18) does not even mention the mil, only the time (one-and-
a-quarter hours and a quarter hour). The time to walk a mil is usually estimated as eighteen minutes, and seventy-two minutes for
four mil. The implication is that if the water is in the direction in which he is traveling, and thus does not take him out of his way,
he may not eat until he travels up to seventy-two minutes to reach water; if water is not to be found in the direction in which he is
traveling, he should go out of his way for up to eighteen minutes to find water. While his position is not clear, Shu”t Sho’el
U’meishiv, Kamma 3:103 possibly maintains that it refers to distance, not time.

10. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo, Tefillah 20:24) permits washing in an airplane bathroom. See Ari Z.
Zivotofsky, “Your Camp Shall be Holy: Halachah and Modern Plumbing,” Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Society 29
(spring 1995): 89-128.

11. Rashi (Sotah 4b) says it refers to a habitual offender, while Be’er Haitev (OC 158:16) says it refers to even a one-time
violator.

Rosh Chodesh Davening: Something’s Missing

32
Rabbi Yehoshua Grunstein writes:12
At the beginning of each Jewish month [with the exception of Rosh Hashanah, which is a full-

fledged holiday beginning of the Jewish year, and also being the beginning of the Jewish month

of “Tishrei[1]“,] we add the paragraph of “Yaale VeYavo” to our Amida on that day [while, on Rosh

Hashanah, a more elaborate festive Amida is uttered,] fulfill the custom[2] of saying a not-full

Hallel[3], read the portion from the Torah speaking of the special sacrifices brought that day in the

Temple[4], and then add a special Musaf Amida[5] in order to commemorate the special sacrifices

that were brought in the Temple on this day.

What’s this all about? After all, the day, externally, seems the very same as any
weekday?

In the words of Rav Solovetchik:

“The procedure of sanctifying the day of Rosh Chodesh is not the external reality. Its sanctity

doesn’t express itself in its form, doesn’t break barriers and doesn’t show itself externally. Rosh

Chodesh is a regular and simple weekday. It had not prohibitions of Melacha[6], there is no

obligation of Simcha/happiness or to honor and enjoy it [i.e.-Kibbud VeOneg,] it doesn’t make

itself distinct from the day prior and had no imprint externally. A Jew is clothed in his weekday

clothing, working, and worrying for his living,…..The external world had a normative day, there

is no difference between Rosh Chodesh and a regular weekday, except mentioning “Yaale

VeYavo” in benching and prayer, the Musaf prayer and reading a non-full Hallel.”13

12
https://ots.org.il/somethings-missing/

13
Rav Soloveitchik, Divrei HaGut Vehaaracha, Ben Tzion Hadar, printed by Defus Maor-Va’lach, Jerusalem, 1982, pp 165.

33
Indeed, there seems to be a day on the calendar that, while making the daily morning service

longer, and forbidden in fasting and eulogys[7], and even a praiseworthy custom to eat a bit more

than usual in honor of it[8], has absolutely no ramifications on our daily routine, and makes on

imprint on the home, office and community we function in.

So what experience shall a Jew feel each month other than prolonging the daily service? After

all, this day did have special sacrifices brought in the Temple, and thus, it is a biblical special day.

But what experience should a Jew emanate with, when nothing much seems to change on this day

in the vicinity of his home-base?

Perhaps a passage from the interpretation of the Ramban on the Book of Mitzvot of the Rambam,

can shed some light on this quandary:

Hasagot of the Ramban to the Rambam’s Book of Mitzvot, Shoresh 1.

As we can see, the day of Rosh Chodesh was a proper and major holiday, but confined to the

Temple, and as opposed to the other holidays, did not spill over[10] to our homes outside of it.

34
This leads a Jew around the world, in a time void [for now] of a Temple, to the monthly realization

that something is missing, life is far from perfect. If on other Holidays, various practices happen

in our homes to some extent [even if diminished a bit without the Temple in our midst,] on this

one, there is nothing whatsoever, and thus, once a month, a Jew walks around with the healthy

feeling that something is missing from our lives; the Temple.

Each of our daily Amida prayers end with a plea to G-d to return our Temple[11], and various

practices have been ordained to remember what once was, all emanating from the obligation of

recalling it, and yearning for it. In the words of the Talmud:

Tractate Rosh Hashanah 30a

While the other Holidays have various practices at home, though incomplete without the Temple,

there is a still much done. Rosh Chodesh is the exception, and thus, one leaves this day feeling the

sheer absence of the Temple, as, with the exception of a longer morning prayer service, nothing is

left in our homes.

This may explain the wording of the Musaf Service on this say, unlike that used on the other

Holidays; While the others begin on a positive note that

35
No positive intro, but rather delving right into what we’re missing. On Rosh Chodesh, we have a

once-a-month experience in which, in our homes/schools/offices all looks the same, and thus, we

ONLY express that something is [still] missing in our lives, and we yet yearn to fill in this gap.

Our complacency with a world void of a Temple comes to a halt each beginning of a month,

when we have a longer prayers service, on the one hand, with almost no ramifications at home on

the other! This should force a Jew to wonder why this discrepancy exists, and thus, hopefully

begin to think of how we can, slowly but surely, diminish each of the wrongdoings that led to this

huge gap, hopefully to be shortened each year, till it will no longer exist.

Footnotes:

[1] Bamidbar 29/1-6 describes the sacrafices on Rosh Hashana and [ibid 6] indeed mentions that these special sacrafices are

“besides the burnt offering of the new month and its meal offering,” which indeed was sacrificed on this day, in honor of it being

the beginning of the Jewish month. However, in the davening of the day, one only says “Yom HaZikaron/The day of

36
Rememberance” and not the explicit mention of “Rosh Chodesh” [as usually done,] as the term “rememberance” covers both

[Tractate Eiruvin 40a-b, Tosfot ad-loc d”h Zikaron, Code of Jewish Law, 582/6, Mishna Berura ad-loc 18.]

[2] Tractate Archin 10b established that there is no obligation to say Hallel on this day, not including it in the requisite days one

must say Hallel, but we follow the anchient Bablonion custom [Tractate Taanit 28b] to say it, albeit not the complete Hallel, in

order to demanstrrate that it’s not an obligation [Mishna Berura, ibid, 422/12.]

[3] Code ibid 422/1-2.

[4] On a weekday Bamidbar 28/1-15 [Code ibid 423/2[, on Shabbat ibid 9-15, Code ibid 425/1.

[5] Code of Jewish Law, OC, 423, for a Rosh Chodesh that comes out on Shabbat 425/3.

[6] Tractate Chagiga 18, Tractate Megilla 22b and more.

[7] Code ibid 418, and 410, Code YD 401/5.

[8] Code ibid 419. But as it’s not obligatory to eat bread, as is the case on Shabbat [ibid 274]/Holidays [529/1], if one forgets to

mention “Yaale VaYavo” he/she does not have to say the Grace after Meals again [ibid 424,] as opposed to Shababt/Holidays

[188/5-6.]

[9] i.e.- the Ramban assumes that saying “Hallel” on the Holidays, with the exception of Chanukah, is a biblical obligation of

fulfilling the Mitzva of SIMCHA/Happiness. Others disagree with this assumption [i.e.- the Rambam feels that it’s Rabbinic

(Rambam’s Code, Laws of Megilla and Chanukah, 3/5-6,) the Chatam Sofer (Responsa YD 233) feels it’s Rabbinic on the

Holidays, and actually biblical on Chanukah, while the the Sema”k (146) states it’s always biblical.

[10] Rambam, Laws of Yom Tov, 6/15 and onwards regarding the Holidays, regarding Chanukah and Purim see subsequent

chapters. Although there are customs on Rosh Chodesh, such as Women not engadging in Melacha, these are not obligitory [Code,

ibid, 417/1,]

[11] Code of Jewish Law, OC 123/1 in the Rama.

37
 Sanctifying Our Primary Moral Instrument
Jewish tradition calls for the washing of hands every morning, which serves as a reminder to
use them for holy purposes.

R A B B I S H M U L Y Y A N K L O W I T Z W R I T E S : 14

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe who has sanctified us with divine
commandments and commanded us concerning the washing of the hands.

Water is life. Everything that exists on this fragile planet depends on its nurturing power.
Organisms are born from it. Creatures find sustenance in it. The birth and rebirth of the soul is
found within spiritual baths. And each day, through mechanisms metaphysical and mundane, we
sanctify our lives through water.

Jewish thought understands both the earthly usage of water and its renewing effects on the soul.
Each morning, we are commanded to wash our hands and recite the blessing Netilat Yadayim. The
simple reason for this is that sleep is akin to death and being awake is akin to life.

Water stimulates the synapses in our brains to break between these realms. Washing our hands is
the precise moment where we express our gratitude for our earthly physical existence, for the
return of our soul to our body, and prepare ourselves to take responsibility for the gifts bestowed
upon us.

But why is it the hands that we wash? We could have been commanded to wash the head housing
our brain, the chest housing our heart, or the feet we use to walk.

14
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/netilat-yadayim-washing-hands-to-sanctify-our-primary-moral-instrument/

38
Rebbe Nachman of Breslov taught that the 28 joints in our two hands match the gematria of the
term koach, the Hebrew word for means energy or strength. When we engage our hands for holy
means, we bring divine energy to that moment.

Our hands are our primary moral instrument. With hands, we hit, or we heal. With hands, we push
away or pull close. With hands, we are idle or engaged in honest labor. We close our hands
selfishly or open them charitably. We wash our hands to prepare ourselves for authentic, holy
engagement with others.

Rabbi Nachman also taught that at the moment of clapping with joy, the land below us becomes
as holy as Israel. Through the nerves and sinews in our hands that interact with the world so
profoundly, we transform temporal space and time into holy space and time.

Washing our hands is a brief oasis in time. By this practice, we prepare to use our hands to share
love, to pray, to work honestly and to clap with joy. In washing our hands each day, we prepare
ourselves for compassionate service and the authentic experience of existence.

Why No Talking After Washing for Bread?

Yehuda Shurpin writes:15

15
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4191297/jewish/Why-No-Talking-After-Washing-for-Bread.htm

39
Washing one's hands before eating bread is one of the seven rabbinic mitzvahs instituted by the
sages (the other six are Hallel, Purim, Chanuka, eruv for Shabbat, lighting Shabbat candles, and
saying blessings [e.g. before eating]).

After washing our hands, we don’t talk until we eat the bread. To understand why, we first need
to examine why we wash our hands in the first place.

Why We Wash for Bread

The Torah commands us to separate a small percentage of the wheat, wine, and olive oil we
produce and give it as a gift to the kohen (priest). Called terumah, this separated portion is holy
and may not become impure.

Since people tend to fidget and touch all kinds of things unknowingly, the sages declared that, by
default, hands have a minor degree of impurity. The kohen must therefore wash his hands before
partaking of terumah.1

Biblically, terumah is to be taken from grain, wine, and oil. Now, wine and oil are usually handled
in a vessel and not touched directly with one’s hands, so it was never necessary to wash hands
before consuming them. Grain, however, is usually eaten in the form of bread, so the rabbis
required washing one’s hands before eating bread.2

The sages didn’t want to differentiate between different kinds of people (kohanim and Israelites),
nor between breads (terumah and ordinary bread), so they instituted hand-washing before any kind
of bread, thus ensuring that a kohen would never eat his terumah without washing.3

Sanctity Before G-d

Additionally, the sages of the Talmud find support for washing before bread in the following verse:
“You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am the L-rd, your G-d.” They expound, “‘You
shall sanctify yourselves’—this refers to washing before eating. ‘And be holy’—this refers to

40
washing after eating.” Washing before bread is so important, the sages say, that neglecting it can
lead to poverty (or worse).

No Interruptions

Since the purpose of washing our hands is to purify them before eating bread, we must be careful
not to get involved in any distracting activity or discussion between washing and the meal, lest we
inadvertently touch something impure (or filthy).

Based on this, some rabbis explain that if we sit idly and do not perform any activity that involves
a diversion of attention, even if we wait a substantial amount of time, and even if we chat, it should
not be of concern, provided that the table is set before us and we clearly have the intention to eat
the bread.4

No Harm

In practice, however, we are careful to make the Hamotzi blessing as quickly after washing as
possible, and also not to speak or engage in any activities between washing and the Hamotzi.

The Jerusalem Talmud states, “Whoever recites the blessing directly after washing his hands will
not suffer harm during that entire meal.”5 Based on this, many rabbis explain that one should be
careful not to make a verbal interruption between washing and the Hamotzi.6 And although some
opine that two or three words are not considered an interruption,7 others say to be careful
of any speech whatsoever unless it pertains to the actual meal (e.g. “please pass the salt,” which is
need for the Hamotzi).8

Do I Need to Wash Again?

Although we try not to speak at all, if one did in fact speak between washing and the Hamotzi, as
long as he did not touch anything dirty or a part of the body that is normally covered,9 he doesn’t

41
wash again. If one goes to the bathroom during the meal, he must wash his hands again for bread,
but he doesn’t recite the blessing.10

It is interesting to note that washing our hands for bread is closely related to the arrival
of Moshiach. After all, there is no terumah nowadays, yet we still wash our hands so that “the
Children of Israel will be habituated to eat in a state of ritual purity when the Holy Temple will be
rebuilt; may this take place speedily, in our days.”11

42
 Compulsive hand washing
Dr Vidette Wong16 writes:17

What is compulsive hand washing?

Patients with compulsive hand washing perform excessive and repetitive washing of their hands
in an attempt to relieve severe distress associated with obsessive and irrational fears of
contamination.

Repeated hand washing often causes marked skin changes of the hands or exacerbates pre-existing
skin conditions. Compulsive hand-washing is often a debilitating psychodermatological condition
that interferes with the patient’s activities of daily living and quality of life.

Hand dermatitis due to excessive washing

Contact dermatitis due to hand washing

16
Core Medical Trainee, Department of Dermatology, Antrim Area Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. DermNet
NZ Editor in Chief: Adjunct A/Prof Amanda Oakley, Dermatologist, Hamilton, New Zealand. Copy edited by Gus Mitchell/Maria
McGivern. September 2019.
17
https://dermnetnz.org/topics/compulsive-hand-washing

43
 Contact dermatitis due to washing

Who is prone to compulsive hand washing?

Compulsive hand washing occurs in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD).

OCD is characterised by obsessive and repetitive thoughts, images, or urges

with compulsions consisting of repetitive rituals and behaviours; these are performed to excess to
reduce anxiety and distress related to the person's obsessions.

OCD is a common disorder that has an estimated worldwide lifetime prevalence of 2% in the
general population [1]. Approximately 16% of all patients with OCD suffer from some form of
washing compulsion, which is manifested by frequent long and ritualised compulsive hand
washings up to 50–100 times daily [2].

What causes compulsive hand washing?

The cause of OCD and compulsive hand washing remains uncertain and involves biological
and psychosocial factors.

It is thought the neurotransmitter serotonin plays a role in the development of the OCD as multiple
trials have shown selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to be effective for managing the
symptoms of OCD [3,4].

Cognitive behavioural therapy has been applied to OCD, on the basis that compulsive behaviours
are learned and conditioned according to several psychological models [3,4].

44
What are the clinical features of compulsive hand washing?

Compulsive hand washing can result in inflammatory, degenerative, and infective changes to
the dorsal and palmar sides of the hands, usually manifesting as hand dermatitis. It can
also exacerbate pre-existing skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis or allergic contact
dermatitis.

Soaps, detergents, and other cleansers for recurrent hand washing can also result in irritant contact
dermatitis.

Compulsive hand–washing may result in the clinical features of both acute and chronic hand
dermatitis.

• Acute hand dermatitis presents with erythema, oedema, blistering, and scaling.
• Chronic features of repetitive hand washing
include lichenification, pigmentary changes, hyperkeratosis, and fissuring.
• The patient may report itch, dryness, ooze, and pain of the hands.
• Fissuring can result in secondary bacterial skin infections.

A careful history will reveal that the patient suffers from obsessive thoughts of contamination, fear
of germs, or similar beliefs. They need to complete repeated cycles and rituals of handwashing to
relieve anxiety from these obsessions.

Individuals are often aware that their compulsive behaviors are excessive, irrational, and time-
consuming, but often do not seek help until late in their disease, at which point signs and symptoms
have become chronic [3].

How is compulsive hand washing diagnosed?

Compulsive hand washing is diagnosed and identified after taking a careful and thorough history
and clinical examination. Patients should be approached tactfully and supportively.

The clinical manifestations of compulsive hand washing may appear similar to the following
dermatological conditions (or these may be coexisting) including:

• Hand dermatitis
• Allergic contact dermatitis
• Irritant contact dermatitis
• Occupational dermatitis.

The main distinguishing feature of compulsive hand washing is the psychological component of
obsessive thoughts and fears, with compulsive behaviors of repetitive hand washing that affect the
individual’s daily life and quality of living.

45
What is the treatment for compulsive hand washing?

The management of compulsive hand washing, and OCD consists of a multi-faceted approach.

Pharmacological therapies

First-line treatment is selective SSRIs such as fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine for at least a
period of 3 months [3,4].

Psychological therapies

Psychological therapies are based on cognitive behavioural therapy, with exposure and response
prevention. The individual works with the therapist to acknowledge their condition and face their
fears and obsessive thoughts or feelings, without neutralizing them with their compulsive
behaviors

. This is often guided in a step-by-step and personalized manner and using methods such as
distraction techniques [3,4].

Counselling and OCD support groups may be helpful.

Hypnosis and other complementary therapies are also gaining recognition as part of the
management of OCD [5].

The above image shows healthy versus OCD brain activity.

46
 OCD and halakha: The Orthodox rabbi’s challenge
Daniel Sayani writes:18
One of the great privileges of my budding career in the rabbinate has been the opportunity to study
with the Center for the Jewish Future (Yeshiva University), and to complete their Continuing
Rabbinic Education (CRE) programs in areas including sexuality and relationships, mental health,
and end of life care. One of the issues that came about in the course of my studies, an issue of
critical importance to halachically-observant Jews, is that of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
(OCD).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM V), published by
the American Psychiatric Association (APA), describes a diagnosis of OCD as follows:

1. Presence of obsessions, compulsions, or both:

Obsessions are defined by (1) and (2):

1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges, or impulses that are experienced, at some time
during the disturbance, as intrusive and unwanted, and that in most individuals cause
marked anxiety or distress.

2. The individual attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, urges, or images, or to

neutralize them with some other thought or action (i.e., by performing a compulsion).

Compulsions are defined by (1) and (2):

1. Repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying,
counting, repeating words silently) that the individual feels driven to perform in response
to an obsession or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

2. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing anxiety or distress, or
preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts are
not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are
clearly excessive.

18
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ocd-and-halakha-the-orthodox-rabbis-challenge/

47
Note: Young children may not be able to articulate the aims of these behaviors or mental acts.
1. The obsessions or compulsions are time-consuming (e.g., take more than 1 hour per day)
or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other
important areas of functioning.

2. The obsessive-compulsive symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a

substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition.

3. The disturbance is not better explained by the symptoms of another mental disorder

The challenge for the Orthodox rabbi or mental health professional in treating or counseling those
with OCD is manifold. The halachic system is intensely focused on details and minutiae. There
are countless details that must be adhered to when fulfilling mitzvos properly.

The Sforno alludes to this in his comments on the pasuk, Devarim 16:1,

Why does the Jewish calendar not simply follow a solar year? If, in any case, we must make sure
that Pesach falls in the spring, what is the purpose of consistently following lunar years, if
eventually one has to align these with the solar years? His answer is most telling so as to complicate
life. In order to make sure that the month of Nissan and the festival of Pesach will always fall in
the spring, one has to make difficult astronomical calculations.

The Torah deliberately complicated the Jewish year by modeling it on a lunar year, so that Nissan
would not automatically fall in the spring, so that the Sages would have to make complicated
calculations. These difficulties make us more aware of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and of our role in
sanctifying life through the arduous, detailed work of observance. However, this concern for
details and a desire to be machmir, to do things in the most l’chatchila way possible which is yotzei
as many shitos as possible, with a sense of hiddur and being lifnim mishuras hadin, can often be
easily lost when the individual nosedives into the depths of OCD within the context of observing
Halacha and keeping mitzvos.

(Behavior that appears to be overly detail-oriented is not in and of itself symptomatic of OCD. In
fact, the DSM V’s definition of OCD stipulates that the person must experience recurrent anxiety-

48
provoking thoughts (obsessions), which then induce the person to behave in a manner to address
these fears (compulsions), and the operative point is that these behaviors must be significantly
debilitating, such as causing extreme distress or disabling social or occupational function. The
DSM also requires that the person suffering from the disorder acknowledges or recognizes at some
point that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable.)

The Steipler Gaon, in line with modern mental health advice, argues that the rabbi should not seek
to reassure the OCD congregant, but should urge them to seek help after the point where they have
already been issued a psak once. “Such thinking is a tactic of the yetzer hara in order to make
observance of the mitzvos so burdensome that he will eventually, G-d forbid, shirk the yoke of the
Torah. He should realize he will not endure this suffering forever because it will eventually pass
over time. The main point is that he should follow the rulings of rabbinic authorities without
analyzing their reasons and without second guessing them.” (Eitzos Vehadrachos Meyosad Al
Michtavei Maran Baal Hekehillos Yaakov, p. 55.)

There is the concept of “Ve’hevei medakdek b’mitzvah kalah kevachamurah” (“Be as scrupulous
in observing a minor mitzvah as a major one”); all mitzvos should be performed in the best possible
manner, which is the concept of hiddur mitzvah (beautifying a mitzvah). On the other hand, Chazal
tell us about the concept of ein l’davar sof (there would be no end to the matter) if reasonable limits
were not imposed. In addition, I believe it would be beneficial to tell over to congregants that their
behaviors cannot be construed as reflecting ratzon Elokim because of “Lo nitnah Torah l’malachei
hashares.”

The approach of the Minchas Asher, HaRav HaGaon Asher Weiss, is also most useful in
articulating a pastorally and hashkafically sound approach to the matter of counseling those with
OCD. He addresses the teshuva, chelek beis, siman 134, to a talmid chacham who suffers from
OCD, who has been instructed by doctors to never repeat words during davening even if he thinks
he mispronounced them. He asks whether he should listen to them and, assuming he should listen
to them, should he take measures to minimize the problems that may result from possible improper
recitation of brachos, such as never eating a k’dei svi’a of bread so that he never has a chiyuv
midoraisa to bentch.

The answer of the Minchas Asher is most helpful for a rabbi to follow when counseling those with
OCD- first, he is firm that the shoel should listen to the doctors even if it means neglecting mitzvos
aseh. This has an origin in Rema’s discussion of spending money on mitzvos aseh (OC 656:1- “Mi
she’ein lo etrog, o sha’ar mitzvah overet, eino tzarich levazbez aleiha hon rav, uchmo she’ameru.
Hamvazbez al yevazbez yoter mechomesh, afillu mitzvah; vedavka mitzvat aseh, aval lo ta’aseh
yiten kol mamono kodem sheya’avor.”) Rema paskens that one only needs to spend 1/5th of his
money to keep a mitzvas aseh. If it will cost more, one is instructed to not fulfill the mitzva but
rather let it go.

Furthermore, the Avnei Nezer (EH 1:8) paskens that if a man was married and after 10 years
couldn’t conceive, he wouldn’t have to divorce his wife, even if it means not fulfilling the mitzvas
aseh of priyah v’rivyah, because if a person doesn’t need to give up 1/5th of his money to fulfill

49
any mitzvas aseh, then certainly one does not need to give up his beloved wife who is worth so
much more to him than money.

(This is seemingly at odds with the gemara in Yevamos 64a, which states that a man must divorce
after 10 years if the wife cannot produce a child, although the Avnei Nezer likely is holding like
those shitos which say that one must only divorce in Eretz Yisroel and that the din is inapplicable
in chutz la’aretz- Rashi, Yevamos 64b, DH Miketz Asar Shanim, says: “limodecha She’ein
yeshivat chutzah le’aretz olah lo dilma mishum avon chotzah le’eretz hem akurim;” implies this,
and the Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Ishus 15:4) rules that a man in Chutz la’Aretz cannot be
forced to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness, because it might be the lack of zechus
of Chutz la’Aretz that prevents him from having children (and thus it will not help to marry another
wife). He adds, citing the Avi’Asaf, that nowadays even in Eretz Yisrael Beis Din may not force
a man to divorce his wife after ten years of childlessness.

The Gemara in Bava Basra (60b) relates that the Chachamim considered enacting a prohibition
against marriage when the nations began to persecute the Jewish people. They reasoned that it is
better for the Jews to cause their own end by not having children than to be destroyed by their
enemies. The Chachamim, however, decided against such an enactment on the grounds that it
would have been too difficult for the people to observe. Nevertheless, the very proposition of such
an enactment shows that nowadays Beis Din is not required to force a person to fulfill the Mitzvah
of Piryah v’Rivyah.)

From this, the Minchas Asher also learns that a person undergoing treatment for OCD can certainly
violate any positive mitzva because one’s mental health is worth more than 1/5th of his money and
doesn’t have to be sacrificed for a mitzvas aseh. Therefore, the mitzvas aseh may be violated to
save the victim’s mental health. He even suggests grounds to permit them to violate a lo sa’aseh.

The gemara, Shabbos 69b, discusses the case of one who is lost in the wilderness and doesn’t know
what day is Shabbos. Rava says, b’chol yom v’yom oseh lo k’dei parnasato, that each day he
should just do enough work to eat. Tosfos (DH Oseh K’dei Parnasato) says, “Aval lehallech yachol
kol mah sheyirtzeh rak bayom shemeshamer de’i lav hachi lo yaggia la’olam layishuv;” we are
mekil about the techum Shabbos for him. He may walk as far as he wants (Chachamim exempt
him from concern for Techumim), except for the day he observes [to be Shabbos]. If not, he would
never reach civilization! We are willing to let him do this so that he may come to keep Shabbos
properly many times in civilization.

Rav Weiss applied a similar logic to OCD patients. Since their OCD was preventing them from
fulfilling mitzvos, we would be willing to temporarily allow them to violate some mitzvos so they
could fulfill all of them properly in the future. He’s saying like the Chasam Sofer, “Mutav
sheyechallel torah zeman mah kedei sheyishmor mitzvot harbeh;” Rav Weiss himself concludes
on this point: “Reshit chovato shel ish zeh la’asot et kol hanidrash al menat limtzo mazor umerapei
lemachalato, ulesham kach muttar lo af la’avor al mitzvat hattorah.” This man’s primary obligation
is to do everything that is necessary for him to cure his illness, and to this end he is allowed even
to violate the Torah’s mitzvos.

50
He also cautions against trying to minimize such halachic problems, as the constant search to avoid
halachic sfikos and dilemmas will merely feed his obsessiveness, when the whole point of the
exercise is to help him learn to live with it. The Minchas Asher allows that if the shoel is concerned
with occasions that he is being motzei others, he should let another do it instead, such as in asking
guests or his wife to make Kiddush, and he shouldn’t be embarrassed to ask for help in this way,
since he would not be ashamed to ask for assistance if he were missing a limb; this form of
disability is no different. I believe this is a treasure for the rabbi who counsels the frum Jew with
OCD in the proper derech regarding shmiras hamitzvos and the very important mitzvah of
following professional advice in the course of OCD treatment. Rav Weiss is not offering
reassurance, but rather is offering a harmonious psak which is both halachically sound and places
the OCD treatment at the center of the individual’s wellbeing. This represents the best possible
approach for the Orthodox rabbi counseling those with OCD.

Not Just Hand-Washing: OCD Attributes You Should Know

About19

When many of us think of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, images of repeated hand-

washing or stressfully arranging a row of pencils come to mind. And while cleanliness,order, and
symmetry are very common themes relating to this condition, OCD has also been found to be
related to a number of other, lesser-known factors that most people are unaware of. For this reason,
taking a look at additional aspects can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of OCD,

19
https://www.brainsway.com/knowledge-center/ocd-attributes-you-should-know-about/

51
and is worth considering when consulting a mental health professional on the matter and deciding
on a treatment option.

A Few Key Points Regarding OCD

Before we move on to low-visibility facts and factors associated with OCD, let’s review some of
the more well-known ones:

• Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a mental health disorder marked by obsessive thoughts,

compulsive, repeated behavior, and the detrimental anxiety they cause.
• OCD-related thoughts often involve one or more of the following themes:
o Cleanliness or fear of contamination.
o Great concern the individual or a loved one will experience a catastrophe.
o A focus on order and symmetry.
o Taboo and “forbidden” thoughts that go against acceptable social norms.
• OCD-related behavior can be linked to the above themes (e.g. repeated hand-washing to
stave off illness) or be seemingly unconnected (e.g. turning the lights on and off following
a distressing thought about a loved one). Regardless of its reasoning, OCD behavior acts
as a way to calm the anxiety caused by OCD.
• In addition to thoughts and actions, a third OCD feature is the level of insight, or awareness
the individual has to the fact that they are facing this condition.
• OCD is also differentiated by whether the individual suffering from it has dealt with a tic
disorder, either currently or in the past. A tic disorder is defined as a series of rapid,
involuntary movements or sound gestures.
• 2.3% of US adults, and 1%-2.3% of US children and adolescents, will face OCD.
• Highly effective OCD treatments include Deep TMS treatment, SSRI medication and
cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), such as Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP).
• Deep TMS is the only non-invasive medical device FDA-cleared to treat OCD.

52
Additional Aspects: Who Is More Likely to Develop OCD?

Now that we’re clear on the basic features of OCD, let’s take a look at some additional potential
correlates between this condition and other factors.

Gender: The question of gender and OCD has yet to be definitively answered: while the European
ICD health manual has not found a considerable difference between OCD prevalence among
women and men, the American DSM mental health manual notes that women are affected at a
slightly higher rate than men in adulthood, and that during childhood boys are more commonly
affected than girls. The DSM continues to say that while females with OCD are more likely to
develop cleaning-related OCD, males with OCD are more likely to focus on forbidden thoughts
and symmetry, as well as develop a tic disorder.

Age can Also Shape One’s OCD: An individual’s age and stage in life have been found to
influence what type of content they will fixate on, as part of their OCD. Specifically, children and
adolescents tend to obsess over and fear catastrophes hurting a loved one, while adolescents
reported higher rates of sexual and religious-focused OCD.

Hoarding: Individuals with OCD have a higher chance of also suffering from hoarding, a mental
health disorder that causes them to hold on to objects and suffer from extreme anxiety over the
thought of discarding them. The link between OCD and hoarding many times runs through the fear
that the individual or a loved one may be caused harm: for example, when a person battling both
OCD and hoarding may experience anxiety over the thought that clearing their home of all the

53
objects they have accumulated may result in their not having the very object they might need in an
emergency. Several other spectrum conditions, such as body dysmorphic disorder, are closely
related to OCD.

Avoidance: For many patients battling this condition, their OCD-related anxiety is triggered by a
loss of control, be it over a fear of contamination or from the possibility they had left the stove on.
For this reason, many individuals with OCD eventually begin avoiding unfamiliar situations, or
settings that include more variables outside their control. As a result, they may start limiting their
excursions, stay indoors more, and slowly isolate themselves from friends, family, and new
experiences.

Negative Emotions and Early Inhibition: Patients with OCD have been found to show higher
than average negative emotionality. Childhood inhibition has also been shown to be related to the
development of OCD in adulthood.

Suicidality: Up to one quarter of individuals with OCD are reported to have attempted to take their
own lives. This risk increases with the additional presence of major depressive disorder.

Non-Prognostic Factors

Extensive OCD research has not found the appearance of this condition to be more common in
certain cultures, as opposed to others. Similarly, one’s culture has not been found to determine at
what age they are more likely to develop OCD, or what other health conditions might arise with
it.

54
 Neural response in obsessive-compulsive washers depends on
individual fit of triggers

Ali Baioui,1,2,3,* Juliane Pilgramm,1,2,3 Christian J. Merz,1,2 Bertram

Walter,2 Dieter Vaitl,2 and Rudolf Stark1,2,3 write:

Introduction
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by recurrent and intrusive thoughts,
images, or impulses (obsessions) which often trigger repetitive behaviors (compulsions) such as
washing, checking, or mental rituals (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Despite an
ongoing discussion, there is growing clinical (Hasler et al., 2005), factor-analytical (Bloch et
al., 2008), neurofunctional (Mataix-Cols et al., 2004), neurostructural (van den Heuvel et
al., 2009), and genetic (Hasler et al., 2007) evidence that OCD symptoms can be condensed into
distinct subtypes. In a meta-analysis, Bloch et al. (2008) consolidating data from 21 factor analysis
studies confirmed a four-factor symptom structure and identified the following subtypes:
(1) symmetry/repeating/ordering/counting, (2) forbidden thoughts/checking, (3)
contamination/washing, and (4) hoarding.
The contamination/washing subtype (contamination obsessions with cleaning/washing
compulsions) is one of the most frequent OCD subtypes. Approximately 45–60% of OCD patients

55
suffer from contamination obsessions and/or washing compulsions (Pinto et al., 2006; Matsunaga
et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2012).
On the one hand, triggers very much vary, are highly idiosyncratic, and often connected with
implausible or magical beliefs (Rozin et al., 1986). On the other hand, compulsions are relatively
homogenous within this subtype—patients typically feel the urge to reduce the obsessions by
means of excessive and ritualistic washing/cleaning compulsions (Markarian et al., 2010). As
behavioral studies show, symptom intensity during confrontation with a trigger can be validly
operationalized as the “urge to ritualize”; in contamination/washing-related OCD as the “urge to
wash hands” (Jones and Menzies, 1997).
As opposed to arousal, valence and anxiety ratings, this symptom-specific rating differentiates
well between OCD-specific stimuli and generally aversive stimuli in OCD patients (Simon et
al., 2010).
The current evidence from functional and structural neuroimaging studies on OCD has been
consolidated in an extended cortico-striatal network model (Menzies et al., 2008) that integrates
brain regions outside the orbitofronto-striatal loop (Saxena et al., 1998).
It states that OCD symptomatology is particularly mediated by abnormalities of two relatively
segregated fronto-striatal loops: the affective loop and the spatial/attentional loop. The affective
loop includes orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum (most prominent structure: nucleus
accumbens), ventral pallidum, and mediodorsal thalamus with putative influences from anterior
cingulate cortex, hippocampus, and basolateral amygdala. Dysregulation of the affective loop in
OCD is assumed to be linked to deficits regarding representation of reward and punishment,
anxiety and emotional processing, and in inhibitory control (Menzies et al., 2008).
The spatial/attentional loop includes dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), nucleus caudatus,
pallidum, thalamus, and substantia nigra and is putatively affected by supramarginal gyri (SMG),
angular gyri, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC), and subthalamic nucleus. Dysregulation of
the spatial/attentional loop in OCD seems to be related to deficits regarding executive planning,
cognitive flexibility, implicit learning, and working memory (Menzies et al., 2008).
Nonetheless, there is a considerable heterogeneity among the results of present functional OCD
neuroimaging studies (for reviews see Whiteside et al., 2004; Rotge et al., 2008). The vast majority
of these studies so far have investigated samples of OCD patients with different subtypes,
neglecting the specificity of the separate subtypes. Structural (van den Heuvel et al., 2009) and
functional (Mataix-Cols et al., 2004) neuroimaging studies support the thesis that different brain
structures could be involved in the etiology of each subtype. Only few neuroimaging studies have
investigated contamination/washing-related OCD by examining this patient group separately
(Phillips et al., 2000; Shapira et al., 2003), exclusively (McGuire et al., 1994; Rauch et al., 2002;
Chen et al., 2004; van den Heuvel et al., 2004) or by using subtype-specific symptom provocation
(Mataix-Cols et al., 2004).
These studies pointed out that orbitofrontal cortex (Rauch et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2004), insula
(Phillips et al., 2000; Shapira et al., 2003), amygdala (van den Heuvel et al., 2004), thalamus (Chen
et al., 2004), pallidum (McGuire et al., 1994), and nucleus caudatus (Chen et al., 2004; Mataix-
Cols et al., 2004) are particularly involved in contamination/washing-related OCD.

56
One way to address the diversity of OCD phenomenology is to use subtype-specific symptom
provocation. Mataix-Cols' workgroup published the Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Stimuli Set
(MOCSS; Mataix-Cols et al., 2009), a standardized pictorial stimulus set with subsets for all main
OCD subtypes.
However, other researchers tried to account for the idiosyncrasy of OCD by using subject-specific
stimuli. This was accomplished by using an individualized selection of stimuli from a picture pool
according to the patients' ratings of symptom intensity (Simon et al., 2010) or by creating unique
individualized stimuli that actually show the personal triggers of each patient (Schienle et
al., 2005). In sum, we agree with Simon et al. (2010) that “to account for the phenotypic
heterogeneity of OCD, there is a need to use validated and individually tailored stimuli.”
In the present fMRI study, we attempted to optimize the investigation of the neural correlates of
OCD. Firstly, to reduce complexity of the clinical sample, we investigated contamination/washing
subtype only. Secondly, to ensure stimulus specificity and to account for the remaining
heterogeneity, we realized a highly individualized symptom provocation paradigm. Thirdly, to
allow comparison with previous studies and between-group approaches, we also integrated a
standardized and validated symptom provocation approach (MOCSS).
We argue that both, subtype-specific standardized as well as subject-specific individualized
symptom provocation, have their advantages. Fourthly, in order to test on a theory-driven basis,
the regions of interest (ROIs) for this study (see Appendix) are identical to the regions of the
current neurobiological model: the ROIs correspond with the two both fronto-striatal loops,
without their “putatively influencing regions” (Menzies et al., 2008).
The question to what extent and how both symptom provocation approaches evoke activation in
these regions is, however, not only of methodological interest. It is highly relevant for a better
understanding and advanced therapy of OCD, because it is able to shed light on the vividly
discussed (see Summerfeldt et al., 1999; McKay et al., 2004; Hasler et al., 2005; Mataix-Cols et
al., 2005; Matsunaga et al., 2010) interplay of individual and common factors of OCD etiology
from a neurobiological perspective.
We hypothesized that our highly individualized symptom provocation approach would evoke
heightened activation in regions central to OCD etiology. Therefore, we expected elevated
responses in structures of both, the affective loop, and the spatial/attentional loop, especially in the
basal ganglia, the intersection of both loops. We also hypothesized that when directly comparing
both approaches, individualized symptom provocation would induce stronger activation in these
structures.

57
Table 1
Overview of all inclusion and exclusion criteria for patients and healthy
controls.

58
Results
Mean (+SE) ratings of “urge to wash hands” are depicted in Figure Figure2.2. A main effect for
Disorder Relevance shows that OCD pictures were generally rated as provoking stronger urges to
wash hands than neutral pictures [F(1, 144) = 718.555, p < 0.001]. As a main effect for Group
reveals, overall, patients had higher ratings than controls [F(1, 144) = 56.250, p < 0.001]. A main
effect for Stimulus Set shows higher ratings for standardized than for individualized pictures [F(1,
144) = 37.416, p < 0.001]. Ratings showed significant interactions for Disorder Relevance by
Stimulus Set [F(1, 144) = 61.056, p < 0.001] and Group by Disorder Relevance [F(1, 144) = 64.069, p <
0.001]. The interaction Stimulus Set by Group was not significant [F(1, 144) = 4.075, p = 0.5]. The
three-way interaction Group by Disorder Relevance by Stimulus Set was marginally significant
[F(1, 144) = 3.154, p = 0.078]. As can be seen in Figure Figure2,2, this three way interaction can be
explained by individualized pictures being more effective in differentiating between OCD patients
and HC than standardized pictures.

59
FMRI data
Figure Figure33 displays neural activation between OCD and HC, separately for individualized
(blue) and standardized symptom provocation (green).

60
Neural activation of patients (OCD; solid colors) greater than healthy controls (HC;
patterned) contrasted for individualized (IND; blue) and standardized (STD; green)
symptom provocation.

The figure displays statistical parametrical maps with whole-brain t-values for the between-group
contrasts (OCD > HC) for both symptom provocation approaches. For illustration reasons, data
were thresholded with t > 2.5 (see color bars for exact t-values) and displayed on a standard MNI
brain template. Significant results from the voxel-wise ROI analyses are marked with red
rectangles. Additionally, all significant between-group results are further depicted using the peak
voxels of the OCD group: the bar graphs illustrate mean contrast estimates (CE) of the symptom
provocation contrasts (with the corresponding standard errors of the mean) for patients (gray) and
healthy controls (white). All coordinates are given in MNI space. The lower slice (x = −10; left
hemisphere) depicts the only regions with an overlap (yellow) between both whole-brain statistical
parametrical maps, with a threshold of t > 2.5; these regions were not included in any ROI and are
depicted for illustrative purposes only.

61
Individualized symptom provocation
During individualized symptom provocation, nucleus accumbens, nucleus caudatus, and pallidum
were significantly more strongly activated in the OCD group compared to HC. These results are
largely in accordance with the current neurobiological model, assuming a dysfunction of the
orbitofronto-striatal network in OCD patients (see Deckersbach et al., 2002; Menzies et al., 2008).
They are also in line with previous studies that examined contamination/washing-related OCD
regarding pallidum (McGuire et al., 1994) and nucleus caudatus (Chen et al., 2004; Mataix-Cols
et al., 2004).
Schienle et al. (2005) reported greater activation in insula, nucleus caudatus, SMG, thalamus, and
prefrontal cortex when contrasting symptom provocation in OCD patients and HC. The present
study was able to partly replicate this previously reported pattern; yet we used partly different
ROIs. We assume that the additional brain regions that were significantly more strongly activated
in our study (pallidum and nucleus accumbens) possibly are due to a stronger statistical power
(due to a larger sample) or are more specific to the contamination/washing-related subtype. Indeed,
the pallidum has previously been reported in the context of this subtype (McGuire et al., 1994).
Heightened activation of the nucleus accumbens during symptom provocation can be understood
in the context of the orbitofronto-striatal network as a mediator between orbitofrontal cortex and
pallidum within the affective loop (see Menzies et al., 2008). Alternatively, as Sturm et al. (2003)
speculate, OCD might even be explained as a dysfunction of the nucleus accumbens due to its
“gating” function for both the fronto-striatal and the hippocampo-striatal circuitry. Clinical
significance of heightened nucleus accumbens activity has already been shown in several studies
using deep brain stimulation as treatment for refractory OCD (for recent reviews see Greenberg et
al., 2010; Schlaepfer and Bewernick, 2011).

Conclusions
From a neurobiological perspective, the present study emphasizes the importance of considering
the idiosyncrasy of OCD. Behavioral and neural responses point to a higher symptom-specificity
of individualized symptom provocation.
In addition, the presented results contribute to a better understanding of the interplay of individual
and common factors of OCD. Firstly, the results show that the degree of individuality of OCD
triggers makes a difference to the “OCD brain.” Secondly, they show that only a confrontation
with highly individual triggers evokes activation patterns that are considered as
the common neural basis of OCD. We argue that the question about the difference in neural
mechanisms behind different OCD subtypes can only be answered if symptom provocation is
performed with a high degree of symptom specificity. Speculatively, the diverse neural activation
reported in earlier studies for different OCD phenomenology (cp. Mataix-Cols et al., 2004) might
just reflect the variance produced by an unspecific symptom provocation approach. In other words:
the content validity of symptom provocation might be determined by the fit of the stimuli to the
highly diverse individual triggers—the better the content validity, the smaller the “signal noise,”
thus the better the ability to depict a common neural pathway.

62
References: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3631704/

HALACHIC IMPLICATIONS OF OCD

63
64
65
66
67
 20

20
https://www.yutorah.org/_cdn/_materials/OCD-553283.pdf

68
69
 The hellish side of handwashing: how coronavirus is affecting
people with OCD

For some OCD patients, not washing their hands is part of their treatment. So
guidance to do so regularly is reviving their anxieties – and triggering them in
others

70
David Adam writes:21

Boris Johnson does it while singing Happy Birthday twice. For Jacob Rees-Mogg, it’s the national
anthem. And as soap supplies run low, it seems much of Britain is following their example and
heeding the official guidance to wash hands thoroughly and often, in order to minimise the spread
of the coronavirus.

It is good public health advice, of course. Indeed, one question raised by the rush for soap is just
what all those people without any in the house did before. But for some people with obsessive-
compulsive disorder (OCD), to be warned they must scrub to protect themselves from an invisible
enemy, and to do so in a ritualistic way with internal musical accompaniment, is akin to inviting a
demon to come for tea. Some of these people have spent years trying not to wash their hands, often
as a prescribed part of their treatment.

“It’s definitely put a lot of the internal OCD dialogue back into my life. It’s being reinforced by
outside, authoritative voices,” says Erica (not her real name), a long-term OCD patient. “It’s a lot
harder to tell yourself that the urge to wash your hands is irrational when everyone on your Twitter
feed or on the news is saying: ‘Wash your hands. Nobody is washing their hands correctly.’”

The worsening outbreak affects people with OCD in other ways, too. Chiefly, the spike in anxiety
about the virus can fuel existing obsessive fears of contamination and trigger destructive
compulsive actions. For some people with OCD, coronavirus can become all they think about. “I
have seen three patients this week whose OCD has started to focus on coronavirus,” says David
Veale, a consultant psychiatrist at the Priory hospital in London. “It is a challenging time for people
who have OCD.”

As anyone with the condition will know, of course, OCD is challenging all the time. Often
portrayed as a behavioural quirk, OCD is in fact a syndrome defined by recurring irrational
thoughts. The compulsive actions – often the most visible feature of the illness – are usually only
a response to those intrusive thoughts.

The irrational content of those thoughts is limited only by the spectrum of human imagination.
Since I published a book on my experiences with OCD, I have met people obsessed with the idea
that if they close their eyes, the whole world will change while they are not looking, or that if they
hand-write a letter or a number that contains a closed loop, their family will die. But OCD does
tend to cluster around a limited number of themes.

Perhaps the biggest of these is contamination – with generic dirt or germs, or with a specific illness
or disease. And these contamination fears are heavily influenced by culture, society, and shared
health scares. Coronavirus is only the latest.

I have OCD that focuses on HIV and Aids, which makes sense because I grew up in the 1980s
when global fear of that condition was at its peak. It wasn’t just me. A generation was traumatised.

21
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/13/why-regular-handwashing-can-be-bad-advice-for-patients

71
The US psychiatrist Judith Rapoport wrote in her book, The Boy Who Couldn’t Stop Washing,
that by 1989 a third of her OCD patients focused on HIV and Aids. The disease, she wrote,
appeared “so terrifying, so irrational that it could have been the creation of an obsessive-
compulsive’s worst fantasy”.

In the 1920s, doctors in the US reported a surge in what they called syphilis-phobia, which
coincided with a campaign to highlight the dangers of the disease. In the 1960s and 70s there was
a spike in irrational fears of asbestos, just as the dangers of the material had come to popular
attention. In 2012, Australian scientists reported the first cases of OCD in people who fixate on
thoughts about climate change – a bogeyman for the new millennium and one that, like HIV in the
1980s, poses an uncertain, universal threat, depicted in lurid detail by the mass media. (Full
disclosure: as the former environment correspondent for this newspaper, I used to write those
stories.)

If coronavirus continues to spread, experts expect related cases of OCD to spike as well. The
disease and the attention it is receiving are “good for business”, one psychiatrist told me with
gallows humor.

Exactly what makes some people predisposed to OCD isn’t clear, but genetics and previous
experiences seem to play a role. In some cases, Veale says, the coronavirus threat could bring on
OCD for the first time. “If someone’s got the right genes and they’ve had all the right experiences
to shape them, then this could be a trigger to set the whole thing off.” There is some evidence that
simply asking people to wash their hands can make them more anxious about their health.
Psychologists have found that students asked to spend a week using hand sanitizer after they
touched money, door handles, or other possible sources of germs subsequently reported
significantly higher signs of hypochondria.

For Kyle MacNeill, a freelance writer, the 2009 swine flu scare initiated a years-long struggle with
OCD. He traces it back to a remark from a family member that he wasn’t washing his hands
properly. Combined with the warnings about the virus, the comment sparked an obsession with
germs. “I’d wash my hands 20 times in a row,” he says. “On my way out I would accidentally
brush against the door handle. It’s very exhausting, you know, having to repeat that process again.”
MacNeill’s anxieties were eventually successfully treated, and he is not overly worried that
coronavirus will set them off again.

What about people who do worry they might convert rational coronavirus anxiety to OCD? What
should they look out for? Veale says the signs of OCD are clear and different from the “normal”
response to the coronavirus. Fretting about the virus and washing hands a lot don’t qualify on their
own. An important difference is that someone with OCD will wash until they feel comfortable or
“just right”. “The key issue is the function,” he says. “Is it to reduce the risk of spreading of
coronavirus, or is it done ritualistically in a specific order with termination criteria?”

The content of the thoughts and the nature of the anxiety are usually different, too. With OCD, the
intrusive thoughts are exaggerated and irrational. One of Veale’s patients with coronavirus OCD,
for example, has started to fixate on whether they can catch the disease from Chinese food.

72
It is important to stress that, as long as it is not excessive, handwashing to minimize the risk of
coronavirus spread from other people is a rational response to a genuine threat. But OCD just isn’t
rational. Although many patients with OCD do wash their hands repeatedly, it is not always
because they think they are dirty. In some cases, it is just a way to find comfort, to ease the mental
burden of irrational obsessions that a loved one might die, or that something dreadful will happen
to them. For some OCD patients, flicking a light on and off a set number of times can bring that
relief. So can tapping, or saying a specific word, or shuffling from foot to foot or an infinite number
of other nonsensical routines. For me it was seeking reassurance: checking for blood on a piece of
glass I stepped on or asking health professionals if I could catch HIV by doing this and that. In
every case, I already knew the answer was no. But I wanted them to say it because for a second or
two I believed, and the world seemed a brighter place. The reassurance never lasted but it gave me
a hit of happiness that became addictive.

That is why OCD is so hard to treat, and why coronavirus and official advice on handwashing pose
such a dilemma for some OCD patients and therapists. Treatment for OCD is based on the principle
of exposure-and-response prevention. It exposes a patient to what they are afraid of, to spike their
anxiety, but stops them performing the compulsive acts they would usually employ to make
themselves feel better. For contamination-related OCD, that response prevention frequently
involves getting them to not wash their hands, sometimes for days on end. In theory, the anxiety
drips away and the patient realizes they need not rely on handwashing to feel better. Being told
they do need to repeatedly wash their hands after all could interfere with that recovery.

It is a paradox and one that makes health officials jumpy. I spoke with one NHS psychiatrist who
wanted to make the point that OCD patients with handwashing issues should follow the
government advice on coronavirus, but not take it too far. They were told by their bosses that they
shouldn’t say so publicly because: “It may be a very risky strategy, including if a patient actually
does catch the virus.”

For some OCD patients, the risky strategy is the correct one, says Jon Abramowitz, an OCD expert
and therapist at the University of North Carolina. He is telling some OCD patients to ignore the
official US government health advice on coronavirus and to keep on not washing their hands. “It’s
a tough call. What I have said to people is that your risk is low, and I don’t think you need to take
all these kinds of precautions. And given you have OCD, you’re probably better off not.”

73