ots@ohrtorahstone.org.il

Mayim Achronim: A Survey of the Halachic Sources
by: Rachel Weinerman (also researched by Gila Insler)

The development of Jewish law is a fascinating and wide-ranging topic. Hundreds of people have added their writings to the vast halachic literature which exists today. This paper traces the development of one mysterious halacha: mayim achronim. Beginning with the Gemara, where the obligation originates, we will analyze the divergent interpretations of the halacha through the many years of its development. The main categories of poskim (halachic authorities) we will see are the Rishonim, who lived between the tenth and fifteenth centuries, and the Achronim, who lived after the fifteenth century. Through this analysis we will see that halacha is influenced by many factors, including the times and geographic locations in which the poskim lived.

Mayim achronim is first mentioned in the Gemara in Chulin 105a, which introduces two types of obligatory washings during a meal:

Washing before a meal (mayim rishonim) is considered a mitzvah, while washing after a meal (mayim achronim) is considered a chovah, obligatory.

The difference between a chovah and a mitzvah is a difficult distinction which we will examine later. The Gemara also states,

Mayim achronim may only be performed with cold water, since hot water opens the pores of the hands and does not remove the zuhamah.

The definition of zuhamah is also subject to disagreement, although it is apparently some part of the food left on one’s hands. Thus we see from the Gemara that one of the purposes of mayim achronim is to remove the zuhamah from one’s hands.

A page later, in Chulin 105b, the Gemara explains why mayim achronim is considered chovah:

Why did they say mayim achronim is obligatory? Because of the sodomite salt which blinds the eyes

Rashi explains that in the times of the Gemara people used to eat salt with all their foods, and there was a danger that if they touched their eyes with salt on their fingers they would be blinded. Abaye later says,

At first I though the reason you cannot pour mayim achronim on the ground was because of the zuhamah, but Mar told me it was because of the evil spirit.

From this Gemara, we see that mayim achronim was instituted as a chovah because of melech sodomite (sodomite salt). Also, there seem to be two other elements involved in mayim achronim: zuhamah and ruach ra’ah (evil spirit).

A third Gemara, in Brachot 53b, also deals with mayim achronim. There is a disagreement regarding oil, which according to Rashi was used after mayim achronim to clean one’s hands. Some say that one may not say Birkat Hamazon (Grace after meals) until he has used this oil. Others say one may recite Birkat Hamazon even without the use of this oil. Rav Zuhamai states that just as a Kohen who was mezuham was forbidden from working in the Temple, so too, hands which are mezuhamot are pesulot from (unfit for) the blessing. In other words, one cannot recite a blessing with “dirty” hands. The Gemara continues with a quote from a Mishna in which Rav Yehuda son of Rav derives the obligation for washing from a verse in Leviticus 20:7:

“Sanctify yourselves,” this is mayim rishonim, “and be holy,” this is mayim achronim, “for holy” is oil, “am I the Lord your God,” is the blessing.

Mayim achronim is derived from the phrase “And be holy.” The implication of this Gemara is that mayim achronim is not done simply because of sodomite salt, but rather because of its source in Torah.

From here we can begin to understand the difference between a chovah and a mitzvah. Perhaps a chovah is something one must do for a practical reason, whereas a mitzvah is done as a ritual act. Thus, the Gemara says that mayim achronim is a chovah because its purpose is to guard from the sodomite salt. Mayim rishonim, on the other hand, is a mitzvah, since its original purpose was to purify the hands before touching any food set aside for Terumah. However, the Gemara in Brachot says that mayim achronim is derived from a verse in Leviticus. This would imply that mayim achronim is also a mitzvah, since the reason for it would also be ritual—to prepare the hands for Birkat Hamazon by ridding them of the zuhamah.

Thus we seem to have a contradiction between the Gemara in Chulin and the Gemara in Brachot as to the status of mayim achronim—chovah or mitzvah. Tosafot resolve this contradiction by saying that the verse quoted in Brachot is only an " a reliance on the verse", and not a derivation from the verse. The reason mayim achronim was instituted was sodomite salt. However, the Rabbis used this verse as support for, or an allusion to, the mitzvah. Since the Ba’alei Tosafot did not have sodomite salt where they lived, they did not do mayim achronim. According to Tosafot, a proof of this is that the Gemara also quotes oil as being derived from this verse, and certainly oil is not obligatory today. Finally, they say that since they were not used to washing after meals, their hands were not considered mezuhamot and they could still say Birkat Hamazon without washing their hands. However, Tosafot add that if one is used to washing one’s hands after the meal, he or she must wash before saying Birkat Hamazon.

The Tosafot were from France (Ashkenaz), and therefore many of the other Ashkenazic Rishonim (notably the R"osh and the Mordechai) share their opinion. The Rosh (Brachot 36a) also concludes that since there was no sodomite salt in his day, and since people in his time were not used to washing after the meal, mayim achronim was not considered obligatory.

The Rambam also seems to understand the verse as an asmachta. He says the reason for mayim achronim is sodomite salt. However, says the Rambam, the obligation also applies to any salt, whose nature is like that of sodomite salt. Therefore, says the Lechem Mishnah , according to the Rambam the obligation would still apply today, even though we do not have sodomite salt.

Many other Sephardi Rishonim also hold that the obligation of mayim achronim is still applicable today. The R'IF states that one must wash mayim achronim both because of sodomite salt (Chulin 37b) and for kedusha based on the verse (Brachot 40b). However, he adds that it is a chovah even if one did not eat salt. According to the R'IF, the rabbis instituted mayim achronim as a chovah because “Mayim achronim killed a person.” This is based on a story in Yoma 83b, in which Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosi, and Rabbi Yehuda were travelling together and had to stop at an inn for Shabbat. R. Meir, who interpreted people’s personalities based on their names, refused to allow the innkeeper to hold his money purse on Shabbat. The innkeeper’s name reminded him of a verse about an evil generation, and therefore he deemed the innkeeper a rasha. R. Yosi and R. Yehuda unsuspectingly allowed the innkeeper to hold their money. After Shabbat, when the Rabbis asked for their money back, the innkeeper replied that he never had it to begin with. The next day, as the Rabbis were in the store, they noticed the innkeeper with lentils on his moustache. They then went to ask the innkeeper’s wife for their money, using the lentils as proof that they knew her husband and were truthful (perhaps they said “Of course we know your husband—he had lentils for lunch today, did he not?). She returned their money, and upon hearing this, the innkeeper killed his wife. Thus, had the innkeeper washed mayim achronim (here including cleaning his mouth), the Rabbis would not have noticed the lentils and the innkeeper would not have killed his wife.

As a result of this story, says the R'IF, one must always do mayim achronim. Interestingly, although no other Rishon gives this as a reason for doing mayim achronim, the Beit Yosef brings this down as Halacha (Orech Chayim 181 Section 1). Most of the other Sephardic poskim say that mayim achronim is done for two reasons: sodomite salt and hands that are mezuhamot.

The Rit'va (Chulin 105b), a late thirteenth-century Spanish Rishon, quotes the Ra'vid as supporting both of these reasons. Mayim achronim is both a chovah (because of the danger of the sodomite salt) and a mitzvah based on the verse “and you should be Kadosh (holy)" (because of hands which are mezuhamot). This answer to the contradiction between the two Gemarot is echoed by many of the Sephardic Rishonim. In fact, the M'ieri splits the obligation of mayim achronim into two separate washings: a mitzvah washing before Birkat Hamazon, and a chovah one after Birkat Hamazon for anyone who ate salt (Chulin 105b).

According to the Ra'vid and the M'ieri, then, the mitzvah of mayim achronim is independent of the chovah. If one’s hands were mezuhamot, it would be a mitzvah to wash them, regardless of whether or not he or she ate salt. The question remains, however, whether one would be required to recite a blessing on this mitzvah.

The Sefer Ha’eshkol (Hilchot Netilat Yadaim Sections 2-7) speaks briefly about this, saying that although many of the rabbis in France were not strict about washing mayim achronim, his own contemporaries were very stringent in their observance of mayim achronim. Many even had traditions from the Geonim to say a blessing on the washing. He adds that that if one’s hands were mezuhamot, it is certainly fitting to make a blessing. The Ra'vid says that only the person actually saying Birkat Hamazon would be required to wash due to mezuhamot hands, and therefore he would be required to bless. However, the rest of the people at the table (who would only answer “Amen” and not actually say the blessings of Birkat Hamazon) would only wash because of sodomite salt. Therefore, they would not say a blessing, for this would be only a chovah and not a mitzvah. Since mayim achronim does not require a vessel like mayim rishonim does, the blessing on mayim achronim would be “al rchitzat yadayim". The Rit'va, however, says that it is impossible to institute a blessing for some people and not others for the same action, and therefore believes that no one should say a blessing.

The Ba'ch, a commentary on the Tur (Hilchot Birkat Hamazon 181), rejects the idea that the mitzvah to wash applies only to the person actually saying Birkat Hamazon. Even if only one person said the entire Birkat Hamazon out loud, everyone else would be answering “amen” to the blessings. Due to the halachic concept of "one who answers is considered as if he said it himself" everyone at the table with mezuhamot hands would still be required to wash.

The Ba'ch then quotes an opinion which proposed that only food which could be brought as a sacrifice would make one’s hands mezuhamot. Rabeinu Yonah rejects this opinion, saying that zuhamah is only created by foods which could not be brought on the altar as a sacrifice (Rabeinu Yonah, Brachot 40b). The Ba'ch explains that indeed both types of food would require washing for mayim achronim. Today our tables are in place of the altar in the Temple, and just as all sacrifices in the Temple had to be salted, so too, any food which could have been brought as a sacrifice must be dipped in salt. Therefore, these types of foods would require washing due to the danger of sodomite salt. Foods which could not be brought on the altar make one’s hands mezuhamot, and would therefore obligate one to wash due to the kedusha reason of mezuhamot hands. The Ba'ch thus concludes that all types of food would require one to wash mayim achronim, and everyone at the table must wash before Birkat Hamazon. He also concludes that this probably should be done with a blessing.

The Ba'ch’s conclusion, however, is ambiguous. He states that everyone should wash “if they are careful about mayim achronim"—implying that it is not an absolute necessity to wash. Also, the Darchei Moshe states that it is the Ashkenazic custom to follow Tosafot, meaning that we do not do mayim achronim. The Shulchan Aruch (Orech Chayim 181 Sections 1-10), written in the sixteenth century, is also a bit unclear. Rav Yosef Karo begins by stating that mayim achronim is chovah and that no blessing should be made on mayim achronim. The last line, however, mentions that there are many whose custom it is not to wash mayim achronim. Even according to these people, however, one who is used to washing after meals should do so before saying Birkat Hamazon.

The Mishna Brurah (Orech Chayim 181), written by the Chafetz Chaim at the turn of the twentieth century, explains the reason for doing mayim achronim as both mezuhamot hands and sodomite salt (he feels that even though there is no sodomite salt today, we must worry about other salt). Interestingly, the Mishna Brurah explains that if one washes his hands because they are mezuhamot, technically he should say a blessing. However, he does not, since we do not do the mitzvah correctly today anyway, as we do not use the oil mentioned in Gemara Brachot. Finally, the Mishna Brurah quotes Tosafot’s reasoning for those who do not perform mayim achronim today. However, he highly encourages people to wash anyway. He quotes the G'ra and the Magen Avraham, both of whom said that people should be careful about mayim achronim today—the former asserts that sodomite salt still exists today, and the latter quotes the Kabbalists who were very careful about mayim achronim.

Thus we can see the development and synthesis of two variant streams of thought in the matter of mayim achronim. On one side the Tosafot and the Ashkenazim are very lenient regarding mayim achronim, and on the other the Sephardim try to uphold the two reasons for mayim achronim given in the Gemara. The Shulchan Aruch incorporates both these views, leaving the practical halacha ambiguous. Interestingly enough, despite the clear Ashkenazi basis for not doing mayim achronim, the Mishna Brura and other Achronim vigilantly try to re-establish the minhag for various reasons.

One such Ashkenazi Achron, the Aruch HaShulchan, states forcefully that everyone should still do mayim achronim (Hilchot Seudah 181 Sections 4,5). When Tosafot said they did not do mayim achronim because they did not have sodomite salt, they were simply justifying the custom of their communities, but they did not intend others to disregard mayim achronim because of their statement. Also, the Aruch HaShulchan adds that the Ba’alei Tosafot, who were living in France (where salt came from the mountains) would not have had the problem of sodomite salt. But today (especially in Israel), much of our salt does come from the sea, and therefore we could have the potential problem of sodomite salt. He also encourages washing by quoting one of the Kabbalists:

Anyone who makes light of mayim achronim lessens his food portion from heaven and therefore one must be very careful with this, and so does any God fearing person act.

In his book Minhagei Yisrael, an overview of Jewish customs (Section 3, Page 180), Daniel Sperber also quotes the Kabbalists, who wrote that the reasons given in the Gemara were only the external reasons for the practice of mayim achronim, but that there are deeper mystical reasons as well. One must rinse his or her hands of the "satra achra" (lit. “other side) after performing such a physical act as eating before performing such a spiritual act as praising God. The Sh'la wrote that “had the Tosafot seen what the Zohar had written they would not have said what they did.” It is important to note that there is a distinction between a chovah or mitzvah and a minhag (custom). The re-instituted practice of mayim achronim may fall into the category of minhag, depending on the reasons for washing.

* * * *

That later Achronim attempt to re-establish the practice of mayim achronim is one of the many interesting aspects of this topic. As is evident in the Jewish world today, much confusion still surrounds the obligation for this washing after the meal. It is interesting to see the basis for this halacha in the Gemara and to note the way it was interpreted by various poskim throughout the process of determining Jewish law. Elements of geography, eating habits, and even stories from the Gemara all influence the final halachic outcome. The development of the practice of mayim achronim, then, is certainly a worthwhile insight into the workings of Jewish Law.

Rachel Weinerman was a student at Midreshet Lindenbaum, 5759.

Return to Ohr Torah Stone

Virtual Jerusalem Site Terms, Conditions of Use and Warranties.