A blessed morning to all. We continue our study with Beki'im BeHalacha and V'Kol Mizrahi. We offer a prayer for a complete recovery for Chaim Ben Mazal, among all the sick of Israel, amen. Today's lesson, day 54, is dedicated to the success and good health of Mashiach Ben Ester, Helina Bat Shirin, Yonatan Ben Helina, Yosef Chaim Ben Helina, and Talya Bat Helina. May the Almighty grant them blessing and success, amen.
Today, on page 136, we delve into an intriguing halachic case concerning water that is unfit for ritual hand-washing. This refers to water that has been used for a specific task or purpose, rendering it unsuitable for the purification required before certain activities, such as eating bread. Our discussion begins with water found in a barbershop. What could be problematic about such water? The general understanding is that if a barber has dipped his hands into the water, it becomes disqualified for ritual hand-washing. Let's explore the logic behind this.
We turn to the Shulchan Aruch, in Halacha Gimel, which states regarding "water before the barber": "If their appearance has changed, they are disqualified; if not, they are fit." Maran, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, thus distinguishes based on whether the water's appearance has altered. The Mishnah Berurah, in its commentary Yud Tet, elaborates on the phrase "water before the barber." It explains that the barber sometimes rinses his tools in this water. For instance, barbers might dip combs, scissors, or blades into water to clean them. In earlier times, before modern disinfectants, plain water was used. This act of cleaning tools constitutes a "task" performed with the water, thereby disqualifying it for ritual hand-washing. However, the Mishnah Berurah adds a crucial point: "But it is not presumed that he rinsed them there." This means that unless you know for sure that the barber used the water for cleaning his tools, you can rely on the presumption that he did not, and therefore the water remains fit for ritual hand-washing due to a doubt. This is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch concerning barber's water.
Now, let's consider the perspective of the Ben Ish Chai, in Parashat Kedoshim, Halacha Vav. He also discusses "water before the barber": "If their appearance has changed, they are disqualified; if not, they are fit." This is a direct quote from the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Ben Ish Chai offers a different explanation for why the barber dips his hands in the water: "Because the barber dips his hands in them to moisten the hair." He suggests the barber wets his hands to pat down the customer's hair. This action, he argues, is comparable to the case we discussed previously, where one dips a hand in water to moisten dough. In that scenario, merely taking some water out with one's hand to apply it to dough is not considered performing a "task" with the remaining water. The water that remains in the container has not had a "task" performed with it and therefore remains fit. According to the Ben Ish Chai's understanding, even if it is certain that the barber dipped his hands in the water for this purpose, it would still be fit for ritual hand-washing, as it's not considered a "task" that disqualifies the water. This interpretation, he notes, is sourced in the book Nachalat Tzevi. Thus, the leniency mentioned in the Mishnah Berurah regarding a doubt would only apply if the barber were cleaning his tools. If he is merely taking water to apply to hair, the water remains fit even if it's certain he dipped his hands.
However, not all authorities agree with this approach. Eliyahu Rabbah, quoting the Rashba, explains that the water is permissible only because "the water is not presumed to have been used." This implies that if it is known that the water was used, it would be problematic. This is also the understanding of the Levush, the Gra mi-Vilna, and other later authorities, including the Mishnah Berurah. Here we encounter a significant dispute: Is the barber's water permissible only in a case of doubt, or even in a case where its use is certain?
Hacham Ovadia, in his work Halichot Olam (a commentary on the Ben Ish Chai), attempts to reconcile these views by suggesting a different reason for leniency. He posits, based on several later authorities, that the prohibition applies only if the barber specifically rinses his tools in the water. If he is merely taking water to apply to hair, then even if it's known he used it, it should be permissible. This creates a distinction based on the barber's specific action. However, in Halichot Olam, Hacham Ovadia surprisingly adopts a stringent position, even if the barber merely dipped his hand. This seems problematic, as dipping a hand to moisten hair should be akin to moistening dough, which is permissible.
Hacham Ovadia clarifies his position: "Therefore, it appears that if the barber dipped his tools in the water, it is certainly forbidden, without question, because his intention is to clean the vessels. Similarly, if he intends to rinse his hands in the water, we will say that is also forbidden." The only point of contention, he states, is when the barber takes water from the container to put on the customer's head. In this specific scenario, Reb Zalman and the Ben Ish Chai permit it, viewing it as not performing a "task" with the water, similar to the case of moistening dough. However, those who prohibit it argue that "since along with taking the water, he is also rinsing" his hands. They suggest the barber has a dual intention: to moisten the hair and to clean his own hands, which may have hair, grime, or sweat on them. This dual intention, according to authorities like the Kaf HaChaim, would disqualify the water.
To summarize, we can categorize the barber's water into three scenarios: 1. If the water contains combs, brushes, or soap, indicating it's used for cleaning tools, it is unequivocally disqualified. This is considered a "task" performed with the water. 2. If the barber uses the water specifically to clean his hands, it is also disqualified. While some opinions might be lenient, most authorities are strict, viewing this as a "task." 3. If the barber merely takes water to apply to the customer's head, without cleaning tools or explicitly cleaning his hands, there is a divergence of opinion. Most authorities, including the Ben Ish Chai, consider this permissible, akin to moistening dough. However, Hacham Ovadia, following the reasoning of the Kaf HaChaim, adopts a stringent position, arguing that the barber has a dual intention—to moisten the hair and to clean his hands from sweat and dirt—which disqualifies the water.
This brings us to a discussion of the practical ruling. There appears to be a contradiction in Hacham Ovadia's published works regarding this specific case. In one place, he suggests that if it is known the barber dipped his hands, the water is disqualified, but if there is a doubt, it is permissible. In another discussion, he implies that even if known, it should be permissible, similar to the baker's dough. It seems that Maran HaRishon LeZion, Hacham Ovadia, may have retracted his original stringent position, now explaining that even if it's known the barber dipped his hands to moisten hair, the water is not disqualified, unless he put his tools in it. This reasoning rejects the suggestion of the Kaf HaChaim regarding the barber's dual intention to clean his hands. The Halacha Berura, for example, rules leniently based on this later understanding, disregarding the earlier, more stringent discussion.
Nevertheless, it is also possible that Maran HaRishon LeZion did not retract his position and still maintains that the water is disqualified if it is known the barber dipped his hands, due to the intention to clean his hands. Ultimately, Rabbi Bittan concludes that if it is known that the barber dipped his hands in the water, it is disqualified. However, if it is not known, it is permissible. The disqualification, when known, stems from the assumption that the barber is either cleaning his tools or, if not, he is cleaning his hands, which constitutes a "task." Thus, if you are in a barbershop and the barber is seen dipping his hands in the water, it is generally considered unfit for ritual hand-washing, even if no tools are involved, due to the presumed dual intention of cleaning his hands.
A pertinent question arises: why is merely dipping unwashed hands into water not sufficient to disqualify it, as opposed to the "task" aspect? In the morning, hands have a specific ritual impurity from sleep, which can affect water. However, for general ritual hand-washing, hands are not considered impure to the extent that they would disqualify a large quantity of water. The discussion revolves around whether a "task" was performed, not whether the hands themselves imparted impurity. It is assumed that the water remains ritually pure, and the question is whether it has been "used" in a way that disqualifies it for the ritual.
We also discussed other cases of disqualified water. Water used to fill a hot water bottle for medicinal purposes, or water used to boil eggs, cannot be used afterwards for ritual hand-washing. Similarly, water from a home radiator is disqualified because it's not typically considered drinkable water. Any use of water for a specific purpose disqualifies it for ritual hand-washing, even if it's simply used to measure a container by pouring water into it. If wooden items that have cracked from dry heat are placed in water to rejuvenate them, that water is also disqualified.
However, there's a distinction regarding water used as a counterbalance. If water is placed on one side of a scale to counterbalance a weight on the other side, the water remains fit for ritual hand-washing. This is because no "task" was performed on the water itself; it merely served as a weight. Similarly, if one simply weighs a container of water, the water remains fit. This is the ruling of Rabbi Zalman in Kaf HaChaim. While Mishmeret Kehuna ruled stringently in this case, Yalkut Yosef claimed that Maran Chacham Ovadia concurred with the stringent ruling. However, there is no evidence of such a ruling in any of Hacham Ovadia's published works. Therefore, based on the principle that in cases of rabbinic doubt we are lenient, the opinion of Rabbi Zalman is followed, permitting the use of water as a counterbalance. So, if someone calls asking about water used as a counterbalance, the answer is that it is permissible. This stands in contrast to water used for displacement to measure an item's volume, which is disqualified because a "task" was performed with the water.