Okay, be'ezrat Hashem, we're in kuf-samech-alef, se'if bet. We're talking about chatzitzot (barriers) on the hand. Maran (the author) says, kol davar she'eino makpid (careful) alav eino chotzetz (a barrier): Anything that you're not particular about is not a barrier. Hayah darko shel zeh lehakpid vezeh ein darko lehakpid: If this fellow is careful and this fellow is not careful. Yesterday, the Mishnah Berurah told us that we don't really follow individual people; we follow the general consensus. Over here, Maran seems to be saying the opposite. He seems to be saying that you follow each person: lemi shedarko lehakpid chotzetz, lemi she'ein darko lehakpid eino chotzetz. But it's not a stirah (contradiction). Keitzad (how so)? Look at what he's talking about.
Im hayah tzaba, im hayah echad tzaba: If one guy was a painter, vehayu yadav tzevu'ot, and he had paint on his hands, ein hatzeva chotzetz al yadav: The paint is not a barrier on his hands. Af al pi sheyesh al yadav mamashut (physical substance) shel tzevonim: Even though there's actual paint. Sometimes you have a guy who works with magic markers, right? The magic markers get on your hand. It's not that there's nothing there; it's stained into the hand. Stained into the hand is one thing. But if you have paint—if a guy has actual paint that you've got to peel off—most people are careful about it. A painter has that on him every day, so he's not careful about it. So why don't we say to go by everybody? Because everybody, if they were a painter, wouldn't be careful about it.
Lo hayah tzaba: If he's not a painter, im hayu yadav tzevu'ot, if his hands are painted, veyesh mamash hatzeva al yadav, and there's actual paint on his hands, harei zeh chotzetz. Shehadiyo (ink) vehayavesh chotzetz: Dried ink is a barrier, vehalach eino chotzetz: moist ink is not a barrier. Vechen hanashim shedarkan litzboa yedeihen lenoi (for adornment)—I think he's probably talking more about henna, right? Vechayozei bazeh, ein oto tzeva chotzetz: That kind of paint is not a barrier.
Gildei makah she'al yadav: If there are scabs on his hand, im eino makpid aleihem, if he's not particular about them, einam chotztzim; they're not a barrier. The Mishnah Berurah— we'll see. Kol davar, hainu im hu bemi'uto davka: This is what I'm telling you: The guy has paint and he's not particular about it, so it's not a barrier. Again, mi'ut she'eino makpid (a minority one disregards) is not a barrier, but rov (majority) and being particular, or a majority that one is not particular about, is still chotzetz midrabbanan (a rabbinic barrier). So you have to say im hu bemi'uto: We're talking about a minority of the hand.
Af al gav dekvar zachar zeh hamechaber besof hase'if hakodem: Even though Maran already said this at the end of the previous section, kefalo kan; he doubled it over here, mishum dechol hase'if hazeh hu divrei ha-Rashba mamash kemuva be-Beit Yosef. This is a copy from the Rashba, veratzah leha'atiko bilshono: He wanted to quote him verbatim. Vehayu yadav tzevu'ot, his hands were painted—retzono lomar, miktzat mimekom hanetilah (ritual handwashing): Part of the place where one washes. De'ilu hayah rubo, if it was a majority, ha kayma lan afilu eino makpid chotzetz: We have established that even if he is not particular about it, a majority is a barrier.
Achein beseifa: However, at the end, le'inyan nashim shedarkan litzboa yedeihen lenoi, where women paint their hands for beauty, sham afilu kol yedeihen tzevu'ot nami: Even if the whole hand is painted, it's okay; it's different. Why? Keivan shemitkavnot la'asot ken, verotzot bazeh: They intend to do this and want it. Harei hu kegufan mamash velo chatzitzah: It's like their body, and it's not a barrier at all.
Ein hatzeva, vechen, other cases: Im hu tabach, if he's a butcher, veyesh dam al yadav, and there's blood on his hands, eino chotzetz. Vechen im hayah mocher shuman, if he was a guy who sells fat, veyesh shuman al yadav, and there's fat on his hand, eino chotzetz. But another person, if there was actual substance from these things on his hands, it is a barrier.
Ve'im hayah tabach umocher shemen, if he's a butcher or sells oil, and he has blood and fat on his hands—even though when it came to a mikveh (ritual bath), they were careful not to have two what's-it-calleds—the Magen Avraham takes the position lehakel, to be lenient, that it is not a barrier.
Yud Daled: Shehadiyo hayavesh chotzetz vehalach eino chotzetz. U'retzono lomar: Like over there with dyo, the moist ink is not a barrier, mita'am shenimcha bamayim, because it dissolves in the water, umei hanetilah magi'im l'gufo, and the water of the handwashing reaches his body. Hu hadin litzva'im: The same applies to paints, shehem k'mo dyo, which are like ink. This is specifically when there's actual substance on him. If there's no substance, but only chazuta shel tzeva b'alma (mere appearance of color), yes, the hand is black, but there's nothing there. Ein shayach chatzitzah: There is no barrier, because nothing is separating the skin and the water.
Hu hadin scharirut: The same applies to a black stain with no substance; it is not a barrier. U'mi shekotev tadir, somebody who writes all the time, even if there's actual dried ink on his fingers, it is not a barrier, because generally he's not particular about it.
Gildei makah, scabs: Hainu rir, it's some sort of discharge hayotze min hamakah, that comes out of the wound, umityabesh, dries, vena'asah glid, and becomes like a scab. V'yeish mefarshim, there are those who explain that it's a boil that has healed, and skin came up over it, with a scab on top of that. Either way, im eino makpid, if it doesn't bother him to remove it from his hands—because it hurts to take it off—ken masik b-Ma'amar Mordechai. Ayein sham. V'ayein b-Eliyah Rabbah u'b'she'ar acharonim.
Se'if Gimmel: Tzarich l'hasir hataba'at me'al yado b'sha'at netilat yadayim (ritual handwashing). You have to take off your ring when washing your hands.
Hagahah (gloss): Afilu hu rafui (loose), ve'afilu eino makpid alav b'sha'at netilah: Even if it's loose, and even if he's not particular about it at the time of washing, ho'il u'makpid alav b'sha'ah she'oseh melachah, shelo yit'anfu: Since when he's working he takes it off so it won't get dirty. I don't have to be particular about it right now; right now I want it on. But since on a regular basis I'm particular about it and take it off when I work, that is considered being particular.
Now, v'nahagu l'hakel im hu rafui: The custom is to be lenient if it's loose. Aval yeish l'hachmir: The Rema says you should be machmir (stringent), ki ein anu beki'im eizeh mikri rafui. We're not experts in what's called loose.
The Mishnah Berurah says that the ring should be removed because of chatzitzah. U'retzono lomar: Even though the water reaches the finger, you should still take it off, because we are not experts in what's called loose, as will be explained below. U'bedi'eved (after the fact), if the ring is loose, the handwashing counts. This is where he poured a revi'it (quarter-log) over it at once, as it says later in siman kuf-samech-bet. If you do it without a revi'it, the first water becomes tamei (ritually impure), and the water on the ring will go back and make the hand ritually impure. We'll see later.
Because he takes it off when he works, the later authorities conclude that this applies specifically to a woman, shedarkah l'hakpid, whose practice is to be particular about removing the ring when working. Hainu bish'at lishah: That's when she's kneading dough, especially sourdough, which is very sticky. It'll get into the ring and you'll never get it out.
But a man who doesn't generally take it off when he works—it depends what he works with. If he needs to, for sure. Ki ein darko lalush: It's not his practice to knead. He does not need to remove it when washing his hands, even if it is not loose. Only if it has an even tovah, a precious stone, which a man would also be particular to remove when washing so it won't get ruined by the water. I don't know exactly what type of stone this is; it says men take it off when they wash. I guess it's talking about a water-sensitive stone. Then az yesh lachush lehasirah mishum chatzitzah: You would have to take it off because of the barrier.
So he's saying that if a woman is not particular about taking off her ring, and she doesn't normally knead or do things that require her to take off her rings, then she could leave it on. But if she does, then she would have to take it off. No, no: Maran didn't say you have to take off a loose ring. The Rema said to take off a loose ring. The Kaf Hachayim agrees with the Rema. If you're particular about taking it off when you sleep, for sure. Anytime that you're particular. If it's loose, technically you don't have to, but the Rema says we're not experts in what's loose. Then you can't. What? There's a reason for Maran. Okay.
Shi'ur dalet: Shi'ur netilat yadayim. How much do you have to wash? Kol hayad, the whole hand, ad hakaneh shel zero'a, till the wrist. The Rif, perek chet de-Berachot. Veyesh omrim: Some say, ad mekom chibur ha'etzba'ot layad, until the place where the fingers join the hand. Uferush ha-Rosh sham be-Chulin; that's the Rosh. Vera'ui linhog keda'at harishonah: You should follow the first opinion and wash until the wrist.
The Mishnah Berurah explains ad hakaneh as ad sof pisat hayad, until the end of the palm, shehu mekom chibur hayad vehakaneh, where the hand and the wrist join. Vera'ui linhog means that even though, as a matter of law, someone who wants to be lenient according to the second opinion is not to be stopped, because every doubt in handwashing is treated leniently. A doubt about rabbinic handwashing is treated leniently, as stated above in siman kuf, se'if yud-alef. Nevertheless, ideally, one should be stringent according to the first opinion. That's the minhag (custom) of the world.
The sefer Atzei Almogim proves that many great Rishonim (early authorities) hold this way, and one should be careful not to be lenient in this matter. Ayein sham be-Atzei Almogim ve'ayein be-Bi'ur Halachah. Vera'ui linhog keda'at harishonah suggests that in a pressing situation, when he has very little water, he can rely on the lenient opinion. He says, first, don't make a berachah (blessing) without shem umalchut (Name and Kingship). The later authorities write that if the palm of his hand is dirty with sweat or something similar, everyone agrees that he has to wash to the end of the palm; then you can't be lenient.
Now, look in the Bi'ur Halachah. Vera'ui linhog: From this wording, it seems that as a matter of law, one can be lenient according to the second opinion, up to the knuckles, which is the opinion of many authorities. Who holds that way? Rashi, Tosafot, and the Rosh, along with several other Rishonim. But ideally one should follow the first opinion, the opinion of the Rif, because it's not difficult, and one thereby avoids a machloket (dispute), as the Beit Yosef wrote.
In my humble opinion, this needs to be examined as a matter of law. The Beit Yosef wrote that the Rambam's position is inconclusive. Why isn't he going with two out of three? He says it's the Rif against the Rosh, and regarding the Rambam he says, "I can't tell you what he holds." The Ma'amar Mordechai writes that the straightforward meaning of the Rambam's words actually shows that he holds like the Rif. The Ma'amar Mordechai thinks that you really can tell that the Rambam holds like the Rif. He wrote simply, ad haperak, and you have to say that he had the Rif's version of the text. Ad haperak is a specific place, where the back of the hand and the forearm join. According to Tosafot and those who follow them, that perak is not clear; he would have had to explain which perak he meant. The students of Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rosh were precise about this in the wording of the Rif, which was stated without further explanation.
Also, Rabbeinu Chananel holds this way, as Rabbeinu Yonah wrote. The Rashba also holds this way, levina keda'at haRif. Ayein sham: He explains the Gemara according to the Rif, even according to our version of the text. So you have the Rif, probably the Rambam, Rabbeinu Chananel, Rabbeinu Yonah, and the Rashba.
I found the Rashba's position also in the Semag, who wrote this and supported it from the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud). The Semag wrote that the Aruch also holds this way. The Or Zarua also wrote that one should be stringent in this matter. Rabbeinu Yonah cites the Gemara of the Land of Israel, the Yerushalmi, which states that the measure for washing is the whole hand.
Now that Rabbeinu Chananel, the Rif, the Rambam—according to the straightforward meaning of his words—the Aruch, the Semag, and the Rashba all follow one approach to be stringent, and the Yerushalmi also seems to say this, and the Or Zarua is stringent, one certainly should be stringent in this matter as a matter of law.
What the Magen Avraham brought in the name of the Zohar, that the measure is to the end of the fingers, is not such a proof, since the Gemara also presents it as a dispute. I found something like our argument later in Atzei Almogim, and this is its wording: "Hineh her'eiticha be'einecha: I have shown you that the great early authorities—namely, the Rif, the Rambam, Rabbeinu Chananel, the Semag, the Rivavan, the Aruch, and the Rashba—hold that, as a matter of law from the Gemara, one must wash to the place where the hand and arm join.
"Therefore, it seems to me that every person is obligated to follow this as a matter of law, and not as a stringency, and not as I saw some later authorities write: That someone who follows this practice should make a tenai (stipulation), that he is doing it as a stringency, not as a dechova. I heard that some of the common people follow this ruling and are lax, washing their hands only to the place where the fingers join the hand. In my humble opinion, they should be counted among those who are lax about handwashing as well." Ad kan leshono.
Whatever the Mishnah Berurah says, he says: "I think that someone who relies leniently on the second opinion in a pressing situation, when he doesn't have enough water, is not to be stopped, because many Rishonim follow this approach. They are Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, the Semak, the Mordechai, the Ritva, the Shibolei haLeket, and the Maharshal."
He says, "Uda od, nowadays, when the world follows the first opinion and washes the whole hand, it is very good to be careful not to use just the minimum amount of water, but to wash generously. If he uses only the measure of a revi'it, he may very well leave part of the hand unwashed." You're going to wind up not washing some. Tzarich lehashgi'ach harbeh: You have to be very careful. Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen.