01 November 2005

Got Evil Spirit On Your Hands?


Last week, at the Shmini Azeret table, I was asked for a dvar Torah. I said that I didn’t have anything to say. But then I said I would briefly speak on something upon which I had been researching that morning. I had taken out Tannaitic sources about sleep and beds and was looking into Rashi’s and Tosafot’s comments upon them. Just as I had started, mentioning the link between death and sleep (the most obvious source is the beraisa on ברכות נז:, which speaks about sleep being a negligible amount of death, though there are others (עין כגון בגיטין ע. וברכות סא:)) and he asked if that’s why we’re supposed to wash our hands in the morning. Though I said, “No,” I said I would respond to that after my brief presentation of sources.

So I did. There are no sources connecting רוח רעה (evil spirit) to sleep at all in Talmudic sources (there is however one source connecting this evil spirit to beds: תנא אוכלין ומשקין תחת המטה אפילו מחופין בכלי ברזל רוח רעה שורה עליהן – “It was taught: Foods and drinks under the bed – even covered in iron vessels, an evil spirit rests upon them.” (פסחים קיב.)), so it is errorful to attribute to either the tannaim, amoraim, or even the editors of the Talmuds, etc. this idea of evil spirit descending upon a person while sleeping. So whence is this idea?

It is none other than our sainted Rashi who came up with this idea. Now before one criticizes this great sage, one should appreciate his חידוש (novella) on a difficult סוגיא (pericope) in the Babylonian Talmud. The section in question is the following (bShabbat 108b-109a):

אמר שמואל טובה טיפת צונן שחרית ורחיצת ידים ורגלים בחמין ערבית מכל קילורין שבעולם.

תניא נמי הכי אמר רבי מונא משום רבי יהודה טובה טיפת צונן שחרית ורחיצת ידים ורגלים ערבית מכל קילורין שבעולם הוא. היה אומר יד לעין תיקצץ, יד לחוטם תיקצץ, יד לפה תיקצץ, יד לאוזן תיקצץ, יד לחסודה תיקצץ, יד לאמה תיקצץ, יד לפי טבעת תיקצץ, יד לגיגית תיקצץ, יד מסמא, יד מחרשת, יד מעלה פוליפוס.

תניא רבי נתן אומר בת חורין היא זו ומקפדת עד שירחוץ ידיו שלש פעמים
Shmuel said: A drop of cold water in the morning, and bathing the hands and feet in hot water in the evening, is better than all the eye-salves in the world.

It was taught likewise: R. Muna said in R. Judah's name: A drop of cold water in the morning and bathing the hands and feet in the evening is better than all the eye-salves in the world.
He [R. Muna] used to say: Hand to the eye, let it be cut off; the hand to the nose, let it be cut off: the hand to the mouth, let it be cut off; the hand to the ear, let it be cut off; the hand to the vein [opened for blood letting], let it be cut off; the hand to the membrum, let it be cut off; the hand to the anus, let it be cut off; the handto the vat, let it be cut off, the hand leads to blindness, the hand leads to deafness, the hand causes a polypus.

It was taught, R. Nathan said: She is a freewoman and she is careful/insists until he washes his hands three times.
The discussion above is one concerning cleanliness and its relation to health, especially as Shmuel was reknowned for his medical knowledge. The conversation pertaining to washing the hands is spoken both by Shmuel and by Rabbi Yehudah (though Rabbi Yehudah preceded Shmuel by about a century, as the former lived in the mid second century and the latter in the mid third century) in the evening. Then Rabbi Muna, a student of Rabbi Yehudah's, speaks in the same text of the health danger of hands, which is seemingly weird, if not just plain cryptic. Then, this section follows with a most puzzling statement by Rabbi Nathan, a contemporary of Rabbi Muna's, where he switches the gender in his statement. That is just the start of the problem, as we don't know who "she" is, who "he" is, nor the context in which this situation is taking place.
My best surmisal is that, from the surface reading of this section of the Talmud, it would seem that Rabbi Nathan is speaking about what had been mentioned in the previous text, that he is speaking upon the evening washing of one's hands and feet. It may thus be that the lady of the house enforces her man to wash his hands really well before touching stuff in the house, etc., perhaps because women are more mindful of cleanliness than men(?).
However, Rashi didn't take my approach, so he had a weird sounding set of texts in front of him. What to do? Starting from his comment on Rabbi Muna's statement (ד"ה יד לעין: שחרית קודם שיטול ידיו), he develops his חידוש of these texts speaking about washing one's hands in the morning(!) until the end of this set of texts (see esp. his comments on Rabbi Nathan's beraisa).
One has to appreciate the brilliance of the way Rashi handles this gemarra (section of the Talmud), as it is definitely an odd section. However, it's not necessarily the read understood by other ראשונים (medieval commentators) (see esp. the Rambam's laws on washing hands in the morning (הלכות תפילה ז:ד)(which is taken from Berakhos 60b) until the Tur came along and codified Rashi's approach (OC 4:2), which has been taken on by the Shulkhan Arukh and subsequent halakhic works.
However, even if one finds Rashi's reason unsatisfactory, there are still other reasons why Jews are supposed to wash their hands in the morning: the Rosh says it is due to our hands being active in the night, touching dirty places and the Rashba says it is due to being a new creation. While one can check into these sources (unless you want me to post their locations), I think that the Rambam has the understanding of our sages well in hand, as hand washing is on account of prayer (why else would hand washing be so far back in the list of blessings on Berakhos 60b?).
(The MO don't always bring a lack of sources, Chardal.)

14 comments:

Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) said...

Thanks for the sources! I've been wondering about that recently, while looking for info on my own about other topics.

Mar Gavriel said...

I haven't had time to thoroughly read your post, but this is a topic that I have been thinking of researching recently, and possibly posting as a comment on the CoffeeShteeble blog. (See the CoffeeShteeble post on "Elohai, Neshomo".)

My practice is typically to get up in the morning, and NOT wait until washing my hands before reciting various berokhôs or divrê kezussho. I do try to wash my hands before Shaharis (as well as before Minho and ‘Arvis), but do not make a berokho before this washing (except when I ohr at KAJ, in which case I listen to the chazzen's berokho and say "OMEIN!!!" in response.

Drew_Kaplan said...

Steg,
Glad you appreciated them.

Mar Gavriel,
Thanks for directing me toward both CoffeeShteeble's blog as well as the cross-posted posting of your entry from his (yes, I commented).

It seems your practice follows the Gemara (the editorship - though it doesn't matter להלכה) and the RaMBaM's subsequent codification. What makes it a particularly good practice is the saying of them at the time of doing them, as opposed to disconnectedly from their related actions.

chardal said...

Yashar Koach

Gatos Hombre said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gatos Hombre said...

1st off Drew, wow Yasher Koach--I can see that u are workig hard and well on this blog.

In my opinion Rashi's reading is not "errorful" as u say, it's just not necessarily the way u or I would have necessarily read these difficult texts. There are wholes in the Shabbat and Pesachim text that force anyone who tries to understand them and apply them to try to fill in the blanks. Depending on how one fills in the blanks, one will achieve a different understanding of the texts.

A distinction between health and ruach ra'ah (one a matter of health vs. spirits) is anachronistic. Such a distinction can and only was made after Baruch Spinoza's development of the idea of "Scientific Materialism" (late 1600's). In pre-modern times these areas were one and the same.

Thus, my understanding of Rashi is that he undersood in Pesachim 112A that the cause of the ruach ra'ah is sleep. This is a viable option b/c this is obviously something associated with the bed. There are not many other causes or activities associated with the bed that can be understood as the cause of the ru'ach, especially not sex since this was definitely not seen by most of the rabbis as something negative (see Brachot 62a where sex is compared to Torah learning).

It is an assumption, though not an argument that can be dis-proven to associate any other tannaim with ruach ra'ah.

Now once one undersatnds "ruach ra'ah" from the Pesachim textin teh way that I explained, it is logical to understand the washing encouraged in Shabbat to be associated with the factor of ru'ach ra'ah. Especially, b/c in the world of late antiquity (the Talmud) and even in Rashi's world, such a distiction one would not expect to find.

Also, text before the statemnet of Rav Nathan is not just about the evening washing, it is about washing the hands in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the eveining. In fact, I think it is more likely that the statements of Rabbi Muna and thus Rabbi Nathan are understood by the stam (the gemara)as referring to the washing of the hands in the morning beacause Rabi Muna only mentions things which are related to the hands which is referred to in Shmuel's statement of washing in the morning and not also things related to the feet (Shmuel's statements refer to hand and feet washing in the evening).

Therefore, it is more likely, based on the arrangement of these sources by the stam that Rashi's understanding of these statements matched the stam's rather than your understanding (at least in regards to associating Rav Nathan with washing in the morning but the association of rabbi Nathan with ru'ach ra'ah is still quite an "okimta").

The actual meaning of the original statements . I say this in terms of saying that Rav Nathan is referring to washing in the morning, but not necessarily Rashi's association of ruach ra'ah to this statemnt, although i still mantaine that it's a viable and not "errorful" understanding.

The original meaning of these amoraim is another story. However, an undersatnding of the original statements of tehse amoraim is an interesting but irrelevant to halacha. As u acutely pointed out Rabbi Yehuda lived a century before Shmuel and thus could not have commented on a statement of Shmuel. Thus, what we have is a a sugya with sttements of amoraim that have been arranged by the stam as an argument, but in reality this sugya is just an arrangement of teh stam which reflects the stam's understanding of these individual amoraic sayings.


Consequently, what is impotant for us in halacha lema'aseh (practical halacha) is the Stam's (the Gemara's) understanding of these statements and not the original meaning of these rabbi's statements.

Gatos Hombre said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gatos Hombre said...

One more thing, according to my understanding of the Rambam (And Rabbi Helfgot)there are two different sugyot about washing. The washing stated by Rambam in Mishna Torah hilchot tefilah 4:2 is a washing which is an obligation because of prayer--not just for shacharit, but also for mincha etc. which he probably derives from Brachot 60b. The other sugya in washing which the Rambam brings down in the Mishna Torah is the washing which is described by the Rambam hilchot tefilah 7:4 which is a washing that is just a part of the normal process of waking up. It is unclear to me whether this washing is an obligation according to the simple reading of the Gemara or Maimonides (Rambam). This washing which is part of the "normal" process of waking up is described in brachot 15a.


Also, if u don't hold of ruach ra'ah then there is no reason for you to wash 3 times. Furthermore, according to the aruch hashulchan, if there was not the issue of ruach ra'ah then there would not be a bracha said for washing. The aruch hashulchan holds that the bracha was enacted because of the removal of the ruach ra'ah and not b/c of the prayer oriented obligation of washing.

Wahoo!! I just found a note in the Gilyon Hashas to the gemara in Pesachim that points to the Torat Chaim. The Torat Chaim (a commentator to the Gemara) reads the Gemara in Pesachim like me and connects it to the Gemara in shabbat. He explains that the source of the ruach ra'ah is the person who sleeps there and sleep according to brachot brachot is 1/60th of death. The ruach ra'ah (see mishna ohalos 3:1) works like a dead body in a room and thus goes up and down contaminating the things under the bed.

I know taht I'm getting into chiddushim now, but I just wanted to come to come to the defense of Rashi and to point the complications of the sugya and what may have been the motivating factors of Rashi.

Drew_Kaplan said...

Gatos Hombre,
This response may not be in order to your queries, but I'll try to order it decently well.
Regarding your latter comment, it's true that the Rambam does discuss netilas yedayim twice, but he is neither speaking about two separate washings, nor is he repeating himself, rather he is speaking in 7.4 about where in the order of one's morning conduct [following the gemarra in Berakhos 60b] one washes his hands (i.e. when one washes ones hands), and 4.2 is a further elaboration upon netilas yedayim, itself (i.e. how one washes ones hands).
Bingo - I no longer wash my hands thrice in the mornings, as there is no issue of evil spirit. I'm sorry that the Arukh haShulkhan thought that the morning hand-washing was due to evil spirit, though, that's fine for him. However, I follow the Rambam on this one - it's for tefillah.
The beraisa in Berakhos about sleep's relation to death is not meant in any halakhic sense, rather an aggadic sense. Furthermore, it would seem that its relationship with death is a negligable one. Thus, there is not enough of death in sleep, and therefore, although I find the Torat Chaim's approach to be interesting, it is apologetic.
BTW, in the sugya quoted, only Shmuel/Samuel was an amora, the other sages mentioned are all Tannaim.
In my opinion Rashi's reading is not "errorful" as u say, it's just not necessarily the way u or I would have necessarily read these difficult texts. There are wholes in the Shabbat and Pesachim text that force anyone who tries to understand them and apply them to try to fill in the blanks. Depending on how one fills in the blanks, one will achieve a different understanding of the texts.
GH, I find your post-modernist reading fascinating, but sometimes I just want to know The Truth of a matter.
A distinction between health and ruach ra'ah (one a matter of health vs. spirits) is anachronistic.
Where did I say that the texts in the Talmud here are distinguishing between the two? It is clearly a matter of health, not spirits.
Thus, my understanding of Rashi is that he undersood in Pesachim 112A that the cause of the ruach ra'ah is sleep.
We don't know this for sure.... Nevertheless, it would seem - Rashi or not - that the cause is just dirtiness of some sort (I need to look more into it), see especially the following beraisa.
text before the statemnet of Rav Nathan is not just about the evening washing, it is about washing the hands in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the eveining. In fact, I think it is more likely that the statements of Rabbi Muna and thus Rabbi Nathan are understood by the stam (the gemara)as referring to the washing of the hands in the morning beacause Rabi Muna only mentions things which are related to the hands which is referred to in Shmuel's statement of washing in the morning and not also things related to the feet (Shmuel's statements refer to hand and feet washing in the evening)
For someone who was going post-modern, you've certainly changed! Both Shmuel and Rabbi Yehudah are speaking of hand-washing in the evening - the text clearly says that. Regarding the statements of Rabbis Muna and Natan, it is unclear as to their contextual situation. Rashi wanted to drive it the way of the morning washing and I understand it in the preceding context of evening washing. It's also possible that they are referring to neither of these, per se (or even both). It is absurd to say that the stam understood the statements of Rabbis Muna and Natan as speaking in the morning, as no one in our sugya (pericope) speaks about washing in the morning (not even Shmuel, as you say)! We do not know the logic of the stam here - it is not as clear as you present it. The simplest understanding, I believe, is that this is a mini-collection of statements about hand-washing (the context can be debated).
Rashi's understanding of these statements matched the stam's
No. Just wrong.
Consequently, what is impotant for us in halacha lema'aseh (practical halacha) is the Stam's (the Gemara's) understanding of these statements and not the original meaning of these rabbi's statements.
As the stam's understanding is unclear, and may simply be bringing together hand-washing [for cleanliness sakes] texts, we are unclear as to what the halakhah is to derive from it. Furthermore, the original meaning of these Rabbis' statements shine forth as the ikkar of the sugya - whether or not we can absolutely ascertain the Real initial meaning of the texts, they are before us, and we will deal with them as they come.

Gatos Hombre said...

“Regarding your latter comment, it's true that the Rambam does discuss netilas yedayim twice, but he is neither speaking about two separate washings, nor is he repeating himself”

I did not say that the Rambam is talking about two washings, but it is obvious that the Rambam learns the 2 gemara in brachot as two separate sugyot. Halcha 4.2 is halacha which may have been derived from Shabbat 108a or brachot 60b and halacha 7:4 is from brachot 15a which mentions the various brachot that one should say when they go through their normal morning process.

“Bingo - I no longer wash my hands thrice in the mornings, as there is no issue of evil spirit. I'm sorry that the Arukh haShulkhan thought that the morning hand-washing was due to evil spirit, though, that's fine for him. However, I follow the Rambam on this one - it's for tefillah.”

Not good if u want to follow the Rambam because he holds like all of the rishonim that I have seen, besides the Rosh and Ran, that the morning washing for tefillah has to follow all of the halachic requirements that are obligatory for the netilat yadayim (hand washing) in the morning. See Rambam Hilchot brachot chapter 6 where he mixes the halachot and details of washing for tefillah (amida and shma) and the washing for bread. See especially Mishnah Torah Brachot 6:2 and 6:6. Therefore if u wash 3 times for bread then u should wash 3 times for your netilat yadayim in the morning. What is not clear to me so far is if the Rambam holds that u need to wash 3 times for any netillat yadayim (Tzarich Iyun). Furthermore, the Rambam even though he seems to hold like teh rosh that we wash for nekiyot, he holds that u always have to wash for tefillah. We can see this from Hilckot tefila 4:2 and from the fact that he connects the washing to prayer and not bathroom or other sources of dirtiness (Sefer Birur Halacha).

The vast majority of rishonim like the Rambam (one exception so far) and achronim seem to assume that the ritual hand washings should identical. The reason may be as simple as “why assume that ritual handwashings are different?” Maye because of the same terminology etc? However, the Rashba makes this inference from Chullin “A person may wash his 2 hands in the morning and he may stipulate upon them for all of his meals (that his morning washing will count for every time he eats a bread)”. He says that the implication is that the halachic details of these washings are the same because the morning netilat yadayim can exempt one from the netilat yadayim for bread.

“It is none other than our sainted Rashi who came up with this idea” (of the ruach ra’ah being the reason for netillat yadayim mentioned by Rabbi Natan)


It was not Rashi who came up with this idea. Rabbeinu Chananel explains that the ra’ah (the bat chorin/free one) remains upon him until he washes 3 times. (maybe about a century earlier). It would be interesting to do a search among Gaonic responsa to determine the first time that we see that the morning washing has to be 3 times or that it is for ruach ra’ah. Also, the Meiri (14th century), Rashba (14th), and Ritva (13th century) learn this statement of Rabbi Natan to be referring to netillat yadayim. I was surprised to see this in the Meiri since he is often seen as an inheritor of the mesorah of the Rambam. They also learn Shabbat 108b Yad leayin…. to be talking about ruach ra’ah.


“It is clearly a matter of health, not spirits.”

You are right that there is nothing in Rabbi Nathan’s statement to indicate that we are speaking about ruach ra’ah, but there is also no indication that we are talking about “dirtiness” or health to the exclusion of ruach ra’ah. The rambam may have learned this gemara like the aforementioned rishonim but b/c of his rationalistic bent, understood ru’ach ra’ah in a rationalistic sense ie. Health etc. (extreme conjecture). The lashon of Toharat yadayim (purity of hands) makes Maimonides understanding 4:2 of teh function of washing the hands unclear....just dirtiness? Maybe?

However, what is clear to me is that an overwhelming number of rishonim learn Rabbi Natan’s vague statement to be talking about the netillat yadayim in the morning and that the reason is ruach ra’ah. Thus they make 2 assumptions, that it is speaking about washing in the morning and that the reason is ru’ch ra’ah. One must fill in the blanks for Rabbi Nathan’s statement to determine if it has halachic implications and what those implications are. Depending on how one fills in the blanks, different conclusions are derived from this Gemara. Furthermore, what the washing does in the two gemaras in brachot is unclear. I’m very confused by your post modern comment. You fill in the blanks like the Rosh and thus seem to hold like the Rosh. One could fill in the blanks with ruach ra’ah etc……

Aside from the contextual arguments that we can argue about in order to understand Rabbi Natan’s statement or how the Gemara understood his statement, the most compelling reason that I can think of to account for this identical interpretation of this gemara by Meiri, Rashba, Ritva, and Rabbeinu Chanenel is mesorah. My appreciation for this concept and understand has grown vastly over the last year of academic Talmud. First of all one must keep in mind that we are talking about oral literature and the mesorah for halachot and gemara were preserved as much as possible from student to student. How else are we to explain how Rashi understands middle Persian statements in the gemara and is 100% right 95% of the time. No one in Europe new Persian or anyone else for for thousands of miles. The only explanation that one can use to explain his understanding of these gemaras is mesorah.

Therefore, I consider the opinions of the rishonim very carefully when trying to understand gemaras and especially when trying to understand or determine the halacha. It is not prudent in my mind to learn a couple gemaras and see the shulchan aruch, Tur etc. and determine the halacha against the Shulchan Aruch and basically all contemporary poskim without first even perusing what the rishonim have to say.

I think in this case that we have a machloket rishonim where the majority of rishonim old that you need a kli/koach gavra (vessel and “manpower”) and that you wash 3 times. The Rosh, Mordechai, and Ran say that u can wash without a kli. All of the achronim who I have seen so far hold that you need a vessel and that u should wash 3 times. Even according to the Rashba, who holds the ikar reason for the washing is not the ruach ra’ah, but because we wash like the cohanim did (because we serve Hashem in tefila like the cohanim did in the temple) one must wash 3 times with a vessel.

The gemaras are unclear so I don’t think it’s a big deal using a kli and washing 3 times in the morning and I think that it’s the prudent thing to do. This is one of those issues that one should speak about with a Rav or someone who has a good grasp of Shas (The Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud) and poskim for determing the halacha. Especially interpreting the geamara and codes against the majority of rishonim and achronim.

I want to make clear that this is not an ask your local orthodox rabbi Artscroll blurb. I’m just saying that Bar-Ilan is not a good replacement for a Talmid-chacham….many relevant sugyas for a particular halacha will not show up in a Bar I-Ilan word search. I like the philosophy explicated by Rav Chaim of Volozhin in Ruach Hachaim to Avot (Ethics of our Fathers) on the mishnah Make for yourself a Rav” , meaning you must make them into your Rav being an active part of the process. Don’t just be a robot and listen---argue etc. and ask many Talmidei chachamim (learned people). He quotes mishlei(?), Matbei etze marbei chochma (one who asks many people increases their wisdom) . You should determine after studying and receiving chochma the right opinion. Don’t just be an automaton and just ask your local orthodox rabbi---booooohh!!!!

Thanks Drew for driving me to get a little wetter in this sugya. Can’t wait for the ba’eli treisin (the warriors of the beis midrash) to throw their spears my way!!

Oh yeah, and please excuse my typing skills.


For all interested, check out the halachic commentary of Rav Cook's talmidim in Birur Halacha. I used it extensively.

Gatos Hombre said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gatos Hombre said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gatos Hombre said...

Big change...AAAh, the plot thickens. My understanding of the argument between the rishonim has changed once i looked at the shinui gerseot (different manuscript versions of the Gemara). Before this, I have to admit that I was puzzled as to why I kept on seeing the rishonim understand the issue with the hands in Rabbi Yehuda's statements about "Hand to eye,hand to anus etc....... and Rabbi Natan's statements to be dealing with ruach ra'ah (Shabbat 108a.). it seemd as though the Rach (R . Chananel) and other rishonim just had aspecific mesora as to what the term bat chorin meant. Most striking was the fact that the Ritva tells us the name of the ruach ra'ah to be "Bat Malach" and not even "bat chorin" (the free one) which Rach and Rashi say is the name of the evil spirit "who is honorable among the spirits like a free person". At this point I had an inkling that there was a gersa issue going on here and there seems to be...yahhhh!!!

It seems that the machloket rishonim is based on the different versions of Rabbi Natan's statement which they posessed. In Dikdukei Sofrim (an archive of Taklmudic manuscripts) one sees that in the old versions of Rashi's divrei hamatchil (header)that he had a gersa which said "bat malach" and this was probably the version before the Ritva. Those rishonim like the Rosh may ignore this gemara in Shabbat 108a for halacha or may have had a gersa without bat chorin or bat malach. The manuscript of MinChen of Oxford has neither Ben Chorin or Bat Molech. According to this version of the Gaemara Rabbi Natan just says "And I am careful on 3 times". According to this gersa, one may infer based on the previous statements about hand to extremeities he is talking baout washing the hands and that the issue is just health or dirtiness.


Very intersting stuff. To really clarify the issue and prove this thesis of the machloket being connected to the different gersaot, one would need to construct a manuscript web to see if the manuscripts origin matches with the rishonim of the area. Also, this would be important in determing the "correct" version if this is possible.

There is a clear cut machloket about washing 3 times between Rashi, Ritva, Rashba ( 3 time sbut not for ruach ra'ah, Ran (one version),meiri vs. Mordechai and Rosh. The achronim seem almost unanimous that on must wash 3 times according to the halachot that govern hand washing for bread. The only acheron acharon who I have found so far who holds like the rosh is the magen Avraham. They hold that you just need water and none of the other rewquirements for washing for bread like a vessel, human effort, and washing 3 times

I think that I need to do more research on this topic and to process the information that is flooding in. It would be prudent to follow rov rishonim who have a valid read of the gemara. Like most machloket rishonim, there are arguments for both sides. To try to be yotzei according to the more stringent opinion in this case is clearly not a chumra since we are not talking about a minority opinion in the rishnim or ashronim Therefore, at this point i think it is prudent to wash 3 times....my personal opinion. Just my understanding so far. I'm no rabbi or talmid chacham.


Also, it is interesting to note that the rambam only holds of one washing (with kli, koach, and reviit) for washing in the morning just like for motzi. He holds that both washings should be identitcal(Thanks Rabbi Love).

Gatos Hombre said...

If u hold like the Rosh ie. that the issue is cleanliness then there is no reason for kli and koach etc.