The Gemara tells us that the Chachomim decreed that a person’s hands are considered ritually unclean. As a result, if unwashed hands touch terumah, the terumah is rendered impure1. The Gemara continues and explains that the reason for deeming a person’s unwashed hands to be ritually unclean is that people are not conscious of the activity of their hands2. Rashi elaborates further: the items which a person unconsciously may touch with his hands in the course of a day include various types of filthy or ritually unclean items3. Since any impurity transmitted to the hands unknowingly would subsequently be transferred by touch to terumah, the Chachomim declared unwashed hands to have a definite tumah rendered on them. On a rabbinic level, then, touching terumah with unwashed hands renders the terumah ritually unclean. However, the Chachomim said that this tumah could be removed by netilas yadayim4.


The Gemara in Chulin tells us that after decreeing netilas yadayim for terumah, the Chachomim enacted a requirement of netilas yadayim for chulin (unsanctified food) as well, in order to instill a habit and ensure that people would not forget to wash their hands for terumah5.


Food Items Requiring Netila


The requirement of netilas yadayim is limited to pas (bread stuffs) and food items which are normally dipped in liquids.


Bread


Rabbeinu Yonah explains that Chazal enacted netilas yadayim for chulin principally before one eats bread because eating bread is similar to eating terumah (the original netilas yadayim requirement) in two ways. First, people typically hold bread in their hands when eating it. Since Chazal enacted netilas yadayim for terumah to prevent a person from transferring impurity from his hands to the terumah, they enacted netilas yadayim principally for foods that are touched by the hands. Second, most biblical terumah exists mainly in the form of bread. Therefore, although an apple might normally have contact with one’s hand during consumption, since its obligation in terumah is only rabbinical according to most opinions, Chazal did not require netilas yadayim. On the other hand, drinking liquids such as wine and oil whose obligation for terumah is biblical, does not create a netilas yadayim obligation since they are normally not held directly in one’s bare hand during drinking6. The Beis Yosef cites the Rokeach, who questions whether one who consumes bread less than the quantity of a beitza is obligated to wash. Since there is a doubt, the Rokeach advises washing without reciting the bracha. The Beis Yosef explains that the Rokeach’s uncertainty stems from a question as to how closely the laws of netilas yadayim mirror the laws of tumah on which they were based. On one hand, a food item which is less than a beitza is not susceptible to tumah7, suggesting that the Chachomim did not enact the obligation for netila in such a situation. On the other hand, one could claim that the Chachamim instituted a blanket obligation without differentiating between more than a beitza or less8. While the Mishna Berura concurs with the Beis Yosef’s opinion9, the Vilna Gaon holds that the obligation of netilas yadayim is dependent on the obligation to recite birkas hamazon; since one recites birkas hamazon even on a kezayis of bread, which is less than a beitza, he is also obligated to wash with a bracha before eating a kezayis of bread10. The Chazon Ish is quoted to have followed this opinion11. If, however, one eats less that a kezayis of bread, the poskim dispute whether he is required to wash at all12. The Mishna Berura recommends washing without a bracha, in accordance with the stringent opinion13.


Pas Haba B’kisnin


The Chachamim also required netilas yadayim with a bracha for pas haba b’kisnin (i.e. cake or cookies) if one eats a sufficient amount to create kevias seuda14. If a person began to eat cake with intent not to eat an amount sufficient for kevias seudah, and then changes his mind, he is not required to wash his hands or to recite hamotzee on the additional cake unless the additional amount he now intends to begin eating is itself sufficient for kevias seuda15. (There is however, a requirement to recite a second borei minei mezonos on the additional cake to be consumed since the person did not intend to eat this cake when he recited the original bracha of borei minei mezonos16). The person must recite birkas hamazon after finishing all the cake since alltogether he ate the amount of kevias seudah17.


The requirement of netilas yadayim extends to consuming food that remains wet from having come into contact with any of these seven liquids18: wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water. (Although as the Magen Avraham points out, it is forbidden, barring a life-threatening situation to eat food wet with blood19). This halacha applies only to food that is normally dipped in one of the above liquids20. This halacha applies as well to a food item which was rinsed in water in order to clean it off21.


Rashi explains that netila is required for food dipped in liquids for the same reason that it is required for bread – lest one would come to eat terumah without washing his hands22. Rabbeinu Yonah elaborates: since liquids are more susceptible to receiving ritual impurity, the Chachamim expanded the obligation of netila to include foods dipped in liquids23.


Tosfos, however, disagrees with Rashi’s approach and maintains that the enactment of netilas yadayim for wet food items, unlike the reason for the enactment for bread, is to protect one’s own body from tumah. If a person touches the wet food with ritually unclean hands, transfers the impurity to the liquid and then the food item, eating the now impure item renders the person himself ritually impure. As a consequence to his view that washing for wet foods differs from the standard netilas yadayim, Tosfos holds that no bracha should be recited upon this netila. Tosfos further suggests that since in our times we are not generally careful about coming into contact with tumah, the netila may not be required at all24. The Divrei Chamudos writes that many people rely on the opinion of Tosfos and do not wash for a wet food item25. The Mishna Brurah rules that one should wash before eating wet foods in deference to the many Rishonim who agree with Rashi, but that a bracha should not be recited26.


Individuals Who Are Obligated


Netilas yadayim is required even if the person does not physically touch the food (i.e he is being fed by somebody else, is using a fork or wearing gloves), lest the person’s hands touch the food27. However, an individual who is touching the food with his bare hands in order to feed others is not required to wash his hands so long as he does not himself eat any of the food28.


Use of a Vessel


The Gemara in Maseches Chulin teaches that a valid netila requires the water to be poured onto the hands from a vessel (kli)29. The Rashba explains in the name of the Halachos Gedolos that the rabbinical enactment of using a vessel for netilas yadayim is patterned after the Torah law of requiring a vessel for purifying a person who came in contact with a dead body or from the kiyor found in the Mikdash30. In fact, the Rashba notes, the words netilas yadayim derive from the Aramaic word ‘natla,’ meaning vessel31.


One must keep in mind several halachos governing the vessel which he plans to use for netilas yadayim.


It must be large enough to hold a reviis of water32 (approximately 3.3 ounces)33.
If the vessel would hold a reviis of water, if not for a puncture in the lower portion of the vessel that enables water to constantly drip out, the vessel is considered one which cannot hold a reviis and is thus invalid for netila34. However, if the puncture at the bottom is so small that water does not constantly drip, the vessel may be used for netila if no other vessel is available35.
If the problematic puncture is sufficiently high to permit the vessel to hold a reviis below the hold, the Shulchan Aruch permits one to use this vessel for netila, but only by pouring the water onto one’s hand via the hole36. One may not pour from the lip of the vessel because the part of the vessel above the hole is not considered a valid part of the vessel for netila (since it cannot hold water). However, the Magen Avraham quotes Rishonim who disagree with the Shulchan Aruch and maintain that even if the hole is above the reviis line one may not use this vessel, even by pouring through the hole37 if the hole is large enough to render the vessel as ‘broken’ for purposes of ritual purity laws38. Pouring through the hole raises another problem since the hole is so small, the water dripping through the hole will not cover the entire hand in one pouring39. For this reason the Mishna Brurah concludes that it is preferable to use a vessel that is completely whole and rely on the above leniencies only in a situation where no other vessel is available. Similar, to the above Halacha, the poskim note that if a vessel contains a spout that protrudes above the rim of the vessel, one should pour via the lip of the vessel and not the spout, since the spout cannot hold water. If, however, the spout is lower than the rest of the vessel, one should specifically pour via the spout since any part of the vessel above the spout cannot contain water40.
The vessel must be an object which is made to hold water41 (i.e. pouring water from a hat would be invalid.)
The vessel must be able to hold the reviis of water without the support of another object42. However, if the vessel was made initially to be supported by another object, it is valid for netila43.
Many poskim permit the use of paper or plastic cups for netilas yadayim44.


Halachos Regarding the Water Used for Netila


Although the Raavad holds that only water may be used for netilas yadaym, similar to a mikveh that must consist of water45, other Rishonim permit the use of fruit juices since they are referred to as ‘mei peros’ – water of the fruit46. The Mishna Brurah concludes that one may follow the view permitting fruit juices only in dire need47. The Rosh explains that although water whose color has changed (i.e. as a result of ink falling in) is invalid for netilas yadayim48, mei peros may be used for netilas yadayim (but not for mikveh) since its natural color remains49. The Poskim debate a further leniency; may water whose color was changed as the result of an improvement in the water (i.e. beer or soda) be used for netilas yadayim. The Rama quotes the Haghos Ashre, who takes the lenient view50, while the Biur HaGra argues the more stringent position, distinguishing fruit juices that have their color naturally from beer or soda51.


Water That May Not Be Used


If the water was used for another purpose, ‘naases bo melacha,’ the water is invalid for netila. For example, if one washed dirty dishes in a basin of water, this water can no longer be used for netila52. The water is also invalid for netila if it is too salty or dirty to be suitable for animal consumption53. Although the Shulchan Aruch permits using hot water for netila (even yad soledes bo)54, the Yam Shel Shlomo permits only hot water that is not yad soledes bo55. The Mishna Brurah recommends that one wait until the water cools off to below yad soledes bo in order to fulfill all opinions56.


Preparations for Netila


No chatzitza (obstructions) may remain on the hands during netilas yadayim. A chatzitza is a foreign object that a person would seek to remove at least for certain activities or at certain times and that blocks the water from reaching the skin57. The Poskim note that one should remove a ring before the netila since it is a chatzitza58. Even though a person normally wants the ring to remain on the finger, a person kneading dough or engaged in certain other activities would probably remove the ring so as not to soil it. As a result, the ring is a chatzitza at all times59.


The Mishna Brurah rules that a foreign object covering the hand is a chatzitza if either the majority of people would seek to remove the object at times or the person himself would remove it at times, even if most people would not care. Accordingly, dirt underneath the fingernail parallel to the skin is not a chatzitza because most people do not care enough to clean that area, while dirt under the fingernail above the skin is a chatzitza because most people clean this area. However, the Mishna Brurah holds that if a person at times cleans the lower portion of the fingernail (parallel to the skin), then the dirt would constitute a chatzitza for that particular individual60.


A person wearing a bandage must consider several halachos. If the wound that the bandage covers is minor and the bandage can be easily removed, the individual must remove the bandage before washing. The Chachomim required removal of the bandage because they feared that the person may remove it during the meal and then touch the food with the unwashed part of his hand. However, if the wound is significant, and thus the bandage will not be removed, the part of the hand underneath the cast does not require netila61. In such a situation, one should be careful to pour a reviis of water on the remainder of the hand that remains obligated62 (this will be explained later in the article).


Drying One’s Hands Prior to the Netila


The Rama quotes the Terumas Hadeshen, who holds that touching water in a basin before the netila process does not contaminate the water, and one may subsequently use this water for netila63. The Terumas Hadeshen explains that only water (less than a reviis) poured on the hand during netilas yadayim becomes unclean as a result of contact with the unclean hand64. Based on this Halacha the Chazon Ish maintains that if one’s hand were wet prior to the netila, this water remaining on the hand during netila becomes ritually unclean. This impure water cannot be purified by any subsequent pouring because the water did not receive its tumah through netila. Therefore, according to the Chazon Ish, one is required to dry his hands prior to the netila65. However, the Mishna Brurah holds that only the water that was poured on the hand as part of the netila becomes unclean. Wetness on the hand prior to the netila does not become unclean. Accordingly, one is not required to dry his hands before the netila66.


Drying the Cup


Some Poskim require drying the cup before netila because of a concern that somebody who previously used the cup did not wash properly and transferred impure water from his hands to the handle of the cup (the water on the person’s hands became impure through the first netila and was not subsequently purified through the second netila when he subsequently touched the handle, to which the impurity was transferred)67. However, perhaps one can find room to be lenient regarding drying the cup based on the words of the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish writes that if an individual washed improperly the water on his hand does not become unclean, since as we have seen, only water poured on the hand during the netila becomes unclean. By definition, if the netila was improper, the water was not poured during the time of netila and therefore it remains ritually clean. In addition, the Chazon Ish writes that hands which were already washed properly cannot become contaminated by unclean waters68.


The Actual Netila


The Beis Yosef, based on the Zohar, explains the proper method of netila thus: One should first hold a vessel of water containing a reviis69 in his right hand and then transfer it to his left hand and pour on his right hand first70. The entire reviis need not be poured on the hand, however, as long as the entire ‘hand,’ as defined for hilchos netilas yadayim purposes is covered by the water71. According to many Poskim, the ‘hand’ that requires netila includes the area from the knuckles to the fingertips72. Nonetheless, the Shulchan Aruch states that it is proper to follow the more stringent view and wash until the wrists73. Thus as a practical matter, a person should pour enough water to cover the entire area from the wrists to the fingertips on all sides of the hand. The Poskim express a special concern that the fingertips should not be neglected74.


Koach Nosen


The water must be poured onto the hand by the action of a human being (koach nosen). By contrast, if the wind tips over a barrel of water, causing the water to flow, one may not place his hands underneath the flow75. According to some (following the opinion of the Tana Kama in the Mishna in Yadayim), the pourer (nosen) may even be an animal, such as a monkey76. However, many Poskim do not permit the use of water poured by an animal77.


The requirement of koach nosen can be fulfilled if a person either pours water on the hands or removes a plug that is holding water in a container78. However, the Magen Avraham, based on the Shulchan Aruch, points out the following difference between these two actions. If one tilts the barrel, causing water to stream out constantly, any water flowing from the container may be used, since the entire stream was caused by an action of the nosen. However, if a nosen merely removes the plug (which is considered to be ‘hasaras moneya’ –removal of a barrier – and not a positive force), only the first drops of water streaming from the container are considered a result of koach nosen. If one wants to continue to use the water after the first spurt, he must re-plug the barrel and remove the plug once again79.


Pouring the Water


When one pours the water on his hands, it is preferable that the entire hand be covered in one pouring and not in parts80 (this is true only of the first netila, as opposed to the second netila, which purifies the water on the hands81). However, if a person poured water on part of his hand, he may pour water over the rest of his hand so long as the originally washed part of the hand remains moist enough to wet another substance82. The Mishna Brurah writes that in a situation where one must pull out a plug from a barrel each time, the water is considered to have been poured at one time even though the plugging and unplugging causes a minor interruption83.


As one pours the water on his hands he should have in mind that this netila will enable him to eat bread. If somebody else is pouring the water on his hand, the pourer could also provide the requisite intent84.


Two Types of Netila


As stated above, one may pour less than a reviis on the hand, if there was a reviis in the vessel before pouring and the water covered the entire hand. However, there is a basic difference between netila without a reviis and netila with a reviis. An amount of water that is less than a reviis is capable of becoming ritually unclean and actually becomes unclean when it touches a person’s unwashed hands. Consequently, the person must wash his hands twice, once to remove the impurity from the hand and a second time to wash off the water that has become impure by touching the unwashed hands85. However, if one covers the hand initially with a reviis, most Rishonim hold that the water does not become ritually unclean. Therefore a second pouring is not required86 (the Raavad, however, is of the opinion that one must have two pourings even with the use of a reviis87).


The Poskim note a second advantage to pouring a reviis at one time. As already noted, if less than a reviis of water touches the hands, the water becomes ritually impure and must be washed off. If, however, the hands are raised after the first netila and the water slips from the back of the hand to the area above the wrists, the second washing will not remove the impure water (even if the second netila covers the water above the wrist, the first water remain impure). To the contrary, if the impure water slides back to the hand, it will transfer impurity to the newly washed hand and require the person to dry his hands and wash again. Consequently, if one washes with less than a reviis, he must take care to keep his hands level until after the second netila. This problem never occurs, however, if the first netila includes a reviis of water, since the reviis cannot itself become ritually impure. Even if the water rises above the wrist and returns at a later point, the water, which has never lost its purity, will not render the hand impure88. This consideration applies equally to a Halacha discussed above: a person wearing a bandage or cast that will not be removed during the meal must wash the rest of his hand with a reviis. If he uses less than a reviis, the water that touches his hand will become unclean and then roll onto the cast. This water cannot be cleansed by the second waters since the second waters can only purify water that is on the hand. Thus, if the water on the cast rolls back onto the hand, it will re-contaminate the hand89. The Gemara in Shabbos adds that if one uses a plentiful amount of water (more than a reviis) when washing, he will receive a plentiful bounty90.


After washing one of his hands, a person must be careful that his other unwashed hand (or that of somebody else) should not touch the washed hand, since the unwashed hand will re-contaminate the washed hand. In the event that contact was made, most Poskim require the person to dry his hands and wash them again91. However, the Yam Shel Shlomo maintains that if the hand was already washed twice (or once with a reviis) and then touched by his own unwashed hand, he may pour an additional time without drying his hand92. The Mishna Brurah limits this lenient opinion to a case where one touches his washed hand with his own unwashed hand93. If, however, a person puts both hands together and someone else pours on the two hands simultaneously, the two hands are considered as one and the Halacha of one hand being forbidden to touch the other does not apply94.


After the netila of both hands has been completed, it is proper to rub one’s two hands together95 to remove any excess filth on the hands96.


The bracha of Al Netilas Yadayim should be recited right before one plans to dry his hands97. Although the bracha on a mitzvah is normally recited before the performance of the mitzvah, in this situation it is not recited prior to the beginning of the netila because sometimes a person washes immediately after coming from the bathroom and therefore cannot recite the bracha. Furthermore, since there is an obligation to dry one’s hands, the bracha is considered to be recited prior to an intrinsic part of the netila98. If one forgot to recite the bracha prior to drying his hands, he may recite it up until he makes birkas hamotzee99. Some Poskim maintain that if one speaks between the netila and the drying, he can no longer recite the bracha of al netilas yadayim100.


The Gemara stresses that drying the hands is an absolute necessity101. The Shulchan Aruch maintains that this requirement applies only when one washes with less than a reviis, since the water becomes impure; however, most Acharonim disagree with this opinion and require drying the hands unless the netila was accomplished through tevila in a mikvah102. The requirement of drying one’s hands can be fulfilled any way that dries the hands, including under a machine blowing hot air103.


The Shaarei Teshuva quotes the Ritva who states that one has not made a bracha levatalah even if he chooses not to eat after washing with a bracha, so long as at the time of washing he planned to eat104.


After the completion of the netila, one should not interrupt with speech and should begin eating immediately after the netila within the time that it takes to walk 22 amos105. However, if one talked or paused for a longer period, he need not wash his hands again so long as he remained sufficiently attentive to prevent his hand from becoming unclean106. If the place designated for washing is distant from the eating area, one should wait to dry his hands until reaching the eating area and then immediately recite the hamotzee107.


Use of a Mikveh


Instead of pouring from a receptacle, one may fulfill his obligation of netilas yadayim through tevilas yadayim, dipping his hands in a mikveh (i.e. ocean or lake)108. Strictly speaking, the mikveh need only contain a reviis of water for purposes of tevilas yadayim; however, it is preferable that it have 40 se’ah (the size of a regular mikveh)109.


In dire need, 40 se’ah of snow spread over the ground constitutes a mikveh for the purposes of tevilas yadayim110. (If one wants to use snow for netilas yadayim, it must be crushed and liquefied)111.


The Poskim discuss whether the proper bracha for tevilas yadayim is al tevilas yadayim or al netilas yadayim112. The Magen Avraham rules that if the water that one dips his hands in is fit for netilas yadayim, then the bracha of al netilas yadayim is recited even in a case of tevila; however, if the water is not valid for netila but is valid for tevila (i.e. water too salty for an animal to drink is invalid for netila but not tevila), then the bracha of al tevilas yadayim is recited113.


Requirement for Netila in the Middle of a Meal


The Shulchan Aruch quotes the opinion of the Ramban that one who touches during the meal any part of the body that is normally covered (i.e. uses the bathroom) is required to rewash his hands with a bracha114. However, the Magen Avraham cites the opinion of the Yam Shel Shlomo requiring a bracha only if the person leaves the area and removes his mind from watching his hands115. The Mishna Brurah concludes that if one actually touched a filthy object, defecated or removed his mind from watching his hands, he should wash with a bracha. However, if he merely touched a covered part of his body or urinated, he should wash without a bracha116.


Exemptions from Netila


The Mishna in Eiruvin states that soldiers at war are exempt from netilas yadayim117. The Poskim interpret this exemption to mean that one need not risk danger to get water118. However, the Gemara states that if one wishes to eat bread on a journey and water is not readily available, he must search for the water up to four mil (approximately 72 minutes) toward his destination and up to one mil (approximately 18 minutes) backwards. If there is still no water he is exempt from netila119. If one is riding in a car, the shiur of four mil or one mil is determined by time rather than distance. Therefore, if he is traveling he must go approximately 72 minutes towards his destination and up to approximately 18 minutes backwards in search of water before the exemption applies120. If one is sitting at home then there is only a one mil requirement to obtain water121. The Acharonim add that where a person is uncertain whether he will find water in the area to which he is obligated to travel to obtain water and has a strong urge to eat, he may eat right away122. The Aruch learns that the exemption of the Gemara applies only if the person covers his hands while eating the bread (i.e. using gloves)123. The Shulchan Aruch adopts this view124. Although the Rama says that it is sufficient if he does not touch the bread (i.e. using a fork) even if his hands are not covered125, many Poskim require that the hands be covered to eliminate the risk that he will touch the bread with bare hands. The Mishna Brurah rules that if a person has a covering for his hands, he should use it and not rely on the more lenient opinion126. Note that the halacha of using gloves instead of washing applies only in a situation where a person is exempt from washing due to lack of water. While water is available, one may not rely on gloves127.

Notes
1. Shabbat 13b.
2. Ibid. 14a.
3. Ibid askaniyot. See also Pri M’gadim at the end of the introduction to hilchot ntilas yadayim.
4. Shabbos 14b.
5. Chulin 106a. See Rashi, ntilas yadayim mipnei srach haterumah.
6. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah l’masekhet Brachot pp. 41a in the pages of the Rif, ‘kol shetivulo’.
7. See R. Mordechai Rabinowitz, who brings positions of the rishonim if foods less than a k’beitzah are susceptible to tumah as per the opinion of Rashi Pesachim 33b and Tosafot l’eimat.
8. Beit Yosef Orach Chayim 158 ‘katav harokeyach.’
9. Mishnah Brurah158:9.
10. Biur HaGRA Orach Chayim158:6-7.
11. Sefer Orchot Rabbeinu l’haGRA Halevi Horvitz pp. 77.
12. Beit Yosef citing Rokeach 158, ‘katav haRokeach’ See also Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 158:4, who writes that Beit Yosef’s citation is flawed.
13. Mishnah Brurah 158:10.
14. Beit Yosef Orach Chayim 158. He writes that at first he was in doubt if washing is needed for pas haba. b’kisnin even if kevias seudah was established. At the end he obligated it based on the Rashba.
15. Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim168:21 and Mishnah Brurah 168:26.
16. Shaar Hatziyun Ibid 21.
17. Shulchan Aruch 168:6.
18. Pesachim 115a. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 158:4.
19. Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 158:8.
20. Ibid. 5.
21. Shaarei Teshuva 158:4.
22. Rashi on Pesachim 115a, ‘kol shetivulo’ and Tosafot, ‘Kol shetivulo.’
23. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah Maseches Brachos 41a in the pages of the Rif, ‘kol shetivulo.’
24. Tosafot on Pesachim 115a, ‘kol shetivulo’ . See also M’harsha, ‘kol shetivulo.’
25. Divrei Chamudot ch. 8 to Chulin number 41 brought in Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 158:8.
26. Mishna Brurah 158:20.
27. Chulin 107b. Also, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 163:2.
28. Shulchan Aruch Orakh Chayim 163:2.
29. Chulin 107a.
30. Chidushei HaRashba on Maseches Chulin 107, ‘m’gufas chavit.’ Cited in Beit Yosef Orach Chayim 159, ‘ein notlin.’ Can also be seen in Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 159:1.
31. Rashba in Torat Habayit on the laws of netilas yadayim, sha’ar 2.
32. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 159:1.
33. See R. Shimon Eider’s , ‘Hilchos Pesach’ volume 2 pp. 229.
34. Chulin 107a. See also Mishnah Brurah s’if katan 7 quoting in the name of the Bach and the Elya Rabba.
35. Beit Yosef Orach Chayim . See also Mishna Brurah 159:8.
36. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 159:2 citing the Rosh in Chulin.
37. 37 Magen Avraham on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 159:3.
38. 38 See tractate Kelim 3:1. See also Kelim 17:1.

39. Mishna Brurah 159:10.
40. See Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 159:4. See also L’vushei Srad, Chasam Sofer on Shulchan Aruch. 345 and Mishna Brurah s’if katan 24.
41. Shulchan Aruch 159:4.
42. Ibid s’if 3.
43. Ibid s’if 5.
44. See Rachav Yadit by Rabbi Mordechai Blyer pages 146-147 and 247. He cites Rabbi Tzvi Kohen’s Tevilos Keilim pp. 57. See also Shraga HaMeir siman 55:2.
45. Toras Habayis, bayis 6 sha’ar 2 in the name of the Raavad.
46. Position of Rashi. See Brachos 50b, ‘vnotlin.’
47. Mishna Brurah 160:64.
48. Mishna Yadayim 1:3 and Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 160:1.
49. Rosh on Brachos 87 siman 31.
50. Rama Orach Chayim 160:12 and Haghos Ashre on Brachos 82 siman 11 in the Rosh.
51. Biur HaGra siman 160 s’if 12, ‘v’kol sheken d’mutar.’
52. Mishna Midos 1:4. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 160:2. See also Magen Avraham s’if katan 5, Shut Shevet Levi volume 1 siman 205.
53. Mishna Yadayim 1:3. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 160:8 and 9.
54. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 160:6.
55. See Magen Avraham Ibid s’if katan 8.
56. Mishna Brurah 160:27.
57. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 161:1 . See also Mishna Brurah Ibid s’if katan 1.
58. Beit Yosef Orach Chayim 161, ‘v’chashuv od…’
59. Rosh, hilchos Mikva’os siman 26 in the name of the Raavad.
60. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 161:1 and Mishna Brurah s’ifei katan 9-10.
61. Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 162 s’if katan 18 in the name of the Bach. See also Mishna Brurah 161 s’if katan 5.
62. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 162:10.
63. Rama Orach Chayim 160:11.
64. Trumos Hadeshen #259.
65. Chazon Ish laws of Netilas Yadayim #24:20. See also Kovetz b’Oholei Yaakov #16.
66. Shaar Hatziyun Orach Chayim 162 s’if katan 41.
67. See Shut Eretz Tzvi siman 35. See also Machtzis HaShekel #162 s’if katan 16.
68. Chazon Ish laws of Netilas Yadayim #25 s’if katan 12.
69. Beis Yosef Orach Chayim 5 end of ‘umashma.’
70. See also Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 158 in the introduction. See also Mishna Brurah s’if katan 4 (I saw all the sources in ‘Kovetz Beit Aharon v’Yisrael).
71. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 160:13.
72. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 161:4. See also Magen Avraham s’if katan 13 and Turei Zahav s’if katan 6.
73. Ibid. This is the opinion of the Rif on Brachos 41a, 41b in the pages of the Rif. See also Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah , ‘aval.’ See also Biur Halacha Orach Chayim 161:4, ‘v’rauy.’
74. Mishna Brurah 162 s’if katan 9. See also Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 162 s’if katan 1.
75. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 159:9.
76. Mishna Yadayim 1:5.
77. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 159:12. See also Rama and Mishna Brurah s’if katan 74.
78. Rosh Chulin ch. 8 siman 14. See also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 159:9.
79. Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 159 s’if katan 21. See also Shut Eretz Tzvi #5; Kovetz Beit Yosef Shaul in his article on Mori v’rabbi Rabbi Hershel Schachter Shlita, pamphlet 1, 1985 pp. 73.
80. Mishna Yadayim 1:1.
81. Ibid. See also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 162:3.
82. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 162:3 based on the opinion of the Rambam – Yad Hachazaka laws of Mikva’ot 11:7.
83. Shulchan Aruch ibid 162, Turei Zahav s’if katan 5 and Mishna Brurah s’if katan 30, and Shaar Hatziyun si’if katan 28.
84. Shulchan Aruch Ibid 129:13.
85. Mishna Yadayim2:2. See also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 162:2.
86. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 162:4. See also Tosafos to Chulin 107a, ‘d’lo’ based on Mishna Yadayim 2:1.
87. Beis Yosef Orach Chayim 162, ‘umashekasuv b’shem haRaavad.’ See also Magen Avraham Orach Chayim 162 s’if katan 3.
88. Mishna Yadayim 2:3. See also Sota 4b and commentary of Rashi Ibid, ‘shema yatzu’. See also Shulchan Aruch 162:10.
89. Mishna Yadayim 2:2. Shulchan Aruch 162:10.
90. Shabbat 62b. See comments of Rashi, ‘masa v’lo masa.’ See also Beis Yosef 158, ‘v’af al pi;’ Shulchan Aruch 158:10.
91. Shulchan Aruch 162:4.
92. Magen Avraham 162 s’if katan 10.
93. Mishna Brurah 162 s’k 55 and Shaar Hatziyun s’k 36.
94. Mishna Yadayim 2:3. See also Rosh, ‘ubilvad.’ Shulchan Aruch 162:5.
95. Shulchan Aruch 162:2 in the Rama.
96. Mishna Brurah 162 s’k 24.
97. Shulchan Aruch 158:11.
98. Tosafos Pesachim 7b ‘al hatevela.’ See also Shulchan Aruch 158:11.
99. Magen Avraham 158 s’k 16 . Mishna Brurah s’k 44.
100. See Kovetz Beit Aharon v’Yisrael citing Shut Shevet HaLevi Orach Chayim volume 12.
101. Sotah 4b.
102. Shulchan Aruch 159:13. See also Magen Avraham s’k 18 and Mishna Brurah s’k 46.
103. See Kovetz Beit Aharaon v’Yisrael, year 3 gilyon 2 5748 pp. 99.
104. Shaarei Teshuva 158 s’k 1. See also Kovetz Beit Aharon v’Yisrael. Year 3, gilyon 1 5748 pp. 85-87.
105. Shulchan Aruch 166:1. See also Brachos 42a; Tosafos to Sotah 39a, ‘kol kohen.’
106. Mishna Brurah 166 s’k 6.
107. Chazon Ish Orach Chayim end of 24; Mishna Brurah 166 s’k 4. Also heard from Mori v’Rabbi Rabbi Hershel Schachter Shlita.
108. Mishna Yadayim 1:1.
109. Opinion of Rabbeiu Yonah as recorded in Brachos 41a in the pages of the Rif. See also Shulchan Aruch 159:14.
110. Shulchan Aruch 160:12. See also Magen Avraham s’k 16; Pri Megadim Eishel Avraham s’k 16.
111. Ibid 160:12. See also Magen Avraham s’k 16; Mishna Brurah s’k 40.
112. Ibid 159:20.
113. Magen Avraham 159 s’k 31.
114. Shulchan Aruch 164:2.
115. Magen Avraham 163 s’k 8.
116. Mishna Brurah 164 s’k 13; Biur Halakha, ‘lachzor.’
117. Eiruvin 17a.
118. Beis Yosef 158, ‘umihu; Shulchan Aruch 158:8.
119. Chulin 122b.
120. Biur Halacha 163, ‘b’rachok.’
121. Shulchan Aruch 163:3.
122. Mishna Brurah 163 s’k 3.
123. Beis Yosef in the name of the Rokeach 163, ‘asur le’echol.’
124. Shulchan Aruch 163:1.
125. Ibid.
126. Ibid 163:7.
127. This does not follow the opinion of the Rambam as cited in Hilchos Brachos 6:18.