The Gemara, Chullin 106a, provides two reasons for the mitzvah of netilat yadayim. First, it is a rabbinic decree due to a concern for those who handle terumah. As Rashi, ad loc., s.v. Netilat Yadayim L'Chullin, explains, one who touches terumah without first washing his hands can ritually defile the terumah. Therefore, the rabbis instituted that one should wash one's hands before eating in order that those who handle terumah will be accustomed to washing their hands. Second, it is a special mitzvah instituted by the rabbis. One can ask: if there is a rabbinic decree that one must wash one's hands out of a concern for those who handle terumah, what is added by this second reason that there is a special mitzvah instituted by the rabbis?

R. Chaim Soloveitchik, Chiddushei HaGrach Al HaShas no. 143, explains that there are two aspects to netilat yadayim. First, there is a rabbinic prohibition to eat (bread) without first washing one's hands. This is based on the concern for those who handle terumah. Additionally, there is mitzvah to wash one's hands in preparation for a meal regardless of whether or not they are ritually impure. This second aspect is comparable to the mitzvah of kiddush yadayim v'raglayim, the mitzvah of washing one's hands and feet performed by the kohanim prior to their service in the Beit HaMikdash. The mitzvah of kiddush yadayim v'raglayim is not contingent on ritual purity but rather a distinct activity that must be performed in preparation for service in the Beit HaMikdash. This article will explore the role of these two aspects of netilat yadayim in some of the relevant laws of netilat yadayim.

One Who Has No Water
The Gemara, Pesachim 46a, states that if one is in a situation where there is no water within four mil (seventy-two minutes of travel) he is exempt from netilat yadayim. Aruch, Erech Gabal, notes that although one is technically exempt from netilat yadayim, one should wrap the food in a cloth so as not to touch the food directly. R. Chaim explains that when there is no water readily available, the mitzvah aspect of netilat yadayim is waived. Nevertheless, there is still a concern for those who handle terumah. By wrapping the food in a cloth, the concern for those who handle terumah is no longer applicable because ritual impurity is not transferred unless there is direct contact between one's hand and the food. [The leniency of wrapping the food in a cloth does not apply in an ordinary situation (Mishna Berurah 163:2). This is because the mitzvah aspect of netilat yadayim demands that one wash one hands even if there is no concern for ritual impurity. See however, Rambam, Hilchot Berachot 6:18.]

The Beracha Recited Upon Immersing One's Hands
The Gemara, Chullin 107a, states that one may eat bread after immersing one's hands in a mikvah. This concept is known as tevilat yadayim. There is a dispute among the Rishonim as to what beracha should be recited when performing tevilat yadayim. Mordechai, Berachot 202, states that one should recite "Al tevilat yadayim." However, Rashba, Chullin, 107a, contends that one can only recite "Al netilat yadayim" because the beracha was originally instituted for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of netilat yadayim and not tevilat yadayim.

R. Yitzchak Z. Soloveitchik (in Hagadah Shel Pesach MiBeit Levi pg 193) explains that the basis of this dispute is contingent upon which aspect of netilat yadayim is primary. If one assumes that the primary aspect of netilat yadayim is the removal of ritual impurity, the action taken to remove the ritual impurity defines the event. If one immerses his hands, the event is defined as "tevilat yadayim," and the beracha would reflect that. However, if the primary aspect of netilat yadayim is the mitzvah of washing one's hands in preparation for the meal, the mitzvah is already pre-defined as the mitzvah of netilat yadayim. One who immerses his hands is fulfilling the same mitzvah but in a different manner. Therefore, the beracha of "Al netilat yadayim" is recited.

A Situation of Doubt
The Mishna Yadayim 2:4, states that one may be lenient in matters of doubt regarding netilat yadayim. The two cases that the Mishna applies this to are cases where the doubt involves a question of whether the water was valid for netilat yadayim or whether enough water was used for netilat yadayim. Rambam, Hilchot Berachot 6:15, adds that if there is a doubt whether one washed his hands or not one may be lenient based on this principle.

One can question Rambam's leniency. Ostensibly, the principle that one may be lenient in matters of doubt concerning netilat yadayim is part of a larger principle that one may be lenient in matters of doubt regarding laws that are rabbinic in nature (safek d'rabanan l'kula). However, Shach, Yoreh De'ah 110, Klalei Sfek Sfeika no. 20, proves from the Gemara, Eiruvin 35b, that the principle of safek d'rabanan l'kula is not effective in overturning a previously established status quo. In a situation where one is in doubt whether he washed his hands, there is a previously established status quo that his hands are impure and require netilat yadayim. If so, why does Rambam allow the doubt to overturn the established ritual impurity on his hands?

There are two possible answers to this question. First, Rambam, Hilchot She'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8, in listing the various rabbinic enactments regarding the purity of terumah, does not include netilat yadayim for (chullin) bread on this list. R. Chaim deduces from this omission that Rambam's opinion is that there is only one aspect to netilat yadayim - the mitzvah aspect. Accordingly, one can suggest that the reason why one may be lenient in a situation where one is in doubt if he washed his hands is because there is no established status quo that is overturned. The only existing established status quo is the ritual impurity of the hands, and according to Rambam, ritual impurity is insignificant to the mitzvah of netilat yadayim.

Second, it is possible that the principle that one may be lenient in matters of doubt regarding netilat yadayim is more expansive than the principle of safek d'rabanan l'kula. The principle that one may be lenient in matters of doubt regarding netilat yadayim allows one to overturn a previously established status quo. The expansive nature of this principle is implicit in the comments of R. Yisrael Isserlin, Terumat HaDeshen 1:261.

If one assumes that the basis for Rambam's leniency is his omission of the ritual impurity aspect of netilat yadayim, it is arguable that since other Rishonim subscribe to the ritual impurity aspect of netilat yadayim, one cannot accept Rambam's leniency (see P'ri Megadim, Introduction to Hilchot Netilat Yadayim, s.v. Ul'fi). However, if the basis for Rambam's leniency is the expansive nature of the principle that one may be lenient in matters of doubt regarding netilat yadayim, it is possible that Rambam's leniency is universally accepted. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 160:11, rules in accordance with the opinion of Rambam, indicating that the leniency is more universally accepted. He adds (based on Ra'avad, ad loc.) that if it is possible to cover all bases by performing netilat yadayim a second time, one should do so.

Washing Hands for Another Purpose
R. Yosef Karo, Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim 158, understands that the opinion of Tosafot, Pesachim 115b, s.v. Asuchei, is that if one washes netilat yadayim for the purpose of eating a davar shetibulu b'mashkeh (an item dipped in liquid) and then he wants to eat bread, he must perform another netilat yadyayim. The reason is because the first netilat yadayim is not performed with intent to sanctify one's hands, but rather just to remove the ritual impurity. R. Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik explains that if intent is integral to netilat yadayim, it is insufficient to perform netilat yadayim with intent to cover only one of the aspects of netilat yadayim. Therefore, the netilat yadayim of davar shetibulu b'mashkeh- which only has significance in the realm of ritual impurity – is insufficient to serve as netilat yadayim for bread which requires a formal preparation for the meal in addition to the removal of ritual impurity. [Rama, Orach Chaim 158:7, questions whether intent is necessary for netilat yadayim. Accordingly, netilat yadayim for davar shetibulu b'mashkeh will cover netilat yadayim for bread. Rama recommends accepting the stringencies of both possibilities and in such a situation one should wash again without reciting a beracha.]