Parshas Bo 5786 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
Is Nail Polish A Chatiztzah for Netilas Yadayim of a Meal?
Q: My dear friend, Hagaon Rav Yosef Weberman, shlit”a, Rav and Moreh Tzedek in Far Rockaway, NY, called my attention to a very common question. Many women apply nail polish to their fingernails, and quite often the polish develops cracks or begins to wear off, so that it appears uneven or odd, with only part of the nail still colored. There are women who are very particular about this. Does this constitute a mi’ut hamakpid—a minority area concerning which one is particular—that would be a chatzitzah with respect to Netilas Yadayim for a meal?
A: This is indeed a very common and relevant issue. First, however, we must clarify the definition and level of care required to avoid a chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 161:1) indicates that whatever constitutes a chatzitzah for tevilah is also a chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim. Thus, for example, dirt beneath the fingernail not opposite the flesh, and dough beneath the fingernail even opposite the flesh, as well as any other substance adhering to the hand that prevents the water from reaching the skin, is considered a chatzitzah. The reason that dirt beneath the nail is considered a chatzitzah, whereas opposite the flesh it is not, is explained by Machaneh Yisrael (siman 29): since it is a minimal amount, people are generally not particular about it. The “excrement” mentioned here refers to the grime that commonly accumulates beneath the nails. Actual excrement, however, even opposite the flesh, does constitute a chatzitzah; see Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 2). It is further explained there that if a substance is present on only a minority of the hand, and the person is not particular about it, and people in general are not particular about such a matter, it does not constitute a chatzitzah. However, if it covers most of the hand, then even if the person himself is not particular, it does constitute a chatzitzah. With respect to dye stains remaining on one’s hands, where the stains cover only a minority of the area of washing, they do not constitute a chatzitzah, since the person is not particular about them. We do not follow the majority of people who might be particular in this regard, because one whose profession is dyeing is not particular about such stains. The same applies to a sofer or other craftsmen who are not particular about stains on their hands; such stains do not constitute a chatzitzah. This raises a further point for consideration regarding the definition of “makpid—particular.” Must the dyer, for example, be unconcerned in all circumstances—even on Shabbos or when attending a wedding—or does the Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Berurah mean that since this is a minor matter for him, and in the normal course of his life he is not particular about it, it is therefore not considered something he is particular about with respect to Netilas Yadayim, even though there may be occasional situations in which he would be particular?
Getting back to our case, we must understand why nail polish is not always considered a chatzitzah. The Rosh (Hilchos Mikvaos, siman 27) writes that women who apply coloring to themselves, it does not constitute a chatzitzah, since it is an adornment for them and they are not particular about it, and on the contrary, it was applied intentionally. Moreover, it has no substance to it, and it is merely an appearance. This is cited by the Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah 198:17). The practical difference between these two reasons arises with respect to something done for adornment that does have substance, such as nail polish. According to the first reason—that it is an adornment and they are not particular—it would not constitute a chatzitzah. Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah 3:62) notes that from the words of the Taz it appears that either reason alone suffices for it not to be considered a chatzitzah. Similarly, Shiurei Shevet HaLevi (Hilchos Niddah, p. 324) writes that coloring which women apply to their hands is not a chatzitzah, since it is for adornment.
However, in our case a clear distinction must be made. If the polish becomes damaged or partially worn, it is no longer an adornment; on the contrary, she is particular to remove it. In such a situation, it would appear that it does constitute a chatzitzah. R’ Weberman suggested that perhaps it would depend on the following: If the woman is not embarrassed to go out in public with the polish in this condition—even though she would not want to attend a wedding with it—then it would seemingly not constitute a chatzitzah. One cannot derive proof from weddings or from Shabbos, since people are generally more particular on special occasions. And certainly, regarding a d’rabanan, the definition should be based on whether a person is particular in the ordinary course of life, such as going out into the street. I have seen that this is indeed the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, as cited in Kovetz LeTorah VeHora’ah vol. 7, that hakpadah is measured based on whether the woman is particular about going out in public with a crack in the nail polish. Accordingly, if a woman’s nail polish has begun to weaken or has developed a crack, and she is not particular about going out into the street in this condition, it does not constitute a chatzitzah for Netilas Yadayim for a meal. However, if she is particular even about going out in public with such polish, it certainly is considered a chatzitzah.
All of the above was agreed to by Mori V’Rabi, Maran HaGaon Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlit”a. In addition to all of the above, in a case where there is indeed a chatzitzah, one may wash the hand that does not have the cracked nail polish and cover the hand that has the chatzitzah with a tissue or the like or use only the hand without the chatzitzah to touch the food. See Mishnah Berurah (161:69), who cites the Chayei Adam that if it is impossible to wash properly and it is considered a situation of pressing need, one may eat the meal by wrapping a cloth around the hand.
A Non-Jew Worker on Shabbos Who Then Claims to Be Jewish — Is He Believed?
Q: A practical question arose regarding a non-Jew who is employed as a foreign worker by a Jewish family. Over time, he became accustomed to performing all forms of labor that a non-Jew is permitted to perform in a Jewish home on Shabbos. One Shabbos, the non-Jew approached the homeowner and said to him, “By the way, my mother is Jewish.” The homeowner thought to himself that if this were indeed the case, then we have an established ruling in Even HaEzer (siman 4) that if a non-Jew has a child with a Jewish woman, the child is Jewish. If so, this individual would have the status of a Jew, and it would be prohibited to allow him to perform melachah on Shabbos under the assumption that he is a non-Jew. The question thus arises: is he believed in this claim or not?
A: At the outset, I clarified this matter with Mori V’Rabi, Maran HaGaon Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlit”a. He responded that one should indeed be stringent and believe what he says, and therefore one should not continue to allow him to do melachah for him on Shabbos. One possible reason for stringency is that since he is claiming to be Jewish, then he should be believed since he is mesiach lefi tumo—speaking innocently. However, there is room to argue that because he is indeed Jewish, he is publicly being mechallel Shabbos and is not observant of Torah and mitzvos, which itself would call his reliability into question. However, I saw that this issue had already been addressed in a similar case by the Achiezer, authored by HaGaon Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, zt”l, in Vol. 3, §27. He was asked whether a non-Jew who claims that his mother was Jewish, and that he was circumcised from birth, is believed such that we should establish him as Jewish based on his statement. He responded that it is clear that he is not believed, since until now he has been firmly established as not Jewish, and no person in the world has ever doubted this status or suggested that he is Jewish. From his words it is clear that even if the individual was circumcised, he is nevertheless not believed, since he has an established presumption of being a non-Jew. And since his claim runs counter to that presumption, he is not believed even lechumra.
Thus, in our case as well, there is no need to be concerned that he is Jewish and that one would thereby be causing him to desecrate Shabbos; rather, he retains his status as a non-Jew, both for leniencies and for stringencies. Moreover, even if one were to argue that he should be believed, we have an established ruling of the Shach (Yoreh Deah 151:6) that there is no prohibition of mesayea with regard to mechalelei Shabbos. Accordingly, there is room to rely on this and not to be concerned with his claim. This ruling was likewise accepted by Maran HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, zt”l, cited in Shevet HaKehati 1:391, who ruled that no credence need be given to such a claim, since it is possible that when the individual says his mother is Jewish, he means that his maternal grandfather was Jewish, and he mistakenly assumes that this renders him Jewish as well.
In conclusion, based on all of the above, if a non-Jew approaches in the middle of Shabbos and claims that he is the son of a Jewish mother, he is not believed. It therefore remains permitted to ask him to perform melachah on Shabbos in the manner that is halachically permitted with respect to a non-Jew.
Is it Permitted to Tell Another Person Who They Saw on Vacation?
Q: A common question arises every year regarding those who go away on vacation with their families. There are destinations that may be less suited for a Ben Torah. Nevertheless, there are some people who are not embarrassed by this and do travel to such places. At the same time, there are certainly those who view this as a breach in shemiras HaTorah and mitzvos. It goes without saying that one must consult with a Rav to determine which places are permissible to visit without c”v transgressing serious aveiros. In any case, it can occur that a person travels to such a place, even though it is not considered appropriate for him. When the trip ends, he meets his friends in shul and says to them, “Do you know who else was with us at that hotel? So-and-so was there as well.” The question is whether there is a concern of lashon hara in saying that I saw so-and-so in a particular place? Furthermore, it sometimes happens that in the middle of the vacation, people take a picture of a friend—who was not known to have traveled there—and send the picture to others. Is there a concern of lashon hara in doing so?
A: First, it must be noted that the Chafetz Chaim writes explicitly that lashon hara applies not only to spoken words, but also to writing and images, which are akin to writing, as well. Therefore, if an act constitutes lashon hara, transmitting a photograph in such a case would be a serious violation of lashon hara. Indeed, leading Poskim have discussed questions of this nature, and the answer ultimately depends on the context. Everything hinges on the intention of the speaker and the perception of the listener. That is to say, if the intent of the speaker is merely to relate who else happened to be at the hotel, and he himself sees nothing wrong with this, and likewise the listener does not view this as anything wrong—then even though there are others in the world who might see it as inappropriate, there is no prohibition of lashon hara in this instance. However, if the matter is viewed as doing something wrong in the eyes of either the one relating the information or the one hearing it, then there is certainly a violation of lashon hara, since it constitutes a disparaging statement. The practical conclusion from all the above is that, while it is certainly appropriate and even necessary for families to take vacations, in order to relax and reinvigorate oneself, it is highly advisable to clarify in advance which destinations are most appropriate. Moreover, great caution is required when photographing others at various events or locations that may not be suitable for them, and especially when sending such images to others. All the more so must one refrain from relating information about another person when there is even a doubt that others may perceive it as something inappropriate. One who is careful in these matters will surely see brachah in all their endeavors!