196) AVRAHAM BEN AVRAHAM POTOTZKI - LEGEND OR FACT?

The House of Potocki.

INTRODUCTION:
          

Valentin Pototzki[1] secretly converted to Judaism.  He was the son of one of the most respected and influential 18th century Polish Counts who, amongst other acquisitions, also owned the city of Vilna. He was later betrayed to the authorities by a fellow Jew, and was tried and burned alive on the second day of Shavuot in 1749. 

He was hailed as a martyr and it is said that the Vilna Gaon declared that from that moment on, all evil spirits had been banished from the world.

In this article, we are going to look at this episode as recorded within Jewish tradition as well as in historical literature, in order to try and ascertain how factual the story actually is.

THE STORY:

There are different versions of the story but what follows is a popular account of the basic events:

Valentin Pototzki was born into a family of devout Catholics who belonged to the scholarly Jesuit Order which was founded in 16^th century Spain.

At the age of sixteen, he enrolled in a Catholic seminary in Vilna, where he met his study partner Zaremba (or Zrodny). Both friends were quite scholarly and wanted to explore the ‘Old Testament’ in greater depth and find out more of people of the Bible.

They befriended a Jew in the market who was studying the Hebrew Bible and he turned out to be R. Menachem Mann. The rabbi, not wishing to offend the Pototzki family who had always been good to the Jews, agreed to teach Torah to the two friends who, ironically, were studying for the priesthood, on condition that the friends keep it a secret.

One thing led to another and soon the friends told R. Mann that they wanted to convert to Judaism. This was a dangerous and unusual idea in the Poland of the 1700’s. Nevertheless, R. Man suggested that they travel to Amsterdam which was considered more open and tolerant of such matters.

With a letter of recommendation from the rabbi, the young boys journeyed to Amsterdam but first stopped in Rome in order to meet the Pope. They were also very interested in seeing the extensive collection of rare Jewish manuscripts which are housed in the Vatican Library.

At this point, Zaremba decided to return home to marry the daughter of the Prince Radziville, but promised to meet Valentin later in Amsterdam.

Valentine arrived in Amsterdam and after some time he converted to Judaism taking on the name Avraham ben Avraham.

Later Zaremba and his new family did indeed go to Amsterdam and also converted. He became Baruch ben Avraham. They then went to live in the Holy Land.

Meanwhile, Valentin for some reason decided to tempt fate and he returned to his native Poland and settled in the town of Ilya, nor far from Vilna.

In Ilya he joined the Beit Midrash, apparently on the suggestion of the Vilna Gaon.

One day some rowdy children entered the study hall and began disturbing the scholars. One cheeky youngster refused to leave and Avraham ben Avraham became impatient and escorted him out in a rather rough manner.

The boy ran home and told his father, Chaim Yoshkes, who happened to be the tailor who made uniforms for the Polish soldiers. He associated with the nobility and was aware of the disappearance of Valentin the son of the Count. He put two and two together and reported Avraham ben Avraham to the authorities.

Avraham ben Avraham was then brought to Vilna, identified and offered great wealth if he returned to the faith of his youth. He refused and was sentenced to be burned at the stake.

Villagers brought wood for the fire and gathered in the square on the second day of Shavuot when the execution took place. That day corresponded to the 9th of June 1749.

The Jews were not permitted to collect the ashes but one Eliezer Zinkes disguised as a non-Jew managed to retrieve them. These ashes were later buried in the Jewish cemetery in Vilna.

According to popular accounts, many strange events occurred after the execution. A strange looking tree grew over the place of the burning. The houses from which people had taken wood for the fire had all burned down. A building adjacent to the town square had strange black stains which could not be removed no matter how often it was painted over, and it eventually had to be destroyed.

The grave of Avraham ben Avraham remained unmarked for many years although the Jews knew whose grave it was. The Jews were reluctant to speak about the grave and it was only a hundred years later before the story was first printed although the name of the writer and the publisher were withheld.

Eventually, in 1927 a tombstone was finally erected over the grave declaring it to be the burial place of the righteous convert Avraham ben Avraham who died after publically sanctifying G-d’s name.[2]

According to some accounts, the Jewish cemetery was destroyed during the Second World War and when it was restored sometime later, Avraham's ashes were interred in the grave of the Vilna Gaon where they remain till this day.

VIEW OF HISTORIANS:

According to most secular historians, the story is regarded as a myth and a legend. 

They claim that the story is based entirely on secondary and not on primary sources. 

These scholars include Janusz Tazbir, Jacek Moskwa, Rimantas Miknys and Magda Teter.

• According to Tazbir, certain historical legal provisions[3] guaranteed freedom of religion at that time. If this is correct, it would have made the Polish constitution to have been, at least in theory, one of the more liberal of the times.

• Furthermore, had a Polish nobleman been executed in such a manner, it would have created a huge protest and outcry – and it would have been the only reported case of such an occurrence. 

• Also, there is no record in the archives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the episode.

• According to Magda Teter the story is apocryphal. She suggests that it was created to offset a strong 18th-century movement to convince Jews to convert to Christianity.

• Additionally, it could have been to counter the false-messiah Jacob Frank who together with a great many of his followers did indeed convert to Catholicism, including the descendants of very prominent R. Yonatan Eybeschutz.

• Another suggestion is that the story was perpetuated by the followers of the Vilna Gaon who wanted to emphasize the importance of pure Torah study especially in the aftermath of the birth of the Chassidic movement which emphasized matters of a more ecstatic nature.

On the other hand, Professor Sid Leiman makes a strong case for the historicity of the story.[4]

CONFLATION WITH ANOTHER STORY:

Then there is the view that the Pototzki story is really a conflation of an entirely different story which occurred with one Avraham Isacowicz:

In the 1753 edition of The London Magazine, a tellingly similar story is told of a certain Christian Croatian, Rafhael Sentimany, who converted to Judaism and changed his name to Avraham Isacowicz. He was imprisoned in Vilna and then executed also on the 9th of June which was the second day of Shavuot. The similarities between both episodes are uncanny except that the Isacowicz story took place four years later that the Pototzki story.

R. YAAKOV EMDEN’S ACCOUNT:

As mentioned, many secular scholars dismissed the story because of a lack of primary sources. However, an account of the event was recorded by R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776), also known as Yaavetz, who was a contemporaneous source (and a fervent anti-Sabbatean and Frankist).

In 1755, R. Emden wrote[5]:

“Some years ago, a prince from the house of Potolzki converted to Judaism. He was caught and incarcerated and encouraged to return to his original faith...He nevertheless was not afraid of dying...and died sanctifying G-d’s name. May peace be with him.”

Although some do seem to regard this account as a primary source, it does not really fit the technical definition of a primary source which is defined as: 

"Immediate first-hand accounts of a topic from people who had a direct connection with it. Texts of laws and other original documents. Newspaper reports, by reporters who witnessed an event or who quote people who did. Speeches, diaries, letters and interviews - what the people involved said or wrote."

SCARCITY OF OTHER JEWISH SOURCES:

As to the question of why there is a scarcity of other written Jewish accounts of this story, it has been suggested that because the powerful Potolzki family was always well disposed towards the Jews, they did not want to anger or humiliate the family by publically drawing attention to their son.[6]

HOW THE VILNA GAOM AMENDED THE HALACHA:

Notwithstanding the objections of some historians as to the historicity of the story, the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) went so far as to even amend a Halachic practice in the immediate aftermath of the Pototzki event. Evidently, he took the story very literally and seriously:

Peninei Halacha, Tefillah 8:3 p. 110

According to Peninei Halacha (my translation follows): 

"The is an amazing tradition, relating to Count Pototzki who was the son of an aristocratic family of Poland, whose heart moved him to join the Jewish nation and convert (to Judaism). 

But the matter was forbidden during those times, he converted secretly and occupied himself with Torah (study).

Eventually, the Christians caught him and placed two choices before him; either to return to Christianity or be burned alive.

The righteous convert chose to die through fire and to sanctify G-d's name in public.

At that moment the Vilna Gaon declared that the impure (spiritual) spirits had lost their strength - and this especially so regarding the impure spirits of the morning (which require the washing of the hands by water three times alternately).

For this reason, the students of the Vilna Gaon are (no longer) strict not to walk more than four steps (in the morning) before washing the hands. (They regard the entire house as 'within four cubits'.)"

[For more on evil spirits and the views regarding whether or not they exist see KOTZK BLOG 171.]

Interestingly, the Vilna Gaon was so emphatic that this story is true that he was prepared to take the extraordinary steps of altering a long-standing Halacha because of it.

Perhaps the Vilna Gaon could be considered a Primary Source for this story?

It is, however, interesting that the embellished Chabad version of the story published by Kehot (see Note 2), for some reason, contains no mention of the Vilna Gaon reaction nor his involvement with the 'Ger Tzedek of Wilno'.

[1] Also spelt Potocki.

[2] For a grand recounting of this story see The Ger Tzedek of Vilno, by Nissan Mindel, published by Kehot Publication Society.

[3] The Warsaw Confederation and Neminem Captivabimus. (See, however, the account of the Vilna Gaon as recorded in Peninei Halacha where conversion to Judaism would have been illegal.)

[4] See: Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb, by Sid Leiman.

[5] Vayakam Edut BeYaakov, p. 25b.

[6] See: Al Kiddush Hashem: R. Avrohom Ben Avrohom, by Dov Eliach.

171) NETILAT YADAYIM – A MEANS OF EXPELLING EVIL SPIRITS OR A SIMPLE ABLUTION?

INTRODUCTION:

It is generally assumed that the reason why we wash our hands in the morning is to remove ‘evil spirits’ which descended upon us during the night.

We will explore whether or not this is the view held by all the major Halachic authorities.

SHULCHAN ARUCH:

According to the Shulchan Aruch[1] of R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), one must wash one’s hands in the morning, because a Ruach Ra’a (or evil spirit) rests upon the body:

  

“One must be particular to pour water over (the hands) three times in order to remove the evil spirit which rests on them.”

TUR:

R. Karo in his Shulchan Aruch bases himself on an earlier ruling of Tur[2] compiled by R. Yakov ben Asher (1270-1340):

The Tur writes:

“One must be particular to pour water over them (the hands) three times because an evil spirit rests upon them until they are washed -  and does not depart until water is poured three times.”

TALMUD:

This, in turn, is based on a statement in the Talmud[3] dealing with the washing of the hands in the morning:

According to the Talmud:

“R. Natan (or possibly R. Yossi) says: This evil spirit remains (on the hands) until one washes them three times.”

DISCREPANCY BETWEEN RASHI AND RABBEINU CHANANEL:

Rashi (1040-1105) interprets this Talmudic statement to mean that the reason why we wash our hands in the morning is to remove the Ruach Ra’a which descended upon us during the process of sleep. The way we do this is to pour water over our hands three times.

However, according to a slightly earlier authority, Rabbeinu Chananel (990-1053, who is known to have based himself on older traditions going back to the Gaonim and even earlier), the Ruach Ra’a (or bat Melech) remains on the eyelids and not on the hands. According to him, it is the eyes and the face[4] which have to be washed three times, not the hands!

DISPUTED AUTHORSHIP OF OUR TALMUDIC SOURCE:

The Talmudic statement which was used as a source for the notion of evil spirits is of disputed authorship. Sometimes it is ascribed to R. Yossi and other times to R. Natan - depending on the version of the text. If the author of the statement was R. Natan (also known as Natan haBavli, the Babylonian) - it supports the notion that evil spirits invade the body during sleep, because that was a common Babylonian belief.

Babylon was known to have been the originator of many such (what some would call) folk or superstitious beliefs. The Babylonian culture was steeped in occult practices and angelology – something which was noticeably absent from the belief and practices of Jews living in Israel at the same time. This is why there are many references to demons and evil spirits in the Babylonian Talmud, and hardly any in the Talmud Yerushalmi.

If, however, the statement was made instead by R. Yossi, then obviously this argument would fall away.

TUR SELECTS RASHI’S INTERPRETATION OVER RABBEINU CHANANEL:

It is interesting to note that the Tur chose only one of the two explanations which were offered by the Talmudic commentaries. He chose Rashi (dealing with the hands) over Rabbeinu Chananel (dealing with the eyes). Whereas, in fact, it does seem that the Talmud itself favoured the view of the ‘eyes’ over the ‘hands’, because immediately afterwards it suggests applying some type of paste on the eyelids an antidote to the Ruach Ra’a resting on the eyelids.

A LESS ESOTERIC INTERPRETATION:

 According to another interpretation, this entire Talmudic section actually has nothing to do with evil spirits in an esoteric sense, but rather a form of ‘evil infection’ in a medical sense. If one looks at the context of this text, it is speaking about what was then understood to be medical information.

The section is introduced by Shmuel, a second-third century physician and contains many such medical remedies, not esoteric practices.

This position is further supported by Rabbeinu Chananel who, as mentioned above, makes no reference to the washing of the hands but instead refers to the eyes.

Dr Gordon writes quite poignantly that according to this approach: “there is, ontologically, no nightly crisis, no precarious state of lifelessness. The experience of awakening each morning – the restoration each morning of consciousness – simply anticipates in psychologically suggestive terms the phenomenon of future resurrection.” [5]

OTHER TALMUDIC SOURCES:

We must remember that there are two other Talmudic sources which deal with the washing of the hands in the morning and they make no mention of evil spirits:

 The Talmud in Berachot 15a states that the order of the morning is “...to wash the hands and then put on Tefillin and say Shema...and if one does so it is as if he offered a sacrifice”

Furthermore, “...a Torah scholar who came from Israel (instead of Babylon) said that one who has no water to wash the hands, should wipe his hands with either earth, a stone or a piece of wood.”

This Talmudic source makes no reference to evil spirits as the reason for washing the hands in the morning. It simply suggests that the washing of the hands is a preparation for the morning prayers and that it is not even imperative to use water.

RASHBA:

The abovementioned Gemara was later adopted by Rashba as the reason for the washing of the hands in the morning: It is a hygienic ablution to prepare for Tefillin and Shema and is reminiscent of the Temple service (where the Cohen also poured water over his hands as a preparation for his daily service).

THE OTHER TALMUDIC SOURCE:

The other Talmudic source which also makes no reference to evil spirits is Berachot 60b:

Here the Gemara lists various activities which are performed in the morning (such as the wearing of a belt, and putting on shoes) and the corresponding blessing to be recited on each occasion. It mentions, in passing, the blessing “al netilat yadayim” to be recited on washing the hands.

This Gemara also seems to imply that the washing of the hands is a simple, common and mundane morning activity, a routine ablution, with no reference to evil spirits.

ROSH:

This Gemara was later adopted by Rosh as the reason for the washing of the hand in the morning: It is a routine morning ablution (and a means of cleaning the hands after they may have, during the process of sleep, contacted a part of the body that is usually covered).[6]

Thus, according to Rosh, the washing of the hands is a preparation for prayer, while according to Rashba it constitutes a preparation for prayer and the service of G-d throughout the rest of the day – but neither makes any reference to evil spirits!

And, amazingly, the Rosh makes the point that in this Talmudic section, the blessing over washing the hands features towards the end of the list of early morning activities – implying that there is no urgency to wash the hand immediately in the morning. One may even recite the other blessings prior to washing the hands, as long as they are eventually washed before the main section of prayer.[7]

SUMMARY THUS FAR:

We have seen that there are three sources in the Talmud for the morning washing of the hands. Two are rather mundane:

(1) Rashba: - reminiscent of the Cohen at the start of a brand new day.

(2) Rosh: - to clean the hands after a lengthy period of unconscious inactivity.

(3) It is only the third source that seems to provide an esoteric reason involving evil spirits. Yet that source was selected as the main originator for the morning hand-washing ritual, by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.

GAONIM, RIF, RAMBAM AND ROSH:

It must also be pointed out that none of the Gaonim (the authorities spanning 589-1038) regarded the esoteric Talmudic statement as having any bearing on practical Halacha.

And although some Rishonim (spanning 1038-1500) did read a Halachic imperative into it, it was not universally taken as such by other Rishonim such as and Rif (R. Yitzchak Alfasi 1013-1103), Rambam (1135-1204), Rashba (R. Sholomo ben Aderet 1235-1310) and Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel 1250-1327). None of these Rishonim even mention that particular esoteric Talmudic statement nor do they connect the morning ablution as having to do with any Ruach Ra’a or evil spirits.

Rambam, for example, prescribes washing the hands in the morning before prayer but does not relate it to removing evil spirits. He simply regards it as a basic hygienic ablution. And he does not specify pouring water over the hands three times but one singular pouring would suffice.

KITZUR SHULCHAN ARUCH:

This ‘evil spirits’ reason is mirrored in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of R. Shlomo Gantzfried (1802-1886):

After explaining that man is a new creation every morning and is compared to the Cohen in the Temple who washed his hands at the start of each new day, he gives another reason for washing the hands: 

“During sleep, when a person’s holy soul has (partially) left him, an impure spirit comes and rests upon his body. When he wakes up (in the morning), the impure spirit departs from all the body except for the fingers and does not leave until one pours water over the three times alternately.”

It’s interesting, however, to see that the ‘evil spirits’ is mentioned as the secondary reason and not the primary one, which is similar to the reason put forth by Rashba.

Also, one notices there is no reference to Ruach Ra’a (evil spirit), but rather to a possible more benign usage of Ruach haTumah (spirit of impurity).

INFLUENCE FROM THE ZOHAR?

The Halachic codification of the Talmudic texts was spearheaded by Rishonim like the Tur. This was when what was previously multifaceted Talmudic discussion became written into more one-dimensional law.

Bear in mind that the Tur (1270-1340) was born as the Zohar - which was only first published in 1290 - became well known.[8] He lived in Spain which was where the Zohar had become very popular.

It is possible that he may have been influenced by some Zoharic thought.

We know that R. Yosef Karo, who based himself on the Tur when it came to the reasons for washing hands, was also very influenced by Kabbalistic thought and was even said to have been taught by a mystical Maggid. (See A Mystical Side to R. Yosef Karo.)

Therefore it is not difficult to speculate that the reason why the more esoteric aspects of hand washing in the morning, involving evil spirits, was emphasized by both codifiers.

It is also interesting that R. Yosef Karo is usually known to have followed the majority opinion of (the three “R’s”)  Rif, Rambam and Rosh – yet in our case he seems to have avoided all of them!

Tellingly, in his original Beit Yosef on the Tur which preceded his Shulchan Aruch, he writes that ‘The Zohar contains some chiddushim (novel ideas) not found in the (writings of the) Halachic decisors.”

Let’s see what the Zohar actually says:

ZOHAR:

  

The Zohar[9] says:

“Every man has a foretaste of death during the night, because the holy soul then leaves him, and the unclean spirit rests upon the body and makes it unclean. When, however, the soul returns to the body, the pollution disappears, save from the man’s hands...Hence a man should not pass his hands over his eyes before washing them.

When he has washed them, however, he becomes sanctified and is called holy.

For this sanctification, two vessels are required, one held above and the other placed beneath, so that he may be sanctified by the water poured on his hands from the vessel above.

The lower vessel, then, is the vessel of uncleanness, receiving as it does the water of contamination, whilst the upper vessel is a medium of sanctification. The upper one is referred to as ‘blessed’, the lower one as ‘cursed’.

Further, the water of contamination should not be emptied in the house, in order that no one may come near it; for it forms a gathering-place for the elements of the unclean side, and so that no one may receive injury from the unclean water.

Neither may pronounce a benediction before the pollution is removed from his hands...Nor is it permitted to put the polluted water to any use, or even to let it stay overnight in the house, but it must be emptied in a spot where people do not pass, as it is liable to cause harm through the unclean spirit that clings to it.

It is permissible, however, to let it flow down a slope into the earth. It must not be given to witches, as by means of it they can do harm to people.

One should, then, avoid this water, since it is water of curse...

POURING WATER THREE TIMES OVER THE HANDS:

The prescription to pour water over the hands three times has Kabbalistic implications: According to Kaff haChaim[10], the right hand signifies Chessed or kindness while the left hand represents Gevurah or severity (or evil). By beginning the pouring from the right to left hand, one symbolises that the harsh judgements and evil of the left side are made subservient to the Chessed of the right side.

RAMAK:

It is well known that Rambam was very outspoken about the fact that he did not believe in evil spirits. It is also known that Rosh and Rif were not so vocal about their beliefs on this matter. 

R. David Bar-Hayim suggests an interesting alternative possible explanation for Rosh and Rif omitting our esoteric Talmudic statement: It could be that they regarded the morning washing of the hands as an ‘optional extra’ or Middat Chassidut (a pious but not obligatory practice). In other words, they may have held a belief in evil spirits but were not prepared to impose that belief on the people in terms of a Halachic obligation (as did the Tur and Shulchan Aruch).

To support this position, even the great Kabbalist, the Ramak (R. Moshe Cordovero 1522-1570), writes in his commentary on the Zohar (Or Yakar[11]) that the washing of the hands in the morning is Midat Chassidut and not obligatory in a Halachic sense.

This in stark contrast to the Tur and Shulchan Aruch who prescribed the washing of the hands in the morning as having Halachic implications in terms of removing evil spirits.

MISHNA BERURA:

The Mishna Berura[12] (by R. Yisrael Meir Kagan, also known as the Chafetz Chaim; 1838-1933) first published in 1904 writes:

 “While while we do take into account the reason of evil spirits when it comes to washing the hands, nevertheless that is not the main reason why we wash the hands. The Sages would never have instituted the requirement of reciting a blessing, were that to have been the only reason. Therefore we must take into consideration the additional reasons given (by the Rosh and Rashba etc).”

BAALEI HA TOSAFOT:

At about the same time as the Zohar was popularised, the Tosafists (1100’s – mid-1400’s) were making very interesting statements like “This evil spirit has been nullified from the world and is no longer found in places like Germany”[13].

LECHEM MISHNA ON RAMBAM:

According to the Lechem Mishna, it is evident from the words of Rambam that he was not perturbed by references to evil spirits as found in the Talmud.[14]

In Rambam’s own words:

“Amongst that which you should know is that the perfected philosophers do not believe in tzelamim, by which I mean talismanery, but scoff at them and at those who think that they possess efficacy... and I say this because I know that most people are seduced by this with great folly, and with similar things, and think that they are real—which is not so... and these are things that have received great publicity amongst the pagans...”[15]  

MAHARSHAL:

R. Shlomo Luria was known as Maharshal (1510—1573), one of the great Ashkenazi Halachic decisors, wrote that ‘evil spirits are not found among us’.[16]

VILNA GAON:

In a fascinating account where the son of Count Pototzki converted secretly to Judaism and when he was caught and put to death for his actions, the Vilna Gaon declared the evil spirits to have been finally banished from the world.

Thereafter, the students of the Vilna Gaon were no longer particular about washing their hands in the morning before walking four cubits. (There is a view that the entire house is considered to be ‘within four cubits’ anyway.)

It must be said, however, that it is still wide practice today for many to keep two vessels next to the bed so as to perform Negel Wasser or nail water, immediately upon rising.

ANALYSIS:

It is significant that our esoteric Talmudic statement about the Ruach Ra’a was actually made by the earlier and therefore more authoritative Tannaim (either R. Natan haBavli or R. Yossi from the Mishnaic Period 10-220 CE) and not by the later Amoraim (from the Gemora Period 220-500 CE).

This makes it even more unusual that no Gaonim nor Rif, Rambam, Rashba or Rosh mentioned the reference to the evil spirits as suggested in that Braita or Mishnaic text.

The aim of this article is not to prove which interpretation is the ‘correct’ one. It is simply to show just another example of how the mystics (who believed in evil spirits) were able to gain the upper hand over the more rational rabbis (who did not believe in evil spirits) – and how, in this case, the mystical view became the dominant Halachic position.

This creates a reality where, today, very few people are aware of fact that belief in spirits is not necessary a universal Jewish belief.

.................................

NOTES FOR FURTHER STUDY:

ONE WHO WAS AWAKE ALL NIGHT:

The Halachic implications from all the above become rather complicated in an instance where one remained awake the entire night (such as on Shavuot):

According to the Gemara, it is the passage of the night and not necessarily the process of sleep that brings the evil spirit. So the hands would still need to be washed.

According to the Zohar, however, it is the process of sleep that brings the evil spirits. If there was no sleep there would be no need to wash the hands.

The Rosh would agree that there is no need to wash the hands if one did not sleep, although for a different reason – the hands would not have unconsciously become requiring of a cleansing.

ONE WHO SLEPT DURING THE DAY:

If one had slept during the day, the Rosh would require a hand washing.

The Gemara would not require a hand washing because there was no passage of night.

And according to the Zohar there would also be no requirement to wash the hands as the evil spirit does not enter the body during the day (although see Beit Yosef ch 4, who questions this).

Practically speaking, because of some of the uncertainty in these issues, the general practice is to wash the hands but not to say the blessing of ‘al netilat yadayim’.

---

[1] Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 4:2. 

[2] Tur, Orach Chaim, 4.  R. Yaakov ben Asher (who was the son of the Rosh and usually defended the positions of his father) called his work Arba’ah Turim which means Four Rows (corresponding to the jewels on the breastplate of the High Priest). Two hundred years later, R. Yosef Karo wrote a commentary on the Tur, which was called Beit Yosef. Later, he transformed that commentary into an actual code which we know as the Shulchan Aruch. He retained the basic outlay and format of the Tur down to retaining the Four Sections and even the Chapters or Simanim.

[3] Shabbat 109a.

[4] Although the text states that the hands have to be washed three times. Perhaps Rabbeinu Chananel had a different version of the text as he makes no mention of hands in his commentary.

[5] See Netilat Yadayim Shel Shacharit by Dr Martin L. Gordon.

[6] Peninei Halacha, Tefilah, p.106, footnote 1.

[7] Rosh Berachot 9:23

[8] See Mysteries Behind the Origins of the Zohar.

[9] Zohar 1, 184:2.

[10] Kaff haChaim 4:12

[11] Or Yakar p. 123

[12] Mishna Berura 4:8.

[13] Yoma 77b.

[14] Shevitat Heasor 3,2.

[15] Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 4:7

[16] Yam Shel Shlomo on Chulin 8, 31