<html><body>
<p>In Avodah Digest V26#73, RSP noted:<br>
> In OH, 181:1 the mechaber states emphatically that mayim achronim is an obligation....Chaza&quot;l even pegged it to a verse in these parshot of vayikra, that one should be holy, this is mayim acharonim. At the end of this chapter, in no.10 the mechaber says that there are some who do not practice (she'ein nohagim) to wash mayim achronim, with the tosophot in berachot brought as the source. <<br>
The Tur says what RSP noted, and, after quoting Tos'fos, he writes at the end of the siman, "V'ham'vareich nami [isn't noheig to wash mayim acharonim --MP], kivan she'ein anu osin k'mo she'amar hapasuq 'ki qadosh Ani'-zeh shemen areiv, gam bin'tilah lo nahagu. V'lo miqri l'didan 'yadayim m'zuhamos' kivan she'ein anu r'gilin litol v'ein anu maqpidim b'kach...." In other words, the argument would be that not only, as per Tos'fos, is melach S'domis not found nowadays (going back to y'mei Tos'fos, many hundreds of years ago), but also our practices contradict important aspects of the d'rashah and of the concept of zuhama: (a) we're not fully following the d'rash of "v'hisqadishtem" re using shemen, and that d'rash isn't halfway, so it apparently doesn't apply l'halacha; and (b) since we're not particular to always wash our supposedly m'zuhamos hands after eating, we apparently don't have the condition which would mandate mayim acharonim in order to remove zuhama. (Re point (a), BTW, the counterpoint of BY 181:1 is worth the price of admission!)<br>
<br>
> Interestingly, the remah says nothing in either place, seemingly agreeing to the mechaber's view. <<br>
DM 181:1 is crystal clear: "Mihu haminhag k'divrei haTos'fos [sheheivi Rabbeinu b'sof hasiman -- Chidushei Hagahos]." As RRW has pointed out in the past, you really need to check out Tur SA -- SA is really an extract of BY and DM on Tur SA. I can't speak to why no extract (much less a quote) of RMA's words is in SA 181, but he certainly did write upon the subject. <br>
<br>
> Finally the great forerunner of all minhag ashkenaz, the maharil, also obligated mayim acharonim, see spitzer ed., p. 117, no. 41, and especially note heh. <<br>
Could I bother you to quote the phraseology verbatim? Online, the words of the Lublin 1590 edition (<a href="http://hebrewbooks.org/11762">http://hebrewbooks.org/11762</a> -- see pp.160-161) don't tell me anything about a mandate for mayim acharonim but rather seem to relate to explaining an "over la'asiyasan" question brought by Tos'fos. Thanks. <br>
<br>
All the best from<br>
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager</body></html>