After
re-organising the labels on this blog, I realised that until now I have not yet
written anything in the Taharos (ritual purity) category. As I am also
currently going over the laws of Mikvaos (ritual baths), this post is the
natural addition.
Background
Nowadays ritual
purity and the use of the mikveh is a relatively small part of religious life.
True, women need to dip once a month for about a quarter of their lives (from
marriage till menopause, minus most of pregnancy and breastfeeding). Those of
us who visit Har HaBayis (see Building the
Beis Hamikdash) also immerse ourselves prior to each visit. We all use the
keilim mikveh when we buy new food utensils. Some have the custom to go to the
mikveh at other times, not required by halacha. But all of this pales into
insignificance compared to what was and will be necessary when we have a Beis
Hamikdash.
In those times,
all are required to purify themselves three times a year, when coming to
Yerushalayim to celebrate Yom Tov.[1]
Kohanim need to be pure almost constantly (even when not serving in the Beis
Hamikdash), in order to eat t'ruma. Even non- kohanim need to purify themselves
extremely frequently, whenever coming into contact with t'ruma and challa
(separated from dough).
This was no
simple task. Illustrating just one example, the Mishna discusses how one
immerses a bed in a mikveh in order to purify it.[2]
This is not an example of Chazal discussing rare cases, but a regular
occurrence in those days. In the future, each building (if not each apartment)
will almost certainly need to have its own mikveh. In partial preparation, it
makes sense for us to understand a little bit about what this entails.
Mayim She'uvim
The hardest
obstacles to overcome when constructing a mikveh are the interrelated issues of
mayim she'uvim (literally 'drawn water') and tevila b'keilim (immersion in
vessels). The basic idea is that the water must gather naturally, not
transported in utensils. The source and nature of these halachos are subject to
fundamental disputes, which we must explain.
Chazal infer that
mikveh must be similar to the alternative mentioned in the same passuk, a
spring. As springs are created 'by the act of Heaven,' a mikveh must also be.[3]
Thus a mikveh must consist of water not gathered in vessels, usually rain water
that collects. However, in a seeming contradiction, the gemara tells us that
this requirement is a rabbinic one.[4]
Rashi and others
therefore explain that a mikveh consisting entirely of mayim she'uvim, or a
majority of mayim she'uvim, is invalid on a Biblical level. The gemara deals
explicitly with a case where the majority of the mikveh was made up of rain
water. In this case, adding three lugin (about a litre) of mayim she'uvim
before the mikveh has the required 40 se'ah (about 320 litres/0.32 m3)
of rain water, invalidates the mikveh on a rabbinic level.
The Rambam and
others disagree. They say that although the law of she'uvin is derived from a
pasuk, this is only an asmachta (literally support, the term refers to
an allusion or code found by the rabbis which is not the main meaning of the
pasuk). Thus according to Biblical law, even mayim she'uvim are kosher for a
mikveh.
According to
this view, the obvious question is why did the rabbis feel it necessary to
forbid the use of mayim she'uvim? Tosfos explain that even according to Torah
law, immersion in water held in a vessel (and not in the ground) is invalid.
The rabbis disqualified all water that had been in a vessel, to prevent
the possibility of someone making a mistake and thinking that any gathering of
water can be used.[5]
The Rambam does
not agree with this. Firstly, he writes that according to Torah law one could
achieve ritual purity by immersion in any gathering of water (including in a
vessel).[6] Furthermore, it is clear from his words that the problem with
immersion in a vessel stems from the issue of she'uvin, not the other way
round.[7]
According to this, we need to explain the reasoning behind the law of she'uvin
differently.
Even according
to Tosfos, we need to try to understand why the Torah invalidated immersion
inside a vessel. Likewise, according to those who maintain that a mikveh
consisting entirely of mayim she'uvin is invalid according to Torah law, we
need to attempt to find the reasoning behind this.
Ritual and
Spiritual Purification
More generally,
we need to ask why the Torah obligated a person to immerse in a mikveh at all.
The answer to this is indicated clearly by Chazal in many places, who compare
ritual purification to spiritual purification. To quote one famous example from
the Mishna:
אמר רבי עקיבא: אשריכם ישראל! לפני מי אתם מיטהרין מי מטהר
אתכם? אביכם שבשמים, שנאמר (יחזקאל ל"ו) "וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים
וטהרתם." ואומר (ירמיה י"ז) "מקוה ישראל ה'" מה מקוה מטהר את
הטמאים אף הקדוש ברוך הוא מטהר את ישראל.
יומא פרק ח, משנה ט
Says R' Akiva:
Happy are you Israel! In front of who are you purified and who purifies you?
Your Father in Heaven, as it says "I will throw upon you pure water and
you will be purified (Yechezkel 36). It also says "Hashem is the Mikveh of
Israel"- just like a mikveh purifies the ritually unclean, so too HaKadosh
Baruch Hu purifies Israel!"
Yoma 8:9
The Chinuch
explains that the idea of purity through water is based on the fact that the
world was all water at the beginning of Creation. Thus one who immerses himself
entirely in water can imagine that he is being 'created' again, and renew his
ways. The rabbis invalidated water in vessels, or water that had been in vessels,
as one who immerses in this water cannot imagine that the whole world is water.[8]
Solutions
As it is not
practical to expect people to go to a spring, lake or sea every time they need
to purify themselves, and a mikveh consisting entirely of rain water will
quickly become unsanitary, creative solutions are necessary.
In my mind, the
number of solutions available for the problem of mayim she'uvim is one of the
strongest indications that the invalidity is entirely rabbinic. If the real
source for the requirement of 'creation by Heaven' is the comparison to spring
water, it would have been necessary to find additional sources for all the
leniencies.[9] If,
on the other hand, the rabbis made this requirement for the reason given by the
Chinuch, we have a simple explanation. Whenever there was enough of a
connection to naturally occurring water, Chazal felt that the objective can
still be achieved.
There are two
main solutions, known as zeriya ('sowing' mayim she'uvim in kosher
mikveh water) and hashaka (having mayim she'uvim come into contact with
a body of kosher mikveh water). Zeriya is a concept that applies when there
already is the required forty se'ah of rain water in the mikveh. Any water
added subsequently does not invalidate the mikveh, even if the original forty se'ah
is now a tiny percentage.
Making use of
this, the water in modern mikvaos can be changed regularly. The original forty
se'ah of rain water gathers in one pit, and the immersion takes place in a much
bigger pit next to it. Regular tap water is released into the first pit (called
the bor zeriya), and allowed to overflow (through a pipe designed for
this) into the second one (the bor tevila).
However, some
believe that there is a halachic problem with this method. The gemara says that
although one can add a se'ah to the mikveh and then remove a se'ah from it,
this is only until the majority of the mikveh (i.e. if one removes the majority
of the original mikveh water by this method, it is invalidated).[10]
Many rishonim say that the gemara cannot be talking about the addition of mayim
she'uvim, as it is clear from many sources that mayim she'uvim never
invalidates a full mikveh. Therefore, they are forced to explain that this
gemara deals with the addition of fruit juice (or liquids other than water).[11]
Others write
that addition of a majority of mayim she'uvim and removal of an equivalent amount
does invalidate the mikveh. Although addition of any amount of mayim she'uvim
does not disqualify a mikveh, if one subsequently removes water it does.[12]
Seemingly, as the water in the bor zeriya is replaced regularly, it becomes
invalidated according to this view.
The truth is
that even among the rishonim who are stringent about removing water from the
mikveh directly, there is a dispute in the case of the bor zeriya.[13]
The Beis Yosef suggests a reason for this distinction, based on the explanation
of the Ramban. When the water is removed directly it looks as if the kosher
water is being replaced with mayim she'uvim. If we allowed this, people would
think that even a mikveh consisting entirely of mayim she'uvim is kosher. When
the water just spills out indirectly, this concern does not exist.[14]
Nevertheless,
almost all modern mikvaos do not rely on a bor zeriya alone. They also have a bor
hashaka, another pit of rain water connected to the bor tevila through a
small opening. Mayim she'uvim in the bor tevila becomes kosher mikveh water
when it touches the water in the bor hashaka. Due to various concerns about supervision,
common practice is not to rely on hashaka alone, but together with the bor
zeriya the assumption is that all concerns are covered.[15]
Preparing for
the Future
The above is a
description of the basic stringencies adhered to by mikavos nowadays, although
the truth is that there are many more. As large communities all use the same
mikveh, legitimate effort is made to make sure it will be kosher enough for
everyone.
However, in an
era when the number of mikvaos needed will increase dramatically, it is hard to
see how there will be enough space and money to provide for all these
stringencies. It may well be necessary to 'take sides' in the various halachic
disputes, and in preparation it is crucial that all these issues are studied in
depth.
[1] See Shemos 23:17, 34:23; Devarim 16:16. Although women are exempt from coming to the
Beis Hamikdash, they must come to Yerushalayim and take part in the
celebrations (Yerushalmi Chagiga 1:2). According to the Rambam (Chagiga 1:1)
this means partaking of the celebratory sacrifices, and even according to the
Ra'avad who argues, taking part in the celebrations would have been impractical
while ritually impure (although obviously not much could be done about it if it
was the wrong time of the month).
[3] Sifra to Vayikra 11:36
[4] Bava Kama 67a, Bava Basra 65b
[5] Bava Basra 66b (דיבור ראשון). See Aruch HaShulchan,
Yoreh Deah 201:14 who asks why one drasha in the Sifra is a real one, and one
is only an asmachta (the two drashos appear in the same passage).
[6] Hilchos Mikvaos 4:1
[7] Ibid. 6:1-14. However, as yet I have not found anyone else who
makes this obversation about the view of the Rambam. Many acharonim state that
according to all opinions, immersion inside vessels is invalid according to
Torah law.
[8] Mitzvah 173
[9] I believe that the possibility that all these leniencies (or some
of them) were passed down orally to Moshe Rabbeinu (הלכה למשה מסיני) can be discounted, as there is not a single hint to this in
the words of Chazal.
[10] Yevamos 82b
[11] See for example Rashi there. This is also the ruling of the
Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 201:24).
[12] Rambam Mikvaos 4:7; Ra'avad, Sefer Ba'alei Hanefesh, Sha'ar 1. The Tashbetz
(quoted by the Beis Yosef and Shach Y.D. ibid.) says that it is not correct to
'take sides' in this dispute, i.e. we should make sure that the mikveh is
kosher even according to the stringent view.
[13] The Rambam (ibid. 4:6) is lenient in this case; the Ra'avad (ibid.)
is stringent. The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah siman 123, paragraph 3) argues that the ruling of the
Tashbetz not to 'take sides' does not apply here.
[14] Beis Yosef Yoreh Deah siman 201, based on Ramban Bava Basra 65a.
[15] Although the Chazon Ish (ibid. 4-5) argues that the bor hashaka
does not help anything, as the water in it also gets replaced eventually.
Furthermore, he claims that it can actually make the mikveh more problematic
due to the measures necessary to ensure sanitation. Therefore he advises
relying on the bor zeriya alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment