Priorities
Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic, but I wept when I read GoldaLeah's recent post, "Troubled Waters. She is on her congregation's mikvah development committee, and in discussing her changing view on their current mikvah plan, she writes:
I am behind the idea of a mikveh for this congregation, but I don't see a pressing need for one. There is one within an hour's drive of here, and there are also natural, outdoor mikvahs (mikvaot?) that we can use. The demand for a mikveh in our congregation for halachic reasons is almost nil. The demand for other uses is moderate, but I'm still betting only a few people will use it, and very few on a regular basis.
Contrast this with Rivka Slonim's famous quote from Total Immersion, which is also reprinted on the front page of our site:
Most Jews see the synagogue as the central institution in Jewish life. But Jewish Law states that constructing a mikvah takes precedence even over building a house of worship.
I understand that GoldaLeah's personal priorities may be different, and I'm pretty sure that no one's going to change her mind about that (though she is asking about the best way to go about making her views known, or not). Still, I'm sad. I'm sad for the handful of families in her community (if even that many) who are observing T"H and have to juggle other responsibilities to make the two-hour round trip to the nearest mikvah. I'm sad for the others who may be considering mikvah use, but who will decide that it's just "too much trouble" without a community mikvah. I'm sad for the (probably hypothetical) couple already struggling with T"H, perhaps contending with short cycles or halachic infertility or frequent weekday business trips, who finally throw in the towel when the wife's tevilah night turns up on Friday one too many times and there's no mikvah within walking distance. I'm sad for the children growing up in her town who will never learn to value T"H (even if they choose not to observe it as adults), because their elders did not place enough value on having a mikvah.
Comments
I don't think I'm being presumptuous in asserting that there is probably one couple in our synagogue that concerns itself with T"H -- the rabbi and his wife, and he just moved here a year ago. The truth is that more tradition families don't generally choose to live here. They live in that city an hour down the road, where there is a thriving Jewish community, including 3 mikvahs, Jewish schools, an eruv, kosher restaurants, etc.
Even in our discussions of the mikveh for this community, traditional uses are sidelined. People see this mikveh as very much in line with their very liberal Judaism. It's not a matter of halacha. It's a matter of "spirituality".
Your mourning -- for those of us who do not practice it, for whole families of children who will not see T"H growing up...honestly, you may as well apply that to the entire liberal Jewish community. It's not the abscence of a physical mikveh that is most important here, it's the abscence ot the desire for one.
As I said -- I am in support of a mikveh here, but not under the current, strange conditions -- which I detailed in my post. (http://westernjew.blogspot.com/2005/07/troubled-waters-mikveh-update.html)
(As for what else we lack...Jewish schools, kosher restaurants...that's about it. We get 40-50 people for Friday night services and the same number for our weekly Torah Study. 20-25 people are the norm on Saturday morning. We have a thriving religious school and Hebrew school, a preschool, and an adult education program. We're 250 member families strong and growing. We don't lack too much, if you ask me.)
It's not the abscence of a physical mikveh that is most important here, it's the abscence ot the desire for one.That was my point entirely.
Oh...I get it now. You want to raise mikva awareness. Hm........that can't be easy.....what can we do to help? Do you want tidbits as to how it enhances your life, like from a kallah teacher? Perhaps I can ask around, if that's your intention...
sara - who are you addressing?
Whoever is interested, I guess......
Goldaleah... I think the reason why your current Rabbi is pushing the need for a local mikvah even though there isn't a want is because he is wanting what Sara is mentions, increased mikvah awareness in his community.
Women are more apt to use a mikvah if it is close by and convenient. Maybe he is hoping a local mikvah will encourage the ones who don't want to make the trip. Even if just one more family uses it, the mitzvah of that would be worth building it!
I would be surprised if classes in Hashkofo and Chassidus wouldn't help, though.
I do agree...increasing awareness is good. And I never meant to sound as if I was anti-mikveh. I just think it should be fully owned by the synagogue and not be built on a congregant's property. I'd rather wait a few more years to build one under the right conditions. It's been a hard personal decision to come to, but that's where I find myself standing today. Have no fear, though -- I'm not the only person on this committee. They will go forward and will likely build this mikveh in the next year. I imagine I'll have to reconsider my position about ownership and decide whether or not to use it.
Near my community there is a mikvah that is built on a private person's property. While I think it is gracious of the person to be willing to give their space for a mikvah, I've always felt awkward about that and appreciative that I didn't need to use that mikvah.
GoldaLeah, you make some interesting points in your blog that didn't occur to me. I also started thinking, what happens when this woman dies? Or decides to retire to Florida? Or happens to rent to people who seem nice enough but then cause problems to the people tromping through to use the mikvah? Or what if they misuse the mikvah?
So on the one hand, I think having a mikvah nearby is extremely important, no matter what the religious observance of the general community is. Yet, on the other hand, I think the mikvah in someone's backyard is not a great solution (if I remember correctly, there is an essay discussing a backyard mikvah in Total Immersion).
Is there no property nearby the shul that can be purchased? Or does it come down to funding?
frombeneath -- the concerns you mentioned about private property are exactly my concerns:
1. will people be uncomfotable going?
2. what if the property-owner dies/moves/retires...they have two kids who do not live here and the property is worth quite a bit
3. what if she changes her mind/has a falling out with the community
4. are we sure we can provide adequate liability -- any time you involve water, liability is huge?
Those aren't trite concerns, and I don't think this comunity needs a mikveh enough to go ahead despite these issues.
No, there is no property near the synagogue. It's an older, developed area of town. So yes, it comes down to property and money. And our congregation has other monetary needs that I would prioritize.
To Golda Leah -- It is not permissible to use lakes and rivers as a mikvah. As for the ocean, while permitted it is impractical -- one issue is chatzitza.
As for a mikvah 1 hour away -- what do you do Friday night? How about three-day yom tovs? There should at least be a "satelite" mikvah for shabbos and yom tov.
Actually Mikva, while I agree with you that a natural body of water should not be the only available mikvah, I don't know where you heard that only an ocean is permissible. My kallah teacher described spending summers at camp and immersing in the camp lake. A google search turned up multiple confirmations that a lake or river is a kosher mikvah.
It sounds like this mikvah is being used for all purposes; wouldn't it make more sense to use it for the men or for tevilas keilim?
I think a lady would have much more privacy not using it.
"It is not permissible to use lakes and rivers as a mikvah."
Doesn't this seem to go against the spirit of everything mikvah is? Where better to find living waters, in a cold concrete pool or in a beautifully secluded river? Surely you don't think God intended the former rather than the latter?
(Our rabbi has used the river/lake for mikveh. I believe some of our recent conversions have as well. His "ruling" is that lakes and rivers in their natural state are fine. Reservoirs are absolutely not.)
I also have heard that lakes and rivers can be kosher mikva'ot. In college, we used (less turbulent parts of) the gorges as mikva'ot for glasses and metal utensils, and men who wanted to dunk on Fridays or before Yom Kippur would use the lake. The "real" mikvah was reserved for women observing T"H (and, I am guessing, converts).
Well, I don’t know about that…doesn’t there have to be a certain amount of rain water?
No, sara:
There are a number of requirements for the use of a natural spring as a mikveh. First of all, the spring itself has to meet the requirements for immersion. The water must originate from the spring and not from a collection of rainwater, and it must be deep enough so that you can immerse your entire body at one time. The spring you describe, which reaches your neck, is certainly deep enough.
Also:
A natural lake that is fed by river water and springs can be used for immersion.
And what about all the famous stories we've heard about women in "the old country" breaking the ice on the surface of a lake so they could immerse, so important was this mitzvah to them? I don't think Chabad would continue retelling these stories if a lake wasn't kosher for immersion.
I don't know that much about the physical mikvah, truth be told...I just know that the water is mixed with rainwater, and that sometimes it's hard if there isn't enough natural rainwater. I don't know what is actually done, in that case, but I've never heard that the mikvah is closed because of lack of rain.
Actually it sounds as though rainwater has more restrictions on it than natural bodies of water. For those who are interested, see the commentary on this daf of Gemara (scroll down to 55b):
...in contrast to fresh water (from a river or spring) -- which makes a person Tahor even if one immerses in it while it is in motion, rain water makes a person Tahor only when it is stationary.So apparently moving waters, like an ocean, river, river-fed lake, or spring are always kosher unless they are comprised mainly of rainwater. Rainwater itself is not kosher for tevilah until it is collected in one spot, the way we do for a man-made mikvah.
To eden: An ocean is always kosher, even if it is running. A river is never kosher for tevila, since it is made up largely of rainwater.
Mikva/Halacha (since you are the same person) - I tried emailing you the following, but the address you provided was not valid:
I would appreciate it if you could re-evaluate your comments on Mayim Rabim and try to adopt a more respectful tone in the future. The halacha on use of a river as a mikva is unclear. Others have cited their sources explaining why a river and a lake may be permissible. If you are going to make statements to the contrary, please do the same.
The contributors and readers of this site come from a variety of backgrounds and may take different approaches to T"H. I appreciate your participation on the site, but please try to avoid sweeping statements about halacha (particularly when they are in error) and remain respectful of other posters.
Thank you, Shanna.
The link in my above comment says, about rivers:
4) HALACHAH: "TEVILAH" IN A RIVER
OPINIONS: Rav and Shmuel argue with regard to the source for the swelling of the waters of a river. Rav says that the increased size of the river is due to rainwater, and Shmuel says that it swells from its source and is therefore still considered natural river water. According to Rav, one may not use such a river as a Mikvah, since the water in the river has the status of rainwater, and rainwater may not be used for a Mikvah unless it is gathered in one place and is not flowing. According to Shmuel, the river may be used for Tevilah, because it is treated like a natural stream, and a natural stream is valid for Tevilah when it is flowing.The Gemara says that Shmuel himself did not rely on his own opinion in practice, and he said that one should not immerse in the Euphrates River except during the season of Tishrei, since there is no concern for rainwater at that time of year. The Gemara also relates that Shmuel's father also made special Mikva'os for his daughters in the month of Nisan (when the rivers expanded from the rainwater) in order for them to have a place to immerse (see previous Insight).
In practice, may one use a river as a Mikvah for Tevilah?
(a) RABEINU TAM rules in accordance with the statement of Shmuel that a river's waters increase from the river's own subterranean sources, and therefore one may immerse in a river throughout the year. Rabeinu Tam writes that Shmuel's opinion is supported by the Gemara earlier (55a) that says that the Euphrates River is called "Pras" because its waters are fruitful (Parin) and multiply.
Rabeinu Tam adds that even those who prohibit Tevilah in rivers during certain seasons, based on the rulings of Shmuel's father and the other Amora'im, would agree that, first, all rivers in Eretz Yisrael are fit for Tevilah. Since Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands (Zevachim 54b), its rainwater drains away and its rivers flow solely from subterranean sources. (See Mikva'os 8:1, "Eretz Yisrael is Tahor and its Mikva'os are Tahor.") Second, they would agree that the same reasoning might apply to all other rivers in mountains.
Rabeinu Tam points out that all of the Amora'im agree that according to Torah law one may immerse in a river even during the rainy season. The Rabanan prohibited Tevilah in a river due to Mar'is ha'Ayin (it *looks* as though the person is immersing in rainwater). He offers two logical explanations for this assertion. First, rain water trickles into the river drop by drop and is therefore annulled by the river water. Second, all rivers join with the sea at some point (Koheles 1:4), and since the sea is valid for Tevilah, the rivers are as well.
(b) The RACH and RIF disagree with Rabeinu Tam. As the RAMBAN points out, we may not rely on the Gemara that explains the meaning of the name of the Euphrates to resolve the Halachic dispute between Rav and Shmuel, because a Gemara of Agadah cannot override a Sugya that discusses the practical Halachah (see Insights to Nedarim 40:6).[emphasis mine] HALACHAH: The REMA (YD 201:2) writes that in a place where there is no Mikvah, it is the generally accepted custom to rely on Rabeinu Tam's ruling that one may immerse in a river throughout the year, provided that it is known that the river flows even during the summer months when there is no rain.
In practice, though, one must bring each question to a competent rabbinical authority, since the situation is different in every time and place.
The aforementioned Rema brings a custom that is no longer followed and thus "extinct". And Sefaradim never had the custom to begin with. I challenge anyone reading this forum to cite a recognized posek from anywhere on the Orthodox spectrum who allows women to be tovel in rivers.
I am quite aware of the opinion of Rabenu Tam and chose my words very carefully in the previous post. To be sure, there are many approaches to TH, but that should not allow people to be misled as to what is the proper halacha.
Mikva, as Shanna requested, if you are going to state a contradictory opinion, please provide a citation. Where is your source for saying the Rema on this point is no longer followed?
I fail to see why it is necessary to use the word "challenge", either - we are trying to elucidate the halacha here, not win a contest. I am perfectly willing to concede the point if you can demonstrate otherwise. All I have been saying is that thus far, all the textual sources I am turning up say that a river may be kosher for tevilah under certain conditions.
Nevertheless, I will answer your "challenge." This is from the Yoatzot website (you may click on the below quote to see the full answer:
While an ocean would normally be acceptable, a river may or may not be.The Yoatzot follow the psak of Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin.
I studied the laws of mikvaot intensively for over a year, including contemporary responsa. I did not find a single authority that allows for women to be tovel in rivers today. The Shevet Halevi says as much explicitly.
The quotation from the Yoatzot is not a halachic authority. I would like to see a printed responsum from a recognized posek.
It is a bit absurd to ask commentors on this blog to show you a printed responsum, as we do not know who you are or where you live. Many women rely on the Yoatzot website, and they have here cited a specific authority. Do you not consider Rabbi Henkin a "recognized posek," or do you not trust the Yoatzot? If the latter is the case, perhaps you should e-mail them asking where you can find this psak in print.
I am looking for a citation of a printed responsum that discusses the issue and concludes that it is permissible to use a river for tevila. Shu"t Bnei Vanim, by Rabbi Henkin, would be fine.
I am not sure why you're making the distinction between "printed" and "published on the web." Particularly in this case, where as far as I can tell, the content on the Yoatzot website has been approved by their rabbinic advisor.
In the meantime I have found an article by Rabbi Howard Jachter which discusses the issue and concludes with this:
The Rama (ibid.), though, records the practice to immerse in rivers when a community is far from a Mikva. The Rama concludes that it is quite preferable to follow the strict opinion, but that one should not admonish those who follow the lenient opinion. The Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 201:42) notes that in the late nineteenth century the practice of those who live at a great distance from a Mikva was to immerse in a river. Today, with the advent of modern means of travel, Poskim rarely, if ever, sanction the use of a river for immersion.
I find this formulation a great deal easier to understand than your blanket statement that "a river is never kosher for tevila." It takes into account the fact that a river could theoretically be permissible. But because of the machloket (as well as the difficulty of guessing the percentage of rainwater), the poskim will only allow it when there is no alternative. And nowadays there are alternatives.
The Rema records an extinct custom. Since the custom is no longer practiced, it cannot be relied upon as "custom."
"Mikva" - Please stop posting these repetitive comments. So far, I believe we have collectively established that using a river as a mikvah for T"H is not a widely accepted custom, and that there appear to be circumstances under which one would be advised to ask a posek about the particulars of her situation. Mayim Rabim is not intended as a resource for actual p'sak.
Rather, Mayim Rabim is a forum for women from all backgrounds and all levels of observance to discuss a variety of issues surrounding their practices of taharat hamishpacha. This thread began with Michaela's view about the priorities that a particular community is placing on building (or not building) a mikvah. The original poster has contacted me privately to express her extreme displeasure at the direction this thread has taken.
You have sidetracked the conversation, refused to acknowledge your earlier inaccurate statements (such as saying that a lake is not permissible for tevila), and engaged in an unresponsive and sanctimonious manner of debate. You have also not provided me a way to contact you privately, so I have no choice but to address you in public. Please adopt an attitude more appropriate to the stated mission of the site. If you would like to discuss this further with me, please email me privately.
-=-
I certainly do not want to discourage people from posting a wide variety of viewpoints on this site, or make anyone feel as if she needs to "sugar-coat" her ideas. All comments, in tone and substance, should contribute to a respectful dialogue - as the overwhelming majority of comments on the site already do. We have much to learn from each other.
That town is lucky that Jewish people continue to live there. If they lack a close by mikvah, what else do they lack? And if it's one too many things, people don't stay. I know I would not like that!