RR21 no. 5756.6

CCAR RESPONSA

A “Proper” Reform Mikveh

5756.6

She’elah

What bodies of water are permissible for Reform Judaism to use as a mikveh for conversion? I am not as concerned about acceptance by Orthodox authorities as I am of knowing that my practices are in keeping with tradition as we understand it today. (Rabbi Robert A. Seigel, Fresno, CA)

Teshuvah

This question reflects current reality in that a number of Reform rabbis in North America include mikveh, either as a requirement or as an option, in the conversion process. This is a marked change from the situation a century ago, when the Central Conference of American Rabbis formally resolved to permit the admission of converts “without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance whatever.”[1] Thus, North American Reform Judaism does not require ritual immersion, in a mikveh or in any suitable body of water, for conversion. Although the argumentation which accompanied that resolution has been examined critically by subsequent responsa,[2] the resolution itself remains the official policy of the Conference. Our task here is to consider the she’elah on two levels: first, what constitutes an acceptable mikveh; and second, although it is not required in Reform Judaism, are there valid reasons for which we should recommend to our colleagues the use of the mikveh for purposes of conversion?

What Is a Mikveh? This Committee has previously addressed this issue. In Contemporary American Reform Responsa, no. 45, R. Walter Jacob wrote, “It is clear from the outset that in many ways a swimming pool satisfies the provisions of a miqveh… Symbolic purification for gerut can be properly provided by a natural body of water, a miqveh, or a swimming pool.” Since that responsum did not explain precisely how a swimming pool meets the requirements of a mikveh, we shall proceed to a more detailed discussion of that question.

The word mikveh is short for mikveh mayim, “a gathering of waters,” a natural or constructed pool or bath of water in which a person immerses (or immerses utensils) for the purpose of being rendered ritually clean after being ritually unclean. This is derived from Leviticus 11:36: “However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean…”.[3]

The mikveh is also used for converts. We do not know the origin of this practice. All we can say is that it has been done since the first century of the Common Era, if not before.[4] Some tana’im seem to have held that t’vilah (immersion) was not an absolute requirement for conversion, that a male, at any rate, could be considered a valid proselyte by circumcision alone.[5] Nonetheless, it became standard practice.[6]

The requirements for a proper mikveh are as follows:[7]

1. Source. The water must be from a natural source–a spring, a river fed by a spring, rainwater, melted snow.[8]
2. Entry of the Water into the Mikveh. The water must enter the mikveh through means not subject to ritual impurity (tum’ah). Furthermore, the water must flow there and not be “drawn” (she’uvin), i.e., conveyed by human agency. This applies, however, only to the first forty se’ah (approximately 191-200 gallons), the minimum amount of water needed for a proper immersion. Additional water may be drawn.[9]
3. Ritual Purity of the Mikveh. A constructed mikveh must not be subject to ritual impurity. Therefore, it may not be portable or prefabricated; both of these would render it a vessel (k’li) and subject to tum’ah. It must be permanently built into the ground (mechubar lekarka`).[10]
4. Size. The dimensions of the mikveh must allow immersion all at once. The minimum size is 1 cubit by 1 cubit by 3 cubits, equal to 24″ by 24″ by 72″.[11]
5. Stillness. In a body of natural water such as a river or lake the water is flowing (zochalin); however, in a mikveh constructed by human hands the water must be still (ke’ashburan).[12]

Obviously these specifications require some ingenuity to allow the construction of mikva’ot in modern settings, particularly in highly urbanized areas. Typically, rainwater is collected on rooftops and stored in a storage chamber built into the ground (bor). At least forty se’ah of this water must be transferred to the mikveh itself in such a way that it does not become “drawn”. While pipes made of various materials suffice for this purpose, the minimum length for proper conveyance (hamshachah) is three handbreadths (about fifteen inches). Therefore, for the last fifteen inches the water courses through a concrete trough five inches wide, which according to all opinions does not contract ritual impurity.[13]

The mikveh itself is a separate chamber, connected to the bor by an opening at least 1 1/2 inches wide (keshefuferet hanod). The forty se’ah flow into the mikveh and then additional water is pumped in from the regular water supply. This is called hashakah (“kissing”). Alternatively, water from the regular water supply can be pumped into the bor and then it can all overflow into the mikveh; this is called zeri`ah (“seeding”). Yet a third method combines these two, placing a third chamber directly below the bor, in permanent contact by means of a connecting hole, and filled with forty se’ah. The zeri`ah process is then followed with this water.

2. Is a Swimming Pool a Proper Mikveh? The most detailed discussion of this question is a responsum by Rabbi Benjamin Z. Kreitman which was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly in 1968.[14] There is, in addition, a responsum authored in 1944 by Rabbi Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael.[15] From these rulings we may derive that a swimming pool meets the requirements of a proper mikveh (mikveh kasher).

1. Source. The water which fills a swimming pool comes from a modern water-supply system; it collects in natural or man-made reservoirs filled by springs, rivers, and rainwater.
2. Ritual Impurity of the Water. This water does not become impure despite being brought to the swimming pool in pipes. The pipes are not kelim (vessels) because they cannot fulfill their function before they are put in place (kev`ao ve’achar kakh chakeko).[16] Nor does the municipal filtering system or swimming pool filtering system defile the water. It, too, is not considered to have attained its function until after it is fixed in place; it is not a keli. Furthermore, since it is not designed to hold water but to pass water through, it is not a true vessel. Finally, water which remains below ground while being conveyed through pipes is not considered “drawn”, even though it is actually brought to the pool by machines (motors, taps, etc.) operated by human agency.[17]
3. Ritual Impurity of the Mikveh. This depends in part on where the drain pipe is located. If it is in the center, then it is a keli; otherwise, it is not. Most swimming pools have the drain pipe in the side. And even if it is in the center, it comes under the category of kevi`ah vechakikah ba’im ke’echad, which is to say it does not fulfill its function as a k’li until it is put in place in the earth.
4. Size. Obviously, a swimming pool is many times the minimum size for a mikveh.
5. Stillness. Several authorities have ruled that the constant motion of water back and forth between the pool and its filtering system does not render the water “flowing;” rather, the system is considered one large mikveh.[18]

On the basis of these arguments, Kreitman concludes that when a regular mikveh is not available, a swimming pool may be used. He restricts this permit to a pool under Jewish auspices (e.g., one belonging to a Jewish community center or synagogue) and writes that at the time of use all its recreational objects should be removed, so as not to detract from the appropriate mood.

We endorse this response with the following considerations. In the nearly three decades since Kreitman wrote his teshuvah, standards of living have risen and demographic patterns have changed. More and more private homes are likely to have swimming pools, and more and more Jews are likely to live in areas which lack a communal Jewish pool. Under these circumstances, when access to a public Jewish pool is nearly as difficult as access to a mikveh, a private pool owned by a Jew is acceptable for immersion, provided it meets the halakhic criteria as we have described them.[19] Indeed, a private pool may be preferable to a public facility, in that the privacy and intimacy necessary for ritual immersion may be more easily arranged.

However, the vast majority of private pools are outdoors, unusable in wintertime. The nearest available facility may be an indoor pool located at a school, a private club, or even a church. A mikveh owned by a Gentile is considered kasher, provided that it contains at least 21 se’ah of “fresh” water.[20] Thus, a pool owned by Gentiles may be used, although for religious reasons a pool at a church is the least desirable choice. Under no circumstances, however, should we make use of a church pool used for baptisms. Given the pressures toward religious syncretism in our society, as well as the tendency among many people to look upon all religions as more or less the same and interchangeable, the use of a non-Jewish ritual pool would violate the traditional concerns of lifney `iver[21] and mar’it ayin.[22]

3. Reform Judaism and Mikveh. The foregoing assumes that we Reform Jews feel bound to remain within the halakhah when using a mikveh. More basically, it assumes that we wish to use mikveh for conversion, whether as a requirement or as an option. Are these assumptions correct?

To deal with the second assumption first: we noted at the beginning of this responsum that the purpose of t’vilah, ritual immersion, is to change a person or an object from a state of tum’ah, ritual impurity, to one of taharah, ritual purity. The entire system of tum’ah and taharah is bound up with the ancient Temple and the priestly cult, elements of Judaism which Reform has roundly rejected. By contrast, conversion is not one of the occasions for which the Torah mandates ritual immersion. Indeed, conversion as we understand it was not a feature of ancient Israelite religion at all but emerged in ancient Judaism sometime during the Second Temple period. At some point, ritual immersion became attached to the conversion procedure,[23] so that by the end of the tanaitic period t’vilah is by all opinions necessary to effect the change of status from Gentile to Jew.[24]

This in itself is an argument for the use of mikveh by Reform Jews: “(its) symbolism is meaningful to many modern converts as it helps them make the transition to Judaism.”[25] We might add another consideration, one which flows from our understanding of ourselves as a religious community. We do not maintain a neutral stance toward Jewish tradition; we rather seek to adopt and to adapt it when we can. We grant to tradition a distinct preference; it enjoys a considerable presumptive weight in our religious thinking. “As liberal Jews who seek to affirm our connection to our people in all lands and all ages, we should maintain the traditional practice in the absence of a compelling reason to abandon or alter it.”[26] Put simply, we do not see any such compelling reason to say “no” to the use of mikveh. It is not offensive, or demeaning, or unequal in application in any way that would render it unacceptable to our understanding of Judaism.

Moreover, there are compelling reasons why American Reform Jews should adopt or retain the practice of mikveh for conversion. First and foremost, it preserves our continuity with the Jewish tradition and people. Second, it would allow us to express our solidarity with Progressive Jews in Israel and elsewhere who regularly employ mikveh. Third, the adoption of mikveh is an important statement of our dedication to kelal yisrael, the unity of the Jewish people. The point is not that, by requiring immersion of our converts, that we render our conversions acceptable in the eyes of Orthodox Jews. Nothing we do will accomplish that goal. But by using mikveh, a practice which in no way compromises our liberal principles, we take a step which will convince many Conservative rabbis to recognize our conversions as valid. To widen the circle in which our Jews-by-choice are accepted as Jews is a good thing; we should not miss the opportunity to do so.

4. A “Reform” Mikveh? Our sho’el asks: “what bodies of water are permissible for Reform Judaism to use as a mikveh? I am not as concerned about acceptance by Orthodox authorities as I am of knowing that my practices are in keeping with tradition as we understand it today.” The question suggests the possibility that a proper “Reform” mikveh might not have to meet the standards required by halakhah. Given that the idea of mikveh in the halakhah is tied so closely to the concept of ritual purity and impurity, notions which are foreign to us, it is certainly arguable that Reform Jews need not concern themselves with the legal details concerning the construction of the ritual pool. One might be tempted to say that immersion is merely a symbolic action and that any body of water is sufficient to accomplish that purpose.

This, however, would be a mistake for two reasons. The first is the consideration of k’lal yisrael. If we advocate the use of mikveh in the name of Jewish unity, it makes little sense and is needlessly divisive to immerse our converts in a mikveh that no other Jewish community would recognize as a mikveh. The second reason is based upon our attitude toward Jewish tradition as stated above: we do not make changes merely for the sake of making changes. The forms of Jewish ritual practice are often as significant to our religious experience as is the abstract “meaning” which those practices are said to convey. Yes, it is difficult and troublesome to arrange for a proper mikveh. For that matter, it is difficult and troublesome to arrange to have a proper Torah scroll. Yet we do not use a photocopied sefer torah in our worship services. This Committee has spoken out against the substitution of a “non-traditional” sukkah (a tent, a hut, etc.) for the “real thing.” Again, while there may be spiritual value in adopting a “creative” version of a traditional observance, we see no point in altering a practice out of recognition if the practice itself is not objectionable to us on valid Reform Jewish grounds.[27]

Conclusions. 1. An in-ground swimming pool is a proper mikveh and may be used if no genuine mikveh or natural body of water is accessible. Bodies of water which do not meet the criteria for mikveh as outlined above should not be used. 2. There are compelling reasons for Reform converts to immerse in a mikveh as part of their entry into Judaism.

For the Responsa Committee Joan S. Friedman.

Mark Washofsky, Chair; David Lilienthal; Bernard Mehlman; W. Gunther Plaut; Richard S. Rheins; Jeffrey Salkin; Daniel Schiff; Faedra L. Weiss; Moshe Zemer .

NOTES

2. 2. 1. CCAR Yearbook 3 (1893), 73-95; American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 68, at 236-237.

2. 2. 2. See our teshuvah no. 5756.13 on circumcision, and R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 15.

2. 2. 3. And see Sifra ad loc.

2. 2. 4. CARR, no. 43.

2. 2. 5. BT Yevamot 46a-b; Gerim 1:6. Those tana’im who did not “require” immersion may have been speaking bedi`avad, after the fact: that is, while t’vilah was, like milah, an integral part of the conversion ritual, some believed that a person took on the status of ger upon the performance of either rite, or of milah alone.

2. 2. 6. BT Yevamot 46b and Keritot 9a; Yad, Isurey Bi’ah 13:6; SA YD 268:4.

2. 2. 7. See CARR, no. 45, and R. Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1979), 518-520.

2. 2. 8. Sifra to Lev. 11:36; M. Mikva’ot 7:1; BT Chulin 84a; Yad, Mikva’ot 3:1ff; SA YD 201:2, 3, 30.

2. 2. 9. Hil. HaRosh, Mikva’ot 5:12; Yad, Mikva’ot 5:5; SA YD 201:3, 34, 48; Resp. Chatam Sofer, YD, no. 199.

2. 2. 10. Yad, Mikva’ot 6:4; SA YD 201:6, 10.

2. 2. 11. SA YD 201:1, 3; R. Nissen Telushkin, Tohorat Hamayim (New York, 1950), 142.

2. 2. 12. Sifra to Lev. 11:36; Yad, Mikva’ot 9:13; SA YD 201:2.

2. 2. 13. Klein, 520-521; SA YD 201:45.

2. 2. 14. Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, 1969, 219-222.

2. 2. 15. R. Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, Pesakim Ukhetavim 4:64.

2. 2. 16. SA YD 201:48: a metal pipe, when placed in the earth, does not render the water it transports unclean.

2. 2. 17. For this important distinction see R. Moshe Feinstein, Resp. Igerot Moshe, YD 1:120(5).

2. 2. 18. Kreitman, loc. cit.; Herzog, loc. cit.; R. Moshe Feinstein, Resp, Igerot Moshe, YD 1:110. Feinstein’s responsum refers explicitly to an outdoor swimming pool which by definition contains at least forty se’ah of rainwater. He does not consider water moving between filter and pool to be zochalin but advises that the filter be shut off when the pool is being used as a mikveh. R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, on the other hand, rejects the idea that the pool and its filtering system are one large mikveh, and he rules that a flow of water so small as to be undetectable nonetheless renders the mikveh unfit for purification. He disqualifies the swimming pool even when the filtering system is shut off (Resp. Har Tzvi, YD, no. 177). This decision is an example of precisely the sort of unnecessary stringency in the laws of mikva’ot against which both Kreitman and Jacob protest.

2. 2. 19. Most importantly, this disqualifies the above-ground pool, which is considered a k’li.

2. 2. 20. R. Asher b. Yechiel, Resp. HaRosh 18:8; SA YD 201:4 and Isserles ad loc. The concern there is that if the Gentile rents the mikveh to Jews, he has an incentive to claim that the water is “fresh” even though it might be “drawn.” If we know that the majority of the forty se’ah are “fresh,” we can rule leniently in the case of doubt as to the rest. Obviously, this problem does not apply to a pool not operated for profit (Bi’ur HaGra, YD 201, no. 23).

2. 2. 21. “Do not put a stumbling-block before the blind” (Lev. 19:14), i.e., do not cause an unwitting person to go astray or to commit a transgression. See Sifra ad loc. and BT Avodah Zarah 6b.

2. 2. 22. A principle which forbids one to do certain things which, although permitted by halakhah, would cause the community to presume that one is a transgressor. See SA OC 243:1 and Mishnah Berurah, no. 3.

2. 2. 23. M. Pesachim 8:8 (and compare Tosefta Pesachim 7:14) would indicate that t’vilah was a requirement for conversion at least by the early first century C.E. This immersion may have been intended either as a purification ritual (from the defilement which was said to attach to idolaters) or as a rite of initiation symbolizing one’s rebirth as a Jew. Both elements, quite possibly, were involved. See Lawrence Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1985), 25-30, and Bernard Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (New York: Ktav, 1968), 44. See as well our discussion in Responsa Committee no. 5756.13.

2. 2. 24. BT Yevamot 46b and Keritot 9a.

2. 2. 25. CARR, no. 45.

2. 2. 26. See Responsa Committee, no. 5756.4.

2. 2. 27. Ibid.