RRT 274-277

JOINT MIKVEH AND BAPTISTRY

QUESTION:

The military is working on new plans for the building of chapels for the joint use of the different religions. Consideration is being given to the inclusion of a pool which can be used both as a baptistry by Baptists and a mikveh by Jews.

The purpose of this inqury is to learn whether, if the pool is built as a kosher mikveh, would those who follow the traditional Jewish law be able to share their kosher mikveh with those who use it for baptizing Christians.

Of course the oceans and streams were the original sources of mayim hayim —used by both Jews and Christians to meet their respective needs. (Asked by Rabbi Aryeh Lev, Director of the Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy.)

ANSWER:

BASIC TO THE INQUIRY is the larger question, whether a chapel used by Catholics and Protestants may also be used by traditional Jews for regular worship, provided, of course, that the ritual objects specific to one religion are removed before the chapel is used by another re ligion. It is true that this question was settled pragmatically during the war, but that was under war conditions. Now that we are not at war, the question of the propriety of using such a joint chapel may well arise again. Besides, the question of the usability of a joint chapel has direct bearing on the specific question asked here, namely, the joint use of an immersion pool by Baptists and traditional Jews.

All the laws stemming from the Bible against close association with non-Jews refer specifically to idolaters, which all the non-Jews in earlier days were. However, it must be clearly stated that in the eyes of Jewish law, Christians are not idolaters and, in fact, Rabbenu Tarn and other prime authorities state that when Christians speak of the Trinity, etc., they really mean God (see the references given in Isserles to Orah Hayyim 156).

Nevertheless, although Christians are not deemed to be idolaters, many of their ritual objects, such as crucifixes, etc., are deemed to be idolatrous objects (indeed, many Protestants also consider them to be such). Therefore the question arises in the law as to Jewish worship in a place where there have been or there are such objects as crucifixes, etc. Specifically the question is asked: Suppose crucifixes were brought into a Jewish house of worship and then removed; could the house be used for Jewish worship thereafter? Elijah Mizrachi (in his Kenesses Hagdolah, Orah Hayyim 151) says that a synagogue is not invalidated if the idols are removed from it, and the Mogen Avraham to Orah Hayyim 154 (end of par. 17) says that the reason this is so is that the building itself was not dedi cated to idolatry, and therefore it does not lose its sacredness after the objects are removed.

Now, if a synagogue is not invalidated if Christian symbols are removed from it, then this applies all the more to a mikveh for the following reasons: A mikveh is not a sacred object, as a synagogue building is. A synagogue building has sacredness inherent in it even when it is in ruins. But no one would argue that a ruined and abandoned mikveh has any inherent residual sanctity and therefore must be respected. A mikveh is only a convenient appurtenance to the mitzvah of the ritual bathing, which in fact can take place anywhere. The bathing can be legally fulfilled in a river, provided that most of the water in the river is not rain water, but comes from the river source. So, too, a ritually legal bath can be made in an overflowing wave from the sea. Surely no one could argue that since John the Baptist baptized people in the Jordan, the Jordan thereafter could not be used for Jewish ritual bathing; or that a seacoast would be forbidden if Christians were baptized a little farther up the coast.

But actually we do not need to rely upon this a fortiori argument (i.e., if a synagogue once used by Gentiles is usable, then surely a mikveh, which is less sacred, is usable). The actual fact is that they frequently used mikvehs that belonged to Gentiles and were on Gentile premises. Asher ben Jehiel takes that fact for granted in the question that was asked him about such a mikveh (see his responsa, sec. 18, #8). All he is concerned about is whether or not a Gentile might be suspected of filling the mikveh with rain water from the roof when it needs replenishment; to which he replies that if the diminished mikveh still has twenty-one seahs of proper water (i.e., more than half of the forty seahs required), the addition of the rain water will not invalidate it. This is cited by Asher’s son, the Tur, in Yore Deah 201, and a full discussion is given by Isserles in Yore Deah 201:4, and he indicates that if we know that the mikveh was filled by a Jew according to law, it is certainly a legal mikveh.

To sum up: A synagogue is not invalidated by the fact that idolatrous objects were once in it. All the more is it true that a mikveh, which is a mere appurtenance to the mitzvah of ritual bathing, is not invalidated if it were used by non-Jews. Furthermore, the law specifically mentions mikvehs actually belonging to Gentiles, which are kosher if properly filled, just as a river, which is generally kosher for Jewish ritual bathing, is not made useless by the fact that Gentiles baptize in it, even in the vicinity of Jewish bathing. We might add that Baptists certainly avoid crucifixes, etc.

The military authorities may well be informed that if the mikveh is made according to Orthodox rules, its use is not inhibited if Baptists use it also.