Miqvah

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.

NYP 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? 1. 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 tevilah (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] a. Source. The water must be from a natural source–a spring, a river fed by a spring, rainwater, melted snow.[8] b. 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] c. 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 (keli) and subject to tum’ah. It must be permanently built into the ground (mechubar lekarka`).[10] d. 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] e. 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). a. 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. b. 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] c. 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 keli until it is put in place in the earth. d. Size. Obviously, a swimming pool is many times the minimum size for a mikveh. e. 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 tevilah, 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 tevilah 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 kelal 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 1. CCAR Yearbook 3 (1893), 73-95; American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 68, at 236-237. 2. See our teshuvah no. 5756.13 on circumcision, and R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 15. 3. And see Sifra ad loc. 4. CARR, no. 43. 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 tevilah 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. 6. BT Yevamot 46b and Keritot 9a; Yad, Isurey Bi’ah 13:6; SA YD 268:4. 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. 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. 9. Hil. HaRosh, Mikva’ot 5:12; Yad, Mikva’ot 5:5; SA YD 201:3, 34, 48; Resp. Chatam Sofer, YD, no. 199. 10. Yad, Mikva’ot 6:4; SA YD 201:6, 10. 11. SA YD 201:1, 3; R. Nissen Telushkin, Tohorat Hamayim (New York, 1950), 142. 12. Sifra to Lev. 11:36; Yad, Mikva’ot 9:13; SA YD 201:2. 13. Klein, 520-521; SA YD 201:45. 14. Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, 1969, 219-222. 15. R. Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, Pesakim Ukhetavim 4:64. 16. SA YD 201:48: a metal pipe, when placed in the earth, does not render the water it transports unclean. 17. For this important distinction see R. Moshe Feinstein, Resp. Igerot Moshe, YD 1:120(5). 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. 19. Most importantly, this disqualifies the above-ground pool, which is considered a keli. 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). 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. 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. 23. M. Pesachim 8:8 (and compare Tosefta Pesachim 7:14) would indicate that tevilah 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. 24. BT Yevamot 46b and Keritot 9a. 25. CARR, no. 45. 26. See Responsa Committee, no. 5756.4. 27. Ibid.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 73-74

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

43. Origin of the Miqveh for

Conversion

QUESTION: What is the origin of the miqveh for the

purpose of conversion? When was this practice instituted? (Rabbi C. Levy, Pittsburgh,

PA)ANSWER: It is clear that there was no Biblical requirement of immersion in any

body of water for the purpose of conversion. Males who wished to join the community needed to

be circumcised (Gen.17.11,12, 34.14; Ex. 4.25), while females who wished to join us did so

simply through marriage to a Jew. As far as we know nothing was required, for example, of Ruth,

who married Boaz and earlier had married one of Naomi’s sons (Ruth 1.4, 4.13), Jezebel who

married Ahab (IK 16.31) or Moses who married Zippora, a Midianite (Ex. 2.21). Conversion is

presumed by later authorities, though none may have taken place. In Mishnaic times

the well known tale of the pagan who wished to learn about Judaism while standing on one foot

may indicate that no ritual was required (Solomon Zeitlin, “Proselytes and Proselytism”); other

scholars feel that we can not argue from silence in this matter; the ritual requirements were

simply not mentioned there. Subsequent discussions of rites to be followed by converts were

conducted between the followers of Hillel and those of Shamai. They argued whether there was a

need for both immersion and circumcision for males as a conversion rite. They agreed that the

convert had to bring a sacrifice to the Temple. Immersion in a miqveh was obviously not

yet an established custom although it existed (Ker 9a; Yeb. 46b ff; Tosefta Shab. 31a,

135a). Solomon Zeitlin, on the other hand, felt that the ritual was not intended as an introduction

to Judaism, but dealt with ritual uncleanliness which was extended to pagans in the first century

(Solomon Zeitlin, “Proselytes and Proselytism”; Harry Wolfson, Jubilee Volumes, Vol. 2,

pp. 587 ff). We can see from the New Testament’s John the Baptist (Matthew 3.7) and

from the rites of the Essenes (Josephus, Wars, 2.129 ff, 148), as well as the Qumram

community (Manual of Discipline), that immersion of a special nature was mandatory to

join these pietistic groups. That would place the ritual in the first century before our era. As there

is no discussion of this practice as something new or unusual, it probably antedated this period.

There is, however, nothing in the older literature to indicate the beginning of the custom. We can

safely say that it has been conducted as a Jewish rite for the admission of proselytes since the

first century of our era.June 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

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

      1. CCAR Yearbook 3 (1893), 73-95; American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 68, at 236-237.
      1. See our teshuvah no. 5756.13 on circumcision, and R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 15.
      1. And see Sifra ad loc.
      1. CARR, no. 43.
      1. 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.
      1. BT Yevamot 46b and Keritot 9a; Yad, Isurey Bi’ah 13:6; SA YD 268:4.
      1. See CARR, no. 45, and R. Isaac Klein, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1979), 518-520.
      1. Sifra to Lev. 11:36; M. Mikva’ot 7:1; BT Chulin 84a; Yad, Mikva’ot 3:1ff; SA YD 201:2, 3, 30.
      1. Hil. HaRosh, Mikva’ot 5:12; Yad, Mikva’ot 5:5; SA YD 201:3, 34, 48; Resp. Chatam Sofer, YD, no. 199.
      1. Yad, Mikva’ot 6:4; SA YD 201:6, 10.
      1. SA YD 201:1, 3; R. Nissen Telushkin, Tohorat Hamayim (New York, 1950), 142.
      1. Sifra to Lev. 11:36; Yad, Mikva’ot 9:13; SA YD 201:2.
      1. Klein, 520-521; SA YD 201:45.
      1. Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, 1969, 219-222.
      1. R. Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, Pesakim Ukhetavim 4:64.
      1. SA YD 201:48: a metal pipe, when placed in the earth, does not render the water it transports unclean.
      1. For this important distinction see R. Moshe Feinstein, Resp. Igerot Moshe, YD 1:120(5).
      1. 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.
      1. Most importantly, this disqualifies the above-ground pool, which is considered a k’li.
      1. 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).
      1. “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.
      1. 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.
      1. 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.
      1. BT Yevamot 46b and Keritot 9a.
      1. CARR, no. 45.
      1. See Responsa Committee, no. 5756.4.
      1. Ibid.

 

CARR 76-79

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

45.

A Swimming Pool as a

Miqveh*

QUESTION: May a swimming pool be used as a

miqveh? What are the requirements for immersion which we would follow with converts in those communities in which ritual immersion is indicated or where the rabbi feels strongly about the inclusion of this ritual? (Rabbi D. Shapiro, White Plains, NY)

ANSWER: We will

deal briefly with the question of the use of the miqveh for conversion in Reform gerut as that has been dealt with in earlier responsa (“Origin of the Miqveh for Conversion” and “The Miqveh and the Reform Convert”). The question of rituals which should be used to accept converts was debated in Germany in the eighteen-forties. This centered mainly around the requirement of circumcision (milah). Samuel Holdheim and the Reform Society were opposed to circumcision. Abraham Geiger and the vast majority emphasized it as a necessary rite. The issue was raised in America at the Philadelphia Conference of 1869 and again at the Pittsburgh meeting in 1885; between these conferences various Reform rabbis had written pamphlets and articles on the question. Tevilah was not debated and only generally included in these discussions. This was equally true in 1893 when considerable time was spent on debating “Initiatory Rites of Proselytes.” The resolution which was passed called for acceptance of proselytes “without any initiatory rite” (C.C.A.R. Yearbook Vol. III, p. 36). Those rabbis who recorded the reason for their opposition to the resolution dealt only with milah, not tevilah.

The ritual of tevilah

therefore, quietly vanished without debate; it has similarly reappeared on the scene as a larger number of American Reform rabbis have made tevilah optional or mandatory for gerut. In many instances the traditional miqveh has been used. When none was available, immersion has taken place elsewhere. Let us turn to the requirements for a miqveh.

We should begin with the regulations connected with a traditional

miqveh which are clear. It should be at least three cubits long, a cubit wide and a cubit deep and contain forty seahs of water (Er. 4b; Yoma 31a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.1). In other words, a space which contains between 171 and 191 gallons of water would be sufficient.

The water must be from a natural source. It may be from a spring, a lake or

a river which has been fed by a natural spring in accordance with a statement in Leviticus (11.36): “Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean.” The opening word of that statement has been interpreted to be restrictive (akh) according to tradition (Hul 84a; Sifra to Lev. 11.36). Rain water is also appropriate as is water melted from ice or snow (M. Miq. 7.1; Yad Hil. Miqvaot 3.1 ff; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.2; 201.30).

It is clear from the rabbinic sources that the only usable

liquid is water (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.23) and that it must be still water (Sifra to Lev. 11.36; Rashi to Shab. 65b, to Nid. 67a; Tos. to Hag. 11a; Yad Hil. Miqvaot 10.16; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.2). The water which enters the miqveh may not be drawn or poured into it (Smag Positive Commandment #248; Tos. to B. B. 66b, to Pes. 17b; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.3). It must enter through a system of pipes not subject to uncleanliness; this excludes pipes of metal, wood or clay unless specifically treated to turn them into “vessels” (Rosh Miq. 5.12; Yad Hil. Miq. 5.5; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.34; Hatam Sofer Responsa Yoreh Deah 199). The miqveh itself must be constructed in the ground or be located in a building which is built into the ground. The miqveh may not consist of a tub (B. B. 66b; Tos. to Pes. 17b; Shulhan ArukhYoreh Deah 201.6).

We should also note that if a pool has

attained the status of a miqveh, then one may add any amount of water, such as tap water, by other means and the miqveh does not lose its status. Furthermore, the original miqveh may be connected with another through a pipe. If this is done and it flows into the neighboring pool it is considered an appropriate miqveh (Rashi to Yeb. 47b).

The main problem in building a miqveh are the rules connected with the

piping, and the vessels through which the water must pass. The vessels can not be of such a size that objects can be placed into them; the pipe itself is not considered a vessel (M. Miq. 4.1; Yad Hil. Miqvaot 6.1). The problem of using a modern water system are the reservoirs, holding tanks, and filters, through which spring or river water flows before reaching the user. Most miqvaot in modern cities, therefore, use rain or melted snow water as the basic supply to which other water is added as needed (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 201.36; Ezekiel Landau, Noda biyehuda Yoreh Deah 136, 137; Hatam Sofer Responsa #198, #199, #203ff; Rosh Responsa#30, #31).

Now let us

turn to the matter of a swimming pool seen in a traditional setting. It is clear from the outset that in many ways a swimming pool satisfies the provisions of a miqveh. Most pools are built into the ground or into buildings which are in the ground. There would be no difficulty of properly guiding two hundred gallons of rain water or melted snow into the pool at the outset and then adding other water. Similarly a small neighboring splash pool could be properly prepared and connected. The problem of recirculated water which causes a flow and drainage holes in the bottom of the pool are among the chief obstacles for traditional Jews in using a swimming pool as a miqveh. This is true even though the flow of water is entirely internal as the pumps pass water through the filters and return it to the pool. For a complete discussion of these problems see Benjamin Kreitman, “May a Swimming Pool Serve as a Kosher Miqveh,” (Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly, Vol. 33, 1969 pp. 219 ff). The nineteenth and twentieth century traditional authorities have turned more and more to technical discussions about the miqveh and even questioned the appropriateness of miqvaot in long use. For our purposes these details upon details are irrelevant.

We must ask about the

purpose of this ritual. If we return to the Biblical and early rabbinic statements connected with purification for gerut or other purposes, we can see that the authorities sought a ritual which used pure water in an appropriate setting. This symbolic purification changed the status of the individual involved (Yad Hil. Miqvaot 4.1, 11.12). This symbolism is meaningful to many modern converts as it helps them to make the transition to Judaism.

Symbolic

purification for gerut can be properly provided by a natural body of water, a miqveh or a swimming pool. If a pool is used, the ritual should take place only when no other use is made of it. The ceremony should be conducted in an appropriately dignified manner.

We should remember that our use of tevilah for gerut has

gradually developed among us as we have changed since 1893. No rituals have been mandated by the Central Conference of American Rabbis which stipulated that acceptance of Judaism occur before a rabbi and two associates for gerut; however both milah and tevilahhave been widely used.

November 1986

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 74-76

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

44. The Miqveh and Reform

Converts

QUESTION: Has liberal Judaism taken a position of the use of

a miqveh as part of the conversion ceremony to Judaism? Should this ancient custom be

reintroduced? (Simon Levy, Harrow-on-the Hill, England)ANSWER: The traditional

requirements for conversion are clear (Yeb. 46, 47; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268;

Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 15); a court of three is necessary. Prospective converts must be

warned that they are joining a persecuted community and that many new obligations will be

placed upon them. They were then to bring a sacrifice in the days when the Temple stood, take a

ritual bath, and in the case of males, be circumcised. To this day the requirements of a bet

din, tevilah and berit remain for traditional Jews. The sources are clear on the

requirements, but considerable discussion about them exists in the Talmud. For example,

R. Eliezer stated that if a prospective male convert was circumcised or took a ritual bath, he was

considered a proselyte. R. Joshua insisted on both and his point of view was adopted (Yeb. 46b);

Hillel and Shammai disagreed about a prospective male convert who was already circumcised;

Bet Shammai insisted that blood must be drawn for him, while Bet Hillel stated

that one may simply accept that circumcision without drawing blood (Shab. 135a). The rabbinic

authorities decided in favor of Bet Shammai (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.1;

Yad Hil. Issurei Biah 14.5). Clearly there were differences of opinion about steps

necessary for the ritual of conversion in ancient times. These may reflect historic competition

with Christianity, persecution, etc., in the early centuries of our era. The Talmudic

discussions insist that the convert must join Judaism without any ulterior motives, and if such are

present, the conversion is void (Yeb. 24b). Of course this opinion applies only prospectively, not

retrospectively and bediavad they were accepted. Some authorities were more lenient in

regard to ulterior motives, so Hillel (Shab. 31a) readily accepted a convert who stated that he

wished eventually to become a high priest. R. Hiya accepted a woman who wanted to marry one

of his student.s (Men. 44a). In modern times, although most Orthodox authorities would reject

converts who seek to join us for the sake of marriage, some would accept them in order to avoid

the conversion by Reform rabbis (Mendel Kirshbaum, Menahim Meshiv #9), because civil

marriage has preceded or because the couple is living together (Yoreh Deah 85). Similar

arguments have been advanced by Meshullam Kutner in Uketorah Yaasu, Mosheh

Feinstein (Igrot Mosheh, Even Haezer Vol. 1, #27). However, the greatest number of

Orthodox authorities have rejected these arguments (Joseph Saul Nathenson, Jacob Ettlinger,

Yehiel Weinberg). Their rejection was based upon ulterior motivation and the likelihood that they

would not accept all the commandments especially as they are not generally observed in the

modern Jewish community and probably not kept by the Jewish partner (Isaac Herzog,

Hekhal Yizhoq, Even Haezer Vol. 1, #20; Meir Arak, Imrei Yosher, Vol. 1, #176;

Abraham Kook, Da’at Kohen #154; Mosheh Feinstein, Igrot Mosheh Yoreh Deah,

Vol. 1, #157, 160; Even Haezer III, #4). I have quoted all of these modern Orthodox

authorities to show that our future path in this matter should not be based on the false

assumption of bringing greater unity to the Jewish community. The Orthodox would, in any case,

not accept a liberal conversion; they would consider our bet din invalid and would

certainly feel that our converts have not accepted the yoke of the commandments. As

we view the rite of conversion from a Reform point of view, we should note that the Reform

movement has stressed careful instruction with more attention to intellectual rather than ritual

requirements . The Central Conference of American Rabbis, in 1892, abolished the requirement

of any ritual including circumcision. Most liberal rabbis, however, require circumcision or accept

the existing circumcision in accordance with the opinion of Hillel (Shab. 135b). Converts were to

be accepted after due instruction before “any officiating rabbi assisted by no less than two

associates.” Except in a cursory way, no discussion of tevilah has been

undertaken by liberal Jewish authorities. The custom has fallen into disuse, but was never

actually rejected by liberal Judaism. Ritual immersion has completely ceased to be practiced for

nidah and is followed only by a small percentage within the Orthodox community. The

practice has further been hindered by endless Orthodox debates about the technical

requirements of the miqveh. A ritual immersion has, therefore, not been considered

necessary for conversion among most Reform Jewish communities. There are, however, a

number of cities in the United States and Canada in which tevilah has been encouraged

or required for Reform conversions. We might conclude that if the custom possesses

meaning for the community and for the prospective convert, it should be encouraged. This would

make it more difficult for traditionalists to challenge liberal conversions, although Orthodox

authorities will never willingly accept anything we do as our basic premises differ

sharply.December 1977

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕