Daf Ditty Chagigah 19: Purifying Waves

"She was gracefully dancing in the waves. She finally understood how you could
feel so detached from the world yet be at one with it." — Unknown

1
2
§ The Sages taught: One who washes his hands, if he intended to purify them, his hands are
pure; if he did not intend to do so, his hands are impure. Similarly, in the case of one who
immerses his hands in forty se’a of water, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if
he did not so intend, his hands are impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught
in a baraita that his hands are pure whether he did or did not intend to purify them? Rav
Naḥman said: This is not difficult, as there, the second baraita is referring to non-sacred food,
for which one need not have the intention to purify his hands;

whereas here, the first baraita is referring to tithes, for which intention to purify oneself is
required. And from where do you say this, that non-sacred food does not require the intention
that one is purifying himself for the sake of eating it?

As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 5:6): If a wave containing forty se’a of water became
detached from the sea and fell on a person or on vessels, they are ritually pure.

The mishna teaches that a person is similar to vessels: Just as vessels do not intend to be
purified, as they obviously harbor no intentions, so too, the case of a person is referring to a
situation in which he does not intend to purify himself, thereby implying that people can be
ritually purified even without intention.

3
Mishnah Mikvaot 5:6

If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they
become clean. Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing
other things. One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is
connected in a valley. Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say:
one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself
in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed.

Summary

If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels,
they become clean.

The wave that was separated from the sea is equivalent to a spring; thus one can immerse in it even
when it is flowing. But it is also similar to the mikveh in that it must contain forty seahs. So if one
put vessels in such a wave, the vessels would be pure.

Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other
things.

Any hole in the ground that has forty seahs of water that has not been drawn is valid for a mikveh.
One can immerse in it and one can immerse vessels in it as well.

One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is

connected in a valley.

This section illustrates the previous one. As long as there are forty seahs and the water was not
drawn, one can immerse in water found anywhere. One can immerse even in donkey tracks found
in a valley whose little puddles have been connected so that together they add up to 40 seahs.

4
Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not
immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but
the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed.

According to Bet Shammai, if the from the start to the end of the rain flow there are 40 seahs of
water, one can immerse in them. In other words, one doesn't even need any shape to the water
whatsoever. As long as the source is rain (if the source was from the ground this would not be a
mikveh but a spring) the water can serve as a mikveh. Bet Hillel says that the water must be
gathered together for it to count as mikveh.

After all, that is the meaning of the word "mikveh" gathered waters. Bet Hillel agrees that one may
fence off the flow of rainwater with vessels and thereby create a mikveh out of flowing rainwater.
But the vessels themselves don't count as having been immersed because the outside of the vessel
is not touching the mikveh that has been formed on the inside and the water that flows outside is
not valid for use as a mikveh.

§ It is taught in the mishna: One who immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food with
the intention of assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food it is
prohibited for him to eat tithes. The Gemara comments: Whose opinion is expressed in the
mishna? It is that of the Rabbis, who differentiate between non-sacred produce and tithes,
since they maintain the following: If one who is required by rabbinic law to immerse touches non-
sacred food, it remains pure, but if he comes into contact with tithes they are rendered ritually
impure.

However, in that case, say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that the garments of an
am ha’aretz, who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, are considered to be
rendered ritually impure by the impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which is considered a
primary source of ritual impurity, for perushin, individuals who are careful to eat even non-sacred
food in a state of purity. The garments of perushin, although they are careful to remain ritually
pure, are nevertheless considered to be rendered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who

5
partake of teruma. Consequently, the latter clause differs from the opinion of the Rabbis in the
earlier clause.

Steinzaltz

Therefore, we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Non-sacred produce and
tithes are similar to one another, as this clause of the mishna does not distinguish between those
eating non-sacred food and those eating tithes. Is the earlier clause the opinion of the Rabbis and
the latter clause the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: Yes; although it is unusual,
in this instance we must explain that the earlier clause was said by the Rabbis and the latter
clause by Rabbi Meir.

However, Rav Aḥa bar Adda would teach that five levels of ritual purity are listed in the latter
clause of the mishna, by counting the clause that states that the clothes of those who eat non-sacred
produce in a state of purity are ritually impure for tithes, and in this way he establishes the entire
mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

1
https://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Chagigah_19.pdf

6
Rav Nachman rules: One who is washing his hands for chulin does not require intention for
purification, however, one who washes his hands for maaser must have specific intention for
purification, otherwise, his hands will remain tamei.

The Gemora inquires as to the source for this distinction: The Gemora cites a Mishna in Mikvaos
(5:6): If a wave that consisted of forty se’ah separated from the sea and fell on a person or utensils
that were tamei, they become tahor. This would seemingly prove that intention to purify himself
would not be required for chulin.

The Gemora rejects the proof: Perhaps the Mishna is referring to a case where the person is sitting
on the shore waiting for the wave to separate from the sea and fall on him or on the utensils. The
Gemora offers another proof from a Mishna in Machshirin. Rabbah asked Rav Nachman from our
Mishna which states: If he immersed himself with no intention whatsoever (only to wash himself);
it is regarded as if he didn’t immerse himself at all. This would indicate that intention is needed
for chulin as well. The Gemora answers: The Mishna means that immersion without any intention
is not valid for maaser or terumah, but it is valid for chulin.

Rabbi Elozar said: One who immersed himself in a mikvah (ritual bath) and is coming up from the
mikvah, he may decide then to purify himself for whatever level he wishes. (Tosfos states: As long
as his body is still wet.) The Gemora asks from a braisa: If he still has one foot inside the mikvah,
he is permitted to change to a stricter level than he originally intended for, but if he is completely
out of the mikvah, he may not change.

The Gemora explains the braisa as follows: If he still has one foot inside the mikvah, he is
permitted to change to a stricter level than he originally intended for, however if he is completely
out of the mikvah, he may decide to purify himself for whichever level he wishes, but he may not
change to a different level that he originally intended for.

The Gemora discusses the ramifications of this halacha in respect to a Biblical tumah and a
Rabbinic tumah. (19a) The Gemora cites a Mishna in Mikvaos (7:6): If there was a mikvah that
was precisely forty se’ah and two people immersed themselves one after the other, the first one is
tahor and the second one is tamei (since the first one inevitably took some of the water with him).
Rabbi Yehudah said: If the second one immersed while the first one’s feet is still touching the
water, the second person is tahor as well (using the principle of gud achis, the water on the first
person is connected to the water in the mikvah and regarded as part of the mikvah).

Ula said: I inquired from Rabbi Yochanan: According to Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion (we can
connect the water on the person’s body to the mikvah if his feet are still touching the water), may
one immerse a needle on the head of the first person (while his feet are still touching the water)?
Does Rabbi Yehudah only hold of gud achis, we extend and lower the water (on his body) to the
mikvah, but he does not hold of gud asik, we extend and raise the water in the mikvah to the top
of his head? Rabbi Yochanan replied by citing a braisa: If there were three holes on a slope of a
valley; the top and bottom hole each contain twenty se’ah of water and the middle one has forty
se’ah. A flow of rainwater connects the three holes.

7
Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Meir that one may immerse himself in the top hole
(since we apply the principle of gud asik, we extend and raise the water from the middle hole to
the one on the top. Accordingly, we can use the same principle and immerse a needle on the head
of the first person, provided that his feet are touching the water. The Gemora cites another braisa
which states that the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah is that one may only immerse himself in the bottom
hole and not the top one.

The Mishna had stated: One who immersed himself with the intention of purifying himself for
chulin, is prohibited from eating maaser sheini; one who immersed himself with the intention of
purifying himself for maaser sheini, is prohibited from eating terumah. The Gemora states that this
part of the Mishna is according to the opinion of the Chachamim who maintain that there is a
distinction between the laws of chulin and those of maaser.

The latter part of the Mishna stated: The clothing of the perushim is regarded as tumas madras for
those that are eating terumah. Here the Mishna omitted maaser, which would indicate that the
Mishna is following the viewpoint of Rabbi Meir who maintains that there is no distinction
between the laws of chulin and those of maaser. The Gemora states that indeed it is; the first part
of the Mishna is in accordance with the Chachamim, and the latter part of the Mishna follows the
viewpoint of Rabbi Meir. Rav Acha bar Ada said that his version of the Mishna had five levels
(including maaser) even in the latter part of the Mishna and thus the entire Mishna will be
following the opinion of the Chachamim that there is a distinction between the laws of chulin and
those of maaser

PRAYING WITHOUT THE PROPER INTENTION

In the sefer Torah Lishma from the Ben Ish Chai, the following inquiry was asked: Our sages said
that prayer without the proper kavanah (intent) is akin to a body without a soul. This being the
case, what would be the purpose of prayer when one is unable to concentrate during his Tefillah
due to the worries that weigh on his mind?

Would such a prayer be accepted? Furthermore, if one understands the words of tefillah and the
basic translation of the prayers but does not comprehend the secrets hidden in the tefillos, then the
depths of the prayers revealed to us by the Zohar and the Arizal will remain a mystery to him.

One who is capable of performing a mitzvah in its entirety but does not grasp the hidden meanings
of the mitzvah would seem to be missing an integral part of the mitzvah. Most people are on this
level as they fulfill mitzvos and pray three times a day according to their basic understanding and
because it is the will of Hashem. Is it possible, then, that most of our generation is deficient in
tefillah and the performance of mitzvos due to a lack of comprehension regarding the profound
implications of prayer and mitzvah performance?

The Ben Ish Chai responds: One who cannot concentrate on his prayers because he is entertaining
other thoughts during tefillah should nevertheless continue to pray. This can be proven from the
following Zohar in Parashas Vayechi: Rav Chizkiyah said that it is said that one should first
prepare the praise of his Master and then pray. What should one do, however, if his heart is heavy

8
and he wishes to pray, yet, since he is in distress he cannot properly formulate the praise of his
Master? Rabbi Yosi responded that despite the fact that he cannot focus properly on his prayers,
and he will not be able to formulate the praise of his Master properly, he should still formulate the
praises of his Master and he should pray. This is what it is said, a prayer of Dovid: Hear HaShem,
what is righteous, be attentive to my supplication. First, hear HaShem righteous, as this is the
formulation of praises for his Master, and subsequently, be attentive to my supplication, [give ear
to my prayer].

One who is capable of formulating the praises of his Master and does not do so, regarding him it
is said, even if you were to intensify your prayer, I will not listen. In regard to the second question,
the Ben Ish Chai writes that one is obligated to attempt to learn and understand the secrets of
Hashem as Dovid told his son Shlomo: Know the G-d of your father and serve Him. Nonetheless,
one who did not merit understanding these concepts and concentrates on the basic translation of
the words and performs a mitzva with all its intricacies, his tefillah and mitzvos are considered
complete and they are not deficient.

This idea can be proven from the words of the Zohar in Parashas Yisro: If a mitzvah comes his
way and he focuses on it, he is meritorious. If one did not have the proper intention he is
meritorious as he has performed the will of his Master. Yet, he is not deemed to be like one who
has fulfilled HaShem’s will selflessly and has performed the deed with the intention of fulfilling
HaShem’s will for the sake of HaShem’s glory like one who does not know how to think.

The reason for this is because the matter is dependent on the will performed selflessly and with
the action selflessly performed below, the action above is removed and is purely rectified. In a
similar vein, the action of the body rectifies the action of the soul with that will, as HaShem desires
the heart and will of a person. Nonetheless, one needs to act wholeheartedly, which is the essence
of everything, and regarding this Dovid prayed and said, may the pleasantness of the Lord, our G-
d, be upon us, our handiwork, establish for us. No man is wise enough to align his will and his
heart to rectify a matter completely, and for that reason he prays, our handiwork, establish for us.
What is meant by the words establish for us? Establish and rectify Your rectifications above
appropriately upon us. This, despite the fact that we are not capable of aligning our will completely.
Rather, we perform the action, and You establish our handiwork.

One who is on that level who requires rectification, establish it as one so that this matter should be
rectified properly. It thus emerges that this is precisely what Dovid requested of HaShem; a
mitzvah or tefillah should not be regarded as deficient because of one’s lack of understanding
regarding the secrets that are contained in the mitzvos. Rather it should be considered complete
and whole without the slightest blemish. For this reason our sages have instructed us to recite the
tefillah of vihi noam prior to the performance of any mitzvah or the recital of any tefillah. The
recital of this verse inspires Dovid’s prayer, and our deeds will be accepted completely despite the
fact that we did not have the proper intention. Rabbeinu Chaim, son of Rabbeinu Yitzchak, one of
the Rishonim quotes our Gemora: We have learned in a Mishna in Mikvaos (5:6): If a wave that
consisted of forty se’ah separated from the sea and fell on a person or utensils that were tamei,
they become tahor.

9
The Gemora explains that the Mishna is referring to a case where the person is sitting on the shore
waiting for the wave to separate from the sea and fall on him or on the utensils. It is evident from
our Gemora that even though the person did not directly immerse the utensils in the water; he was
merely anticipating that the wave will detach itself from the sea and fall on the contaminated
utensils, this is sufficient, provided that he has intention that the water should purify the utensils.

The Gemora in Chulin (31) states a similar halacha regarding a woman who was a menstruant. If
water fell on her and her friend anticipated this and had intention for her, the immersion would be
valid even though the menstruant herself was not intending for this to happen. It would follow that
we can apply this principle to other mitzvos as well. One who bakes matzah must have intention
that it is being baked for the commandment of matzah. If one was baking without the proper
intention, but another person was observing and did have the proper intention, the baking is valid,
and the matzah may be used for the mitzvah.

Rabbeinu Chaim concludes: If the intention of one’s fellow can facilitate the fulfillment of the
mitzvah for his friend, then certainly the intentions of the Holy One, Blessed is He can achieve the
same result. We entreat of HaShem before our prayers and prior to the performance of a mitzvah
that He should establish our handiwork and rectify our actions for we are not capable of aligning
our will completely. It is our mission to perform the actions to the best of our capabilities and
Hashem will rectify the deeds appropriately.

TEVILAH IN A WAVE

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Mikva'os (5:6) which states that if a wave with forty Se'ah of
water gushes out of the sea and falls onto a person, the person becomes Tahor. The Gemara
explains that this form of Tevilah is valid only when the person is at the "head" (Roshin) of the
wave, which means that the wave meets him as it hits the ground, but not when the crest of the
wave passes over him while it is still lifted above the ground (Kipin). The latter is not a valid form
of Tevilah because it is like immersing "in the air."
The Gemara explains that one might have thought that the Rabanan prohibited Tevilah even in the
Roshin of a wave so that a person does not think that he is permitted to immerse in a "Chardalis,"
a waterfall or rushing stream of rainwater.

RASHI explains that the reason why immersion in a Chardalis of rainwater is not valid is because
the stream flows at a steep incline, or "Katafras," and water on an incline cannot be viewed as a
single cohesive unit of water. That is, a Chardalis is viewed as a collection of individual drops of

2
https://dafyomi.co.il/chagigah/insites/cg-dt-019.htm

10
water, and as such it lacks the minimum required volume of a Mikvah (forty Se'ah). The Gemara
says that one might have thought that if he is permitted to immerse in a wave which contains forty
Se'ah of water, he is also permitted to immerse in a Chardalis with forty Se'ah of water (which
certainly is not a valid Tevilah since the water is not considered joined together to make forty
Se'ah).

When Rashi discusses the identical Sugya as it appears in Chulin (31b), he stops at this point. Here
in Chagigah, however, he adds that there is an additional problem with immersion in a stream of
rainwater, besides the problem of Katafras: the water of a Chardalis cannot be Metaher a person
because it is "Zochalin," flowing, and rainwater must be stationary and gathered in one place in
order to be Metaher.

There are a number of difficulties with the Gemara and Rashi.

First, why is immersion in a wave a valid Tevilah? The immersion should be invalid because of
the problem of Zochalin since the wave is flowing, and because of the problem of Katafras since
the water in the wave descends at an incline.

Perhaps the problem of Zochalin does not invalid the Tevilah in this case because the Mishnah in
Mikva'os (5:4) says that seawater is like springwater and not like rainwater: it is Metaher a person
even when it is flowing. Since the wave comes from the sea, it may be Metaher even when it is
Zochalin. However, the problem of Katafras remains. How can the forty Se'ah of water in the wave
(either in the Roshin or Kipin) be considered a valid Mikvah?

Second, why does Rashi mention that immersion in a Chardalis is not valid because the water
travels at an incline (Katafras)? The Chardalis is comprised of rainwater, and Tevilah in such water
obviously is invalid because of the problem of Zochalin. There is no need for Rashi to add the
additional reason of Katafras. Why does Rashi here add the reason of Zochalin only as an
afterthought, and in Chulin (31b) omit the reason of Zochalin altogether? (TOSFOS to Chulin
31b, DH Gezeirah)
Third, why in general did the Chachamim need to teach that flowing rainwater (Zochalin) may not
be used for Tevilah? Every instance of flowing rainwater is invalid for another reason -- it is a
Katafras and is not considered to contain forty Se'ah of water in one place.

There appears to be a basic disagreement between Rashi and Tosfos about how to understand the
Mishnah of "Gal she'Nitlash," immersion in a wave, which has important implications for the
questions posed above.

11
The Acharonim point out that the Mishnah of "Gal she'Nitlash" seems to be self-contradictory.
The Mishnah says that Tevilah in the wave is valid, even though the water is Zochalin, apparently
because the seawater of the wave is considered like springwater (which is valid for Tevilah even
while it flows). On the other hand, springwater is Metaher even with less than forty Se'ah, and yet
the Mishnah says that the wave is Metaher because it contains forty Se'ah! If the wave-water is
considered like springwater, then it should be Metaher with less than forty Se'ah. The fact that it
requires forty Se'ah implies that it is not considered like springwater but rather like rainwater.
Why, then, does the Mishnah say that it is Metaher when it is Zochalin?

The Acharonim offer different approaches to resolve this question. The TAZ (YD 201:5) explains
that the wave is considered part of the sea since it is still attached to the sea, and, like springwater,
it is valid for Tevilah while it flows. It does not actually need to contain forty Se'ah, but it does
need to cover the person entirely in order to be Metaher him. Since forty Se'ah of water are usually
required to cover a person, the Mishnah mentions forty Se'ah as a practical consideration. (See
also ME'IRI here.)

The SHACH (ibid.) disagrees with this approach. He maintains that the case of "Gal she'Nitlash"
refers to a wave which is entirely separated from the sea. Since it no longer is part of the sea, it
needs forty Se'ah to be a valid Mikvah, like a collection of rainwater. However, it is Metaher
b'Zochalin because it is similar to springwater in the sense that its natural tendency is to move (that
is, it has inherent energy moving it, in contrast to rainwater which just falls and collects in one
place). (See also TOSFOS YOM TOV in Mikva'os in the name of the MAHARIK.)

(Other approaches to this question are suggested by the RASHBA (in Toras ha'Bayis, Hilchos
Mikva'os, and as cited by the TOSFOS YOM TOV, ibid., in the name of the ROSH), TOSFOS
CHADASHIM, MISHNAH ACHARONAH, and others.)

The underlying point of dispute between Rashi and Tosfos may depend on the answer to this
question.
Rashi apparently understands that the wave is considered springwater. Accordingly, there is no
problem of Katafras or Zochalin in a wave, because springwater is Metaher with Zochalin and
with less than forty Se'ah (that is, even if it is a Katafras and its water does not combine to make
one large, forty-Se'ah Mikvah). This answers the first question.

To answer the second question (why Rashi writes that Tevilah in a Chardalis is invalid because of
Katafras), TOSFOS (DH Nigzor) quotes RABEINU ELCHANAN who explains Rashi's logic. If
water in a wave is normally Metaher b'Zochalin like springwater, then why does the Gemara say
that a person might confuse seawater with a Chardalis of rainwater and use rainwater which is

12
Zochalin? If there is such a concern, the use of springwater which is Zochalin should never be
permitted, lest one use rainwater which is Zochalin! It must be that the Gemara's concern is that if
Tevilah in a wave is permitted, one might think Tevilah in a Katafras is permitted (but not that one
might think Tevilah in rainwater which is Zochalin is permitted). Accordingly, Rashi expresses
the opinion of the Taz that a wave is part of the ocean and is the same as ordinary springwater.

How, though, is it possible to immerse in a Katafras of rainwater which is not invalid for Tevilah
because of Zochalin? If it is Katafras, it is also Zochalin! The answer is that such a scenario exists
in a case similar to the case recorded later (end of 19a) in which a proper Mikvah (with forty Se'ah)
sits at the top of a hill and a Chardalis descends from it. If the water that flows in a Chardalis is
considered to be attached to the water in the Mikvah at the top of the hill, then one may immerse
in the stream because it is considered to be part of the Mikvah (which is not flowing) at the top of
the hill, even though it is a Katafras (TIFERES YAKOV to Chulin 31b). When Rashi here adds
that in addition to Katafras, one may not immerse in a Chardalis because it is Zochalin, he refers
to an ordinary Chardalis of rainwater (which is not connected to a Mikvah -- similar to the wave
in the case of the Gemara here). Since it is not important to know that Halachah in order to
understand the Gemara here, Rashi in Chulin leaves it out altogether.

What is Rashi's opinion with regard to the third question -- why did the Chachamim need to teach
that flowing rainwater (Zochalin) may not be used for Tevilah, when every instance of flowing
rainwater is already invalid because it is a Katafras? Rashi (DH Chardalis; Avodah Zarah 72a, DH
Katafras; Shabbos 31b, DH Chardalis) emphasizes that a Katafras is a very steep slope. He
apparently means that the difference between Katafras and Zochalin is the gradient of the slope: a
slight slope, which causes the water to run but not to rush swiftly, is Zochalin but not Katafras.
(b) TOSFOS (Chulin 31b) disagrees with Rashi and explains that a Chardalis is not valid for
Tevilah simply because it is Zochalin. Since Tosfos understands the Mishnah of "Gal she'Nitlash"
differently, he addresses the questions differently from Rashi.

Tosfos understands (like the Shach) that the wave in the Mishnah's case is entirely separated from
the sea and no longer has the status of springwater. Since the wave is cut off from the sea, it is
considered like rainwater and needs forty Se'ah to be Metaher a person. Nevertheless, it is Metaher
b'Zochalin because it is naturally propelled with its own force, unlike rainwater (which simply
falls). Any water that moves as a result of its own force is able to be Metaher even while it flows
(see also TOSFOS to Shabbos 109a, DH Rebbi Yosi).

Thus, wave-water is an exception to the rule: it is a form of non-springwater which nevertheless is

Metaher while it flows. Since it is not springwater, it is logical that the Chachamim would prohibit
Tevilah in a rushing wave lest one mistakenly perform Tevilah in a Chardalis of rainwater which

13
is rushing past; he might think that there is no difference between a wave which rushes past and a
steam of rainwater which rushes past. He will assume that any water which rushes past in its natural
course is Metaher b'Zochalin. In truth, however, the rainwater stream is not Metaher b'Zochalin,
because its movement derives solely from the force of gravity (the slope of a hill) rather than tidal,
geothermal, or other geohydrological forces. This explains why Tosfos understands that one might
confuse immersing in a wave with immersing in normal rainwater which is Zochalin.

According to Tosfos, why is there no concern of Katafras with immersion in a wave? Since Tosfos
maintains that the wave indeed must contain forty Se'ah of water, and it is considered like
rainwater, the fact that it is falling from the air (Katafras) should render it invalid for Tevilah!

It appears from Tosfos in Chulin (31b; see RASHASH there) that all of the water in the slope of
a Katafras itself is considered attached; only the stationary water which stands above or below the
slope is not considered a part of the water in the Katafras. Consequently, if there would be forty
Se'ah in the slope, Tevilah in the Katafras would be valid if not for the additional problem of
Zochalin. One may immerse in a wave, because a wave which contains forty Se'ah of water does
not have the problem of Zochalin (as explained above), and the problem of Katafras does not
invalidate it. This answers the first question (why the wave itself is not invalid because of
Katafras).

The answer to the third question, according to Tosfos, is obvious as well. The Pesul of Zochalin is
necessary even though there is a Pesul of Katafras, because Zochalin invalidates Tevilah in the
water on the slope when there are forty Se'ah of water on the slope. (Tosfos himself writes this
explicitly in Chulin, ibid.)

The above approaches express how Rashi and Tosfos answer the third question (what the
difference is between the Pesul of Zochalin and the Pesul of Katafras). It is interesting to note that
an entirely new approach to this subject is printed in the HAGAHOS HA'GRA (YD 201:6) in the
name of the RIVASH. According to that approach, the two Pesulim of Zochalin and Katafras are
indeed one and the same! The reason why rainwater cannot be Metaher while it flows is because
it is Katafras -- a flowing body of water is invalid for Tevilah. The forty Se'ah which it contains
cannot be combined to produce one cohesive Mikvah; instead, it is like thousands of tiny droplets
of water (that happen to be next to each other). Tevilah in Zochalin is like Tevilah in a Mikvah
which lacks forty Se'ah of water.

Springwater, in contrast, is Metaher b'Zochalin. Since it is not necessary to have forty Se'ah of
springwater for Tevilah, and even the smallest amount suffices as long as it covers the object being
immersed, immersion in flowing springwater is valid. Katafras (that is, Zochalin) does not render

14
it invalid for Tevilah because Katafras merely breaks it up into drops of water of less than forty
Se'ah each, and forty Se'ah is not necessary for immersion in springwater!

(RASHI himself in Shabbos (109a, DH Kol ha'Yamim) appears to cite an explanation similar to
that of the Rivash. After a lengthy explanation of the Gemara, he says, "I have not learned this
way." Although he does not state explicitly which part of the explanation he rejects, perhaps he
rejects the approach of the Rivash, who equates the Pesul of Zochalin with the Pesul of Katafras.)

HALACHAH: WASHING THE HANDS WITH SPECIFIC INTENT

The Gemara concludes that when one washes his hands for Chulin, his act of washing is valid for
Chulin even if he does not have Kavanah, specific intent, to wash for Chulin.

What is the Halachah with regard to eating bread of Chulin after one washes his hands without
Kavanah (for example, a pail of water fell on his hands and he did not have specific intent to wash
in order to eat bread)?

The BEIS YOSEF (OC 159) writes that most Rishonim and Poskim rule that one does not need
Kavanah during Netilas Yadayim in order to eat bread. Hence, the act of Netilas Yadayim is valid
when a pail of water falls on one's hands.

(The RASHBA (in Toras ha'Bayis 6:4 and Mishmeres ha'Bayis there, and Teshuvos 1:510) writes
that the Gemara and Tosefta imply that Kavanah is necessary in order for one's Netilas Yadayim
to be valid. He cites the Gemara in Chulin which says that one may wash his hands in the morning
and have in mind to eat bread later in the day, as long as he stipulates that he plans to eat later with
this Netilas Yadayim. It is clear that this Netilas Yadayim remains valid only when he is careful
to avoid touching anything which would render his hands Tamei. Without such caution, no
stipulation would be effective (Rashi, Rambam). Why, then, must one stipulate at the time he
washes in the morning that he plans to eat later? If no Kavanah is necessary for Netilas Yadayim,
then even without a stipulation his Netilas Yadayim should be valid. Even if water merely falls on
his hands, he may eat later in the day as long as he was careful to keep his hands Tahor. It must be
that in order for the Netilas Yadayim to be valid and enable him to eat bread, he must have specific
intent that the purpose of the washing is to enable him to eat bread.

Moreover, the Tana Kama in the Tosefta (in Yadayim) says that if one person poured water on the
hands of another person, and one of them had in mind that the washing was in order to eat bread,
the Netilas Yadayim is valid. Rebbi Yosi there disagrees and says that it is not valid. The Rashba

15
points out that everyone, even the Tana Kama in the Tosefta, requires that at least one person (the
one who pours the water, or the one whose hands are washed) have Kavanah.

How does the Rashba understand the Gemara here which says that one does not need Kavanah
when he washes his hands for Chulin? The Rashba suggests several answers:

1. In TESHUVOS (ibid.), the Rashba suggests that the Gemara refers to one who wants to handle
Chulin Al Taharas Terumah; that is, he wants to conduct himself in a stringent manner and treat
all of his Chulin food as though it were Terumah. In such a case, the Rabanan were not so stringent
as to give the Chulin the full status of Terumah so that its Netilas Yadayim requires Kavanah. In
contrast, the Rabanan instituted that when one wants to eat bread of Chulin (whether or not he
treats it like Terumah), he must wash his hands because of "Serach Terumah" (see Insights to
Chagigah 18:2:a). They gave the bread a status similar to that of Terumah (for which Netilas
Yadayim requires Kavanah), but they did not make it completely like Terumah (which requires
the Kavanah of both the person who pours the water and the person whose hands are washed, in
contrast to Chulin which requires only the Kavanah of one of them).

2. In TORAS HA'BAYIS, the Rashba adds that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rebbi
Akiva who says that a person's hands can become a Rishon l'Tum'ah (for example, when one places
his hands into a house afflicted with a Nega of Tzara'as). Accordingly, the hands need to be washed
because they are a Rishon l'Tum'ah and can be Metamei other Chulin (and not because of "Serach
Terumah" or because they are "Stam Yadayim" which are only a Sheni l'Tum'ah). Thus, in a case
in which one's hands are a Rishon l'Tum'ah, one needs Netilas Yadayim even when he touches (and
not only eats) Chulin, because a Rishon l'Tum'ah can be Metamei an object of Chulin. In order to
become permitted to touch Chulin in such a case, one does not need Kavanah when he washes his
hands.

3. The ME'IRI explains that when the Mishnah and Gemara here refer to Netilas Yadayim of
Chulin, they do not mean the common Netilas Yadayim done before eating bread at a meal. The
common Netilas Yadayim is unrelated to the subject of the Mishnah which discusses Tum'ah and
Taharah. Rather, the Mishnah means that even Chulin can become Tamei from a Sheni l'Tum'ah
when a person eats bread of Chulin with hands that are Tamei (as Sheni l'Tum'ah). When he eats
the bread of Chulin, that food can become Tamei as well. (The Mishnah's requirement of Netilas
Yadayim is entirely unrelated to the laws of washing for a meal. See Insights to Chagigah 18:2.)
Although the RE'AH in BEDEK HA'BAYIS disagrees with the Rashba, the RITVA (Chulin
106b) mentions that the Netilas Yadayim for a meal of Chulin needs Kavanah.

16
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 159:13) rules that, l'Chatchilah, when one
performs Netilas Yadayim he must have specific intent that he is washing in order to eat bread, as
the Rashba rules. The BI'UR HALACHAH refers to the REMA (OC 158:7) who writes that
although the Halachah follows the Rashba, if one did not have specific intent when he washed, he
should wash again but without a blessing.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Generally speaking, in order for a person to rid himself of his ritually impure status, he must
immerse in a mikvah, a natural body of water that contains a quantity of at least 40 se’ah.
The Gemara on our daf concerns itself with situations where it is not clear whether the required
40 se’ah are in one place. For example, if a wave containing 40 se’ah comes crashing down on
someone, that person would become tahor. In the water, however, only the parts of that same wave
that are connected to the ocean – called rashin – can be used as a mikvah; the kippin, or top of the
wave, is considered to be air and is thus not a kosher mikvah.

Another case discussed by the Gemara is that of shalosh gemamiyot ba-nahal. In this case, three
pools of water are connected to one another by a small trickle of rainwater. If the top pool and the
bottom pool have less than the required 40 se’ah, but the middle one does have the required
amount, we find a disagreement between Rabbi Meir, who permits immersion in any of the pools
since the water between them connects them to one another, and Rabbi Yehuda, who insists that
only the middle pool containing the full amount can be used as a mikvah.

The description of shalosh gemamiyot ba-nahal matches typical wadis (dry riverbeds) that are
commonly found in the deserts of the Land of Israel and in the surrounding areas. While they are
totally dry during the summer, during the rainy winter season floods of water race through these
valleys, leaving behind ponds of water that are created naturally. We also find that cisterns are dug
out specifically to access these rainwaters that collect underground (see, for
example, Bereshit 26:19 where we find the servants of Yitzchak digging in the valley and finding
water).

Rashi explains that a person who regularly would eat ‫(קדש‬meat from offerings) would choose to
maintain even his ‫ חולין‬food on the level of purity necessary for the meat from the korbanos.4

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_hagigah_1319/
4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Chagiga%20019.pdf

17
The Gemara in Bava Metzia (87a) teaches that Avraham Avinu used to eat from his ‫ חולין‬food
when it was pure. This is why although he offered to serve bread to the angels who came to visit
his tent, he did not actually end up providing it to them.

The reason is that Sarah had become a ‫ דה‬, and the dough had become impure, thus rendering it
unfit for consumption. Rabbi Yonasan Eybeschutz notes that the Gemara does not say that the
bread became impure and thus unable to be served, but rather that the dough became impure. Why
doesn’t the Gemara simply say that the bread became ‫? טמא‬

Furthermore, although Avraham had adopted the custom to eat only foods that were kept on a high
level of purity, why did he feel it inappropriate to offer impure bread to his guests? They appeared
to him as Arabs, and there was apparently no reason to believe that they maintained such a standard
for themselves.

The answers to these two questions are found within one idea. Our sages tell us that the date when
this visit took place was the first day of Pesach. The Gemara in Beitza (21a) teaches that although
cooking and food preparation is allowed to be done on Yom Tov, this is only allowed for food for
a Jew. It remains prohibited to cook or bake for a non-Jew. If the bread or matzah had already been
baked, it could have been served to the Arabs. However, it was still in the unbaked state of dough.

When it became impure, it was no longer fit for Avraham to eat, because he did not eat impure
foods. Although the Arabs guests would have eaten the impure matza, that was only after it would
have been baked, but now that the baking would be only for the Arab visitors, it was prohibited
for Avraham and Sarah to bake the dough on Yom Tov exclusively for the nonJews. This is why
Avraham did not serve them bread or matzah, although he had originally planned to do so.

As was taught in a Baraisa: We immerse in the heads [of detached waves] but we do not immerse
in the arches because we do not immerse in midair

The Mordechai (1) cites the analysis of Rabbeinu Simcha concerning the question of whether
immersing in frozen snow an effective immersion is. Rabbeinu Simcha initially ruled, based on a
Mishnah in Mikvaos (2), that it is an effective immersion.

The Mishnah their states that snow and hail contribute to the volume of the mikvah and do not
disqualify the mikvah. Obviously the Mishnah is addressing the case of frozen snow because if it
was addressing melted snow there is no reason to think that melted snow is any different than
rainwater. Rabbeinu Eliezer disputes Rabbeinu Simcha’s conclusion and explains that the novelty
of the Mishnah ruling that melted snow increases the volume of the mikvah is that one may have
thought that it should be disqualified as drawn water (‫)שאובין מים‬.

18
In the end of his analysis, Rabbeinu Simcha concluded that immersing in frozen snow is not
effective and one of the reasons that led him to this conclusion is that our Gemara declares that
one may not immerse in the arch of a wave.

The Beis Yosef (3) questions the relevance of our Gemara to the question at hand. The reason we
do not immerse in the arch of a wave is that it is completely detached from the ground as opposed
to snow which is in contact with the ground; therefore, immersing in snow should be valid the
same as it is valid to immerse in deep waters even though the water rises well above the ground
below.

Rav Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky (4), the Steipler, explains the intent of Rabbeinu Simcha in light
of a Gemara in Niddah (5). The Gemara there relates that if part of a pile of snow becomes tamei
the entire pile is not tamei as opposed to water where the entire collection of water becomes tamei.
The reason for the distinction is that the droplets of water fuse together to form one mass whereas
each snowflake remains independent and does not fuse together with the others.

Consequently, the snowflakes on the top of the pile are not considered connected with the
snowflakes at the bottom of the pile and as a result they are similar to the arch of the wave that is
completely detached from the ground.

On our daf, the Gemara explains that if someone places his tamei hands into a pool of water to
withdraw some fruit that fell into it, the fruit is not made liable to receive ritual impurity because
the person is not interested in the water itself, but rather the fruits.

In contrast, when a person actually means to make use of the water, the fruit does become liable
to receive tumah. His desire to have benefit from the water determines the status of the fruit.
Similarly, if one’s intention when “grabbing hold of the fruits” or taking the helm of Rabbonus, is
for the sake of heaven, for the fruits themselves, his community will remain pure.
If, on the other hand, the Rav has ulterior motives, if he has made the secondary “water” of honor
or money into his primary purpose, then he will not have the siyata d’shmaya to keep the
community pure.

When Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, zt”l, was serving as Chief Rabbi and parliamentary
representative of Bohemia and Moravia, representatives of the Jewish community of Frankfurt

19
approached him and asked him to leave his prestigious position to lead their unimpressive
community. German Reform was so influential at the time that Shechitah had been outlawed as
cruel, and the only chance for Torah-true Judaism to survive would be if a strong and persuasive
leader could successfully establish the Orthodox community as a distinct and independent legal
entity.

Rav Hirsch heard about all of the problems facing the community, and nevertheless acquiesced to
become the Rav. The community’s joy knew no bounds; the only thing left to negotiate was the
new Rabbi’s salary. The representatives asked, “Rabbi, tell us what your expectations of salary
are?” Rav Hirsch replied, “In my house, I am in charge of the spiritual matters and my wife is in
charge of worldly concerns. She is in the kitchen. Why don’t you speak this issue over with her?”

Rav Shlomo Wolbe, zt”l, would cite this story and say, “If you want to succeed in something for
the klal you must forgo all thought of money and honor just like Rav Hirsch. He went to a small
community instead of a big one and didn’t think about money at all. His sole intention was for
Hashem.”

The Surfer and the Mikveh

Shira Eliaser writes:5
Our daf continues the discussion of the mishnah from 18b, which details the requirements of
hand washing. Today’s question: Does ritual washing require intent to purify?

Such a question may feel especially relevant to any hassled parent trying to get their children
to wash up for lunch. Left unsupervised in shul for ninety seconds, Reuven and Shimon have
toddled out to the lobby, where they have been amusing themselves by filling paper cups with
hand sanitizer and shmearing it all over themselves and every article of furniture within reach.
When told to clean up the mess and wash hands for lunch, the three-year-old lawyers protest
that with all that sanitizer, they are as clean as any EMT. But are they ritually cleared for
eating?

OK, they’re just kids, and not yet fully obligated in mitzvot. But what about adults? The
mishnah on yesterday’s page clearly states that handwashing and toiveling (immersing in a
kosher mikveh) are acts of intention. Cleanliness is one state; ritual purity goes beyond mere
germicide. Accidentally or mindlessly pouring water over your hands doesn’t count, as the
Gemara clarified yesterday with a beraita (citation of an older teaching):

One who washes his hands, if he intended to purify them, his hands are pure; if he did not
intend to do so, his hands are impure.

5
Myjewishlearning.com

20
However, today’s daf raises a challenge to the idea that purification of the hands requires
intent:

But isn’t it taught (in another beraita) that his hands are pure whether he did or did not
intend to purify them?

Rav Nahman said: This is not difficult, as there, they are referring to non-sacred; whereas
here, they are referring to tithes.

Rav Nahman sorts out the apparent contradiction between these two beraitas, suggesting that
the challenge beraita refers only to washing for the purposes of eating non-sacred food
(chullin), for which one is only required to wash, but not to hold the intention of achieving
spiritual purity. However, he says, the earlier beraita refers to the case where one is planning
to eat sacred food (tithes) and therefore intention to purify must be part of the washing ritual.

How might one wash up without intending to do so? Tamar Fox’s children’s book, No Baths
At Camp, lovingly paints a picture of a rough-and-tumble week at Jewish sleepaway camp,
where Shabbat achieves a special beauty unduplicated anywhere else in the world because, as
Max explains to his mother as she hustles him toward the tub, “There are no baths at camp!”
Of course, the child reading the picture book will notice how well the water fights, lake swims
and other summer activities wash the sticky, paint-spattered campers clean.

And now, as you may have noticed, we’ve entered a discussion more about mikveh than hand
washing. Especially in the premodern world, where sea bathing and swimming were
practically synonymous, the question becomes: Does a swimmer who has just emerged from
a shining lake of pure water still need to dip ritually (that is, with intention) to be purified?

Yes, says the Talmud, they do. Swimming for fun in the ocean is not sufficient. But not
necessarily because of intention, rather because we cannot guarantee full immersion. The
beach baby in question might be surfing on the water rather than immersing in it.

And from where do you say that one may not immerse in the arcs? As it is taught: One may
immerse in the edges of waves, but one may not immerse in their arcs, because one may not
immerse in air.

This talmudic argument strongly reminds me of the famous Japanese print “Under The Wave
Off Kanagawa” as the Gemara patiently tries to explain that a surfer doing a tube ride right
under the arc of a wave is not technically underwater, either for purposes of purity or for
purposes of breathing.

21
 This seems a little harsh for those of us stodgy landsmen who are unlikely to execute a perfect
tube ride. I would volunteer to be the text’s example of someone who will never be found
surfing under the arc of anything. Cannot the inexperienced swimmer, bather or three-year-
old lawyer-in-training save themselves a lot of needless washing?

Actually, they can, the Gemara assures us.

As long as one of his feet is still in the water, if he had originally intended to strengthen his
status of ritual purity for a minor matter, he may change intent to strengthen his status for
a major matter. But if he has fully ascended from the bath, he may no longer make
a chizuk (strengthened status) for any other matter.

Someone who has fully immersed and still has even one foot in the pure waters of the mikveh
(or a body of water that qualifies as a mikveh) can change their intention and purify
themselves to as high a degree as they desire. If, however, you’ve already climbed out and are
toweling off, then resign yourself to eating chullin (non-sacred food) or back into the water
you must go!

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

In our daf (Chagigah 19a) we are taught the principle of ‫‘ – אין מטבילין באויר‬we do not do immersion
mid-air’, and in terms of the context of this statement what it comes to explain is that if one were
to throw an item into the arch of a wave, then the immersion would be invalid. Instead, immersion
must occur in a body of water that is connected to the ground.

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

22
Reflecting on this rule I believe that it can be applied to individuals who – like the transformation
that occurs when an item is immersed in a mikveh – wish to undergo a form of spiritual
transformation - with the lesson being that transformation needs to occur within a framework that
is grounded, rather than one that momentarily exists mid-air.

Oftentimes, an inspirational moment may stir someone’s heart and soul to undergo a form of
change, and in that brief moment they may imagine themselves transforming their life.

But while inspiration can occur at any moment, real transformation must be grounded for it to have
longevity. Therefore, just as you can’t transform an item by throwing it into the arch of a wave
and, instead, must immerse it into water that has its ‘feet’ squarely on the ground, so too, if we
want to transform our lives, we need to seize the moment to do so, but make sure that the process
that we adopt also has its ‘feet’ squarely on the ground.

Christian Stadler

Rav Chaim Navon writes:7

7
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/ritual-purity-and-impurity

23
A. PROHIBITION AND MITZVA RELATING TO RITUAL IMPURITY

We shall open with a discussion regarding the scope of the laws of ritual purity and impurity.

In what situations are these laws relevant? Is there a mitzva to be ritually pure? Is there a

prohibition to remain in a state of ritual impurity? Rambam's position on the matter is clearly

stated:

This accords with the plain sense of the talmudic passages: the prohibitions regarding ritual

impurity are relevant only with respect to the holy. There is no prohibition to become ritually

impure, nor is there a prohibition to eat non-consecrated food that is ritually impure. All that is

forbidden is to eat consecrated food or enter the Temple in a defiled state.

The Gemara, however, mentions another obligation regarding ritual impurity:

24
The Gemara's working assumption throughout the passage is that a person is under no obligation

to be ritually pure with respect to non-consecrated foods. The Baraita, however, states that a person

is obligated to purify himself on a festival. Rambam understands that this obligation stems from

the fact that a person enters the Temple on festivals (Tum'at Okhelim 16:10). It might be suggested,

however, that the Baraita is saying that similar to the sanctity of place that is expressed in the

Temple, so too the sanctity of time that is expressed in the Festivals requires purity. Rabbenu

Sa'adya Ga'on rules that even today one must immerse in a mikve in preparation for the High Holy

Days and recite a blessing prior to immersion (Otzar ha-Ge'onim, Rosh ha-Shana 16b). This is

certainly entirely unconnected to the Temple. Expression is given here to a fundamental Jewish

concept: not all places and not all times are equal. Judaism believes in graduated sanctity: this

being an imperfect world, ideal conduct is restricted to specific times and specific places.

The question may be raised whether or not we should aspire to widen the bounds of sanctity.

Should we imitate the way we behave in holy places and at holy times in all places and at all times?

A distinction should, perhaps, be made between different modes of conduct. For example, it is

clear that Yom Kippur was never meant to serve as an ideal for normal conduct throughout the

year. The unique force of Yom Kippur stems from the fact that it is only one day a year that we

are asked to separate ourselves from our human elements. As for the prohibition to work on

Shabbat and the Festivals, the Sages have already stated: "Just as Israel was commanded about

Shabbat, so were they commanded about work." That is to say, the prohibition against working on

holy days is meaningful only when viewed against the backdrop of creative activity the rest of the

year. What about purity? Is it desirable to extend it? We know that in the days of Chazal there

25
were people who ate non-consecrated food in purity, a practice that was encouraged by the Rabbis.

Why? Let us consider what Rambam says in this context:

It is not entirely clear, according to Rambam, why distancing oneself from ritual impurity is so

praiseworthy. Is the focus on distancing oneself from the common masses, a side effect of

meticulous observance of the laws of purity (as was indeed the result of the barriers erected

between chaverim and amei ha-aretz in the time of Chazal)? Or perhaps the most important point

is the separation from the ritual impurity itself. It is interesting to note how in typical fashion

Rambam views separation from evil actions as a mere preparation for the separation from evil

traits, which is the ultimate goal.

Rashi, in contrast, speaks of a much more practical objective of separating from ritual

impurity:

26
According to Rashi, we are not dealing here with a matter of principle, but with a training exercise

for the eating of consecrated foods.

THE MEANING OF RITUAL PURITY AND IMPURITY

Many Jewish authorities have noted that the laws of ritual impurity symbolize the obligation to

distance oneself from death. Let us consider the various forms of ritual impurity:

The most severe source of ritual impurity is a human corpse, which imparts impurity one level

higher than any other original source of impurity. Here we find the first hint at a connection

between ritual impurity and death. A creeping creature and a carcass cause defilement only when

they are dead, and not while they are still alive. The impurity of semen (as well as the impurity of

a man suffering from gonorrhea) symbolizes the unrealized potential for procreation. (This is

27
notwithstanding the fact that a woman contracts the impurity of semen through ordinary

intercourse, even if she becomes pregnant as a result; she becomes defiled because there is an

emission of procreative material from the man's body). A similar explanation applies to the

impurity of a woman who experiences menstrual bleeding or the flow of menstrual-type blood –

the impurity represents the child that was not born. The impurity of a woman following childbirth

paradoxically represents the impurity of a woman who has lost the potential for bringing forth life

(it is the mother who is impure, and not the child!). The impurity of leprosy stems from the fact

that a leper is regarded as if he were dead. As Moshe said about Miryam when she was suffering

from leprosy:

Ritual impurity signifies death – severance from nature. This explains why things

belonging to the world of nature do not contract ritual impurity. For example, anything that is

attached to the ground does not contract ritual impurity; live animals do not contract ritual

impurity; and the like. Only man and his world contract ritual impurity. Purity represents perfect

nature and life. The classic way of purification involves immersion in a mikve – immersion in the

waters of creation, uniting with nature.[2]

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik explains that the laws of ritual impurity symbolize the

rejection of death and the confirmation of this world. Judaism does not view death as a positive

transition to a world that is entirely good, but as a cessation of life in this world. Man was created

in order to live in this world, and it is in this world that he finds the reason for his existence:

28
 Other Jewish thinkers see the focus of Judaism's struggle with death differently. Rabbi Samson

Raphael Hirsch also understands that the laws of ritual purity and impurity represent Judaism's

war against death. This is what he writes:

Rabbi Hirsch explains the war against death in a direction precisely the opposite of that of Rabbi

Soloveitchik. The war against death is a war against nature. According to Rabbi Hirsch, a corpse

symbolizes man's submission to nature, his loss of free choice. The rejection of death means

29
choosing to transcend nature. Rabbi Soloveitchik interprets death as symbolizing the emancipation

of the soul, and the struggle with death as a symbol of the confirmation of the body. Rabbi Hirsch

explains death as symbolizing the body that is left bereft of its soul, it is becoming part of naked

nature, and the struggle with death as a symbol of the vitality of the soul.

Nobody has described the connection between death and raw instinct better than the German

author Thomas Mann in his marvelous allegorical work, "The Magic Mountain." Mann tells the

story of a German youth, Hans Castorp, who goes to visit a sanitarium in the Swiss Alps for a short

period of time and is captivated by the cult of illness and instinct that fills the place. Hans ends up

staying on the mountain for seven years until the outbreak of World War I forces him to leave.

Hans is aware of the unique atmosphere of the place, and describes it to himself and to others:

One of Hans' teachers explains to him over and over again the nature of this awesome and

mysterious connection between raw instinct and death:

Death is liable to uproot man's spiritual awareness. When a person sees a corpse lying lifeless

before him, totally subject to the laws of nature, lacking spirit and awareness, he is liable to forget

his spiritual destiny and view physical nature as reflecting all of reality.

Is there a contradiction here? Do Rabbi Hirsch and Rabbi Soloveitchik disagree about Judaism's

approach to the issue? It appears that there is no contradiction. Death separates man's two

30
components – his body and his soul. Focusing on death will, therefore, lead to emphasis being

placed on one of these two components in isolation: the naked body or the unclothed soul. Judaism

rejects focusing on either one of them by itself and maintains that the perfect man is one who joins

together body – which is directed by the soul – and soul – which acts via the body. This seems to

be Rabbi Yishma'el's message in his famous parable:

This parable relates to the body and soul as a single entity, which bears responsibility for their joint

actions in this world. Relating to man as a two-faceted creature, neither one of which may be

overlooked, does not exhaust itself in the rabbinic teachings with the question of responsibility

which expresses itself on Judgment Day. Chazal maintain that the mutual co-existence of body

31
and soul is the ideal state for the two of them. This is how the Sages depict the dialogue between

a soul that is about to be sent to a body and God:

A single principle stands behind Judaism's recoiling from death: death separates between the two

components that during man's lifetime adhere together – the body and the soul. Those who draw

their inspiration from death will lead material lives that lack direction or unattached spiritual lives.

As we have stated, Judaism rejects both approaches. In the future, all men will live eternal lives –

soul within body. Death does not separate man from this world for eternity; he will return to it in

the future, to live his physical life as God's servant in this world. It is this form of existence that is

most fitting in God's eyes.

FOOTNOTES
[1] The impurity of a purifying offering and the impurity of the water of a purifying offering – he who involves himself in the

offering of the red heifer and or with the water into which its ashes are mixed – are indeed exceptional. Here the impurity relates

to the process and not to the material with which the person came into contact. It must still be explained why this purification

process defiles. As for the red heifer, Chazal have already applied to it the verse: "I said, I will be wise, but it was far from

me" (Kohelet 7:23).

[2] How different is Judaism's concept of immersion from Christianity's understanding of "baptism"! We shall bring here a

representative sample of Luther's words in this context: "Baptism symbolizes two things – death and resurrection, that is, perfect

and total justification, for when the child is immersed in the water, it symbolizes death, and when he is taken out it symbolizes

32
life… When we begin to believe, we begin to die in this world, and to live in God in the future life … The sinner, more than he

must be immersed in water, must die, so that he will be totally renewed and become a new creature… For everything that we do in

this life that serves to kill the flesh and breathe life into the spirit pertains to baptism, and the earlier we free ourselves from life,

the more speedily will we fulfill our baptism" (Martin Luther, Four Theological Treatises, Tel Aviv, 2001, pp. 141-142).8

DID THE PHARISEES EAT ORDINARY FOOD IN A STATE OF

RITUAL PURITY?

HANNAH K. HARRINGTON writes:9

8
Translated by Rav David Strauss
9
Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period , APRIL 1995, Vol. 26, No. 1 (APRIL 1995)

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
 Print of the mikveh in the Ashkenazi synagogue in Amsterdam, 1783.
Print by Pieter Wagenaar.

The Purity of the Mikvah

A mikvah must be attached to the ground specifically and not in a receptacle, and if one wants
to prepare a mikvah in a vessel, he must invalidate it by making a hole, and connect it to the
ground * The sea has the halachic status of a natural spring, therefore, even though its waters
sway, it is kosher for immersion * A mikvah from rainwater must be from stagnant water and
not flowing, however, an unnoticeable flow does not invalidate the mikvah * The Achronim
ruled: A mikvah with no crack found in it, even though its water level drops from time to time,
is not disqualified by flowing water.

47
In the Torah portion, Shemini, we learn the foundation of purity in the waters of the mikvah, which
is water that “gathers” in the ground naturally, as the Torah says:

,‫ַמ ִים‬-‫ לו ַא• ַמְﬠָין וּבוֹר ִמְקֵוה‬36 Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of
,‫ִיְהֶיה ָטהוֹר; ְו ֹנֵגַﬠ ְבּ ִנְבָלָתם‬ water shall be clean; but he who toucheth their carcass shall be
.‫ִיְטָמא‬ unclean.

Lev 11:36

“The only thing that shall always remain ritually clean is a mikvah of water”

and this is a good opportunity to clarify the mitzvah of immersion in a mikvah.

A Ritually Pure Mikvah – Water in the Ground

Mikvah tahara (a ritually pure mikvah) is water that is “gathered” in the ground, i.e.,
groundwater that came from a spring or rainwater that accumulated in the ground. For as long as
they are in the ground naturally, they are pure and cannot receive tumah (ritual impurity), as the
Torah says, “The only thing that shall always remain ritually clean is a mikvah of water”
(Leviticus 11: 36). However, water that has been disconnected from the ground by man or by
vessels can receive tumah, and consequently, when a ritually impure person touches them, the
water becomes tameh (impure), and are no longer able to purify him (Chatam Sofer, Y.D. 213).

Pool, Ship and Vessel

Any place on the ground where water can “gather” is kosher as a mikvah, including a spring,
ocean, or a pit dug in the ground.

A pool built of bricks and concrete inside of a building or on its roof, or even on the 100th floor
of the building, is also kosher as a mikvah, because, seeing as the structure of the building is
connected to the ground, the pool built above it is also considered connected to the ground.

48
However, water collected inside a vessel, even if the vessel is huge, such as a plastic pool or a ship,
can receive tumah because they are not collected in a place that is attached to the ground, and
consequently, are unfit for a mikvah.

Someone who wants to make a mikvah by use of a large vessel, such as a plastic or metal
container, must first cancel it from being considered a vessel by perforating a hole in its bottom
about eight inches in diameter. In addition, he must connect the perforated vessel to the ground
using concrete and the like, or by inserting it into a deep pit in the ground. After connecting the
perforated vessel to the ground, the hole is plugged, and can be sealed with any material (Rambam,
S.A. 201: 7).

Ritual Purity and Impurity

In order to clarify why tahara (purity) is achieved by means of water from the ground, we must
first clarify the entire matter of tahara and tumah (impurity).

It is a mitzvah from the Torah that all matters of kedusha (holiness) in the service of the Beit
HaMikdash (Holy Temple), as well as contact with the flesh of
the korbanot (sacrifices), challah, and the fruits of terumot, ma’aser, and ma’aser sheni (tithes)
and their consumption – is fulfilled by ritually pure people. In general, impurity is associated with
death, consequently the most severe impurity is the impurity of the dead, which is called “avi avot
ha’tumah” (lit., ‘the grandfather of impurity’ – the highest level of tumah). Less severe impurity
is the impurity caused by secretions that could have produced life but were lost, such as the
impurity of niddah, the discharge of semen, or secretions that express damage to the system that
effects life, such as the impurity of zav and zavah (abnormal bodily discharges).

The order of the purification process is according to the severity of the tumah: someone who
became tameh from the dead, needs to wait seven days, on the third and seventh day he needs to
be sprinkled with the ashes of the Para Adumah (Red Heifer), and on the seventh day, immerse
in a mikvah and at the end of the day, he is purified. A zav or zavah needs to wait seven clean
days and immerse, without requiring the sprinkling of the ashes of the Para Adumah. A man or
woman who is tameh from the discharge of semen, as well as those who touch the carcass of an
animal, beast, or a swarming animal, are impure until the end of the day, and are purified by

49
immersion. The laws of purity are exceedingly numerous – an entire order out of the six orders of
the Mishnah is dedicated to them – nevertheless, one rule applies to all those who are impure,
namely, their purity is incomplete without immersion in water.

Water is the Foundation of Life

It is possible to say that the reason of the mitzvah to purify oneself in water is that water preceded
the appearance of life, as written in the Torah: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God’s
spirit moved on the water’s surface” (Genesis 1: 1-2). On the first day, God created light, in order
to give the world direction, and yet, the world was still full and flooded by water. On the second
day: “God said, ‘There shall be a sky in the middle of the water, and it shall divide between water
and water. God thus made the sky, and it separated the water below the sky from the water above
the sky. It remained that way” (ibid. 6-7). Still, the world was flooded with water. On the third
day: “God said, ‘The waters under the heaven shall be gathered to one place, and dry land shall be
seen.’ It happened. God named the dry land ‘Earth,’ and the gatherings of water, He named ‘Seas.’
God saw that it was good” (ibid.9-10). Thus, we see that water is the foundation from which life
in the world began, and the impure person who became distanced from the Source of Life,
immerses himself entirely in water, and as a result, returns to the root of his life, as if created a
new, and purified.

After the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed and Israel was exiled from their land, tahara was
cancelled from the Jewish nation, but we still have an important and sacred tahara,
namely, tahara from the impurity of niddah, because the impurity of niddah does not only
concern entering the Beit HaMikdash and eating in purity, but also the intimacy between husband
and wife. Indeed, the essence of purity and holiness remaining in the Nation of Israel, is in the
sacred relationship between husband and wife.

Spring and Mikvah

There are two types of “gathered” water from the ground: 1) A spring whose source stems naturally
from groundwater. 2) A pit filled with rainwater, called a mikvah.

50
Spring waters are kosher for immersion even when they are flowing, but mikvah water is kosher
only in “ashburen“, in other words, while they are standing still, because water is kosher as they
exist in their natural state. Rainwater falls from the sky, and as long as they flow, their state is
transient and not stable, and only when they gather in one place are they stable and may be used.
On the other hand, a spring constantly issues and flows, and since this is its natural state and how
it is sourced, even when its waters are flowing, it is kosher for immersion (Mishnah Mikvaot 1: 7-
8; S.A. 201:2).

A Flowing River

A river that originates from a flowing spring has the same halachic status as that of a spring and is
kosher for immersion even while its waters are zochalim [Lit.: “creeping”] (the meaning of
“creeping” is, continually flowing and moving and are not gathered together). On the other hand,
a river that dries up on occasion (nahar achzav), i.e., it flows in the wake of the rains and then
stops flowing, is considered a mikvah, and is kosher only when its waters accumulate and stand
still (‘ashburen’).

In a river that originates from a spring, but during the rainy season and after the snow melts, its
waters increase – we go according to the majority. When the majority of its water is from the
spring, it is kosher for immersion, even though its waters flow (zochalim), but when the majority
of its water is from rainwater or thawing snow (notfim), it is considered a mikvah, but while it is
flowing, it is invalid for immersion.

However, it is possible to immerse in such a river by encircling the place of immersion, creating a
partition with a reed barrier in such a way that the flow of the river will not be noticeable inside
the partition, and thus the water inside the partition is kosher for immersion (S.A.201:2).

The Virtue of the Purity of a Spring

The waters of a spring, which are called “mayim chaim” (‘living water’) possess a greater degree
of purity, for all individuals impure from the Torah can be purified by immersion in a mikvah or
a spring, except for a zav, who can be purified only in a spring, as the Torah says: “When the man
is healed of his discharge, he must count seven days for his purification. He shall then immerse his

51
clothing and his body in a mikvah of running spring water” (Leviticus 15:13; Mishnah Mikvaot
1: 8).

Moreover, a mikvah is kosher only if it contains forty se’ah, while a spring is kosher for
immersing utensils even when it does not contain forty se’ah, and some authorities say it is also
kosher for the immersion of a man without forty se’ah (Rambam, Ravad). Other authorities say
that even in a spring, there must be forty se’ah in order for it to be kosher for someone to immerse
(Tosafot, Rabbeinu Tam, Rabbeinu Yitzchak, Rabbeinu Shimon).

This is in addition to the fact that spring water purifies even when it is flowing, which is not the
case with rainwater, which purifies only when it is “gathered” and not flowing.

Seas are Kosher as a Mikvah

All seas, large and small, are kosher for the immersion of people and utensils. And although sea
water moves back and forth because of the wind that creates waves, or flows because of rivers that
enter them, this does not invalidate them, rather, just as a spring is kosher even when its waters
flow naturally, likewise, the sea is kosher when its waters flow or sway as they naturally do (Rashi,
Tosfot, Shabbat 109a).

Leaking (Zechila) Invalidates a Mikvah

As we have learned, a mikvah whose waters zochalim (run, or flow) is invalidated from being
used as a mikvah. Therefore, care must be taken there is no leakage from the mikvah, for if there
is a leak, although the mikvah contains forty se’ah, since as a result of the leak there will
eventually be less than forty se’ah, the mikvah is already invalid.

The Rishonim wrote that only a noticeable flow from a leakage invalidates a mikvah, but not an
unnoticeable one, for if we do not say so, no mikvah would be kosher, because if a mikvah has a
crack and its water drips out very slowly, or it is being absorbed into the ground very slowly, it is
still kosher, because the flow is not recognizable (Eshkol, Rashba, Rabbeinu Yerucham, Meiri and
Tashbetz).

52
What is a Noticeable Zechila

The question is what is a noticeable zechila? In the opinion of most poskim (Jewish law
arbitrators), only a zechila that creates movement in the water invalidates the mikvah (Sho’el
U’Meyshiv Tanina, Vol.4, 178; Maharsham 3: 367; Divrei Malkiel 3: 64; Marcheshet 1, 39:1,
Chazon Ish). It may be inferred from their opinion that as long as the zechila does not create
movement in the water, even if it is noticeable from the outside as a leak, it does not invalidate,
and this is what Maharsham (3: 367) and Ein Yitzchak (22) wrote. However, in the opinion of
Maran Rabbi Kook, if the leak is noticeable on the outer walls of the mikvah, it invalidates it
(Da’at Kohen 103).

Some poskim are machmir (rule strictly) even in the case of a leak that is absorbed into the
ground and is not noticeable from the outside. In their opinion, the indication is when
the mikvah decreases in an amount of continuous leakage, but a leak in the amount of dripping
does not invalidate (Responsa Beit Shlomo 2: 82; Imri Yosher 1: 127).

When the Decline Mikvah Water Does Not Invalidate

According to all opinions if the mikvah was inspected and no crack was found, if after a number
of hours a slight drop in the water level is noticed, it should not be cause for concern (Shiurei
Bracha 201:4; Darchei Teshuvah 282; Divrei Malkiel 3:64). And as Knesset Ha’Gedolah wrote in
his book ‘Ba‘ei Chayei’ (paragraph 198): “If the mikvah is carefully inspected, and no crack is
found, small or large, and the water inside the ashburen (the pool) is calm and tranquil and not
restless and shifting to run off, rather, on its own continuously diminishes, or because it is absorbed
in the ground, or because of the warmth of the bath the water slowly dwindles, and there is no
noticeable leakage…it is kosher le-chatchila for immersion according to all opinions, even if the
waters lessen by two or three fingers everyday”.

53
 ‫ ְטהוֹ ִרים‬,‫ ְוָנַפל ַﬠל ָהָאָדם ְוַﬠל ַהֵכִּלים‬,‫שׁ ִנְּתַלשׁ וּבוֹ ַא ְרָבִּﬠים ְסָאה‬ ֶ ‫ַגּל‬. ‫שֶׁיּשׁ בּוֹ ַא ְרָבִּﬠים‬ֶ ‫ָכּל ָמקוֹם‬
‫ ַמְטִבּיִלין ַבֲּח ִריִצין וִּב ְנָﬠִצים וְּבַפ ְרַסת ַהֲחמוֹר ַהְמֹע ֶרֶבת ַבִּבְּקָﬠה‬.‫ טוְֹבִלין וַּמְטִבּיִלין‬,‫ְסָאה‬. ‫שַׁמּאי‬ ַ ‫ֵבּית‬
‫שׁהוּא גוֵֹדר ֵכִּלים ְוטוֵֹבל‬ ֶ ‫ וּמוִֹדים‬.‫ ֵאין ַמְטִבּיִלין‬,‫ ֵבּית ִהֵלּל אוְֹמ ִרים‬.‫ ַמְטִבּיִלין ְבַּח ְרָדִּלית‬,‫אוְֹמ ִרים‬
‫ ל ֹא ֻהְטְבּלוּ‬,‫שָׁגַּדר ָבֶּהם‬
ֶ ‫ ְוֵכִלים‬.‫ָבֶּהם‬:

If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man
or on vessels, they become clean. Any place containing forty seahs is valid for
immersing oneself and for immersing other things. One may immerse in trenches
or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. Bet
Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not
immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself
in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly]
immersed.

54
 Living
Water

"And G-d made the expanse, and it separated between the water that was below the expanse
and the water that was above the expanse" (Genesis 1:7)

"And G-d called the dry land earth, and the gathering (mikvah) of the waters He called seas,
and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:10)

Leah Caroline writes:10

10
https://www.mikvah.org/article/living_waters_experiencing_mikvah

55
I approached the ocean. I walked through the wild grasses and brambles of roses growing out of
the sand. The rose plants were a beautiful mess of greenery, thorny branches, violet flowers, and
bright orange-red rosehips. Some rosehips had opened, revealing their seeds the potential for new
life.
I removed my shoes and walked in the hot dry sand, the mounds compressing, exfoliating, and
cleansing my feet. I approached the edge of the water and sat down, digging my heels into the wet
sand. I looked out at the ocean, spreading to the edges of the Earth, touching shores I could not
fathom, and meeting the sky. The surface of the water shimmered with the cool blue reflection of
the sky and the hot white of the sun on the shifting waves. The upper and lower waters joined.
I watched the waves rush up. The water is not really transparent, I noticed. It is a translucent warm
green with moving bits of bright green organic matter, like the fossilized insects caught in ancient
amber. Moving, living waters. I wondered about that. I usually associate healthy water with clarity,
yet this water was not clear at all. Or, perhaps, it had clarity of a different sort.
The waves came to greet the land, swelling upward and lowering, curling like a fetus. The edges
splashed with foam; vibrant bubbles rimmed with white. The water rolled up against the sand,
barely touching my feet, and then rushed back to join the ocean. I waited and watched. Soon the
water approached closer, submerged my feet, and flowed beneath me. It retreated with a halo of
shimmer following close behind.
The vibrant sounds of ocean and children surrounded me from the front and two sides. I listened
to the rushing of the waves building up and deepening and then softening, over and over. Soon the
calls of the children mixed with those of water, and the ocean was behind me as well. The wind
rushed through my ears and filled my nose with salty scents. I stepped into the water.
"And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground." (Genesis
2:6)

It was raining and I was on my covered front porch. I was dry. The rain was light and fell straight
from the sky, cleaning the air and where it landed. The air was fresh and smelled of the country
the mustiness of the woods and all its mystery.
I looked into my wet front yard. It is just large enough to allow four cherry trees to grow well, and
borders of tall perennials enclose it. The sunlight was diffused through the clouds and mist,
blurring the details of my view. Yet the near black of the wet trees contrasted sharply with the
bright green around them. The cool lights of the wet leaves glistened against the dark branches.
On a dry day, there is not much distinction between the branches and the leaves they can be so
close in value. I wondered: Was the water that blurred also distinguishing the different elements
of my garden? The rain was focusing my gaze inward, clouding the outside world I did not need
to see not then, anyhow.
The leaves nodded gently as raindrops fell on them. They danced unpredictably.
I closed my eyes and listened to the music of the rain an up and down rhythm with occasional
pauses. I heard a waterfall or a fast river. I listened more and noticed that the waterfall sounds were
really birds talking in the trees. Or were they? All was blurred, but in a good way: Life was in the
water.

56
The energy of the shower created a gentle breeze. I felt it and stepped off the porch and under the
trees. Water fell on me gently and wet my clothing. I watched the drops slowly roll off the leaves
and branches. Some were hanging from the tips. They were shaped like swelling wombs. Within
the droplets were distorted reflections of my yard that lacework of the green life.
As I turned to go inside, I noticed the rain splashing on the pavement. The water below was dancing
excitedly, as if wanting to go up and join the upper waters.
"And a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it separated and became
four heads." (Genesis 2:10)

Adam and Eve lived simply in Eden, where they were in harmony with nature. Good and evil were
distinct, and it was easy to choose good. Their union was pure and holy.

After Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, nothing was simple for them anymore. Their
values were blurred. They became vulnerable human beings and felt exposed. Adam and Eve
clothed themselves in fig leaves to protect their bodies and sexuality, but were they also
subconsciously blocking out the natural world? Perhaps they were, for part of their punishment
was that they could no longer live in harmony with nature. They were thrown out of Eden.
For Eve, childbirth became painful and even deadly. Joy was mixed with pain and life was mixed
with death.
There was still a river that flowed out of Eden. It fed into the Pishon (Nile), Gichon, Chidekel,
and Perat (Euphrates) rivers. Some time passed. Despairing over his profound losses, Adam
approached this river. He sat in it unclothed. He was immersing in the waters of Eden.
It is said that the waters of Eden feed into all the natural waters of the world.

Approximately once a month, a Jewish woman immerses herself in a mikvah.

Mikvah: A mikvah is a gathering of natural waters, either in natural formations like oceans and
rivers, or collected rainwater in an in-ground pool. A mikvah is typically nine feet wide by six feet
long. It must hold at least forty se'ah of water, which is approximately two hundred gallons.
Forty: Forty is the number of punishments of Adam, Eve, the Serpent and Earth. Forty are the
days of the flood that purified the world. Forty are the elements of creation, and forty are the weeks
of pregnancy. Interestingly, mayim, water in Hebrew, begins and ends with the letter mem which
has the numerical equivalent of forty.

A Jewish woman immerses herself in a mikvah following her menstruation as well as after
childbirth, both of which require a period of physical separation from her husband. These are
representative of the repercussions of Adam and Eve's mistake. They both symbolize a loss of life
from the body. When a woman has her period, the egg, the seed for potential life, leaves her body.
She goes to the mikvah to revitalize and reconnect with Eden.

I step into the mikvah. The water is a comfortable heat and is as high as my chest. At the top of
the stairs, the mikvah attendant is standing with her head turned away, eyes downcast. She is there

57
to make sure I submerge completely, but for now she is respecting my privacy. I plunge in headfirst
and stop breathing. My eyes and lips are loosely closed, and my fingers are spread apart. Waves
form above my body. The water rushes around me and fills my open pores. There is nothing that
comes between the water and me not even stray hairs or loose scabs. I am immersed. I curl into
a fetal position, floating for a moment with folded limbs. I get up. My hair mats to my face and
back. My ears are full of water, and I faintly hear the mikvah attendant say the word "kosher."

Kosher: Kosher can mean fit, proper, genuine, or authentic. It is also pronounced kasher, which
sounds like another Hebrew word that means "connect."

I was once a mikvah attendant, making sure the other woman was completely immersed in the
swelling water. I watched the clear ripples distort her body, like the distorted images in the
raindrops. She was in another place. She was the life in the water. I saw her as a vessel that had
contained the lives of the children she had born. I felt that I was looking at holiness.
Again and again, I go into the water, coming up briefly for air and the word "kosher." I had come
to the mikvah with many thoughts and worries, but with every plunge they slowly drip away. My
thinking stops and I just sense the water flowing around me and through me. Again and again I
lose awareness of myself and then regain it; a cycle of life, death, and birth is repeating over and
over. The mikvah attendant is waiting at the top, but I don't see her. I barely hear her. I am never
more alone. It is just the water and me. Or is it? If I am losing myself in the water, is there just
water? There is clarity in the simplicity of the oneness. There is only good.
I climb out, and the water rushes off me in rivulets. At the top of the stairs, the remaining drops
roll off me. My robe will absorb the rest. The water is evaporating from my damp skin, but I have
been reborn. I am ready.11

11
Reprinted from Chabad.org

58
 Reimagining the Mikvah
Roz Bellamy writes:12
I have a routine when I visit Sydney, regardless of why I am there and where I am staying. I wake
up and take the bus, or buses, to the beach. I don’t mind which beach. I huff and puff my way
along the Bondi to Bronte coastal walk, avoiding the joggers in expensive activewear, and stop for
a dip in the water along the way. Sometimes I visit McIver’s Ladies Baths in Coogee, the only
ocean pool I love enough to make me, a non-binary person, self-identify as a ‘lady’.

I grew up in Sydney, on the land of the Gadigal and Birrabirragal peoples of the Eora Nation. The
ocean brought comfort when I needed it. No matter what I faced at the Modern Orthodox Jewish
school I attended, an evening swim at Camp Cove in Watsons Bay, after which my mother would
present me with a plum and nectarine that were just ripe enough to drizzle down my chin,
transformed the way I was feeling. Sometimes, a weekend trip to Nielsen Park for a swim and a
picnic provided a sense of comfort that I hadn’t known I needed. It was the beach my mother used
to take me to as a newborn baby and it is a place I will never stop missing, especially down in
Melbourne, on Wurundjeri land, where it’s often grey and grizzly.

Water meant healing to me from a young age, but pools weren’t always a safe space. I had a
particularly sadistic swimming teacher who taught me to swim with my head under the water by
pushing my head down. When I surfaced, taking quick, sharp breaths, she would scold me for not
staying under longer.

12
https://islandmag.com/read/reimagining-the-mikvah-by-roz-bellamy

59
But the ocean was never scary, even when the waves were big, even if they were so strong that I
found myself scraped against the seabed, spiralling under the surface. When I came up again, the
foam soothed my body, begging for forgiveness. I always went back for more.

“But the ocean was never scary, even when the waves were big, even if they were so strong that I
found myself scraped against the seabed, spiralling under the surface. When I came up again, the
foam soothed my body, begging for forgiveness. I always went back for more.”

*
After my grandfather’s funeral, my wife and I walked along Coogee Beach. Rachel encouraged
me to swim, right then and there in my bra and undies, while she sat with my clothing. I ran into
the water, unfazed by the sunbathers and onlookers. The ocean felt warm and nurturing, and I
frolicked in the waves, twisting onto my back and then front.

I enjoyed being moved around, gently for the most part, as I gazed at the sky. I thought about Deda
and how much he loved the ocean. He used to drive to Bondi Beach, park his car facing the ocean
and watch the waves. I hadn’t ever accompanied him on one of these trips. I don’t know how long
he spent there or what he thought about. If I wanted to romanticise it, I could imagine him
stretching out his neck and back, peering out to sea and admiring the coastline. Maybe he thought
of his hometown, Odessa, the port city on the Black Sea.

That evening, Rachel stayed close to my side at Deda’s minyan. A minyan is a gathering of at least
ten adults – men, if you’re Orthodox – who show up at the house of mourners sitting shiva, a
seven-day period of mourning, to say prayers and eat together. It was the first time Rachel had met
some of my extended Russian family. I’d previously kept these parts of my life separate, after
experiencing rejection from them when coming out as queer.

I introduced Rachel to my cousin’s kids, the older boy a keen surfer learning surf rescue in the
Nippers. He talked about how much he loved sport at school, the school I’d gone to, where PE had
given me panic attacks. It was interesting to me that while he was strong and sporty, so unlike me,
we both loved the water.

When I tried to sleep that night, I thought about the way the ocean soothed me when I felt
distressed. That day hadn’t been the first time I’d turned to the water to grieve the loss of my
grandfather.

*
A month earlier, I’d visited Deda in Sydney. He’d been declining for some time, but on that visit
he didn’t recognise me for the first time ever. I felt sick with worry. The next morning, I left my
stuffy, tiny room in a hostel near Central Station and boarded the first bus I saw with a beach listed
in neon letters on the front.

It was one of those peculiar Sydney bus routes that seemed windy and obscure for no obvious
geographic reason. I exited the bus as soon as I saw the first strip of turquoise through some trees
and made my way through a park and down some steps to Clovelly Beach. It was where I used to
go for a dunk on a hot day with my grandmother, Baba, Deda’s late wife. Deda used to sit on the

60
sand in a prim linen shirt and tailored trousers, while Baba and I waded in the shallows, remarking
at the different species of fish we could see.

There weren’t many people at the beach on a weekday morning. I stripped off my clothes and went
in, smiling at a mother and her baby.

There is something about being in the ocean that makes me feel embodied in a way I never quite
do on land. On land, I feel clumsy and fall over quite often. I miss things other people pick up
easily. I forget to focus on my senses, getting lost in a screen or book, and have to catch up with
other people who seem highly attuned to minor details. In the ocean, I am aware of every sensation.
I know how each part of me feels in that cool body of water.

“In the ocean, I am aware of every sensation. I know how each part of me feels in that cool body
of water.”

I left the water and sat on the sand. Then I felt the need to return, to submerge myself again, before
leaving. Sinking my body beneath the water, I felt completely peaceful. I drew myself out slowly,
reluctantly. I threw clothing on over my wet bathers and sat at the bus stop, trying to process my
swim. I pulled a notepad out of my bag and wrote for a while. On the way back to the hostel, I
listened to Jeff Buckley, the music I always turn to when I’m sad, that helps me process my feelings
and end up even more sad.

A friend, Jenny, commented that I’d had a ‘Jeff Buckley mikvah’. As soon as she said it, I realised
that my swim had felt like the Jewish ritual immersion, even if it didn’t follow the religious
requirements.

*
I have been intrigued by the concept of the mikvah since Rachel and I got married. Jewish women
are meant to go to the mikvah before getting married. Other reasons to use the mikvah include
converting to Judaism, after childbirth, and after menstruating each month. Even after death, a
Jewish body is washed, purified, and dressed by volunteer members of the Chevra Kadisha, the
Jewish burial society, in a process called tahara, which involves a flow of water that is said to be
analogous to a mikvah, followed by the words, ‘(S)he is pure, (s)he is pure, (s)he is pure’.

The mikvah is intended to be purifying, to deepen one’s spirituality and introspection. Before our
wedding, we asked around about whether there was a mikvah that would ‘take us’ as a queer
couple. The resounding answer was no.

“The mikvah is intended to be purifying, to deepen one’s spirituality and introspection. Before our
wedding, we asked around about whether there was a mikvah that would ‘take us’ as a queer
couple. The resounding answer was no.”

‘Sorry,’ an Orthodox family friend told us. ‘The woman at the mikvah asks a bunch of questions
before you can go in. As Jewish women, you can go if you’re about to marry a Jewish man. And
if you’re in a Jewish (heterosexual) marriage, you obviously go in monthly.’

61
She was referring to traditional Jewish family purity laws that consider a woman who is
menstruating to be niddah, referring to ritual impurity. Sex, and even touch, is prohibited during
menstruation and for seven days afterwards. After this time, observant Jewish women go to a
mikvah, which literally means a gathering of water, for a ritual immersion. At the mikvah, the
woman removes all clothing, jewellery, makeup, and nail polish – any physical obstacles – so that
there is nothing between her and God.

‘How would they even know your marital status?’ I asked.

She gave me a wry look. ‘Oh, they know. Some young Orthodox women who are sexually active
before marriage wear a fake wedding ring when they go to the mikvah and pretend they’re already
married. Some of them get away with it. You’d have to lie.’

I have never visited a mikvah. Most of the mikva’ot (the plural of mikvah) in Australia are
Orthodox-run, and I wouldn’t be welcome, as a progressive and queer Jew. Even if I was somehow
allowed to use the mikvah, I imagine my tattoos, piercings and shaved hair would raise eyebrows.
I tried to find a mikvah that is LGBT+ inclusive and open to progressive Jews and discovered that
there is a mikvah at the Melbourne City Baths that is used by Progressive Judaism Victoria. It
doesn’t meet the strict requirements of Halacha, Jewish religious laws that Orthodox and
Conservative Jews follow, so it isn’t an option for many.

I found Mayyim Hayyim in Boston, a mikvah where ‘people of all genders and ages can celebrate
milestones like weddings and b’nai mitzvah; where conversion to Judaism is accorded the honor
and dignity it deserves; where survivors of trauma, illness or loss find solace; and where those who
immerse monthly can explore the ritual on their own terms.’ Reading those words, and looking at
the pictures, I wished we had something like it in Australia, where we have a much smaller Jewish
population.

The US also has Immerse NYC, a pluralistic, feminist community mikvah project. They don’t have
their own mikvah; their staff, which includes queer Jews and Jews of colour, facilitate immersions
at two mikva’ot in New York. They model themselves on the Jewish community they want to see,
which they describe as ‘a pluralistic network where Jews support one another through life
transitions with love and authenticity’. The description made me think of my Jeff Buckley mikvah,
of the healing I wanted.

I searched for representations of mikva’ot on TV. Orange is the New Black, Sex, and the City,
Younger and Transparent have featured them in very different ways, and Oprah toured a mikvah
in Brooklyn Heights for an episode of her show. Like the mikva’ot I’d found online, the TV
representation is all North American.

All I could find in Australia is a two-part documentary called The Pool on ABC iview. It turns out
the segment on the mikvah itself wasn’t screened on TV but instead can be found on YouTube
separately.

The mikvah remains a mystery in Australia. Non-Jews may at best be able to link it to cleansing
after a menstrual period, which makes it sound old-fashioned and shame-inducing. And maybe it

62
is. I read a website for Orthodox Jewish women that declares that after a minimum of twelve days
of abstinence, sexual intimacy is heightened, arguing that women are ‘in charge’ in the relationship
since their husbands can’t have sex with them until they visit the mikvah. My own views about
these biblical laws are less charitable. I can’t help but see the body-shaming and the biological
essentialism rather than the supposedly feminist appeal of the whole thing.

“I can’t help but see the body-shaming and the biological essentialism rather than the supposedly
feminist appeal of the whole thing.”

*
Other religions and cultures use water in religious, spiritual, and cultural expression, including the
Christian sacrament of baptism, the ritual of Hammam, Hinduism’s sacred connection to the River
Ganges, and the ancient Egyptians who viewed the Nile River as a passageway between life and
death. Water also means healing in so many cultures. In 350 AD, Hippocrates, the ‘father of
medicine’, prescribed bathing in spring water, noting that it improved respiration, reduced pain,
and allayed ‘lassitude’, all of which many of us could do with today.

I’ve read accounts of immersion that describe the mikvah as transformative, evoking some sort of
metamorphosis. As a non-binary person, I love the sound of transformation and metamorphosis.
But first I have to get past the mikvah attendant, and assumptions around the immutability of
biological sex and heterosexuality.

*
Although an indoor setting is considered to be the most convenient and safe, a mikvah doesn’t
have to take place there. Oceans are valid mikva’ot. I have immersed myself, or been immersed,
in oceans since I was a baby. An ocean mikvah takes place on my terms, with the sound of the
waves and birds, the smell of salt and seaweed, and a sense of embodiment, safety and nurturing
that doesn’t require anyone’s approval.

“An ocean mikvah takes place on my terms, with the sound of the waves and birds, the smell of
salt and seaweed, and a sense of embodiment, safety and nurturing that doesn’t require anyone’s
approval.”

*
Five days after Deda died, my friend Jenny died unexpectedly. It was a month after she coined the
‘Jeff Buckley mikvah’, which lodged itself in my brain during the Jewish death rituals for her,
which I had just experienced after Deda’s death.

Jenny used to go to Coogee Beach daily. Once, on Facebook, she wrote, ‘Coogee is my best place,
my home, my favourite place in the universe. I know every rock on that coastline. One day I’ll
become King of Coogee and then I’ll throw all the horrible new bogan-gone-posh incomers out
and I’ll demolish all the buildings from the sea to Brook Street.’

I like to think that Jenny is King of Coogee now. I like to imagine she had so many ocean mikva’ot
that the words ‘She is pure, she is pure, she is pure’ echoed around her long before her own tahara
and burial.

63
“I like to think that Jenny is King of Coogee now. I like to imagine she had so many ocean mikva’ot
that the words ‘She is pure, she is pure, she is pure’ echoed around her long before her own tahara
and burial.”
*
In 2017, I read Lidia Yuknavitch’s The Chronology of Water. The book spoke to me and my loss
in a way that therapy hadn’t. One line, ‘In water, like in books – you can leave your life’, helped
me work out how to survive my grief.

Yuknavitch writes, ‘When we played in the ocean we forgot ourselves: sister, self, father, memory
losses. I knew what she meant. The ocean is transformative. Every time I swim in it, I come out a
different person.

In an essay Yuknavitch wrote for LitHub, called ‘I will always inhabit the water’, she writes,
‘Swimming in water is the only state of being I know where I feel free’.
*
In Rivkah Slonim’s book Total Immersion: A Mikvah Anthology, she says, ‘The mikvah
personifies both the womb and the grave; the portals to life and afterlife. In both, the person is
stripped of all power and prowess. In there is a mode of total reliance, complete abdication of
control’.

The idea of this loss of control and power is that a person can then achieve oneness with God.
Slonim writes, ‘Immersion indicates the abandonment of one form of existence to embrace one
infinitely higher. In keeping with this theme, immersion in the mikvah is described not only in
terms of purification, revitalization, and rejuvenation but also – and perhaps primarily – as rebirth’.
Ritual immersion isn’t for everyone. Not everyone has access to an appropriate body of water. Not
everyone is willing to lower their head below the surface, naked or clothed.

I’m a water baby. In my life, water means play, ritual and rebirth, as well as self-care and self-
soothing. I also see it as a privilege.

I may never find a formalised mikvah that works for me, but I will always turn to water to mark
transition and change. I know it will carry me, my identity, my quirks, and my questions the way
it has carried my grief and sadness many times before. ▼

64
I’m standing at your door13

My heart is calling yours

Come fall into My arms

You’re weary from it all

Been running for too long

I’m here to bring you home

Yes I am

I’m reaching out

I’ll chase you down

13
https://bethelmusic.com/chords-and-lyrics/peace-dancing-on-the-waves/

65
I dare you to believe how much

I love you now

Don’t be afraid

I am your strength

We’ll be walking on the water

Dancing on the waves

Look up and lift your eyes

The futures open wide

I have great plans for you

Oh yes I do

Your past is dead and gone

Your healing has begun

I’m making all things new

Watch Me do it

Can you see us dancing

I’ll turn your sorrow into shouting

I’ll turn your fear into faith on the waves

C’mon let’s go

66
I set every star into place

So you would remember My name

I made it all for you

You are My masterpiece

You are the reason I sing

This is My song for you

I’m reaching out

I’ll chase you down

I dare you just believe

That I love you

Don’t be afraid

Know that I am your strength

You can trust Me

We’re walking on the water

Dancing on the waves

Walking on the water

Dancing on the waves

67