Daf Ditty Yoma 30: Mikveh, then and now

1
2
3
4
MISHNA: A person does not enter the Temple courtyard for the Temple service, even if he is
pure, until he immerses. Five immersions and ten sanctifications the High Priest immerses
and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur. And all of these
immersions and sanctifications take place in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, on the roof
of the Hall of Parva, except for this first immersion alone. As that immersion is not unique to
Yom Kippur, it may be performed outside the courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen
between him and the people in the interest of modesty, and then the High Priest immersed and
sanctified his hands and feet.

5
6
‫‪Tosafos‬‬

‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה א ין א ד ם נ כ נס ל ע ב ו ד ה א פ יל ו ט ה ור ע ד ש ה וא ט וב ל ‪-‬‬
‫לאו דוקא לעבודה אלא אפילו לשחיטה דלאו עבודה היא מוכח לקמן דבעי טבילה‬

‫‪7‬‬
This is not only for Avodah. Even for Shechitah, which is not an Avodah, it is clear from
below that he must immerse.
‫ואפילו בלאו עבודה רק שנכנס לעזרה‬
Even without Avodah, just entering the Azarah [he must immerse].
‫וכן מוכיח בירושלמי דקאמר לא סוף דבר לעבודה אלא אפילו שלא לעבודה‬
This is clear from the Yerushalmi, which says not only for Avodah, rather, even not for
Avodah.
.‫וכן מוכח לקמן כמו שאפרש בסמוך‬

8
Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur must immerse five times in a mikvah and wash his hands and
feet ten times, and all these immersions were in the holy, on the roof of the Parvah Chamber, with
the exception of this one (the first one), which was in an unsanctified place, on top of the Gate of
the Water, which was beside his own chamber.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yoma_30.pdf

9
A linen sheet was spread between him and the people. Ben Zoma was asked: What is the purpose
of this immersion (if he is tahor anyway)? He answered: If one (a Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur)
who moves from one holy place to another and from one place (the entering of) which (in tumah)
involves kares to another place (the entering of) which (in tumah) involves kares, requires
immersion, how much more so shall he require immersion when he moves from his non-sacred
home into the holy Temple, and from a place (the entering of) which (in tumah) does not involve
kares, to a place (the entering of) which (in tumah) involves kares!

Rabbi Yehudah, however, said: It is only a “reminder” immersion required, so that he may
remember if there is any tumah on him and abstain from entering. The Gemora explains the
principle they differ about: The issue is whether the service is desecrated (by performing a service
without immersing first in the morning).

According to Ben Zoma, the service is desecrated, and according to Rabbi Yehudah he does not.
The Gemora asks: But is the service, in accordance with Ben Zoma’s opinion, desecrated? Hasit
not been taught in a braisa: If a Kohen Gadol did not immerse himself or wash his hands and feet
between changes of clothes and services (i.e on Yom Kippur), his service is still considered valid.
However, if a Kohen Gadol or an ordinary Kohen did not wash their hands and feet in the morning,
their service is invalid. Rather, the Gemora asserts, the dispute concerns the question as to whether
he transgresses a positive command or not.

Ben Zoma holds that he transgresses a positive command, and Rabbi Yehudah maintains that he
does not. The Gemora asks: But does Rabbi Yehudah indeed hold this view? Has it not been taught
in a braisa: A metzora (on his last day of purification) immerses himself and stands in the Nikanor
Gate. Rabbi Yehudah said: He does not need to immerse himself, for he has done so already on
the evening before!

The Gemora answers: This has its own reason, as it was taught explicitly: It is because he had
immersed himself on the evening before. The Gemora asks: What was he who asked this thinking
(when the resolution is quite obvious)?

The Gemora answers: It is because he wanted to raise another objection (from a different braisa,
which states): Why was it called the Chamber of the Metzoraim? It is because the metzoraim
immerse themselves there. Rabbi Yehudah says: Not only of the metzoraim did they say this, but
of every man (who enters the Courtyard)?

[R’ Yehudah contradicts himself regarding the requirement of immersion for a metzora on his
eighth day before inserting his thumb and toe into the Courtyard!?]

The Gemora answers: That is not difficult, as one braisa refers to the case that he immersed himself
(the evening before), whereas the other braisa refers to the case that he did not.

10
 PERSONAL HYGIENE AFTER GOING TO THE BATHROOM

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara says that after a Kohen goes to the bathroom to urinate ("Mei Raglayim"), he must
do only Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (wash his hands and feet). After urinating, one is required to
remove any droplets of Mei Raglayim that might have fallen on his legs, so that he not be suspected
of being a Kerus Shafchah (a man with an anatomical disorder which disqualifies him from
marrying into the Jewish community; Devarim 23:2). Since he must rub off any droplets, he is
required to wash his hands afterwards for cleanliness. This reason obligates not only a Kohen to
wash his hands (Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim) after urinating, but every Jewish male (Netilas
Yadayim).

The Gemara implies that if not for this reason, there would be no obligation to wash the hands
after urinating. Does this mean that if one does not rub off any droplets, he does not need to wash
his hands? Does a woman, to whom the law of Kerus Shafchah does not apply, need to wash her
hands?

Moreover, since one is obligated to wash his hands after urinating, must he recite the blessing of
"Al Netilas Yadayim"?

The Tosfos Yeshanim cites RABEINU TAM who rules that just as a Kohen does not need to
do Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim if he did not touch the Mei Raglayim, so, too, a non-Kohen does
not need to wash his hands if he did not touch the Mei Raglayim.

The requirement to wash one's hands is solely in order to clean them if they became soiled. The
act of urinating itself does not obligate one to wash his hands. For this reason, even if one's hands
touched the Mei Raglayim, he does not recite a blessing of "Al Netilas Yadayim," because the act
of washing is not a Mitzvah unto itself, but rather a means of hygiene. It is no different from anyone
else who washes his dirty hands in order to clean them.

TOSFOS HA'ROSH agrees with Rabeinu Tam that one who does not touch the Mei Raglayim
does not need to wash his hands. However, he argues with Rabeinu Tam and says that if one does
touch the Mei Raglayim and must wash his hands, he must also recite a blessing of "Al Netilas
Yadayim" for that washing.

The Tosfos ha'Rosh compares this act of washing to the Mitzvah to wash the hands in the morning
upon arising. The Halachah requires that one recite a blessing when he washes his hands in the
morning, even though that act of washing is done only because he might have touched an unclean
part of his body. That Halachah implies that whenever the Rabanan instituted an act of washing,
even for the sake of cleanliness, the act of washing requires a blessing.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-030.htm

11
However, the Rosh limits the requirement to recite a blessing to one who washes his hands in order
to pray (Shemoneh Esreh). It does not apply to one who washes in order to learn Torah.

The argument between the Tosfos ha'Rosh and Rabeinu Tam with regard to washing one's hands
with a blessing may be based on another argument with regard to washing the hands.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 4:1) rules that upon arising in the morning, one must wash his
hands. The Rishonim give different reasons for this requirement.

The ROSH maintains that one must wash his hands upon arising because the hands might have
touched an unclean part of the body. As mentioned above, the Rosh understands from this
Halachah that one should recite a blessing when he washes his hands after urinating if his hands
become soiled.

The RASHBA, however, maintains that the reason for washing the hands in the morning is similar
to the reason for why a Kohen must wash before he enters the Beis ha'Mikdash in the morning: it
is for the purpose of Kedushah, to sanctify himself. Similarly, before one begins to pray at the start
of the day, he must wash his hands for the purpose of Kedushah (see Mishnah Berurah OC 4:1).
Perhaps Rabeinu Tam maintains, like the Rashba, that the morning washing requires a blessing
not because its purpose is to clean the hands, but because of Kedushah. In contrast, the washing
done after urinating is not for the sake of Kedushah but in order to clean the hands, and thus one
does not recite a blessing for that washing.

Tosfos Yeshanim cites RABEINU ELCHANAN who says that one must wash his hands after
urinating even if he did not touch any droplets. He infers this from the Mishnah (28a) which states
that "a rule in the Beis ha'Mikdash was that every Kohen who urinated requires Kidush Yadayim
v'Raglayim" and does not differentiate between one who touched the droplets and one who did
not. The enactment that the Kohanim wash their hands was an all-inclusive enactment. Similarly,
every person is required to wash his hands after urinating even if he did not touch the droplets.

RITVA suggests another reason for why one must wash his hands even if he did not touch any
droplets. The verse says, "Erchatz b'Nikayon Kapai" -- "I shall wash my hands with purity"
(Tehilim 26:6), which teaches that one should prepare for Tefilah by sanctifying himself with the
washing of his hands (see Berachos 15a). (This reason applies only when one washes before
prayer.)

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 7:1-2) rules that one must wash his hands even if he did not rub
off any droplets. One does not recite a blessing of "Al Netilas Yadayim," but only the blessing of
"Asher Yatzar."

12
 THE KEDUSHAH OF THE MIKVAH ATOP THE BEIS
HA'PARVAH

The Mishnah states that the Kohen Gadol would immerse in the Mikvah which was in a "sanctified
area" atop the Beis ha'Parvah. Rashi says that the Mikvah was on the roof of the Beis ha'Parvah.
How could the roof be a sanctified area? The Gemara in Pesachim (86a) teaches that the roofs
above the Azarah were not sanctified.

TOSFOS (31a, DH v'Chulan) answers that the Beis ha'Parvah was built underground, and its
rooftop was level with the ground of the Azarah. Rooftops which are level with the ground of the
Azarah are sanctified, as the Gemara in Pesachim says.

RA'AVAD (Tamid 30b-31a) says that the reason why the rooftops in the Azarah were not
sanctified is because when the structures were built initially, prior to the sanctification of the area,
the roofs served as Mechitzos, partitions that prevented the Kedushah of the Azarah from reaching
the area above the rooftops. The rest of the airspace of the Azarah (inside the rooms that had roofs,
and in the outside areas that had no roofs) was sanctified.

When the Beis ha'Parvah was built, the airspace above it had already become sanctified (since it
was built some time after the rest of the Beis ha'Mikdash was built), and thus the roof did not serve
as a Mechitzah. Consequently, the area above the Beis ha'Parvah remained sanctified.
(Alternatively, when the Azarah was initially built, the builders had positive intent to leave the
rooftops unsanctified. All other areas, though, became sanctified, including the airspace. As a
result, when any structure was built later the airspace above its roof remained sanctified.)

This approach explains why the Beis ha'Parvah was named for the person who built it while no
other part of the Azarah was named for a particular person. Since the Beis ha'Parvah was built later
and was not part of the original construction of the Azarah, it had an independent identity and
assumed the name of the person who built it.

EZRAS KOHANIM (Midos 5:3, DH Shalosh #1 and DH v'Al Gago) suggests that the roof of the
Beis ha'Parvah was sanctified because it contained a door which led to the sanctified area of the
Azarah. Since the roof opened into the sanctified Azarah, the roof itself became sanctified.

13
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Mishna on our daf teaches that no one was permitted to enter the azarah (courtyard) to
participate in the Temple service unless he first performed tevilah - immersed in a mikveh. On Yom
Kippur, the kohen gadol performed this tevilah five times, as he walked back and forth between
different parts of the mikdash.

Rashi explains the Mishna (the Jerusalem Talmud makes this point, as well) as referring not only
to someone who entered the precincts of the Temple to perform avodah (service), but to anyone
who had reason to enter the sanctuary, even if he was not planning to participate in the Temple
service. Some explain that this is necessary only because a kohen who is found on the premises
may be invited to participate in some aspect of the avodah, and therefore must be prepared to do
so.

The discussion of tevilah as preparation to enter the mikdash leads the Gemara to teach of another
person who needs to go to the mikveh in order to take care of his business in the Temple: a metzorah
- a person who has recovered from a case of Biblical leprosy.

As is taught in Vayikra 14, and elucidated upon in Massekhet Nega'im, a person who shows the
signs of leprosy to a kohen is declared a metzorah. Such a person will be obligated to sit outside
the community encampment until he recovers from his illness. When he sees signs of recovery, he
again approaches the kohen, and if he is found to have healed, he waits a week (during which time
he remains ritually defiled, but to a lesser extent than during the previous week), at which point he
will do tevilah.

On the following day he will go to the Temple to bring the appropriate sacrifices and will have
blood from the sacrifice placed on his thumb and big toe, at which point he is considered, once
again, to have fully recovered and to be ritually pure.

Mark Kerzner writes:4

When a priest in the Temple urinated, he needed to clean his hands and feet for service by washing
them. If he moved his bowels, he needed a complete immersion in a mikveh . In general, anybody
who entered the Temple, needed to go to the Mikveh first, even if knew that he was ritually pure.

Why are these extra measures of cleanliness? If one urinates, he may have drops left on his feet.
Such drops also may be indicative of penis being cut in some serious way, in which case he may
not be able to make a women conceive. If he is married, people may think that his children are not
really his, and to prevent this possible rumor, he needs to clean his feet. And since he will wipe
the feet even with his hands, he must now wash both.
3
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446
4
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma30.html

14
 TEVILAH UPON ENTERING THE AZARAH IN THE MORNING (1)

On Yom Kippur, the High Priest will have to immerse himself in a mikveh five times, every time
that he goes to a different part of the service. From here we reason: if for going from one service
to another a mikveh was required, then of course for entering the Temple to do the first service,
certainly a mikveh was required - hence the requirement for anyone who enters the Temple to first
go to a mikveh. Others say that the reason for the first immersion was different: while going
through the water to purify himself, one may recall about an old, more serious ritual impurity that
he had forgotten about. Thus, it was only a device to remind him of his status.

(1) This does not mean only in the morning. Rather, it means whenever one enters the Azarah for
the first time that day. Also, he does not necessarily have to enter to perform an Avodah; entering
for any reason warrants Tevilah (TOSFOS 30a, DH Ein). However, the TOSFOS YESHANIM
(30a, DH Amar Rav Nachman) maintains that Tevilah is only required when one enters to do an
act which is at least like an Avodah (such as performing Semichah and Tenufah, and a Metzora
who puts his hands into the Azarah in order for the Dam to be sprinkled on his thumbs). [He also
cites the opinion of RABEINU YOSEF who says that Tevilah is only required when one enters to

15
do an actual Avodah -- although he agrees that one who enters even to do an Avodah which a Zar
may perform, such as Shechitah, requires Tevilah.]
(2) This means that we are concerned that he might have become Tamei by touching a Sheretz or
a Tamei Meis and he does not remember, and by requiring him to do Tevilah he will remember
that he was Tamei and he now is a Tevul Yom and will refrain from doing the Avodah. The
practical consequence of this reason is if he did Tevilah the evening before (before Sheki'ah), he
does not have to do another Tevilah in the morning, since he is certainly Tahor from all Tum'ah as
a result of his Tevilah (we do not suspect that he became Tamei by touching a Meis and he requires
Haza'as Shlishi v'Shevi'i).

(3) This is because the Metzora is accustomed to being Tamei and touching Tamei items ("Dayish
b'Tum'ah"), and this Tevilah reminds him that he must stay away from Tamei items. The LECHEM
MISHNAH (Hilchos Mechusrei Kaparah 4:1) and other Acharonim understand that a person who
is not a Metzora needs no Tevilah at all (and these Rabanan argue with the Tana of our Mishnah).
However, the CHAFETZ CHAIM (Zevach Todah) writes that these Rabanan certainly require
Tevilah even for someone who is not a Metzora; they maintain, though, that the Tevilah the night
before suffices. The only difference between the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah, according to the
Chafetz Chaim, is that the Rabanan hold that a Metzora needs another Tevilah in the morning of
the eighth day even though he was Tovel the prior evening, and Rebbi Yehudah holds that he needs
no additional Tevilah in the morning. (However, it is not clear how he will explain the second and
third answers of the Gemara concerning the Mishnah in Midos, which clearly imply that while
Rebbi Yehudah requires a normal person to be Tovel, the Rabanan exempt him completely, even
though the case must be that he was not Tovel the evening before -- since Rebbi Yehudah requires
him to be Tovel now, in the morning.)

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:5

If you’ve been with us a while, you know that the Talmud is sometimes … scatological. While
these conversations may make you blush, they also demonstrate the rabbinic notion that Judaism
informs everything that we do. For example, we recently learned this mishnah about the priests:

This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs (a euphemism for
defecating) must immerse afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of the
hands and feet with water from the basin afterward.

Great, thanks for sharing. This is the ancient equivalent of the “employees must wash hands before
returning to work” sign. A modern reader may appreciate the notion of washing our hands after
going to the bathroom, but our feet too? For the Gemara, however, it’s the opposite. It’s clear to
the Gemara that a man must sanctify his feet with water after urinating because it is likely that
some urine dripped on them. (We might imagine the sandaled ancients squatting over a hole in the
ground to manage their business — a posture that puts the feet at significant risk.) Instead, the
Gemara is curious about why the sanctification of the hands is also required.

5
Myjewishlearning.com

16
Rabbi Abba explains that we should imagine the priest has used his hands to brush urine off his
legs, and this is why the hands require immersion. Rabbi Ami elaborates on this idea, and it is
pretty wild:

It is prohibited for a man to go out with the drops of urine that are on his legs, because he
appears to have a mutilated urinary canal. People who see urine on his legs might suspect
that he is suffering from this condition and can’t have children, and they will spread rumors
about his children saying that they are illegitimate. Therefore, one must be certain to brush
the drops of urine from his legs.

So, in order to protect the reputation of his children, a man should use his hands to wipe drops of
urine from his legs after going to the bathroom — and then wash his hand before returning to work.
Sounds like a great basis for a Seinfeld episode. In fact, I’m pretty sure it was.

But we don’t need sitcoms to advise us; we have the Talmud:

⁦A person who exits a meal to urinate washes one of his hands, the one that he used to brush
off drops of urine, and enters to resume the meal … And when one washes his hands for the
meal he should not wash them outside and then enter, due to the concern that doing so will
arouse suspicion that he did not wash his hands. Rather, he enters and sits in his place and
washes both his hands, and returns the jug of water to pass among the guests and ask if
anyone requires water, to make certain that everyone is aware that he washed his hands.

The Torah was not given to the ministering angels, say the rabbis, it was given to people. The
angels don’t have to deal with bodily functions, but we do. And some of us are naturally suspicious.
So the rabbis tell us that it’s a mitzvah to wipe your legs and wash your hands after you go to the
bathroom — and make sure other see you doing it. Doing so allows you to serve in the Temple (if
you are a priest), protect your children’s status in the community, and ensure that you'll be invited
to dine with others. Seriously, just wash your hands. And maybe your feet too.

The description of the volume of water necessary for a mikveh is a bit surprising. 6

The Gemara should have said that we require enough water “to cover the entire body.”

Yet, the words of the Gemara is that we need enough water for the entire body to be ‫—בהן עולה‬to
enter into them.

What is the meaning of this expression, and what can we learn from it?

6
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20031.pdf

17
The Shu"t Chasam Sofer in Yoreh De'ah (209) cites the Rivash (#294) to explain this expression.
Although an average person is three amos tall, and one amah wide, the depth of the body, front to
back, is only onehalf amah. The volume of the body is, therefore 3 by 1 by 1/2, for a grand total
of 20 se’ah (a mikveh is 3 by 1 by 1 = 40 se’ah).

The body of a person, which contains half the volume of a full mikveh, will become nullified in
the waters, for his body is eclipsed by the water in the mikveh by a ratio of 2:1.

This is the ratio of nullifying. This, then, is the meaning of the expression of the body being ‫—עולה‬
entering into the water, rather than simply being covered by the water.

The experience of submerging in a mikveh results in the body becoming nullified in the waters,
and then having the opportunity to emerge as a new entity

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

The Mishna (Yoma 3:3) in today’s daf (Yoma 30a) states that ‘no one may enter the Azara (Temple
Courtyard) for service – even if they are tahor (spiritually pure) – unless they immerse in a
mikveh’. However, this seems like a strange demand. As Ben Zoma was asked, ‘why does a kohen
need to immerse in a mikveh even if he is tahor?’, to which he answered that just as the Kohen
Gadol immersed himself five times on Yom Kippur even though he remained tahor throughout, so
too, the demand of immersing in a mikveh for spiritual service applies even to someone who is
also tahor.

However, Ben Zoma’s response feels like an incomplete answer– especially since the service of
the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur differs so significantly from other aspects of service. Given this,
I would like to present a further answer to this question based on Rambam’s commentary to Mishna
Para 3:3, as explained by Rav Asher Weiss.

We often think that we can divide between those who are spiritually tahor (pure) and those who
are spiritually tameh (impure). However, there is – in fact – a third category, which is ‘not tameh’
(not impure), and while someone who was pure and has not become tameh is considered ‘not
tameh’, we are taught that only a person who has actively immersed to become tahor is granted
the affirmative status of ‘tahor!’.

Understood this way, the demand stated in our Mishna that, ‘no one may enter the Azara for service
– even if they are tahor – unless they immerse in a mikveh’ now makes sense, because it requires
that all those present aren’t just ‘not tameh’, but are – instead - ‘tahor’!

Yet there is a further corollary of this thesis as explained by Rabbi Weiss with reference to the
teaching in Brachot 34b that, “in the place where ba’alei teshuva (those who have actively changed

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

18
their ways to lead a Torah observant life) stand, even tzadikim gemurim (those who have been
absolutely committed throughout their life to living a Torah observant life) are unable to stand”.

The question asked by many commentaries is why is this the case? Why is the ba’al/ba’alat teshuva
considered to be on a higher level than even tzadikim? To which R’ Weiss answers that just as the
active immersion in a mikveh grants confirmed ‘tahor’ status, so too, someone who takes
significant measures to transform and purify themselves attains a higher spiritual status than even
those who have worked hard throughout their life to maintain a status of ‘not tameh’. What we
learn from here is that growth in spirituality requires that we do more than “turn from bad”
(Tehillim 34:15). Instead, we are expected to actively “do good” (ibid.) and to take active steps to
upgrade ourselves and our lives to reach the status of ‘tahor’.

Ultimately, true growth is not just about staying away from spiritual danger or trouble, but rather,
about making headway towards spiritual improvement and transformation. And though this
message is prevalent throughout Jewish teachings, it was certainly demanded of those who came
to serve in the Beit HaMikdash.

Tevila of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:8

The mishna in Yoma (30a) describes the five tevilot (immersions in a mikva) performed
by the kohen gadol during the Yom Kippur avoda (beit ha-mikdash ceremonies). This represents
a dramatic increase from the standard single immersion required for each kohen prior to the daily
service in order to purify him and pave the way for his entering the mikdash. In this article, we
will explore the relationship between the daily tevila and the special series of five on Yom Kippur.

Instinctively, we might suggest that the unusually large number of tevilot indicates a unique
and different function for these immersions. Had Yom Kippur's tevilot been merely the standard
daily ones, we could not justify the need for five - one would surely suffice! Evidently, the role
of these tevilot is not merely 'preparatory' - to purify the kohen and allow him entry to the
mikdash. On the contrary, these tevilot play an integral and independent role within the ceremony
of the Yom Kippur avoda. The elevated level of kedusha of this day requires repeated immersions
in a mikva, regardless of the present state of purity of the kohen gadol.

8
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tevila-kohen-gadol-yom-kippur

19
 The gemara (Yoma 30a), however, in reference to the purpose of the daily tevila, cites at
least one position which transmits a different image: Ben Zoma explains the essence of the daily
tevila based upon the Yom Kippur model. On Yom Kippur, the kohen gadol immerses any time
he shifts into a different stage of the avoda or relocates the scene of the avoda to a different area
within the mikdash. "Certainly then," claims Ben Zoma, "a kohen who first enters the mikdash to
start that day's ritual (throughout the year) must first immerse himself." By deriving the daily
tevila from the Yom Kippur immersions, Ben Zoma apparently equates their conceptual
essence. They both serve to prepare the kohen for the avoda which he is about to begin. Yom
Kippur requires five of these tevilot simply because the day's ceremony is divided into five
sections: the standard morning ceremony, the special sprinkling of the blood in the Kodesh
HaKodoshim, the expanded musaf of Yom Kippur, the ceremony of the ketoret being burnt in the
Kodesh HaKodoshim, and finally the standard afternoon service; see the gemara in Yoma
(32a) which sets this five-part structure to the Yom Kippur avoda.

Essentially, though, the Yom Kippur tevilot are identical to the daily immersions and the
numerical increase is a function of several chapters of avoda occurring on this day each preceded
by a tevila. As opposed to the daily service, the Yom Kippur ceremony is segmented; each
separate segment is preceded by an immersion in the same way that an immersion precedes the
daily ritual. The Yom Kippur immersions, as the daily ones, assure the purity of the kohen before
he begins the avoda.

The question of whether Yom Kippur's tevila is structurally different from the daily one
might influence several questions. First and foremost, among these questions might be the location
of these tevilot. The mishna claims that the Yom Kippur tevilot were all performed INSIDE the
beit ha-mikdash in a mikva located on the roof of one of the rooms adjacent to the azara
(courtyard). However, with regard to the daily tevila of the kohen, there is no unanimous
consensus that this requirement exists. Tosafot in Yoma (30a) claim that these immersions were
performed outside of the beit ha-mikdash since the kohen was not yet pure before his
immersion. Do Tosafot suggest that their location outside the mikdash was a technical concession
but ideally the daily tevilot like the Yom Kippur variety should have occurred inside? Or do
Tosafot intend to drive a fundamental wedge between the Yom Kippur tevilot and the daily
one? The former tevilot are not merely preparatory, but part of the ceremony itself and, hence, as
all parts of the ceremony are performed within the mikdash. The daily tevila, though, is intended

20
to purify someone who is as yet impure, and as this tevila is purely preparatory it could and should
be performed outside, prior to entry.

A second question to consider would be the source for the Yom Kippur tevilot. At first,
the gemara considers that these immersions are a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Only afterwards
does the gemara actually derive these tevilot from a pasuk (Vayikra 16; 23-24). This pasuk
instructs the kohen to immerse every time he shifts between the special Yom Kippur service
(performed in white linen vestments) and the daily service (performed in gold clothing). This
pasuk, indeed, suggests that the tevilot are not an independent aspect of the Yom Kippur ceremony
but merely intended to preface the different segments of the avoda.

Another fascinating question would surround the timing of these tevilot. The
mishna (Yoma 28a) claims that once morning struck (and the services of the day were to begin)
they descended with the kohen gadol to the mikva. The requirement for this first tevila might be
questioned. After all, the kohen gadol was permitted to start the 'terumot ha-deshen,' the cleaning
of the ashes from the outer mizbei'ach during the night itself (and according to the Ba'al Ha-ma'or
in Yoma, the kohen gadol was required to perform this duty). If so, the kohen gadol had already
performed the first purifying immersion during the night and should be excused from performing
it again when morning struck. One might suggest that as these immersions are not merely
preparatory but part of the ceremony marking the special kedusha of Yom Kippur, all five had to
occur during daylight, the only period which is valid for Yom Kippur ceremonies.

Another issue to consider might be the pace of these tevilot. What would happen if a kohen
gadol performed them consecutively rather than scattering them throughout the Yom Kippur
ceremony? Tosafot actually claim that had the immersions been based solely upon a halakha le-
Moshe mi-Sinai, we might have allowed this combination. Only after the pasuk emphasizes the
need for tevilot before each changing of the clothes does this possibility become invalid. Clearly,
the hava amina (basing the tevilot upon a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai) views them as part of the
day's ceremony intended to lend high kedusha to the kohen gadol. From this perspective, five
consecutive tevilot are seen as a viable option.

21
 What is not clear is why ultimately this option is rejected. Does the pasuk suggest a
different (maybe additional) function for the tevilot, i.e., preparing for the upcoming segment of
the avoda, and hence the tevilot must be dispersed to serve their function? Or is the original vision
of tevilot maintained (they lend extra pomp and kedusha to the day) but it is still preferable to stunt
them? A similar phenomenon presents itself on the night of the Seder regarding the four
kosot. The gemara in Pesachim (118b) asserts "Rabanan instituted four kosot as a signal of cherut
(royalty and freedom); given this requirement, we might as well spread them throughout the Seder
night. There is no inherent reason that the four kosot cannot be drunk consecutively. Yet, they
are scattered throughout the night in order to better integrate them within the Seder. Similarly,
regarding the five tevilot: we might persist in viewing them as adding to the kedusha of the kohen
gadol - a unique Yom Kippur experience. We might still maintain that essentially they could have
been performed consecutively. Yet, they are ultimately spread across the entire ceremony so they
might be better incorporated.

We might consider two additional questions (not discussed by the sources) which might
disclose the true nature of these tevilot. What would the halakha be if a kohen gadol neglected to
perform one of these tevilot prior to a specific segment of the avoda? Would he be required to
subsequently 'make up' the missing tevila? If the tevilot merely purify him before each shift in the
avoda we might not demand a 'makeup' tevila. In truth, he is certainly tahor from the first tevila
and each section requires a new tevila only as a le-khatchila. If he forgot a tevila, the ensuing
avoda-section would certainly be valid and no extra tevila would have to be performed. If,
however, the day itself requires five immersions we might insist that he complete this number even
if they are performed out of sequence.

A related question might arise if a kohen gadol becomes invalidated in the middle of the
day's ceremony. The mishna records that a stand-in was assigned to cover this possibility. This
replacement kohen gadol continued the avoda from the point at which the kohen gadol left
off. Would the replacement have to repeat the immersions which the previous kohen gadol already
performed? If the tevilot merely purify a kohen prior to his performing an avoda section, these
tevilot would not have to be repeated. If, however, the day itself requires five immersions, we
might question to what extent Yom Kippur requires a kohen gadol himself to undergo these five
immersions and hence the replacement might conceivably have to repeat those tevilot.

22
Methodological Points:

1. Whenever a mitzva shares qualities with another one, their parity should be inspected. The Yom Kippur tevilot seem similar to

the daily ones. Are their functions similar or not?

2. The source of a halakha might reveal its essence.

FROM KOVNO TO CALIFORNIA

Dovi Safier and Yehuda Geberer write:9

Although Rabbi David Miller’s seforim — once among the most widely circulated English-
language Jewish works — have long been relegated to the dusty shelves of used bookstores and
genizah piles, the inspiring story of his quest to combat American Jewish apathy still speaks
volumes.

Rabbi Miller (1869–1939) was a Lithuanian-born product of the Slabodka yeshivah, where the
mussar giants Rav Naftali Amsterdam, Rav Yitzchok Blazer, and the Alter of Slabodka were his
primary influences. Earning semichah from Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor, he immigrated to the
United States in 1890, at first serving as a rav in New York and Providence, Rhode Island. With
time, he became disillusioned with the rabbinate and journeyed west, where he entered the business
world. He subsequently saw great success in real estate development in the booming San Francisco
Bay Area.

Even prior to his move to California, Rabbi Miller observed the abandonment of Jewish
observances like Shabbos and taharas hamispachah and dedicated his life to reversing this
calamity. He authored two seforim, The Secret of the Jew (on family purity) and The Secret of
Happiness (on Shabbos observance), printing more than 50,000 copies across 20 editions and
distributing them free of charge to anyone who requested them. In January 1932, Miller wrote to
Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel with a report about the success and popularity of his work: “It has reached
the far, remote corners of the earth, such as South Africa, Australia, China, Persia, India, etc.”

9
https://mishpacha.com/from-kovno-to-california/

23
In addition to his seforim, Rabbi Miller worked to promote Jewish education through the local
Oakland Talmud Torah he helped found. He’d also offer financial assistance for those who wished
to continue their studies in proper yeshivos.

When Rabbi Miller passed away (childless) at the age of 70 in 1939, he bequeathed nearly
$300,000 to support Jewish education. For decades to follow, his seforim continued to be printed
and distributed free of charge by the Rabbi David Miller Foundation. The bulk of his inheritance
went to yeshivos around the world, from Slabodka, Mir, and Kamenitz to Torah Vodaath, Ner
Israel, Chaim Berlin, and RIETS — who remembered him annually on his yahrtzeit with the
learning of Mishnayos and a seudas mitzvah.

A Ben Torah in Burma

Rabbi Miller’s philanthropy extended across the world. When he heard that Elias Levi, a Sephardic
prodigy living in Burma (now called Myanmar), wanted to travel abroad to receive proper rabbinic
training, Rabbi Miller championed his cause, helping Levi obtain a student visa to come study at
RIETS, and assisting him financially.

Yeshivah in Yehud

Rabbi Miller studied in a yeshivah in Ruzhany, a town that hosted another noteworthy individual.
Rav Mordechai Gimpel Yoffe (1820–1891), a close talmid of Rav Itzele of Volozhin, served as
the rabbi there for nearly 40 years. A leader in the Hovevei Zion movement, Rav Yoffe moved in
1888 with several of his community members to Eretz Yisrael during the First Aliyah, settling in
the new moshav of Yehud, where he founded a “kibbutz” of great Torah scholars.

24
 Bathtub Mikvaot and The Curious History of a Halakhic Libel

Aryeh Klapper writes:10

In his haskamah (approbation) to Dr. Yitzḥak Frank’s Grammar for Gemara,[1] Rabbi Nathan
Kamenetzky writes:

With regard to grammar, I note that my revered father ‫ זצ”ל‬held that its study is included in the
‫ מצוה‬of ‫ תלמוד תורה‬because its knowledge is crucial for reaching correct Halakhic conclusions. He
cited a grammatical error which led a well-intentioned author to propose building a ‫ מקוה‬in every
Jewish home. Ignorance of the gender of the noun ‫ אצבע‬in ‫ ט”ה ט”פ תורה ספר הלכות ם”רמב‬had led
that individual to advocate ‫ מקוואות‬that were undersized and invalid; their use would have resulted
in massive ‫איסורי כרת‬. Knowledge of grammar is thus not ‫פרפראות לחכמה‬, which the ‫תוספות יו”ט‬

10
https://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/7267/

25
defines as studies undertaken to enhance knowledge―which is not to be denigrated―but ‫גופי‬
‫הלכות‬, studies that affect Halakha.

Who was this “well-intentioned author”? Did he in fact advocate for obviously
undersized mikvaot? Did his position result from grammatical ignorance? Does advocacy of
home mikvaot necessarily entail advocacy for undersized mikvaot? Answering these questions
requires some background.

Halakhah sets out detailed standards for a valid mikvah in terms of water supply, size, etc.
(see Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 201-202). These standards historically made building
a mikvah practical only for communities, which is why Halakhah declares the mikvah first priority
for community construction.

The advent of indoor plumbing in the late nineteenth century opened the theoretical possibility of
building mikvaot in ordinary private homes. Practically, however, the vast majority of Jewish
women in the United States at that time did not immerse in any mikvah.[2]

In the early twentieth century, Rabbi David Miller of Oakland, California dedicated himself “to
the revival of the observance of niddah–tevilah–mikvah.”[3] He theorized that women were
uncomfortable immersing in public mikvaot for reasons of hygiene or modesty. (This discomfort
may have been the product of improved private bathing facilities.) His proposed solution was
“a mikvah in every home.” A successful contractor, he published reams of designs for mikvaot that
(he certified) could be built cheaply and effectively by anyone and fit easily and attractively into
living areas as well. They could even be disguised as cabinets or used as the frame for sofas, etc.

Rabbi Miller first published his designs in 1920 in a short Yiddish book titled Mikveh Israel. In
1930, he published a more ambitious English tome, The Secret of the Jew, which included
hundreds of pages of exhortation, a review of the laws of mikvah construction, and his designs, of
course. The Secret of the Jew was self-published and distributed for free in at least eleven editions
before his death in 1939. Mikveh Israel included endorsements from Rabbi Shlomo Elchanan Jaffe
and Rabbi Shimon Tzvi Elbaum,[4] and it was quoted extensively by prominent Chabad posek
Rabbi Nissan Telushkin in 1947 in his Taharat ha-Mayim (and again in the 2nd expanded edition
in 1950).

The “well-intentioned author” criticized by Rabbi Kamenetzky’s father was unquestionably Rabbi
Miller. Did he in fact make the alleged grammatical error, and did it indeed result in his advocacy
for undersized mikvaot? If not, why would such a libel have developed and spread?

Rabbi Miller’s home mikvaot were intended to be filled with ordinary municipal tap water. It is
universally agreed that mikvah water must not have been stored in a keli (utensil) capable of
holding water (Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 201:6). Such water is called she’uvin.
The mikvah itself must also not be a keli. The Secret of the Jew contains extensive explanations of
why tap water is not considered she’uvin (despite being piped from reservoirs and journeying

26
through holding tanks and water meters) as well as detailed instructions for constructing a water-
tight mikvah that is nonetheless not halakhically a keli.

Rabbi Miller’s approval of tap water mikvaot was not radical at the time. Rabbi Yossi
Azose argues convincingly that communal mikvaot filled from municipal water supplies were
common in the United States until at least the late 1950s.[5]

Sometime after Rabbi Miller’s death, however, Rabbi C.Y.L. Deutsch began an enduring and
successful campaign to “upgrade” such mikvaot to systems that connect with rainwater pools
(through a mechanism known as hashakah). There is no doubt that such systems offer significant
halakhic advantages, and it is not hard to construct arguments for invalidating tap water mikvaot.

We can understand why supporters of Rabbi Deutsch’s campaign would be unhappy with Rabbi
Miller’s proposal for home mikvaot, which assumed the halakhic validity of tap
water mikvaot and advocated for their use even in communities with a public hashakah mikvah.[6]

Opponents of home immersion also note correctly that only total immersion is halakhically
sufficient, and the vast majority of women cannot fully immerse themselves in standard-size
bathtubs. (This is independent of the objective amount of water necessary for a valid mikvah.)

If one has not read Rabbi Miller’s books, it is reasonable to suppose that he was advocating for
bathtub immersions―that is, for immersion in mikvaot that do not enable total immersion. After
all, Halakhah does not require a mikvah to be used exclusively for religious purposes. There is no
halakhic objection to using a mikvah as a bathtub. So why should there be an objection to using a
bathtub as a mikvah?

It therefore makes sense that proponents of bathtub immersion cite Rabbi Miller as their
precedent[7] and that opponents of tap water mikvaot accuse him of supporting bathtub immersion.
One side sees bathtub mikvaot as an evocative symbol of opposition to stringencies that make
halakhic observance difficult and empower rabbinic bureaucracies. Meanwhile, the other side uses
Rabbi Miller’s alleged validation of bathtub immersions as a rhetorical weapon to cast support for
tap water mikvaot in a negative light so that it seems absurd.

In fact, Rabbi Miller himself stridently rejected the use of bathtubs as mikvaot. A subchapter in The
Secret of the Jew is titled “A Bathtub is not a Mikvah.” Both Mikveh Israel and The Secret of the
Jew contain instructions for building a separate mikvah in one’s house.

How did this false impression start? Like most urban legends, it has a basis in fact. Let’s look at
the Rambam cited by Rabbi Kamenetzky:

The width of the gudal[8] used in all these measurements and in all other Torah measurements is
the etzba ha-beinoni. We have carefully calibrated its measurement and found that it is the width
of seven medium barley grains placed side-by-side exactly, which is the equivalent of two barley

27
grains in length. The term tefah everywhere equals four of these etzbaot, and the term amah equals
six of those tefahim.[9]

Rabbi Kamenetzky asserts that Rabbi Miller did not correctly identify the gender of the
word etzba. Why would this matter? The key is that the following word “ha-beinoni” is masculine.
So, if etzba is masculine, Rabbi Kamenetzky reasons, then the phrase should be read together: “the
etzba, which is the beinoni,” or the middle finger. But if etzba is feminine, then it must be
translated as “the etzba of the beinoni,” or “the etzba of the average person,” without telling us
which finger is the etzba.

I do not disagree with Rabbi Kamenetzky about the importance of grammar. But grammarians
become terrible interpreters when they assume that all writers share their sense of correct grammar.
For interpretation, what matters is not what gender the words etzba and ha–beinoni have in
“correct” Hebrew; rather, it is whether medieval Jewish texts assigned them a consistent gender.

The evidence is clear that they did not do this. For example, On the other hand, Netziv―certainly
a fine grammarian―writes in Meishiv Davar 1:20, “It seems that they were concerned to measure
by a person with wider fingers than the average person, unlike Rambam, who wrote explicitly
‘ve-hu ha-beinoni,’ meaning ‘of the average person.’”

Plainly, both understandings of etzba ha-beinoni are possible. In fact, both have long histories.

Rabbi Kamenetzky presumably assigned etzba as feminine, as it is in Tanakh, and adopted

Netziv’s interpretation―“of the average person.” He charged Rabbi Miller with the grammatical
error of seeing ha-beinoni as modifying etzba and therefore of mistakenly identifying it with the
middle finger. He further claimed that this “error” led Rabbi Miller to advocate for mikvaot that
were too small.

When I first heard this charge against Rabbi Miller, it seemed obviously incorrect. No one disputes
that the minimal halakhic measurement for a kosher mikvah is at least enough water for an ordinary
person to fully immerse. Any measurement too small to enable this would be useless, and any
measurement that enables this is plausible.

Moreover, the Talmud (Eruvin 14b) provides an objective volume measurement for a mikvah―it
must be three amot by one amah by one amah, or three cubic amot. Since the range of positions
as to the length of the halakhic amah ranges from approximately 18 to approximately 24 inches,
Rabbi Miller had an easy way of checking his calculations. A 24-inch amah yields a 24-cubic-
foot mikvah, and an 18-inch amah yields a 10.125-cubic-foot mikvah. Presumably, Rabbi Miller’s
number fell somewhere in that range.

The mystery deepened when I looked up Rabbi Miller’s book[10] and discovered the following:

1. he advocated for a 24-cubic-foot mikvah, the largest possible size, and

28
 2. he understood the phrase in Rambam exactly as Netziv and Rabbi Kamenetsky did.
Moreover, as Rabbi Miller was certainly aware, Rambam in other places makes perfectly clear
how to measure the relevant etzba. In Hilkhot Shabbat 17:36, Hilkhot Tzitzit 1:6, and Hilkhot
Nesiat Kapayim 15:4, he writes that any etzba mentioned with regard to measurement refers to the
thumb, not to the middle finger. (In fact, though Rabbi Miller was not aware of this, the
word etzba is not present in any manuscript of Hilkhot Sefer Torah 9:9. Assuming that this is the
correct text, there would be no ambiguity at all.)

So, what was the basis of Rabbi Kamenetzky’s charge?

Rabbi Ezra Schwartz of RIETS, my son’s wonderful rebbe, put me on to the truth. In 1938, Rabbi
Miller became frustrated that his efforts to popularize home mikvaot had not been met with
sufficient success. He decided that more people would build them if they took up less space. So,
he recalculated. The upshot was that for the eleventh edition, he shrank the required size of
a mikvah from 24 cubic feet = 179.53 gallons to 10.777 cubic feet = 80.57 gallons.

Rabbi Miller acknowledges in this last edition that friends advised him to avoid controversy by
adopting the Arukh ha-Shulhan’s measurements instead, which he presents as 15.6 cubic feet =
116.7 gallons. He decided regardless to advocate for the smallest possible measurement in order
to make the mitzvah as accessible as possible. Furthermore, he writes that empirical observation
(he tried it himself) will demonstrate that a mikvah of his recommended size is sufficient for full
immersion. He reports sending his revision to a broad range of scholars and receiving no factual
rebuttals.

And therein lies the rub. Rabbi Miller also does not report receiving any letters endorsing his
revised measurement. He acknowledges that it is much smaller than any approved
European mikvah. It seems likely to me that none of the approbations to his earlier editions would
have approved the revision, and it also seems likely that he did not give anyone the option of
withdrawing their previous approbations.

Standard mikvaot of course use larger measures than Rabbi Miller’s as to avoid taking chances.
There is no way to know whether adopting the smaller measurement would have generated a wave
of home mikvah-building and significantly greater observance of the laws of family purity. My
suspicion is that vanishingly few home mikvaot of any size were built to his design, but I would
welcome evidence to the contrary.

Rabbi Miller’s new position validated mikvaot that were at least within shouting range of the
capacity of the very largest bathtubs[11] (remembering that to be valid, a mikvah must be able to
hold its full measure of water while the person is fully immersed). While the eleventh edition of
his book still adamantly declared that a bathtub could not serve as a mikvah,[12] it became
superficially plausible to accuse him of approving bathtub mikvaot (and to cite him as if he
approved such mikvaot).

29
The stage was thus set for the later unfair dismissal of his work via such accusations as Rabbi
Kamenetzky’s. Rabbi Miller’s ideas for home tap-water mikvaot may or may not have been
plausible in his time, and they may or may not have any relevance in our time. But, his halakhic
scholarship deserves respect and consideration.

[1]
Yitzḥak Frank, Grammar for Gemara and Targum Onkelos: An Introduction to Aramaic, 3rd ed. (Jerusalem: Ariel United
Israel Institutes, 2016), viii.

[2]
Beth Wenger, “Mikveh,” The Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, Jewish Women’s Archive, March 20,
2009, https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/mikveh.

[3]
See David Miller, The Secret of the Jew (New York: Rabbi David Miller Foundation, 1938), v.

[4]
According to Rabbi Yossi Azose, there is also an approbation from Rabbi Moshe Zevulun Margoliot (RaMaZ), but I have not
found this. See fn14 in Yossi Azose, “The Use of Municipal City Water for a Mikveh and the Case Study of the Seattle
Rabbinate in the 1950s,” Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, August 10,
2017, https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/municipal-city-tap-water-for-a-mikveh-rabbi-yossi-
azose.pdf.

[5]
Ibid., 3.

[6]
David Miller, The Secret of the Jew, 3rd ed. (New York: Rabbi David Miller Foundation, 1938), 277-282.

[7]
Haim Ovadia, “Mikveh in Every Home,” Merrimack Valley Havurah (blog), August 10,
2017, https://merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/mikveh-in-every-home-by-rabbi-haim-ovadia/.

[8]
Gudal generally means “thumb.” However, see Rabbeinu Bahye, Leviticus 8:23 for a position identifying it as the pinky. See
also Bartenura to Mishnah Eruvin 1:1.

[9]
All translations in the article are my own.

[10]
David Miller, The Secret of the Jew, 3rd ed. (New York: Rabbi David Miller Foundation, 1938), 359.

[11]
My home’s ordinary five-foot bathtub contains slightly over 8 cubic feet, or around 60 gallons.

[12]
For this author’s explanation of why Rabbi Miller invalidated bathtub mikvaot for reasons other than size, please see Aryeh
Klapper, “Can a Bathtub be a Mikveh?” in CMTL Shavuot Reader 2020 Edition, Center for Modern Torah Leadership, May 28,
2020, http://www.torahleadership.org/categories/shavuot_reader_2020.pdf, 8-10.

30
 Rabbi David Miller and Mikvaot in America pre-195011

The landscape of American Jewish Orthodoxy has changed so drastically in the last century, that
some pioneers in the fight for halakhah in the United States inevitably are left behind and nearly
forgotten. A brief work, titled Mikveh Yisrael which I came across this week, was written by one
such figure, Rabbi David Miller.

Born in Lithuania in approx 1869, and having studied in several Yeshivot including Slabodka, he
received Semicha from R. Yitzchok Elchanan and others and headed to America. After serving as
a pulpit Rabbi in the Northeast in several communities, he abandoned the rabbinate, writing that
he did not wish to profit from the Rabbinate and headed west, settling in Oakland, CA. By the time
this brief work of his was published, he was well settled in Oakland and ran a successful real-estate
and construction business.

Published with several prominent approbations, Mikveh Yisrael contains detailed instruction on
building a proper kosher Mikveh in the privacy of your home, something that would have

11
http://judaicaused.blogspot.com/

31
encouraged the use of Mikvehs in a time where Mikvehs in the USA were few and far between. A
second book he published, The Secret of the Jew, being a marriage guide and on family purity,
was distributed for free by the author and make a great mark on American Jewry at the time,
encouraging numerous families to keep the halakhot of family purity.

He was not perceived kindly by many in his city of Oakland, with some local community leaders
fearing him as being too religious for their taste. Throughout America though, his books were very
well received and widely disseminated.

32
Rabbi Miller's blueprints for Mikvaot used municipal water, based on the halakhic decisions
brought forth by many prominent poskim, including the Aruch Hashulchan. Though it may seem
odd to suggest it today, through the 1950s, most of the Mikvaot in America used municipal water,
these Mikvaot being slowly phased out with the arrival in America of Rabbi C. Y. L. Deutsch,
known as the Helmetzer Rebbe. The Helmetzer Rebbe fought a long and often bitter fight to
heighten the standards of Mikvaot throughout the world, and by his death in 1990, was credited

33
with upgrading over 200 Mikvaot. One is left to wonder how different the statistics of Jewish
Family Purity observance would be if Rabbi Miller's system would have had a more lasting impact,
with a Mikveh in every Jewish home.

Once among the most widely circulated English-language Jewish works — have long been
relegated to the dusty shelves of used bookstores and genizah piles, the inspiring story of his quest
to combat American Jewish apathy still speaks volumes.

Rabbi Miller (1869–1939) was a Lithuanian-born product of the Slabodka yeshivah, where the
mussar giants Rav Naftali Amsterdam, Rav Yitzchok Blazer, and the Alter of Slabodka were his

34
primary influences. Earning semichah from Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spektor, he immigrated to the
United States in 1890, at first serving as a rav in New York and Providence, Rhode Island. With
time, he became disillusioned with the rabbinate and journeyed west, where he entered the business
world. He subsequently saw great success in real estate development in the booming San Francisco
Bay Area. Even prior to his move to California, Rabbi Miller observed the abandonment of Jewish
observances like Shabbos and taharas hamispachah and dedicated his life to reversing this
calamity. He authored two seforim,

The Secret of the Jew (on family purity) and The Secret of Happiness (on Shabbos
observance), printing more than 50,000 copies across 20 editions and distributing them free of
charge to anyone who requested them. In January 1932, Miller wrote to Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel
with a report about the success and popularity of his work: “It has reached the far, remote corners
of the earth, such as South Africa, Australia, China, Persia, India, etc.” In addition to his seforim,
Rabbi Miller worked to promote Jewish education through the local Oakland Talmud Torah he
helped found. He’d also offer financial assistance for those who wished to continue their studies
in proper yeshivos. When Rabbi Miller passed away (childless) at the age of 70 in 1939, he
bequeathed nearly $300,000 to support Jewish education.

For decades to follow, his seforim continued to be printed and distributed free of charge by the
Rabbi David Miller Foundation. The bulk of his inheritance went to yeshivos around the world,
from Slabodka, Mir, and Kamenitz to Torah Vodaath, Ner Israel, Chaim Berlin, and RIETS —
who remembered him annually on his yahrtzeit with the learning of Mishnayos and a seudas
mitzvah.

A BEN TORAH IN BURMA

Rabbi Miller’s philanthropy extended across the world. When he heard that Elias Levi, a Sephardic
prodigy living in Burma (now called Myanmar), wanted to travel abroad to receive proper rabbinic
training, Rabbi Miller championed his cause, helping Levi obtain a student visa to come study at
RIETS, and assisting him financially.

YESHIVAH IN YEHUD

Rabbi Miller studied in a yeshivah in Ruzhany, a town that hosted another noteworthy individual.
Rav Mordechai Gimpel Yoffe (1820–1891), a close talmid of Rav Itzele of Volozhin, served as
the rabbi there for nearly 40 years. A leader in the Hovevei Zion movement, Rav Yoffe moved in
1888 with several of his community members to Eretz Yisrael during the First Aliyah, settling in
the new moshav of Yehud, where he founded a “kibbutz” of great Torah scholars.

35
 The Use of Municipal City Water for a Mikveh and a Case Study of
the Seattle Rabbinate in the 1950s

Rabbi Yossi Azose writes:12

The purpose of this essay is twofold. First, it will highlight an example of a lenient halakhic
practice in America that had gained widespread acceptance among the Orthodox Jewish
community throughout the first half of 20th century, and the subsequent opposition to this practice
by leading Orthodox authorities in the 1950s who successfully challenged its legality, to the point
where today it is generally considered beyond the bounds of accepted halakha. Second, it will
focus on a critical juncture in American Orthodox Jewish history when a noticeable shift occurred
in the paradigm of halakhic authority, from initially residing primarily within the domain of the
community rabbi into the hands of the country’s leading gedolei hador and roshei yeshiva. The
effects of this shift have laid the groundwork for a current trend in America that increasingly favors
the authority of gedolim and roshei yeshiva over the local Orthodox rabbi.
A backdrop to our analysis is an examination of the circumstances surrounding the controversy
that erupted over the kashrut of the Seattle mikveh in the 1950s. This little-known story, long ago
forgotten by but a very few, represents a vivid moment in the history of the American Jewish
experience when the forces of these two aforementioned sources of authority collided with one
another. The in-depth, technical halakhic questions involved in using municipal city water to fill a
mikveh are beyond the scope of this essay.

The article will provide a historical overview, as well as a general summary of the relevant halakhic
issues.

Historical Background
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, a massive wave of migration brought hundreds of thousands of
European Jewish immigrants and refugees to American shores. These new arrivals quickly spread
out to localities throughout the continent and established Jewish communities in American and
Canadian cities that hitherto had no sizeable Jewish presence.

12
https://www.jewishideas.org/article/use-municipal-city-water-mikveh-and-case-study-seattle-rabbinate-1950s

36
In 1877, a survey published in the Jewish Encyclopedia identified 24 American cities with Jewish
populations of 1,000 or more. By 1905, that number grew to 70. In 1918, the Bureau of Jewish
Statistics and Research revealed that this number had skyrocketed to include 161 cities. With the
creation of these new centers of Jewish life came the need to establish cultural and religious
communal service institutions, among which included the building of mikva’ot, or ritual baths .
The burden of navigating the complex halakhic factors that determined the validity of these newly
built mikva’ot rested upon the pioneering rabbis of these communities.
Among the issues that were often debated was the question of whether or not a mikveh could be
filled with water from a municipal water system. Using tap water, if deemed permissible, would
be the easiest and most cost effective method to fill a mikveh. Chief among the concerns regarding
the use of city water is the requirement that mikveh water cannot be she’uvin, or contained in a
vessel, and that it’s conveyance cannot be carried out via tefisat yad adam, or direct human
involvement.
While the original source of a municipal water system, be it a river, natural spring or a reservoir,
may not pose a problem in and of itself, it is the conveyance through the various receptacles
contained in the system that creates the challenges for its use in filling a mikveh. Specifically, the
various pipes, pumps, holding tanks, and meters of a water system all pose concerns that may
potentially invalidate a mikveh. We should note that many of today’s widely accepted mikva’ot
do contain she’uvin water that is validated either through the method of hashakah (connection),
where a rainwater pool is connected through a hole in a wall with an adjacent she’uvin pool, or
through a process called hamshacha (allowing the she’uvin water to flow along the ground).
However, these two methods are only effective provided that she’uvin water did not comprise the
majority of the total water in a mikveh at the time the mikveh is initially filled. But the question
addressed in these early years was whether or not municipal city water was considered she’uvin to
begin with, such that the aforementioned hashaka/ hamshacha methods were rendered
unnecessary.
In the late 19th century, Rabbi Yehiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908), author of Arukh Hashulhan,
declared unequivocally that water supplied from a system of pipes that channel water from a river
to houses throughout a city can be used for a mikveh, provided that either the tube that feeds into
the mikveh is affixed to the ground, or that the final three handbreadths of that tube where it pours
into the cistern is made out of a material that is not susceptible to tumah, such as wood. In 1912,
the first comprehensive treatment of the subject as it applied to a 20th century municipal water
system was written by Rabbi Israel Hayim Daiches, of Leeds, UK. His book Mikveh Yisrael - An
Halachic Discourse regarding the Fitness for Use of Ritual Baths Supplied by Modern Water-
Works, contains a 31 page analysis explaining why a mikveh can be filled exclusively with water
from the tap.
In America, the practice of using municipal city water to fill a mikveh evidently became very
pervasive. Thus, for example, in 1957, Rabbi Isaac Esrig (Etrog) wrote that the majority of
mikva’ot in the US were filled in this manner, where the rabbis who supervised the construction
of such mikva’ot relied on legitimate opinions that allowed it. Indeed, early American halakhists
had written about the prevalence and permissibility of this practice. Among these included some
leading American rabbis of the early 20th Century: Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Grodzinski of Omaha, NE,
Rabbi David Miller of Oakland, CA, and Rabbi Yehuda Yudel Rosenberg, of Montreal .

37
Early Seattle Mikveh
Soon after his appointment in 1905 as rabbi of Congregation Bikur Cholim, Seattle’s first orthodox
synagogue, Rabbi Gedalyah Halpern oversaw the construction of the community’s mikveh and
permitted the use of municipal city water to fill its cistern. In 1909, a prominent rabbi from St.
Louis, R’ Zecharia Yosef Rosenfeld, took issue with the permissibility of using city water for a
mikveh and sent a letter to R’ Halpern stating that, in his opinion, it was disqualified. Instead, he
suggested that R’ Halpern utilize a method proposed by Rabbi David Friedman of Karlin (1828-
1917) of transporting snow into the cistern and allowing it to melt into water. R’ Halpern sent back
a rebuttal to R’ Rosenfeld defending his ruling and stating that, in any case, the relative lack of
snow in Seattle precluded his ability to use Rabbi Friedman’s method even if he had wished to do
so. Thereupon R’ Halpern asked Rabbi Hayim Jacob Widrewitz of New York for his opinion.
Rabbi Widrewitz had served as rabbi in Moscow before immigrating to America in 1892, where
he was unofficially deemed “Chief Rabbi of America”, and was considered among the more
prominent halakhic authorities in America at that time. His expertise in the laws of mikva’ot was
evident in that he oversaw the reconstruction of the mikveh in the Russian village of Lubavitch in
1883-1884. He wrote back a letter supporting R’ Halpern’s opinion, as did another eminent posek
from New York, Rabbi Aaron Gordon. The entire exchange of letters was reprinted later in R’
Halpern’s Sefer Mei Gava.
Rabbi Nissan Telushkin and Sefer Taharat Hamayim
Of all available sources that discuss the matter, perhaps no other authority before or since more
thoroughly analyzed the issue of utilizing city water for a mikveh, both from a halakhic and a
technical perspective, than Rabbi Nissan Telushkin of East New York (1881-1970). His book on
the laws of mikva’ot, Sefer Taharat Hamayim, demonstrated his proficiency of these laws, and it
seems that the great Torah giants of his generation, including Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, consulted
him when the kashrut of mikva’ot were called into question.
His writeup on the subject first appeared as an article in the January 1937 issue of the Torah journal
Hamsiloh (Hamesilah), of which he was the editor. Using the New York City water system as a
basis for his analysis, he consulted with hydraulic engineers from the NYC Dept. of Water Supply
to gain a good understanding of the mechanics involved in the transportation of water through the
system and the potential halakhic problems they might pose in the construction of a mikveh.
In his treatment, Rabbi Telushkin first described in detail the workings of the NYC water supply
system. He then identified four potential areas of concern with the use of city water:
1) The pipes: The concerns with the pipes are broken down into four subdivisions: a) the water
might be conveyed through material that is susceptible to tum’ah, b) the pipes might be curved in
certain locations, rendering them into a bet kibbul (receptacle), c) the valves affixed to the pipes
might render the pipes into a keli (vessel) and thus susceptible to tum’ah, d) since the valves are
made to be opened and closed, there might be a problem of tefisat yad adam, namely that the
conveyance of the water is carried out through human intervention.
2) The pumps: Two different types of pumps exist in the NYC water system: a) centrifugal, b)
suction lift. The concern with both is the human intervention involved.

38
3) Underground pressurized holding tanks: Rabbi Telushkin identified three such tanks in the
NYC water system, that served the neighborhoods of Forest Hills, Riverdale and the Highland
Park section of East New York. He conceded that mikva’ot should not be filled with water fed
from such tanks and even listed the streets that marked the borders between where city water was
fed from these tanks and those from water from upstate reservoirs.
4) Water meters used to measure water flow and the potential that they may be considered kelim
(vessels) that are susceptible to tu’mah.
Using a vast array of halakhic sources, Rabbi Telushkin systematically explained why none of
these potential concerns, with the exception of the underground tanks, pose a problem when filling
a mikveh. He concluded that, in practice, a mikveh can be constructed in such a manner; but he
included some caveats and recommendations for those who wished to do so.
We thus far have pointed to the writings and approbations (see accompanying endnotes to the
above sources) of at least a dozen of the most highly regarded halakhic authorities in America
prior to WWII, who all signed on to the permissibility of using tap water for a mikveh. In addition,
we have seen evidence that indeed most mikva’ot in America were originally constructed in this
manner. But all that was about to change with the arrival of a new wave of Torah scholars to
America, after World War II. Among these latter immigrants, no person was more responsible for
abolishing the utilization of city water to fill a mikveh than Rabbi Chanania Yomtov Lipa Deutsch.

39
The Helmetzer Rebbe
Rabbi C.Y.L. Deutsch, commonly known as the Helmetzer Rebbe, was affiliated with the Satmar
Hassidic sect and had been serving as rabbi of Helmetz, Hungary in the years following WWII.
An erudite scholar, he had a particular expertise in the laws of mikva’ot. Upon arriving in the US
in 1949, he established a congregation and bet midrash in Cleveland, OH and shortly thereafter
went on a veritable campaign by touring Jewish communities around the country and identifying
community mikva’ot that he deemed were not in accordance with halakha.
He sought to convince those communities to make improvements that would bring their mikva’ot
in line with higher standards of kashrut. By 1954, he had repaired or helped build more than 40
mikva’ot. By 1956 it was reported that he had helped repair or construct 59 mikva’ot. By the end
of his life in 1990, that number grew to nearly 200 mikva’ot throughout Europe, North and South
America, Australia, and South Africa.
One of the issues he railed against was the practice of using municipal city water to fill mikva’ot.
Eventually he went on to write his 20-volume magnum opus called Taharat Yom Tov. In volumes
6 and 7 of this work, which he published in 1954 and 1955, respectively, he devoted many pages
to argue for the disqualification of city water mikva’ot and compiled a robust list of letters from

40
leading Torah sages who agreed with him. This list included letters from the Satmar Rebbe - R’
Yoel Teitlebaum, Rabbi Eliezer Silver, president of the Agudat Harabonim, Rabbi Eliyahu Meir
Bloch, rosh yeshiva of Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, as well as a half dozen others.
Any mikveh that was deemed to require reconstruction, and in many cases outright replacement,
undoubtedly created financial burdens on the Jewish community in which the mikveh was located,
where its members would then have to find a way to raise money for these improvements.
Nevertheless, in most instances, the rabbinate of the cities in which R’ Deutsch identified mikva’ot
that he considered problematic embraced this challenge and were willing to make the necessary
repairs to deem them worthy of his approval. The reasoning for this attitude, in my opinion, was
twofold. Either the rabbinate of a particular community lacked the knowledge, wherewithal or will
to openly oppose an expert in the laws of mikva’ot such as R’ Deutsch, or they sincerely believed
that in any area of kashrut affecting the entire community, one must strive for the strictest position.
Since these community services are designed to cater to members that include an array of levels
of observance, one must strive to accommodate even the most stringent opinions. With the
exception of the handful of cities with large Jewish populations, the community mikveh was the
only one available (often for hundreds of miles around), and thus represented the sole option for
the residents of a given town. Over the span of his career, R’ Deutsch travelled to hundreds of
Jewish communities to inspect and recommend upgrades to their mikva’ot.

41
Rabbi Baruch Shapiro and the Seattle Mikveh
As previously mentioned, Seattle had been one of those cities where the rabbinate, headed by
Rabbi Baruch Shapiro, permitted city water for their mikveh. The community mikveh at the time
was located in a private house on East 18th Avenue between Alder and Spruce Streets. In early
1957, R’ Deutsch was invited by individuals in the Seattle community to inspect their mikveh.
When R’ Deutsch discovered that it was filled with tap water, he promptly appealed to R’ Shapiro
to fix the mikveh. However, in spite of this, R’ Shapiro refused to accede to any changes to the
mikveh. For his part, R’ Deutsch produced a collection of approbations from leading halakhic
authorities of the time who stated their objections to city water mikva’ot including those of the
Satmar Rebbe, and Rabbi Eliezer Silver. But Rabbi Shapiro still refused.
At this point, Rabbi Deutsch turned to his colleague and friend, Rabbi Meir Amsel of Brooklyn,
editor and publisher of the widely read monthly Torah journal Hama’or. Early on, Rabbi Amsel
was an ardent supporter of the Helmetzer Rebbe and he frequently included some details of the
Helmezer’s travels and efforts in fixing mikva’ot in the pages of his journal. Perhaps a threat to
publicize the matter might persuade Rabbi Shapiro to give in. Rabbi Amsel enthusiastically
obliged and placed the issue as the lead item in the June 1957 edition of Hama’or. Without
revealing any names or localities, Rabbi Amsel penned an article entitled, “Regarding the
Disqualification of Mikva’ot Constructed with Water Pipes (Wasserleitung)”. The article begins:
In recent times, Orthodox Jews here began to devote themselves to building ritual baths throughout
the United States, and here and there they settled and established mikva’ot that were majestic and
beautiful. One cannot deny that there were times when circumstances required that they could not
build mikva’ot based upon accepted halakha and traditions. And so they built what they could, in
many instances, according to novel leniencies of rabbis who were not experts in these matters. A
great misfortune has occurred in that many congregations were lenient in building their mikva’ot
using municipal water pipes…
Let us pay tribute to Rabbi Chanania Yomtov Lipa Deutsch, the Helmetzer Rebbe of Cleveland,
who has devoted his time and his life to this important cause, with the support of the great Torah
sages here. He is one of a kind throughout the US, and he has no peer in his holy work of fixing
and building mikva’ot throughout America and Canada, even in the very remote [communities].
He has already compiled a list of almost sixty mikva’ot that were built or fixed as a result of his
efforts. In particular, the aforementioned rabbi concentrated his efforts on fixing mikva’ot from
water pipes, a fundamental disqualification. He has already collected responsa from our greatest
sages who have unanimously offered the opinion that these types of mikva’ot are disqualified and
that it is forbidden to immerse in them…

42
 Rabbi Baruch and Hinda Shapiro, Seattle, c. 1950,

Then, in a veiled reference to Rabbi Shapiro, he writes:

To our great chagrin there still exist some rabbis who are stubborn, whose nature prevents them
from admitting the clear truth of the matter. They care not about peace and truth – to fix their
flawed mikva’ot, despite the fact that the great Rabbi Aaron Kotler has already proved in his
letter that we published in Hama’or that the prohibition of slander does not apply in these types
of efforts to rectify. And all those who quickly do so have removed from themselves the great
liability of causing the public to sin…
Rabbi Amsel proceeded to republish the letters of contemporary Torah sages that originally
appeared in R’ Deutsch’s Taharat Yom Tov, who all ruled against the use of municipal water for
a mikveh. At the end of the article he writes:

43
We are confident that those who read these fiery words... of our contemporary sages, will be moved
to abandon their stubbornness and work immediately toward fixing their mikva’ot according to
the law...
But far from capitulating, Rabbi Shapiro remained adamant. On August 8, 1957, he sent a letter to
Rabbi Amsel explaining why he was well within halakha to maintain his mikveh as-is without any
modifications.
In the October 1957 edition of Hama’or, Rabbi Amsel ran an angry article under the heading, “An
Open Letter Initially Intended to be Confidential – Regarding the Disqualified Mikveh in Seattle”,
which was filled with heated words and sarcastic insults toward his opponent. In submitting his
letter to Hama’or, Rabbi Shapiro had hoped that he would have been given the fair opportunity to
have his message published in full. Instead, Rabbi Amsel published only a small excerpt, and
attached a long tirade offering his own version of facts. Rabbi Amsel writes:
In recent years, many God-fearing yeshiva students have joined the community in Seattle and are
sickened on account of their disqualified mikveh. So they arranged to bring out Rabbi C.Y.T.L.
Deutsch, the Helmetzer Rebbe of Cleveland, about whom all the great rabbis and hassidic leaders
agree is currently the foremost expert in building mikva’ot and in family purity laws.
In particular, Rabbi G[ersion] Appel expressed his desire to fix the mikveh, since it is located in
his synagogue, and he wished to see the mikveh brought in line with all the halakhic improvements
and stringencies. However, the grand rabbi there, who is the elder sage of his group, made up his
mind to not allow any improvements to the mikveh, since in his mind there is no one more
scholarly and God-fearing than he, and what was done has been done, and no one has the right to
question his character and decisions. Based on what we have been told, Rabbi Appel turned to the
president of the Agudath Harabbanim, the famed Rabbi Eliezer Silver, and asked him whether the
mikveh should be fixed. Rabbi Silver adamantly and emphatically ordered that the mikveh be fixed
immediately. However, out fear of Rabbi Shapiro, nothing has been done till now.

44
Rabbi Amsel then published in full his reply to Rabbi Shapiro’s letter, from which we get a glimpse
of the outline of the arguments Rabbi Shapiro set forth as follows:
1) There are many great authorities who allow a mikveh to be built in such a fashion, and as
such the leniency has solid grounding in halakha.

2) There are other stringencies held by authorities to which few if any mikva’ot currently
conform. If we were to account for all these stringencies, then one would be forced to disqualify
most mikva’ot.

45
 3) Over the years, there have been hundreds of thousands of God-fearing Jews who have used
these types of mikva’ot, so to claim that they are disqualified constitutes slander against these
people.

4) Likewise, many rabbis approved of these mikva’ot, and so to claim that they are disqualified
constitutes slander against them.

5) Using the more lenient standards for building a mikveh will lead to a greater level of
observance of family purity laws.

Rabbi Amsel’s letter, dated August 19, 1957, included a point-by-point rebuttal to Rabbi Shapiro’s
letter, and the article ended by reiterating that the matter would never have entered the public arena
were it not for the fact that Rabbi Shapiro had forced his hand, and that he still expressed hope that
Rabbi Shapiro would change his mind.
In the following issue of Hama’or , an irate Rabbi Gersion Appel, rabbi of Bikur Cholim, the
congregation under whose auspices the care and upkeep of the mikveh fell, submitted a letter,
dated Dec. 3, 1957 to clear up some misinformation presented in the previous issue. First, he
wanted to make clear that he was not the one who invited the Helmetzer Rebbe to inspect the
Seattle mikveh. Also, the mikveh was not located in R. Appel’s synagogue, as misstated by R’
Amsel. Though he did agree that making improvements to the mikveh might be a good thing, the
Seattle rabbinate had a competent leader in Rabbi Shapiro who gave his stamp of approval upon
the mikveh for more than 30 years, and there was no justification to saying that it is disqualified.
Moreover, many of Europe’s great roshei yeshiva passed through Seattle by way of the Far East
during and after WWII, often staying over for weeks at a time, and none of them said anything
against the mikveh. Rabbi Appel bemoaned the fact that R’ Amsel had decided to go public with
the matter, and that any such improvements to the mikveh that are warranted should have been
handled outside of the public arena. He ended by pointing out the damage that R’ Amsel had
caused to the overall reputation of the Seattle Jewish community and hoped that R’ Amsel might
clarify the matter for his readership.
In response, Rabbi Amsel claimed that it was not he but Rabbi Shapiro who had first attempted to
go public with the issue by forwarding his letter to other Jewish publications (all of which refused
to print his letter). Furthermore, he never intended to sully the reputation of an entire community
but was rather motivated by a sincere attempt to correct what in his mind was halakhically wrong.
He did not understand why Rabbi Shapiro, though well intentioned, remained so stubborn and
defiant, in light of all the great authorities who came out against him and he closed by expressing
hope that R’ Shapiro might yet change his mind.
The February 1958 edition of Hama’or included a letter from Rabbi Shapiro, which this time Rabbi
Amsel decided to publish in full. Rabbi Shapiro reiterated some of the arguments he presented in
his first letter and provided a brief history of the mikveh situation in Seattle. He had arrived in the
city after Rabbi Halpern had already built the community mikveh using city water with the
blessings of Rabbis Widrewitz and Gordon. Years later, when the mikveh needed repair, he spent
much time delving into the laws of mikva’ot together with the members of his chevre shas study
group, and they all concluded unanimously that, given the specific situation in Seattle, it was
permitted to use tap water. They had in fact considered building a rainwater mikveh but discovered

46
that the rainwater in Seattle when collected emitted a foul odor, and it would be objectionable to
the women to immerse themselves in such water.
Rabbi Shapiro then made a point that, in my opinion, defined the basis of his general outlook
toward deciding halakha, and was the central doctrine that set him apart from his opponents:
I have delved into the depths - the depths of halakha. I have weighed it with scales, and I have
agreed with the words of those who permit it. Indeed, those who forbid it are shield-bearers (i.e.,
great debaters) and certainly God-fearing. However those who permit it are ones about whom it is
said, “Great is one who benefits from his toil” (Berakhot 8a) - this is one who toils and dwells in
the depths of halakha, and emerges that the thing is permitted, and partakes of it. He is “greater
than one who fears Heaven” - this is one who is afraid that perhaps there is a possibility that it is
prohibited, and refrains from partaking of it. “Who is a wise scholar? He who sees something that
is seemingly not kosher, something that others would deem as not kosher.

But because of his deep analysis, he concludes that it is kosher. This is a wise scholar.” Come and
see how great is “ko’ah de’hetera” (the power of leniency). The Maharsha (Rabbi Samuel Eidels,
1555-1631) on Hulin 44b interprets the following pasuk in this manner: “Fortunate are those who
fear God” - this applies to one who is presented with something of questionable kosher status and
is stringent. However, “For you shall eat the toil of your hands” - this applies (only) to one who
exerts himself and emerges with the conclusion that it is permitted. This is a person who merits
two worlds.

Then, after having taken offense by what he perceived to be Rabbi Amsel’s lack of respect for him
and a complete unawareness of who he was, Rabbi Shapiro sheepishly provided excerpts of
congratulatory letters from leading rabbis around the country who had heaped praise upon him,
after he had been appointed rabbi of the Herzl Congregation in 1923. These included letters from
Rabbi Elchanan Zvi Guterman, Chief Rabbi of Scranton, PA , Rabbi Yehuda Leib Levin of Detroit,
MI , Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel, and Rabbi Eliezer Silver, president of the Agudat Harabonim .
Rabbi Amsel responded by stating that he held nothing but high regard for Rabbi Shapiro, which
made it all the more troubling why he remained obstinate. The bottom line was that the
overwhelming weight of opinions on the matter disqualified city water for mikva’ot. He then
offered a point by point refutation of the arguments presented by Rabbi Shapiro.
After the exchange, Rabbi Shapiro, exasperated and bitter over the negative publicity directed
against him, finally acceded to renovating the mikveh. In a letter to the Helmetzer Rebbe signed
by “The Avrechim (yeshiva students) of Seattle and environs”, dated March 18, it was announced
that the Seattle rabbinate agreed to upgrade the mikveh according to the specifications laid out by
him. A wealthy patron of the community had stepped up and offered to cover the requisite expense
and two recent yeshiva graduates who were in the construction business accepted the task of
making the necessary renovations. Then in 1963, a new rainwater mikveh was built next to the
Bikur Cholim synagogue and the Helmetzer made a follow-up trip to Seattle to inspect and give
his stamp of approval for it. However, the community’s use of this new mikveh was short lived,
since by 1970, Bikur Cholim was the last remaining Orthodox synagogue to migrate away from
the Seattle’s Central District to the Seward Park neighborhood, where the current mikveh
continues to serve the needs of its community.

47
Discussion
The Seattle mikveh controversy was a symptom of the changing times of the American rabbinate
in the mid-20th century. It was around this time that dozens of Jewish communities abandoned
their use of city water for their mikva’ot. However, it was in Seattle where two forces, the waning
authority of the local rabbi and the emerging authority of the nation’s gedolim, came to a head.
From the inception of an organized Orthodox union in the US, it was generally accepted that the
autonomous authority of the congregational rabbi would be respected. When the convention of the
very first Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in the US was held on June 8, 1898, with Rev.
Dr. H. Pereira Mendes—spiritual leader of the Spanish and Porguese Synagogue of New York
City-- as president, among the principles adopted by its members was “to strengthen
congregational life, but not to interfere in congregational autonomy” (emphasis added).
In the beginning of the 20th century, the model for most of the rabbis that served these early
American Orthodox communities was that of a learned man in all areas of halakha, a jack of all
trades who set kashrut standards, wrote gittin, was the town mohel, built mikva’ot, etc. He was
more than likely European-born and European-trained. Moreover, the hierarchical structure for
halakhic authority in the US was very loose or non-existent in those early years. Universally or
even widely recognized final arbiters in halakha (leaders of the stature of a Rabbi Moshe Feinstein,
for example) were not found on the American Orthodox scene. The roshei yeshiva and mentors of
these early rabbis often resided thousands of miles away in Europe and were thus not always easily
accessible to field questions of their former students. In times when they were able to do so, they
were not always tuned in to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, nor of the state of affairs
of the community in question, factors that might possibly affect the outcome of a decision. As a
result, the final halakhic authority, whether by right or by default, rested upon the local rabbi.
Over the years, as more and more home-grown American students assumed positions in the
rabbinate, these rabbis tended to compartmentalize their talents. Rabbis who were equipped to
evaluate all areas of halakha became less and less common. For the more complicated halakhic
matters that were beyond the scope of their expertise, they deferred their halakhic decisions to their
roshei yeshivot and highly acclaimed gedolei Yisrael, who resided outside of their community.
Modes of communication were improved and the length of time in which rabbinic authorities could
consult with one another was vastly shortened. Thus, this new group of Torah leaders slowly began
to supplant the local rabbi as the final authority in halakha. This more centralized model of
authority provided an advantage as well as a disadvantage in evaluating questions posed in local
communities. On the one hand the gadol might bring to the fore a higher level of erudition and
analysis to the specific matter at hand. But on the other hand, only the local rabbi was privy to all
the minutiae and subtle particulars of the case and was personally acquainted with the parties
affected by the outcome of the decision. Therefore no one was more uniquely suited than he to
decide the matter, from his vantage point.
In my opinion, this last point is one that should have played a major role in determining the validity
of the Seattle mikveh. The outcome of the issue was very dependent on a detailed understanding
of the specific water system in question. Were there any pumps or holding tanks that might pose a
problem? Did the conveyance of water in the system involve direct human intervention? It is clear
from the available literature that those authorities who came out against the Seattle mikveh (and
all other such mikva’ot) in the 1950s did so, not because they paid close attention to the specifics
of its municipal water system, but because they wished to unilaterally do away with the practice

48
for all communities in all situations. Though it is now very difficult to turn back the clock and
analyze the specific features of the Seattle water system as it existed in the 1950s, we do know that
it was a) a gravity based system that b) was fed, at least from the watershed to the reservoirs, by a
series of woodstave pipes, both factors that would mitigate some of the concerns raised about a
city water system.
Furthermore, Rabbi Shapiro was a leader who by no means favored a liberal attitude toward
observance of Jewish law. To the contrary, he belonged to the traditional camp of Orthodox Jewry
and was a champion of strict adherence to halakha. In 1929, when his synagogue voted to remove
its mechitza, he promptly resigned and formed a new congregation that was called “Machzikay
Hadath” (Upholders of the Faith) with the members who remained loyal to him. Nevertheless, his
guiding principle in rendering halakhic decisions was “ko’ah de’hetera” – a penchant toward
leniency that was grounded upon a solid footing in traditional halakhic sources.
In the end, the opponents of city water mikva’ot have succeeded in completely doing away with a
practice that, was once ubiquitous upon the American landscape.

49