We all use a mikvah (ritual bath) at some point in our lives, yet many of us do not know how mikva’ot are constructed and maintained. Over the next few chapters, we will outline the basic principles of hilchot mikva’ot. We begin with a discussion of the parameters of a community’s obligation to create mikva’ot.
The Obligation to Build a Mikvah
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 163:3) codifies a ruling of the Mahari Mintz (Teshuvot 7) that the entire community must pay for the building of a mikvah. Even those individuals who do not normally use a mikvah, such as elderly couples, must share in the cost of its construction and maintenance.1Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, C.M 141) outlines how community leaders should divide the costs of building a mikvah among community members. According to Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, C.M. 1:42), this communal obligation applies even when an amply large mikvah already exists in a nearby area, if the community is not within walking distance of the existing mikvah. In fact, if the nearest mikvah is two miles away, Rav Moshe (C.M. 1:40) requires the entire community to help build a closer mikvah, provided that most of the community supports the new mikvah’s construction.2In this responsum, Rav Moshe addresses the Monsey, NY, community in 1959, when its residents needed to walk two miles to the nearest mikvah. He rules that the community may force everyone to pay for a new mikvah if most people wish to build a closer mikvah. He explains that those who oppose the new mikvah’s construction would benefit somewhat from it, so the majority can force them to pay their share. However, if most people prefer to save money and walk two miles to an existing mikvah, Rav Moshe rules that the minority may not force them to contribute towards a new mikvah that most of the community deems unnecessary. Rav Moshe adds that even the majority may not impose its will on the minority for an invalid reason. For example, they may not force the minority to build a mikvah simply because they do not trust the rabbis who supervise the existing mikva’ot (provided that these rabbis received legitimate ordination and are qualified to supervise mikva’ot).
An anecdote from the Chazon Ish (Pe’er Hador 2:157) vividly illustrates the seriousness of this obligation. The only option available to a certain community in Tel Aviv to construct a mikvah was to transform an existing synagogue into a mikvah and subsequently add a second story where the synagogue’s sanctuary would be rebuilt. However, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 153:9) explicitly forbids transforming a synagogue into a mikvah, so the local rabbi consulted the Chazon Ish regarding how to act. The Chazon Ish pondered the question for a few moments and then dramatically replied, “Better that the learned Jew violate a minor prohibition so that the ignorant Jew will not violate a major transgression.” The Chazon Ish stated his readiness to accept eternal punishment (for condoning the transformation of a synagogue into a mikvah) in order to spare marginally observant Jews from violating the terrible sin of not using the mikvah when necessary.3See Igrot Moshe (C.M. 1:42), where Rav Moshe permits selling a synagogue in order to finance a mikvah, although he urges communities to exhaust all other options before resorting to selling their synagogue. The Chazon Ish faced a more dire situation, as the community in Tel Aviv needed to physically demolish its synagogue.
The Priority to Build a Mikvah Before Other Mitzvot
The Chafetz Chaim (Kuntress Ma’amarim v’Kol Korei p.26) forbids residing in a city that has no mikvah, adding that building a mikvah “enjoys priority over building a synagogue, purchasing a Torah scroll, or any other mitzvah.” Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, C.M. 1:42) buttresses this point by citing the law that one may sell a Torah scroll in order to marry (Megillah 27a). Since the Mishnah (Megillah 25b-26a) teaches that the holiness of a Torah exceeds the holiness of a synagogue, it logically follows that one may also sell a synagogue to facilitate a marriage. Moreover, the Gemara bases the priority of marriage on the need to procreate, as the prophet Yeshayahu states, “[God] did not create the world to be wasted; He formed it to be inhabited” (45:18). Accordingly, Rav Moshe explains that the high priority accorded to marriage applies not just to the wedding itself, but also to anything necessary for the continuity of the marriage. Since mikva’ot play a critical role in the appropriate functioning of a marriage, reasons Rav Moshe, building a mikvah enjoys priority over building a synagogue.
Indeed, the incoming Rav of a community whose members were mostly non-observant asked Rav Yonatan Shteif (Teshuvot Mahari Shteif 187) whether his top priority should be to promote Shabbat observance or mikvah construction and use. Rav Shteif initially replied mikvah should receive the highest priority because one must sacrifice one’s life rather than cohabit with a nidah,4Only three sins take precedence over human life: murder, idolatry, and gilui arayot (illicit relationships). Most authorities include nidah in the category of gilui arayot (see Rambam, Hilchot Isurei Bi’ah 21:4; Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 195 s.v. V’katav Od; and Badei Hashulchan 183, Beiurim s.v. Kol). See, however, Rabbeinu Tam’s Sefer Hayashar (Teshuvot 80). Also see Teshuvot Chavalim Banimim (Yoreh Deah 3:55). whereas one may desecrate Shabbat in life-threatening situations.5We cite this passage in order to highlight the importance of family purity in Judaism. Later in the same responsum, however, Rav Shteif adds that he sees no reason why the rabbi could not teach his community about both Shabbat and nidah at the same time. Many other factors might also impact a Rav’s course of action when dealing with a community of beginners.
Ensuring Modesty and Comfort
Rav Moshe (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:91) writes that the community must build a mikvah in a place that guarantees the women’s privacy. Rav Yirmiyah Katz, based on his extensive experience in the area of mikva’ot, has told me that it is critical that communities not use the same mikvah for men and women on a regular basis. The knowledge that men regularly immerse in the same mikvah causes some women discomfort, as they feel that this arrangement compromised their privacy (even though the men and women have different hours there, of course). Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 3:64) also mentions the practice of building separate mikva’ot in order to alleviate this concern.6See, however, Teshuvot Sho’eil Umeishiv (3:1:123), writing in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Rav Moshe (Yoreh Deah 2:90), the Chazon Ish (Y.D. 123:5), and the Minchat Yitzchak (9:94) also encourage communities to maintain high aesthetic and hygienic standards at the mikvah, lest any woman hesitate to use it.
Temporary Closing of a Mikvah
The need often arises to expand or otherwise renovate a mikvah. The question then arises whether we are permitted to temporarily close a mikvah in order to expedite the completion of the necessary work.7In the next chapter, we note the practice to inspect mikva’ot specifically on Tisha B’Av so as not to interfere with mikvah use. Rav Meir Arik (Teshuvot Imrei Yosher 2:201) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:91) both forbid temporarily closing a mikvah. They cite a passage from the Gemara (Megillah 26b) that prohibits temporarily closing a synagogue to facilitate its repair, lest the people will procrastinate and fail to expend the money and effort to rebuild the synagogue. This concern should similarly apply to a mikvah, for we have seen that building a mikvah is even more important than building a synagogue. Indeed, Rav Moshe forbids closing the mikvah “even for one day.”
Building a Mikvah to the Highest Halachic Standards
Already since the time of the Rishonim, the practice has been to act exceptionally strictly regarding a mikvah’s construction and maintenance.8See Tashbetz 1:17, Beit Yosef 201 (p. 100a in the new editions), and Teshuvot Radbaz 1:85. We seek to accommodate even opinions that represent a small minority of halachic authorities and are not even cited in the Shulchan Aruch.9The closest analogy in most Jews’ direct experience is our exceptionally stringent avoidance of chametz on Pesach. Rav Yirmiyah Katz (Mikveh Mayim, vol. 3 p. 13-17) assembles a long list of authorities who record this practice.10These authorities include Maharam Lublin (Teshuvot 97), Teshuvot Divrei Chaim (2:99), Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (4:75), Teshuvot Minchat Elazar (4:7), Teshuvot Mahari Shteif (71), Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov (2:90 and 3:57), and Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (9:94). In fact, already the Tashbetz (1:17) and Radbaz (Teshuvot 1:85) urge constructing mikva’ot that conform to all opinions. The Maharam Lublin adds, however, that when he came to a town with a preexisting mikvah that did not satisfy a particular opinion, he chose not to change it, so as not to imply that the community’s earlier generations had sinned in building a mikvah that relied on a legitimate lenient opinion. See, on the other hand, Mikveh Mayim (vol. 3, pp.25-29), who cites many authorities who either limit or altogether reject the notion that we must hesitate to upgrade a mikvah lest we cast aspersions (la’az) on prior generations. Indeed, although Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:136) regards the size of an amah (cubit) to be 21.25 inches in the context of almost all halachot, including the laws of Shabbat, regarding mikva’ot Rav Moshe urges treating an amah as twenty-four inches. Moreover, in a later responsum (Y.D. 2:89), Rav Moshe is even stricter and advises treating an amah as 24.5 inches in the context of hilchot mikva’ot.
A popular story about the Chazon Ish claims he once remarked that he had never seen an invalid mikvah, due to the many stringencies that we practice when constructing mikva’ot. Moreover, my cousin Rav Yosef Singer (who for many decades supervised the Lower East Side of Manhattan mikvah under the guidance of Rav Moshe Feinstein) relates that Rav Moshe utilized every possible opportunity to enhance and upgrade the mikvah. For example, although the mikvah originally used metal pipes to transport water from the roof to the mikvah, Rav Moshe later installed plastic pipes.11See Rama (Yoreh Deah 201:36) and Pitchei Teshuvah (Y.D. 201:24) regarding the use of both wooden and metal pipes, and Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (4:36:2), Taharat Hamayim (Chapter 52), and Mikveh Mayim (vol. 3 pp. 171-172) regarding the use of plastic pipes.
The poskim offer a number of reasons for this stringency. The Divrei Chaim (Y.D. 2:99) writes, “One should strive to construct a mikvah that will be acceptable to all opinions because mikvah embodies the holiness of the Jewish People.” Rav Yaakov Breisch (Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov 3:57) notes that if a community’s rabbis decide to rule leniently when certifying the kashrut of a particular food product or establishment, then those rare individuals who observe additional chumrot (stringencies) may simply decline to purchase their food there. However, we must create a mikvah with the highest possible standards, accommodating the needs of even the most pious and stringent individuals, for they cannot refrain from using the mikvah.
Rav Moshe Heinemann elaborated on this point during a lecture at a conference of the Council of Young Israel Rabbis. He noted that in the classical Jewish communities in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, the local Rav constructed the mikvah in accordance with that area’s traditions and practices. However, now that Jews from a wide range of places and traditions have settled in America, we must construct mikva’ot in a manner that satisfies all of these traditions.12Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Mo’adim Uzmanim 4:308 note 1) adopts this approach as well. For example, when Rav Heinemann helped plan the construction of a mikvah in Lakewood, NJ, he consulted Rav Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rav, to ensure that the mikvah would meet his standards.13The Satmar Rav is considered a leading authority in the area of mikva’ot. The Satmar Rav (quoted in the Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 9:94 and the aforementioned Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov) himself favored constructing mikva’ot that satisfy all views, reportedly stating that the mikvah is supposed to purify us, rather than us needing to “purify” it by defending its validity.
On the other hand, Rav Moshe (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 1:111) cautions that those who believe they can create a mikvah that will satisfy literally all opinions are incorrect. In practice, rabbis must pay attention to accepted norms among observant communities and exercise their judgment accordingly regarding which minority opinions to accommodate. For example, Rav Moshe notes that we routinely immerse in warm mikva’ot even though some Rishonim forbid this practice.14See Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 201:75) and Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 201:214-217). We also do not follow the small group of Rishonim who require a zavah15We explain the concept of zavah and its applications for today in our chapter entitled “‘Orthodox Infertility’: When Halachah Interferes with Conception.” Today, we assume that all women might have the status of zavah (see Nidah 67b). Consequently, if we accepted this minority opinion, women would always be required to immerse in natural springs rather than mikva’ot. to immerse in a natural spring rather than a mikvah.16Rashi (Shabbat 65b s.v. V’savar) cites and rejects this view. Rav Yaakov Emden (Teshuvot Sh’eilat Ya’avetz 1:88) offers a logical defense of this view, even though he notes that we do not accept it in practice. Also see Bach (beginning of Y.D. 201), who explains this view as a rabbinic enactment. Elsewhere (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 2:89), Rav Moshe writes, “In small towns, one should certainly not be especially strict to impose an enormous financial burden” to accommodate minority opinions.17Rav Moshe is addressing the views of the Ra’avad and Rabbeinu Yerucham regarding zeri’ah and hashakah, which we discuss in the third and fifth chapters of our discussion of mikva’ot. Indeed, Rav Yirmiyah Katz stated in 2001 at a conference of Young Israel Rabbis that it is possible to create a basic mikvah (that does not accommodate every stringency) in the range of $20,000 for a small and outlying Jewish community. Even in large communities, excessive stringency can inhibit the construction of a much-needed mikvah. Indeed, the Divrei Malkiel (3:67), who elsewhere encourages building mikva’ot that conform to all opinions (4:85), endorses the decision of a rabbi in Paris to build a mikvah that met the rabbi’s own standards, with which the Divrei Malkiel agreed, even though it disregarded a stringent minority opinion. He explains:
You ruled properly to permit the mikvah in this manner; yasher ko’ach for doing a great service to such a large city. We must be exceedingly careful to create mikva’ot that are readily accessible to all, lest they will - God forbid - altogether avoid immersing. In such situations, an astute scholar will not apply chumrot (stringencies) that lack any foundation according to the pure letter of the law.
Supervision by Major Authorities
As we have seen, building and maintaining mikva’ot require a very advanced level of Torah scholarship, as well as the judgment to balance appropriately the desire to accommodate all views with practical considerations (such as financial limitations). These issues arise not only during the mikvah’s construction, but also during its ongoing maintenance. Accordingly, every mikvah needs a qualified Rav to supervise its construction and maintenance. In a letter from 1990, Rav Moshe Stern (author of Teshuvot Be’er Moshe) and five other prominent rabbis outlined several criteria for proper mikvah supervision.18The letter appeared on Rav Stern’s stationery, but it was also signed by Rav Reuven Feinstein, Rav Avraham Pam, Rav Tuvia Goldstein, Rav Avraham Asher Zimmerman, and Rav Avraham Fischel Hershkovitz. Also see Rav Shlomo Dichovsky’s comments, cited at the beginning of next chapter, and Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (9:94) regarding the high level of expertise required for building mikva’ot. They require the supervising rabbi to have achieved a level of scholarship where people trust him to rule on any halachic topic (and not just the laws of mikva’ot). A rabbi of this stature must supervise the construction of the mikvah and continue to supervise its maintenance by inspecting at least once a month (preferably bi-weekly). In addition, the rabbi must appoint someone trustworthy to supervise the mikvah from day to day, yet this appointee may never rule himself on halachic questions that arise regarding the mikvah. Moreover, the supervising rabbi’s identity must be publicized to the Jewish community.
Mystical Considerations
The Baal Shem Tov (cited in Mikveh Mayim, Introduction to vol. 3) reportedly suggests that Chabbakuk 3:12, “Through za’am (fury) You [God] march through the land; with anger You crush nations,” alludes to the power of mikva’ot. The Baal Shem Tov interprets “za’am” as an acronym for zevichah (ritual slaughtering), ‘eiruvin, and mikva’ot. Thus, when God sees that we scrupulously observe these three areas, he eradicates our enemies.
In fact, Rav Katz records that in 1943, when Hitler (may his evil name be blotted out) positioned his troops in Egypt, poised to conquer Eretz Yisrael, a group of leading Chasidic Rebbes assembled in Jerusalem and pledged to do their utmost to build and enhance mikva’ot throughout Eretz Yisrael, hoping to thus prevent the Nazis from entering. Shortly after their meeting, Hitler suffered military losses that forced him to abort his plans for invading Eretz Yisrael. That meeting also sowed the seeds of the establishment of the Va’ad L’Taharat HaMishpachah, which supervises the functioning of the more than 1500 mikva’ot in Israel today.
Conclusion
Rav Katz told the 2001 conference of the Council of Young Israel Rabbis that, in contrast to Israel, only about three hundred mikva’ot function in the United States. He urged rabbis and community leaders to do their utmost to change the facts on the ground and establish a wider network of mikva’ot in this country to facilitate easy access to mikva’ot, so women will not need to endure long drives or long lines in order to immerse.