הלכה על במדבר 31:57

In Parshat Matot (Bemidbar 31:21-23) the Torah presents the basic rules of kashering: “Every object that has gone through fire, you shall pass through fire and it will become pure.” This verse teaches that every non-kosher utensil that was used directly with fire must be kashered with fire. Rashi (ad loc., based on Pesachim 30b and Avodah Zarah 75b) explains that the phrase “has gone through fire” alludes to one of two methods for kashering utensils, depending on how the utensil cooked the non-kosher food. If the non-kosher food was cooked directly on the utensil (such as on a grill), absent a liquid medium, then one kashers the utensil by heating it in a fire (libun). If, however, the non-kosher food was boiled in a pot containing hot water, then the utensil may be kashered via boiling hot water (hag’alah). The Torah also teaches that if only cold non-kosher food was placed in a utensil, one merely needs to clean the dish before using it with kosher food (Bemidbar 31:23).¹Of course, any metal or glass utensil acquired from a non-Jew must also be immersed in a mikvah (see Rashi, Bemidbar 31:23).

In Parshat Matot (Bemidbar 31:21-23) the Torah presents the basic rules of kashering: “Every object that has gone through fire, you shall pass through fire and it will become pure.” This verse teaches that every non-kosher utensil that was used directly with fire must be kashered with fire. Rashi (ad loc., based on Pesachim 30b and Avodah Zarah 75b) explains that the phrase “has gone through fire” alludes to one of two methods for kashering utensils, depending on how the utensil cooked the non-kosher food. If the non-kosher food was cooked directly on the utensil (such as on a grill), absent a liquid medium, then one kashers the utensil by heating it in a fire (libun). If, however, the non-kosher food was boiled in a pot containing hot water, then the utensil may be kashered via boiling hot water (hag’alah). The Torah also teaches that if only cold non-kosher food was placed in a utensil, one merely needs to clean the dish before using it with kosher food (Bemidbar 31:23).¹Of course, any metal or glass utensil acquired from a non-Jew must also be immersed in a mikvah (see Rashi, Bemidbar 31:23).

Two additional traditional sources about the quality of life relate to Moses. One homiletical passage states that if Moses had wanted to live many more years he could have lived, for the Holy One, blessed be He, told him, "Avenge the vengeance of the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward thou shalt be gathered unto thy people" (Numbers 31:2), making his death dependent upon the punishment of Midian.¹³Numbers Rabbah 22: 2. Had he delayed waging war with Midian, he could have prolonged his life. But Moses decided not to delay. He thought: Shall Israel's vengeance be delayed that I may live? He immediately ordered the Israelites "Arm ye men from among you for the war" (Numbers 31:3). Why did not Moses wait? One must conclude that the desire or need to avenge Jewish honor took precedence over increasing his life span. Sanctity of life is not the supreme value in Judaism. The quality of life of his nation, which had been degraded by the Midianites, who led Jewish youth to lechery and idol worship, had to be restored in preference to a longer personal life for Moses.

Two additional traditional sources about the quality of life relate to Moses. One homiletical passage states that if Moses had wanted to live many more years he could have lived, for the Holy One, blessed be He, told him, "Avenge the vengeance of the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward thou shalt be gathered unto thy people" (Numbers 31:2), making his death dependent upon the punishment of Midian.¹³Numbers Rabbah 22: 2. Had he delayed waging war with Midian, he could have prolonged his life. But Moses decided not to delay. He thought: Shall Israel's vengeance be delayed that I may live? He immediately ordered the Israelites "Arm ye men from among you for the war" (Numbers 31:3). Why did not Moses wait? One must conclude that the desire or need to avenge Jewish honor took precedence over increasing his life span. Sanctity of life is not the supreme value in Judaism. The quality of life of his nation, which had been degraded by the Midianites, who led Jewish youth to lechery and idol worship, had to be restored in preference to a longer personal life for Moses.

Aside from these individuals, the Bible contains other examples of wars where the spiritual elite fought. Rashi (Bemidbar 31:3) asserts that the soldiers in the wars against Amaleik (Shemot 17:8-16) and Midyan (Bemidbar 31) were specifically chosen based on their religious piety. The Radak and Malbim (Shofetim 5:14) explain that, after defeating the army of Canaan, the prophetess Devorah gave special praise to the people of Machir and Zevulun precisely because their religious leaders fought in the battle. All of these sources clearly teach that no fundamental problem exists with spiritual leaders serving in an army. The advisability of their service in the Israeli army today, however, remains to be determined.

The Talmud never states explicitly that the Levites did not serve in the army. The Sifrei (commenting on Bemidbar 31:4) addresses this issue regarding the war between the Jews and Midyan, but textual variants lead to opposing conclusions. Rashi's text of the Sifrei (in his commentary on that verse), understands that the Torah includes ("lerabot") Levi in the army that fought against Midyan. However, the Gra's text of the Sifrei reads "to exclude (lehotzi) the tribe of Levi" from that war. This passage in the Sifrei thus proves nothing about Levi's role in the army.

Nonetheless, some authorities do permit kashering metal dishwashers, but it is not entirely clear how to do so. The Torah articulates the basic guidelines of kashering in Bemidbar (31:23), “That which became not kosher through contact with fire must be kashered with fire, and that which became not kosher in a water medium, must be kashered in a water medium.” This verse establishes the principle that an item must be kashered in the same manner as its use. Dishwashers come in contact with food particles through hot water, so they should be kashered with hot water (hag’alah). Rav Moshe writes that when kashering a dishwasher, a hot brick must be placed inside the dishwasher to boost its water’s temperature to the boiling point,¹¹Dr. Joel Berman notes that, scientifically speaking, it is difficult to imagine how this brick would raise the water to the boiling point. The brick would not access all of the water, and the brick’s outside temperature would rapidly fall as the water cooled it down. based on the practice of using boiling water whenever water is required (see Taz, Yoreh Deah 94:3 and Mishnah Berurah 452:8). Hence, even though the water’s temperature never climbs higher than 190 F in dishwashers,¹²In a lecture at Yeshiva University in 1989, Rav Moshe Tendler reported that at that time the water did not get hotter than 190tF. kashering them still requires boiling water.

Parenthetically, it is significant that in these comments Ramban speaks of a prohibition devolving upon the census-taker. Joab is described as being troubled because he would incur transgression by virtue of taking a census. Although Ramban is silent with regard to a transgression on the part of those who are counted, it is clear that the danger of epidemic (or, according to Hizkuni, Numbers 31:49, the danger of being killed in battle) clearly devolves upon those who are counted. However, Sefer Hasidim (Frankfurt am Main, 1924), no. 1411, adopts a contrary position. According to Sefer Hasidim, the prohibition devolves only upon those who are counted, but not upon the census-taker. It may also be noted that Yalkut Shim'oni, II Samuel 24, records that God's anger was aroused against Israel at the time of Joab's census because the populace did not resist Joab in his endeavor.

The basic notion advanced by Levush and Mizraḥi, viz., that the giving of a "ransom" need not be simultaneous with the taking of the census, is found in the comments of an early authority. Rashbam, Numbers 31:49, speaks of an offering subsequent to the taking of the census as serving as a form of "ransom."

R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De'ah, II, no. 164, expresses doubt with regard to whether an airplane is subject to defilement despite the fact that it is made of metal. Iggerot Mosheh suggests that "perhaps" only the six metals specified in Numbers 31:23, viz., gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead, have the halakhic status of metal. Those materials, together with mercury which is actually a liquid, constitute the seven metals of antiquity. Arsenic was discovered in the thirteenth century by Albertus Magnus and a number of other metals, including zinc, were discovered only subsequently. However, most other metals were unknown until relatively modern times. Iggerot Mosheh suggests that only the enumerated metals are susceptible to defilement and that it is for that reason that they are named individually in Numbers 31:23 rather than collectively identified as metals. Iggerot Mosheh points out that, biblically, glass is not susceptible to defilement despite the fact that it is comparable to metal in the sense that it is melted, rather than destroyed, by fire. Accordingly, Iggerot Mosheh suggests that since airplanes are composed primarily of metals discovered during subsequent periods of history, i.e., aluminum and titanium, a plane cannot become defiled and hence the airplane itself may serve as an interposition preventing defilement from entering the passenger section. Although the material used for that purpose in the construction of airplanes is a mixture of one of the metals of antiquity and subsequently discovered metals, the halakhic identity of the entire mixture, asserts Iggerot Mosheh, is that of its major component. The halakhic status of modern metals will be more fully discussed in a subsequent section.

An even more crucial issue is whether the airplane is constructed of material that is susceptible to defilement. According to reports in the rabbinic literature, the composition of the material of which airplanes are constructed is 75 percent aluminum, some titanium, and approximately 15-25 percent steel and copper. Tiferet Yisra'el, in his introduction to Seder Tohorot, Yevakesh Da'at, sec. 44, cites a statement of R. Elijah of Vilna, commonly known as the Gra, in the latter's Eliyahu Rabbah, in which he declares that there are six species of metal: gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead, i.e., the species enumerated in Numbers 31:22. Those metals, together with mercury, which at room temperature is actually a liquid, constitute the seven metals known in antiquity.⁴⁶The statement that only seven metals (including mercury) were known in antiquity may not be entirely accurate. The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 33b, speaks of utensils made of natar, a material identified by the Gemara as being derived from the “digging” or excavation from which ẓerif is extracted. The status of this material is discussed more fully in the following subsection. Rashi defines ẓerif as alum. In context, the Gemara declares that utensils made of natar in which non-kosher food has been cooked cannot be kashered by conventional methods. That statement is readily understandable: since the utensil is made of earth its status is that of ḥeres, which cannot be kashered. Rabbenu Shimshon, Kelim 2:1, states explicitly that utensils made of natar have a status identical to that of ḥeres and hence, if such utensils become defiled, they cannot be purified by immersion in a mikveh. Maharsha, however, explains a comment of Tosafot, ad locum, as reflecting the notion that, although implements made of natar are highly absorbent and hence cannot be kashered, just as ḥeres cannot be kashered for that reason, nevertheless, for purposes of laws of ritual purity, the status of the vessel is that of a metal utensil. Rabbi Spitzer, Kol ha-Torah, no. 52, p. 182, astutely comments that, according to Maharsha’s understanding of Tosafot, the material must have been extracted from earth in which it was found in a natural state but, since refining methods known at the time were imperfect, the extracted metal retained a high concentration of earth or sand. Those particles of sand remained highly absorbent and hence the utensil could not be kashered. Nevertheless, the utensil itself, even though it was composed of an incompletely refined substance, according to Maharsha’s understanding of Tosafot, had the status of a metal utensil. Putting aside the question of the correct interpretation of Tosafot, Maharsha, in agreement with Tiferet Yisra’el, certainly accepted as an antecedent premise the notion that the six enumerated metals do not constitute an exhaustive list. Tiferet Yisra'el, however, takes note of the fact that in the modern period metallurgists have succeeded in identifying and refining additional metals. Accordingly, he asserts that newly discovered metals must either be regarded as subspecies of the metals enumerated in Scripture⁴⁷See infra, note 55. R. Yirmiyahu Deutsch, Tohorat ha-Kohanim, pp. 197f., cites by way of comparison the seven species of kosher animals enumerated in Scripture and the three species identified as non-kosher because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. Other kosher species are regarded as subspecies of the deer and the sheep; the alpaca and the llama are regarded as subspecies of the non-kosher camel even though zoologists do not recognize them as members of the same genus. Accordingly, Rabbi Deutsch argues that there is no way to determine with certainty that modern metals are not subspecies of those enumerated by Scripture. That argument is not compelling for the simple reason that the Torah spells out the criteria of both kosher and non-kosher species and animals not specifically mentioned do manifest the specified criteria. However, the Torah does not spell out the criteria of a metal; moreover, modern metals do not in any way share the chemical profile of the enumerated metals. Hence there is no reason to suspect that they may be subspecies of the six biblically enumerated species. or that the list is not intended to be exhaustive.⁴⁸Rabbi Spitzer, Kol ha-Torah, no. 52, p. 181, draws attention to Rambam’s formulation regarding the defilement of metal implements. Rambam, Hilkhot Kelim 1:1, states simply that metal implements are subject to defilement but fails to enumerate the six metals. That omission might suggest that the rule extends to all metals rather than only to the six specifically enumerated in Scripture. That inference is, however, less than compelling. Since modern metals were as yet unknown in his day, Rambam had no reason to exclude them by specifying the metals to which the rule applies. Scripture, on the other hand, must perforce have been concerned with providing a full and accurate rule for posterity.

Utensils which are acquired from a non-Jew and are designed for use in the preparation or serving of food require immersion in a mikveh prior to use. This requirement is derived from Numbers 31:23 and is viewed as biblical in nature by the overwhelming majority of authorities.

Tiferet Yisra'el's alternative suggestion, viz., that the list presented in Numbers 31:22 is paradigmatic rather than exhaustive, is more plausible but gives rise to the further problems of determining the halakhic definition of "metal." Tiferet Yisra'el himself defines metal as any substance that can be hammered into thin sheets, i.e., the halakhic category of "metal" includes all malleable and ductile substances. However, that definition seems to be contradicted by Rashi, Rosh ha-Shanah 19b, s.v. ve-ḥakhamin, who explains that, biblically, glass is not subject to defilement in the manner of metal utensils because "the only metal utensils subject to biblical defilement are those enumerated in the [biblical] section [dealing with the utensils seized from the Midianites]." Since glass is certainly not ductile, according to Tiferet Yisra'el, no further explanation for why it is not subject to defilement as a metal should be necessary and hence Rashi's comment would be rendered superfluous. Moreover, Rashi seems to imply that the list of metals enumerated in Numbers 31:22 is exhaustive. It is difficult to read Rashi's comment (as Rabbis Halberstadt and Goldmintz, Kanfei Yonah, p. 23, apparently do) as designed simply to explain that glass is not comparable to the materials named in Scripture but that Rashi leaves it to the reader to discern that glass is not comparable because it is not malleable.

The first question examined by Rabbi Bluth is whether any utensil made of aluminum need be immersed prior to use. Tiferet Yisra'el, Yevakesh Da'at, sec. 44, cites the opinion of the R. Elijah of Vilna, who maintains that the biblical obligation with regard to immersion of utensils is limited to vessels made of the six types of metal enumerated in Numbers 31:23; viz., gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead. Since aluminum is not among the enumerated substances, it follows that, according to R. Elijah of Vilna, there exists no biblical obligation with regard to the immersion of aluminum utensils even if they were to resemble other metal utensils in every other respect. Nevertheless, argues Rabbi Bluth, aluminum utensils require immersion for three reasons:

It is noteworthy that the biblical locus of the controversy regarding the status of modern metals is not a passage containing a provision directly pertaining to defilement associated with contact with a dead person but a verse that occurs in the context of booty acquired in the course of the war against the people of Midian. The talmudic interpretation of Numbers 31:23, "and all that cannot go through the fire you shall cause to go through the water," is that the verse establishes a requirement for immersing utensils acquired from a non-Jew in a mikveh. That requirement is limited to implements made of materials to which reference is made, i.e., all utensils susceptible to defilement. Thus the question of the status of modern metals such as aluminum is a matter of concern not only for kohanim contemplating plane trips but is of significance for any Jew who purchases aluminum eating or cooking utensils from a non-Jewish purveyor. It is therefore not surprising that most of the contemporary rabbinic discussions of the status of modern-day metals occur in that context.

This ruling is sharply challenged by Rabbi Menasheh Klein in the Kislev 5738 issue of Sha'arei Halakhot, a publication of Yeshiva Bais Shearim.⁶Similarly, Tevilat Kelim 11:52, citing R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach and R. Shmuel ha-Levi Wosner, rules that toasters require immersion. Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, no. 120, presents an analysis of the concept of "utensils used in conjunction with a meal." The obligation with regard to the immersion of utensils acquired from a non-Jew is derived from Numbers 31:23. The Bible commands that implements seized as spoils of war in the course of the battle against Midian be kashered, i.e., purged of nonkosher matter absorbed by the utensils, by means of burning in fire or boiling. The obligation to immerse the vessels in a mikveh, in addition to the obligation with regard to kashering, is derived by the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 75b, from a pleonasm in the text. Hatam Sofer indicates that the obligation concerning immersion is coextensive with the obligation concerning kashering, i.e., any utensil which requires kashering prior to use for its designed purpose also requires immersion. Thus the obligation is limited to "utensils used in conjunction with a meal" since only eating implements need be kashered, although such utensils must be immersed even though they are not used for hot foods. Rabbi Klein shows that this analysis of the nature of the obligation concerning immersion is also formulated by Ritva in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 75b and by Issur ve-Hetter, sha'ar 58, no. 83, and may be inferred from Rashi's comments, Avodah Zarah 75b, as well.

There is a pious individual whose heart eagerly pursues the will of his Creator. He does not increase his good deeds as does the wise pious man who is instructed by his teacher and is therefore (also) wise. The reason why the good deeds of the other are not many is because he is not instructed by a teacher. However, if he did know (receive instruction) he would fulfill (his share of good deeds), because they have said, “A man should always be deliberate (schooled) in the fear of the Lord.”¹Berakoth 17a. Behold, one who has not learned, his heart is not like a sponge to absorb learning, and even if he has a teacher, behold, his heart is closed and at time disarrayed, he is unable to understand and know. And we find in the Torah that any one who is able to understand (what is proper to do) even though he was not commanded, is punished if he did not take the matter to heart.²Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (reprint of 1st ed., 1881-1885; New York: Hebrew Publishing Co.), Part 3, Chapter XVII, p. 73. For it is written, “And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousand, and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. And Moses said unto them: ‘Have ye saved all the women alive?’” (Num. 31:14). Why did they not answer him, “Why then did you not command us? You did not tell us to put the women to death.” But Moses knew that there were wise men and experts able to argue a conclusion a minori ad majus.³Yalkut Reuveni (Warsaw: Levin and Epstein Publishers), Numbers, Chapter II, pp. 118-119. If with the Caananites where it is written “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,” “That they teach you not to do etc.…” (Deut. 20:16-18), and it is written, “For he will turn away thy son from following Me” (Deut. 7:4), lest he cause you to sin in the future, (they are to be put to death) these who have already sinned and caused others to sin is it not a matter of course that you should have argued a conclusion a minori ad majus⁴Sanhedrin 68a. (that they be put to death). Similarly, when the angels said to Balaam, “Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass” (Num. 22:32), why did he not reply “What transgression is it that I hit my ass.” Even the prohibition not to cause pain to a live thing does not apply. She did not buckle because of the load (but because of an angel that blocked the road). Also when she squeezed his leg why should he not hit her? Because he should have reflected, “Perhaps it is without the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, that I curse them. He permitted (me) only to reveal to them the future, for it is said, ‘If the men are come to call thee’ (Num. 22:20), you should tell them of the future.” The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that he (Balaam) would rejoice if he were allowed to curse Israel, and this is what is said, “I have sinned for I know not that thou (angel) stoodest in the way against me” (Num. 22:34). (And yet) on the contrary the reverse stands to reason, because he did not know that he (the angel) stood opposite him he did not sin. However, he said thus, “I sinned because I did not take the pains to know, I did not examine and search into the roots of the (my) transgression.” From this we learn that a man should be deliberate in the fear of the Lord since he is punished because of his ignorance. He must know and investigate, for in the presence of the Ruler you will not be able to plead inadvertence, as Shimei was unable to say to Solomon, “ I forgot that I went out to the river Kidron.”⁵I Kings 2:40. It is for this reason that I said I will write a book for those that fear God lest they think that they are being punished without cause. Heaven forfend, attributing evil to God “For Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness” (Ps. 5:5), and it is written “Warn them from Me. When I say unto the wicked: O’ wicked man thou shalt surely die, and thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way; that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn … the righteous he shall surely live… but thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33:7-9). The seven warnings correspond to the (seven) abominations of the heart: “There are six things that the Lord hateth, Yea seven which are an abomination unto Him” (Prov. 6:16); and to, “Seven times more for your sins” (Lev. 26:18). “But thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33:9), mark that he does not say “thou hast ‘merited’” or “vindicated” but rather, “thy soul hast thou ‘delivered.’” From this we learn that anyone who has a friend that is being punished and he does not warn him and say to his friend “do not do so,” all the punishment visited upon his friend is attributed to him as if he personally killed his friend, because he should have warned him but he did not.⁶Shabbath 55a. Moreover, we exact from him the blood of his friend, concerning him it is said, “His blood will I require at thy hand” (Ezek. 33:8). For this reason have I prepared this Book of Reverence so that those who fear the word of God be circumspect. And furthermore my son be admonished,⁷Ecclesiastes 12:12. (beforewarned) if I have been mistaken let the wise man set it aright and understand in order to fear God all of the days in truth.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 81a) that zealots would attack one who has sexual intercourse with an Aramean (gentile) publicly in the eyes of ten or more Israelites. And the proof of the thing is the story of Pinchas and Zimri. But the zealot is nonetheless only permitted to attack him at the time of the promiscuous act, and like in the story that happened; as it is stated (Numbers 25:8), "and the woman through her belly." But if he separated [from her], we do not kill him, but [rather] bring him to the court and they administer lashes [upon] him, since he did the act publicly. [If] the zealots did not attack him and the court did not administer lashes [upon] him, we know from the words of tradition that he is [punished] by excision, as it is written (Malachi 2:11-12), "and he who husbands (read here as, who has sexual intercourse with) the daughter of a foreign god. The Lord will excise the man that does it." And a gentile who has sexual relations with an Israelite - if she is a married woman, he is killed over her; but, if not, he is not killed. But a Jew who wantonly has sexual relations with a gentile woman - even [if it is] by way of harlotry - she is nonetheless killed, since a mishap happened to an Israelite through her, like the law of an animal. And this thing is explicit in the Torah, as it is stated (Numbers 31:16-17), "They were the ones that were with the word of Bilaam against the Children of Israel, etc. and any woman that could know a man sexually they killed." [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Avodah Zarah and Yevamot and Kiddushin (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 2).

From the laws of the commandment are what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:1) that the law of the call for peace is with every place - meaning to say whether in a commanded war or in an optional war. And a commanded war is, for example, [against] the seven [Canaanite] nations and Amalek. And [with] all, if they make peace with us - meaning to say, they took upon themselves the tax and servitude, and likewise that they took upon themselves the seven commandments - we do not kill a soul from them, and they will be for tribute and serve us. But when they do not make peace, there is a distinction between a commanded war and an optional: That in a commanded war, we do not keep a soul alive; whereas in an optional war we keep their infants and women alive, as we wrote adjacently. And likewise, in an optional war, we leave one side of a besieged city open, that they can run away from there, and as it is found in Sifrei Bamidbar 157. And we learn this from that which is written (Numbers 31:7), "And they gathered upon Midian as the Lord commanded." But in a war against the seven nations, we encircle them from all sides. However, we nonetheless inform them first that if their will is to leave the city and go away, the option is in their hand.

One may immerse (inaritual bath³⁰Mikveh, מקוה, is a pool or a bath of clear water. When a person immerses in it, it renders ritual cleanliness to one who has become ritually unclean through contact with the dead (Numbers 19) or any other defiling object, or through an unclean flux from the body (Leviticus 15), especially for a menstruant. The mikveh is also used to purify vessels (Numbers 31:22-23). Today the mikveh is used for the menstruant since the laws of ritual purity no longer apply due to the destruction of the Temple. A woman must immerse in the mikveh and purify herself following her menstruation in order to again participate in marital relations. It is also obligatory for proselytes to immerse as part of the ceremony for conversion. Many people still use the mikveh for spiritual purification and thus immerse in it on the eve of the Sabbath, festivals, and especially on the eve of the Day of Atonement. The mikveh serves to purify the spirit, not the body, as described by Maimonides. One has to have a mental intention to purify oneself by immersing in the mikveh.
According to Biblical law any collection of water whether drawn or collected naturally is suitable for a mikveh as long as one person can immerse himself, but the rabbis later stated that only water which has not been drawn, that is not collected in a vessel or recepticle, could be used. The rabbis also established a minimum for the amount of water to be used, that is the amount of water needed to fill a square cubit to the height of three cubits. This is between 250-1,000 liters depending on various calculations. If it contains at least this much undrawn water, any amount of drawn water can be added to it. A whole talmudic tractate Mikva’ot. is devoted to mikvehs and how they are to be constructed.
A mikveh cannot be prefabricated and just installed on a site since this makes it a vessel and constitutes water that has been drawn or collected. It may be built anywhere and out of any material that is water-tight. No water may leak from it, and it must contain the minimun of forty se’ah (250-1,000 liters) of valid, undrawn, water. Originally its height had to be one-hundred and twenty centimeters so one could stand and be totally immersed (even if bending was required). Later it was established that any height was valid if a person could be immersed laying down provided the minimum quantity of water was there.
All natural spring water provided it was not discolored by any admixtures is valid. Rain water or melted snow or ice is ideal for the mikveh provided that it flows unstopped into the mikveh. Pipes may be used to carry this water provided they touch the ground and are thus not considered vessels. A mikveh must be emptied by any means, even a pump, from above. No drain in the bottom is permitted as it makes the mikveh a vessel and subject to leakage. As long as the mikveh has contained at least forty se’ah of valid water, all water added to it, even drawn water is valid.
David Kotlar and Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 11, pp. 1534-44.
A prayer is normally recited after the immersion called al ha-tevilah, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us by His commandments, and commanded us concerning the immersion”.) and accept lashes³¹Lashes and Malkkut Ar’ba’im, מלקות ארבעים, forty lashes is also known as flogging which is a Biblical form of punishment. When no other form of punishment was specifically prescribed, flogging became the standard form of punishment (Deuteronomy 25:2). Flogging was the only punishment in the Bible used as a general rule and not in relation to any particular offence except for the slandering of a virgin where the lashes as well as a fine were prescribed (Deuteronomy 22:18).
The maximum number of stripes to be administered in any one case are forty (Deuteronomy 25:3) for any further flogging the Bible stated, would degrade your brother in your eyes (Deuteronomy 25:3). The intent of the Bible seems to be that forty is the maximum number of stripes allowed, but that each offense and its seriousness could determine the number of stripes from one to forty provided the maximum number was not exceeded.
Talmudical law detailed how the Biblical punishment of flogging was to be administered. All the laws are found in the Talmudic tractate Makkot, מכות. The rabbis altered the Biblical law of flogging reducing the number of the maximum number of stripes to ever be received from forty to thirty-nine (Mak. 22a) so as to avoid the danger that the flogger accidentally might exceed the number of forty lashes. If he were permitted to administer forty lashes, the flogger might have given an extra one before he could have been stopped thus administering forty-one lashes which exceeds the maximum number of lashes allowed by the Bible and disgracing the man in the eyes of his brothers and thus also would the flogger be made subject to flogging for his transgression. Therefore the rabbis ruled that the maximum number of stripes they would allow was thirty-nine, for even if the flogger made a mistake he could be stopped before he exceeded the maximum number of forty stripes even if he gave an extra one as he was being stopped. (This is the reason for the comment by Isserles to this law given by Caro, see footnote 55).
The rabbis carefully defined all the offenses for which flogging would serve as a punishment. The number thirty-nine became the maximum number of stripes for offenses for which flogging was administered. The rabbis though, were careful not to cause death by flogging which would have exceeded the Biblical law. Therefore all people to be flogged were first examined to see if they could physically withstand the punishment. The examiner would then determine the safe number of stripes to be inflicted (Mak. 3:11). Flogging would be stopped if it appeared during the stripes that the man could not take anymore (Mak. 17:5). Flogging could also be postponed a day until a person would be fit to under-go the punishment (Mak. 17:3).
Floggings were administered with a whip made of calfskin to the bare upper body of the offender. One-third of the lashes were given on the breast and the other two-thirds on the back. The one being flogged would stand in a bowed position and the flogger would stand on a stone above him. As the stripes were being given admonitory and consolatory verses from the Bible would be recited (Mak. 3:12-14). If death did result and the flogging had been conducted according to the law, the flogger was not liable. If though, he had not faithfully followed the law, he had to flee to a city of refuge which was the case in any accidental homocide.
Flogging for disciplinary reasons as well as for punishment for other than transgressing actively a prohibition of the Torah was also prescribed by the rabbis and this was usually done in a public place so as to be a deterrent to others to violate laws. Usually disciplinary stripes were given in lesser numbers (that is less than thirty-nine) and were not administered to the bare upper body nor were they given with a leather whip. As time passed, people were more often allowed to pay fines rather than be whipped and whipping all but replaced capital punishment in Israel.
On Yom Kippur a custom arose that after the Minḥah Afternoon Service, forty stripes (according to Caro, but only thirty-nine in Ashkenazi communities as pointed out by Isserles) were administered while the victim repeated the confession, viddui (see footnote 39). The one who administered the flogging was to say “And He (God) pities and will atone sins”, (Psalms 78:38). The purpose of this custom was to increase one’s awareness of his need for confession to atone for his sins. This was a visual and physical admission of sins and it was believed to help one receive complete atonement.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 6, pp. 1348-51; Moshe David Herr, E. J., v. 5, p. 1381. (to effect atonement) whenever desired provided that it is before nightfall, but one does not bless over the immersion.
Hagah: One needs to immerse one time without a confession because of pollution (urinary emmission). The same holds true if one pours nine kavs³²A kav, was a unit of measurement for a liquid. According to present day standards a kav is approximately equivalent to 1.2 liters. of water (upon himself), (if the immersion pains him, (מגן אברהם),³³Magen Avraham, מגן אברהם, is a seventeenth century commentary on the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim which was first printed in Dyhernfurth in 1692. It was highly accepted in Poland and Germany where it became the model for halakhic decisions by the scholars of that country who often differed from other codifiers. The Magen Avraham was written by Abraham Abele ben Ḥayyim ha-Levi Gombiner who lived from 1637 until 1683. He was of Polish birth but he moved to Lithuania after the death of his parents in Chmielnicki Massacres in 1648. After studying there with his relative Jacob Isaac Gombiner he moved to Kalisz where he was appointed head of the yeshivah and dayyan, judge, of the bet din rabbinical court.
Abraham’s commentary is evidence of his vast knowledge of halakhic material. The goal of his work, Magen Avraham was to provide a compromise between the decisions of Joseph Caro and the glosses of Moses Isserles. When no compromise could be arrived at Abraham usually sided with his fellow Ashkenazi, Isserles. Abraham felt that all Jewish customs were valid and sacred and he attempted to justify them even when there was a disagreement among the codifiers. Abraham highly regarded the Zohar and Kabbalists and he occasionally accepted their opinions over that of the codifiers.
Gombiner was also the author of a commentary on the Yalkut Shimoni called Zayit Ra’anan and a collection of homilies on Genesis called Shemen Sason in addition to a short commentary of the Tosefta of Nezikim.
Shmuel Ashkenazi, E. J., v. 7, pp. 766-67.), this is also effective, (מהרי״ו וכל בו ותשב״צ).³⁴Mahariv and Kol Bo and Tashbaẓ, מהרי״ו וכל בו ותשב״ץ.
Mahariv, מהרי״ו, see footnote 27.
Kol Bo, כל בו, which when translated means “everything within” is an anonymous work which contained both halakhic decisions and explanations of halakhot arranged according to subject matter. The book, Kol Bo, was written either at the end of the thirteenth century or at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The work is very similar to a commentary on Oraḥ Ḥayyim called Orḥot Ḥayyim written by Aaron b. Jacob ha-Kohen of Lunel and published in Florence in 1750-51. The fact that they were so similar and covered the same material except that the Orḥot Ḥayyim contained more material than did the Kol Bo caused some scholars to believe that the Kol Bo was a later abridgment to the Orḥot Ḥayyim. But this may not be true due to the differences in their arrangement, the Orḥot Ḥayyim being more systematic. There is another view that the Kol Bo was, the first edition to the Orḥot Ḥayyim and probably by the same author, Aaron b. Jacob ha-Kohen; the material in the Kol Bo certainly preceded that of the Orḥot Ḥayyim.
There are one-hundred and forty-eight sections to the Kol Bo which cover many subjects of Jewish ceremonial, ritual, civil, personal, and community life. The anthology includes collections of laws from numerous and varied halakhic works. The Kol Bo was basically patterned after the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides together with the additions of the scholars of Germany, France, and Provence. There were in addition a few rulings by Spanish scholars included. Many of the laws included in the Kol Bo are from books no longer in existence today. It is possible that the Kol Bo never had much original material, but was mainly an anthology of rules from various sources. The Kol Bo was first printed in Naples in 1490-91.
Shlomoh Zalman Havlin, E. J., v. 10, pp. 1159-60.
Tashbaẓ, תשב״ץ, see footnote 20. One who incurs a death between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, it is permissible to wash and to immerse on the Eve of Yom Kippur because Yom Kippur cancels the “shiva³⁵Shiva is a seven day mourning period which begins immediately after the funeral. The mourners traditionally gather in the house of the deceased where they sit on low stools or over-turned couches with their heads enrobed. This is obligatory for close relatives of the deceased, be it husband or wife, mother or father, son or daughter, or brother or sister. The mourners must perform keri’ah, a rending of their garments as a symbol of mourning and they are required to recite the blessing dayyan ha-emet proclaiming God as the true judge. During the shiva period, mourners are not permitted to work physically, conduct financial transactions, bathe, annoint the body, cut the hair, cohabit, wear leather shoes, wash clothes, greet acquaintances, and study the Torah. Study, though of sorrowful portions of the Bible and Talmud, such as Job, Lamentations, parts of Jeremiah and the laws of mourning is permitted.
The first meal of the mourners after the funeral is called se’udat havra’ah, the meal of consolation. This meal is provided by friends and neighbors for the mourners in accordance with the talmudic law that a mourner is forbidden to eat of his own bread on the first day of mourning (Mk. 27b). A mourner is also not permitted to put on teffilin, prayer phylacteries, on the first day of the Shiva period.
The first three days of this period are considered the most intense and are known as the three days for weeping the entire seven day period is known as a time of lamenting. The shiva period is suspended on the Sabbath and ends on a holiday even if the total period of seven days has not elapsed. (see also footnote 37).
Aaron Rothkoff, E. J., v. 12, pp. 488-89.”, (the seven day mourning period), (מהרי״ל, הלכות שמחות).³⁶Maharil, מהרי״ל, “The Laws of Mourning”, הלכות שמחות, (“שמחות”, “Pleasures” is a euphemism). The Laws of Mourning as discussed by Moellin; see footnote 8. Even though it is customary not to wash (bath) during the entire “sheloshim³⁷Sheloshim, means thirty and it refers to the thirty days of mourning after the death of a close relative; mother, father, wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, or sister, and it begins from the time of the burial. The mourner during the sheloshim is not to wear new or even festive clothes; not to shave or have a hair cut; not to participate in festivities including wedding, circumcision, or pidyon ha-ben (redemption of the first born male child) banquets unless it is one’s own child; not to marry; and to abstain from going to entertainment. It is also customary to change one’s usual seat in the synagogue during these thirty days. If the last day of sheloshim falls on the Sabbath then the mourning period ends prior to the Sabbath.
The three pilgrimage feativals and Rosh HaShanah may shorten the shiva or sheloshim period. If the mourner observes at least one hour of the shiva (see footnote 35) before Passover or Shavuot, the shiva is waived and the sheloshim is reduced to fifteen days after the holiday, but in the case of Succot the mourner has to observe only eight days of sheloshim after the festival. If a mourner observes at least one hour of shiva before Rosh HaShanah, the shiva is waived and the Day of Atonement ends the sheloshim. If a mourner observes at least one hour of shiva before Yom Kippur shiva is waived and Succot ends sheloshim. Minor festivals such as Ḥanukkah and Purim do not shorten the shiva or sheloshim. If a person only learns of a death within thirty days of the passing (shemu’ah kerovah) he must observe the complete rites of shiva and sheloshim. If the news reaches him more than thirty days after the death has occurred (shemua’ah reḥokah) then he must only observe the mourning rites of shiva and sheloshim for one hour. When one is mourning the death of one’s parents the prohibitions of the sheloshim period are observed for an entire twelve months along with the recitation of the mourner’s Kaddish (see footnote 177) for eleven months, (see Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, 399).”, (thirty day mourning period), a commanded immersion is permitted, (דעת עצמו).³⁸Da’at Aẓmo, דעת עצמו; this is the way indicated in Isserles’ glosses that the comment he was making was Isserles’ own opinion and was not taken from another source.