Reflecting on Judaism

Mikvah for vessels

(Or how to divide the community yet further)

    I start by quoting from the Torah; The Book of Numbers: Chapter 31, verses 21, 22, 23 & 24.

1. Vs. 21; And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war that went to the battle; ‘This is the Statute of the law which the Lord has commanded Moses’.

2. Vs. 22; ‘Whether it is the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead’.

3. Vs. 23; ‘Everything that may abide the fire, you should make go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified by the water of sprinkling; and all that  does not abide the fire, you should make go through the water’.

4. Vs 24. ‘And you should wash your clothes on the seventh day, and you will be clean, and afterwards you may come into the camp’.

    The Torah then describes how the above mentioned spoils of war should be divided.   

    One might think that the words ‘purified by the water of sprinkling’, mentioned in verse 23, might have something to do with water from a mikvah, but this is not so. The phrase has a special connotation. The Book of Numbers; Chapter 19, describes ‘Water for sprinkling’ as the specially prepared ashes of a heifer, mixed with water.  

    Vs. 22 & the first half of vs.23 reminds us of the process recommended today for koshering non-kosher metal vessels and cutlery before use. Or the koshering of metal vessels from chametz use to pesach use. If it is from the above sentences the rabbis interpreted these recommendations it would not be unreasonable.

    But from my research, it seems that the above quotations are also interpreted as the basis for the practise of dipping brand new vessels, cutlery and crockery in the mikvah before using them. By any straight-forward reading of the above verses, they cannot have this interpretation. It reminds me of the much respected rabbi, whose course of lectures on Jewish History I attended at Jews’ College, who said that when rabbis wish to introduce a new law or custom, they search the Torah to find support for it. This may well be what happened in respect of this custom.

    It is often said by many, including some rabbis, that today some interpretations of the Torah are becoming ever more strict. I think that this comment applies to the use of a ‘mikvah for vessels’. On referring to the Encyclopaedia Judaica I learned that its use is a custom only and not a law. It was originally intended to apply only to new vessels manufactured by non-Jews. I will discuss this aspect below.

    I was born in East London within an orthodox community, well before the Second World War.  I can recall no-one mentioning or using such a mikvah, although I do recall knowing of one. It was housed in a little ‘Shteible’, The Zjickevah steible, situated in a tiny turning called Dunk Street. I doubt whether many people would have known of it.  At that time tens of thousand’s of Jews lived in the area which needed  many dozens of kosher butchers and poulterers to serve them.  If it was essential to use a ‘mikvah’ for vessels, then comparing mikvah needs, to the community’s need for butchers and poulterers, surely there would have been more than just the one such mikvah known to me. I wonder how many people reading this essay, who come from orthodox or traditional families, recall their parents using such a mikvah or even recalling whether there was one available?     Local orthodox synagogues in the UK, with which I was associated, often bought cutlery and crockery for self-use but taking them to a mikvah before using them was never suggested.  

    Is it worth dividing the community even further, as is now constantly happening, just for the sake of a mere custom?  When someone attends a private, supervised kosher simchah, in the home of a member of his family, but refuses to eat fruit just because it was prepared using a brand new knife that had not been dipped in a mikvah, I see it as yet another element dividing the community and family. Sometimes it is an act causing dishonour and disrespect to parents.

    This is not the only example of teachings that may cause dishonour and disrespect to parents. There are instances where boys from unquestionably kosher homes go to yeshiva and are told by their rabbis that they must eat only ‘glatt’ kosher meat when visiting home. Never mind that the meat provided by the parents often comes from the same kosher butcher as that patronised by the local rabbi.  Such instructions can create, albeit perhaps inadvertently, disrespect or dishonour to parents, whether some parents wish to admit it or not.  How can rabbis, if not the young student, not realise that the parents might be offended that their standard of kashrut is being questioned, and their status undermined, by someone who does not know them. Not to mention that ‘glatt’ meat is usually much more expensive.

    Another example of possible disrespect or dishonouring of parents concerns young newly-wed ladies who are often taught to cover their heads in public.  They are taught that it is immodest not to do so. They often sit at a table, together with their religious mother and religious grand-mother who do not cover their hair.   A logical assumption might be that their mothers and grandmothers are immodest. I have many orthodox rabbis among my friends and acquaintances whose wives do not usually cover their heads, so the importance of doing so is greatly overstated.

    These questionable interpretations are straining the pleasures of family unity. Sometimes they are put even before the very special mitzvah of honouring one’s parents. I find it incredible that whilst in the past, commentators of the Torah strongly emphasised the imperative of ‘honouring one’s parents’; which they taught how to do in great detail, often causing difficulties and great  inconvenience to the child,  some religious teachers today are turning their teachings upside-down.   

    Let people ‘dip’ their new vessels. Let people eat ‘glatt’ meat. Let ladies cover their hair. Every one is entitled to do as he/she wishes but these acts are customs only, not law, so why not for the sake of unity, keep them for personal use only and not impose them upon other people’s valid customs and behaviour.  Such practices within the community decreased dramatically over a period of time.  Why reintroduce them now into a completely different environment in which they can be, and often are, divisive? Their practitioners should recognise that what they are doing is not fundamental to our religion but further steps in dividing an already divided community.  
    The other area of Jewish life, referred to above, where the rabbis now rule that we may not use a product if it is touched by non- Jews, is in the use of wine. I think that this ruling has become confused in transmission.  Originally the ruling was that we may not use wine made by pagans for they may have used the wine for libations to their pagan gods. Today’s ruling is of the ‘becoming ever more strict’ kind, mentioned above. Almost eight hundred years ago, Maimonides ruled that Muslims and Christians were not pagans, and following his ruling why should their wine not be used? Which firms today would offer libations to pagan gods? Indeed, it is a fact that not all that long ago wine made by non-Jewish firms graced the table of most supervised kosher functions in the U.K., possibly as a result of the more lenient ruling. Is this stricter ruling not an insult to non-pagans; to the Christians and the Muslims that Maimonides wrote about?
     The rabbis themselves have divided wine made by non-Jews into two categories; Yayin Netzach and Stum Yayin. We are supposed to be stricter about the use of the first category than the second. So how do they advise us to distinguish between them? I don’t think they do. We are forbidden to drink either. So why distinguish? How can the thinking about pagans and libations be applied to metal vessels?                                                          

September 2010.