Q&A: Immersion for Women
Immersion for Women
Question
Hello Rabbi,
It’s a little embarrassing to ask, but what can you do—the halakhic education for girls isn’t exactly amazing. I don’t understand why women need to immerse, if in any case there is no impurity and purity nowadays and we are all considered impure from contact with the dead anyway (not that I understand what that means either). And in any case, if a woman gets to the mikveh by car, say, and goes back in it, she becomes impure again because the seat is impure with the impurity of her menstrual status, no? So why immerse? The fact that people keep distance for two weeks is fine because it has implications for the relationship and so on (or at least that’s what the teachers say in the ulpana).
Thank you in advance
Answer
Each type of impurity has its own ways of being contracted and transmitted from one thing to another. Menstrual impurity is not transmitted in those ways. So the question doesn’t arise.
A similar question does arise regarding the prohibition for priests to become impure through contact with the dead (for example, by entering a cemetery). There, in fact, everyone is already impure anyway, so it is not clear why it should still be forbidden for them to become impure again. That is the view of many halakhic decisors, but it is very puzzling.
Beyond that, in the case of a menstruant there is also a prohibition vis-à-vis her husband, not just impurity. Purification in the mikveh also permits the woman to her husband, not only purifies her. In several places one can see that these are two independent laws, meaning that there can be a situation where the woman is impure yet permitted to her husband, and vice versa.
And regarding the two weeks of distancing, ignore the apologetic nonsense they told you in the ulpana. It has nothing to do with implications for the relationship (even if in practice those may perhaps exist in some cases). The laws of distancing were not meant to preserve the relationship, but to keep far away from the prohibition of forbidden intercourse.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, but to see such a homiletic teaching as the definition of the law (or even its reason) is nonsense. Is the sacrifice of a woman after childbirth also brought only because she cries out and vows not to give birth again? If a woman says throughout labor that she intends to keep giving birth, is she exempt from the sacrifice?
I noted in my remarks that it is possible that these distancing laws (whether Torah-level or rabbinic) bring benefit on the relational level, but that is not their reason. Using that argument is apologetic, and it is very convenient as a way of making things sound acceptable, but in the question here you can see the damage done by such apologetics.
Obviously that is not the legal definition, and it is important to make that clear, but it is the reason for the law (that seems to be what the Talmud means).
A reason does not have to be correct in every case.
No, it is not the reason for the law. If it were the reason for the law, it would have to fit the details in all cases (except perhaps in certain exceptional cases because of the principle of not differentiating in Torah law). Contrary to the common mistake, the legal definition always parallels the (real) reason. See my article on the fifth root, in the book It Shall Send Forth Its Roots: https://gabihazut.co.il/%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%97-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95/
The Talmud also does not mean to say that this is the reason for the law. The phrase “Why is it?” in an aggadic context does not necessarily come to give the reason for the matter, but only to show a certain aspect of it (which does exist, even though it is not the reason, as I explained). You should search this in the responsa project and you’ll see.
Except that the reason in the Talmud is about seven days. And that is a reason.
As for two weeks, that really is baseless.
And a reason that was stated in a situation where each male had several females did make sense.
But nowadays, when each male has to make do with one female, it is of course senseless.
I enjoyed the answer, but I was sorry to read its ending.
This is not apologetic nonsense. These are the words of the Talmud:
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Niddah 31b:
“It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say, Why did the Torah say that a menstruant is forbidden for seven days? Because if he becomes accustomed to her, he may come to feel repulsed by her. Therefore the Torah said: Let her be impure for seven days, so that she should be as beloved to her husband as at the time she entered the bridal canopy.”