Yedai, certainly the Torah’s idea of immersing in a mikveh for purification does not apply to someone who did not become impure—no one would dispute that. But that does not mean there is no point to it. Just like if the Torah did not say one is obligated to brush one’s teeth, that would not mean there is no point to it. Now, there are those who said that even someone who did not become impure has a reason to immerse in a mikveh and sanctify himself. If you want, believe him; if you do not want, assume he is talking nonsense. But you have no way of knowing (even Yedai doesn’t know everything🙂) whether there is a point or not. At most you can say: I have no reason to assume there is. So all the comparisons you bothered to write are beside the point.

Regarding Rabbi Michi’s answer,
my intent was not understood.
A Jew who became impure is not obligated to immerse (if he is not entering places that require immersion or not touching things that require immersion), but certainly if he immerses, the immersion will purify him, because regarding him the Torah says that he is impure, and regarding him the Torah says that the mikveh will purify—or the Sages say so. That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about those who just immerse every day or every week without even having become impure through a seminal emission. If a person who is pure from corpse-impurity sprinkles on himself the ashes of the red heifer, would that help him?

And to Mr. Williamsburg,
you did not notice the difference. Logical or scientific or moral things are effective whether or not the Torah commands them. But “decree-like” things, enactments, are not effective if the Torah did not command them, or for someone who was not commanded in them. Second Passover will not help someone who is not obligated in it, and so on. And there is no point in believing in what is not written in the Torah. What we were commanded is enough for us. About this it was said: is what the Torah prohibited not enough for you? Let us not add to it. We are already troubled enough by the earlier ones…

In the book Authority That Is Slavery, part 2 (a guidance book for rabbis),
there is a discussion, based on the experience of an expert in the field of abuse and sexual deviance from the Haredi and Hardali sectors,
and there it is recommended to close public mikvaot for men because this leads to severe transgressions.

I do not understand the question. Immersion is always connected to impurity. Ezra’s immersion too. Sometimes it is only out of concern for impurity and not because one knows he became impure.

Again, Rabbi Michi, absolutely not.
Immersion is a decree and a statute, and it is effective only where we were commanded, such as impurity from seminal emission, where Ezra decreed that a person is impure and forbidden for Torah study and prayer.

Yedai, are you sure all the quotations you brought were really said about this? Against such a rich collection of sources, I cannot stand.

Someone said: there is a metaphysical significance to immersion and purification even where one did not become impure. Do you believe him? You say no—more power to you. It does not matter whether there is a point in believing or not. Whoever believes, should believe; whoever does not, should not. No one believes because there is a point in it. And even in Torah—according to Michi—whoever believes does not believe because there is a point in it; he believes because he believes. I only said that what you are splitting hairs over, by comparing it to immersions in the Torah, really does not matter, because no one said these are the immersions written in the Torah. And in general, I am not even sure Michi is wrong; perhaps those who immerse every day do so out of concern that they may have become impure, though I think there are those who said that even if one did not become impure there is still a point to immersion. And what you answered him is really nonsense: Ezra could not decree impurity; impurity from seminal emission is from the Torah. Ezra decreed that one who did not immerse is forbidden in Torah study.

Eshkol, what does what you wrote have to do with the discussion here? We would be very happy to hear your wonderful reflections and essential guidance on matters of mikveh and in general, but why interrupt the thread? (Unless you think that as part of the site’s policy one has to smear the Haredim wherever possible—in that you are right about the site’s policy, but there are enough columns and threads here that allow for that.)

There is no point in believing in what we were not commanded to believe.
We accepted upon ourselves the halakhic authority of the Talmud, and nothing more.
And if the Talmud brought Ezra’s impurity and immersion as Jewish law, then it has force; it purifies from the impurity that the Sages decreed. (Of course only according to the view that Ezra’s decree was not annulled today.)

Granted, someone who is concerned that he became impure through a seminal emission should immerse; that is not what I was talking about.

I was talking about someone who immerses just for “purity,” and casually sprinkles on himself ashes of the red heifer when he is not impure with corpse-impurity, and is strict about observing Second Passover even though he was not on a distant journey, and is strict about keeping the second festival day of the Diaspora even though he lives in the Land of Israel, and is strict about coming to Meron during the year with four dried species from Sukkot and making circuits around the blue dome on Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s grave, and is strict that when he eats lettuce he wraps it with matzah in remembrance of Hillel,

Those who immerse every day do so not because of an obligation in the Talmud, but because they are following the advice of the Arizal. This commandment is spiritually conducive to enabling a person to attain the surrounding lights, which is a great protection for a person. It also has many segulot for refining the mind and the soul. And it helps prevent a person from coming to the blemish of seminal emission. Harmful forces separate from him, and there are several matters here in the way of mysticism. The Talmud too hinted that one who sanctifies himself below is sanctified from above. “Sanctify yourselves and be holy.” And it has been a Jewish custom for thousands of years. It also helps wash away the spirit of impurity of sleep, which is one-sixtieth of death, as is known. This is not an obligation, but try immersing as much as you can and see whether it helps you in serving God.

You do not notice what you are answering: “that this commandment is conducive…” and that is exactly what I am objecting to—that there is no commandment here at all, or if you like, this “commandment” is like the other commandments I demonstrated in the previous comment. And any rabbi who came after the Talmud cannot invent any such thing unless he proves it from the Talmudic corpus. Without that, his greatness, whatever it may be (even for those who believe in his greatness), does not amount to anything besides what is called in philosophical language “ad hominem.”

The one not noticing is you. The intent of the Arizal (? I do not remember who exactly said it) or whoever said this was that immersion is spiritually effective. Whoever said that did not invent anything; he said that he knows this is so. You do not have to believe him, but whoever thinks he is not a liar certainly should believe him—or more precisely, certainly does believe him. There is no authority over belief, as Michi has said a thousand times and more. You are not grasping that this is not about authority or anything like that. It is about how much you believe him. (And in your next response you can spare us another comparison to Second Passover and the ashes of the red heifer—that is not the discussion.)

Williamsburg,
since you already mentioned what Michi says a thousand times, that there is no authority over belief, ask him what he thinks about the “attainments” of the Arizal and the other kabbalists, and about the whole corpus of mysticism—more or less what Maimonides thought…

One needs to know to be careful about a severe prohibition,
and from professional experience in the field, a public men’s mikveh leads to severe prohibition.

Why is that smearing? It is being careful.

And it is related to the discussion and does not “interrupt,” because it shows that this does not bring any added purity, whether yes or no.
It does bring, here and now, a severe Torah prohibition.

Yedai, one hundred percent right about what Michi believes, though I am not Michi’s spokesman. I told you several times: you do not have to believe. The question was whether your arguments and your comparisons are relevant. The answer is no!

Eshkol, can you explain more, for slow people like me, how these data show that it does not bring added purity? Where I come from in Williamsburg we call that a logical leap. And another thing: if someone had asked Michi whether in practice he should go to the mikveh, you would be right. But as it is, this thread is not dealing with the practical side; only on the theoretical plane—whether there is any point in going to the mikveh or not.

If therapists in the Hardali and Haredi world testify that this leads to severe transgressions and to the breakup of families,
then that is great impurity,
not added purity, not at all.

Better to look into the report brought in the book Authority That Is Slavery, part 2,
be horrified, and the question resolves itself.

I read it and was horrified.

I hope you calm down soon from the horror; apparently the shock deeply affected your logic. See (not now! when you calm down and can read with a settled mind) what I wrote one message before yours, and you will see how your words are unjustified hysteria.

Back to the main discussion here.

Someone pointed out to me that we do find a precedent for immersion by a person who did not become impure at all: the High Priest on Yom Kippur immersed five times, after having separated from his wife for seven days and having stayed awake all night, so there is no concern at all of seminal emission. I do not intend to draw an analogy from one matter to another; I am only showing a precedent—that we do find a place where there is a point to immersing even for a completely pure person.

Again, the penny still hasn’t dropped for you. Where the Sages (whose halakhic authority we accepted) enacted something, that is different.
Otherwise you should also learn from the four cups of Passover that there is a point in drinking four cups.

You stole my penny a long time ago. Listen: my personal opinion is that the Sages did not enact anything that has no sense at all. I cannot even accuse you of a problem in reading comprehension—you simply do not read what I write. I wrote explicitly that “I do not intend to draw an analogy from one matter to another; I am only showing a precedent that we do find a place where there is a point to immersing even for a completely pure person,” and I had no intention whatsoever of going back to the ping-pong about what we argued above. (Even if I wanted to, I could not do so after you did not answer anything substantive above. Now a wonderful new idea flashes in my mind: your problem is not one of understanding what is ‘read’ but of understanding what is ‘written’—and I do not suspect you of not making substantive arguments, only that you do not know how to put them into writing🙂 Don’t be offended, I’m joking…)