Monday, April 23, 2007

Conservative Teshuvot on Mikveh: The Language Issue

For Shabbat Tazria-Metzorah, I spoke about the teshuvot on mikveh recently released by the CJLS. These were not very well publicized, mainly, I imagine, because they were overshadowed by the teshuvot on homosexuality.* I intended to blog about the mikveh teshuvot once I finished blogging about the ones on homosexuality, but I don't seem to be making much progress with the latter, so I may as well address the mikveh teshuvot now. Like my d'var torah, however, this post will focus on the issue of terminology rather than the technical halakhic aspects of the teshuvot, which I'm still working through.

Okay. A few preliminary points:


  1. The biblical concept of tum'ah (usually translated "impurity" or "defilement") is unambiguously negative. The clearest evidence of this is its frequent use as a metaphor for sin. This does not mean, of course, that contracting impurity is inherently sinful; impurity is caused by all sorts of unavoidable things, such as illness, sexual intercourse, and handling a corpse (someone's gotta do it). An analogy that I like to use is illness: Being sick doesn't reflect negatively the person who suffers from the illness, but we do recognize the condition as negative, and we therefore often use illness as a metaphor for morally negative traits ("that man is sick").

  2. In biblical law, menstrual impurity (niddah) is no more severe than forms of impurity that affect men (ejaculation, penile discharge) or men as well as women (scale disease, contact with a human corpse, etc.).

  3. Since the major consequence of impurity is that it bars one from contact with the sancta, rabbinic law as it ultimately developed regards most purity regulations as irrelevant for practical purposes now that the Temple is no longer standing. Niddah is an exception for a purely technical reason: Leviticus 18:19 prohibits sex with a woman in a state of menstrual defilement (tum'at niddah). This, according to rabbinic reasoning, necessitates that a menstruating woman refrain from sex with her husband for a fixed duration of time (see below) and then immerse in a mikveh.

  4. Over time, the laws of niddah became increasingly stringent. Perhaps the most significant stringency was the conflation of the categories of niddah and zavah, with the result that couples had to wait seven days from the cessation of menstruation rather than from the onset of menstruation before resuming intimacy. This approximately doubled the length of the period of separation to about half of every month (for those who struggle with arithmetic). This is the halakhah as it is observed in contemporary Orthodox communities (at least in theory).

Now, a summary of the teshuvot:

Rabbi Miriam Grossman, following an argument advanced by Rabbi Joel Roth, rules that niddah be observed for seven days beginning at the onset of menstruation (or until bleeding ceases), in keeping with the original Torah law. She also differs from traditional Orthodox opinion in permitting non-sexual physical contact between husband and wife during niddah, eliminating the requirement of internal self-exams (bedikot), and accepting certain other leniencies. The purpose of these leniencies is to make the laws easier for more Jews to observe and to avoid putting strain on relationships. Grossman also advocates mikveh use outside marriage, particularly by women who are sexually active (in keeping with the Conservative movement's current position on premarital sex: "We don't approve, but we know you'll do it anyway").

At least as important for Grossman as these practical halakhic matters is the terminology used to refer them. She rejects "purity" language (that is, the terminology I've used throughout this post) in favor of the language of "holiness." Mikveh use, in her opinion, should be viewed as a means of sanctifying the body and sexual relationships rather than as a means of determining a woman's ritual status. In a 1992 article in Conservative Judaism Magazine entitlted "Feminism, Midrash, and Mikvah," she wrote:


one cannot talk about purity (taharah). . . without calling to mind -- if only subconsciously-- the fact that it is a relative state in contradistiction to impurity (tum'ah)... [S]uch an association has a negative impact for women. (Similarly, we would not want to use the term Niddah laws, as niddah can also be defined as "defiled.")


In the article, Rabbi Grossman proposed using the phrase kedushat mishpachah, "family sanctity." In her teshuvah, she proposes substituting kedushat yetzirah, "the sanctity of God's creation," to shift the emphasis away from the marital relationship and toward a woman's own relationship with her body. (Personally, I think it's a bit idealistic to try to introduce language that no one familiar with the subject will understand, but I appreciate the conundrum.)

Miriam Berkovitz maintains the rabbinic model of waiting seven days following the cessation of menstruation, though she rules leniently with regard to non-sexual contact, internal exams, and various other matters. Berkovitz concedes that it might be a good idea to use the language of holiness rather than purity, but she considers it important to maintain the traditional focus on marital life, so she opts for Grossman's earlier phrase, kedushat yetzirah.

Rabbi Avraham Reisner, like Susan Grossman, argues for returning to the biblical seven-day model, though he does so on slightly different halakhic grounds. He differs from Grossman in retaining the category of zavah, meaning that a woman experiencing an irregular flow of three days or more must wait seven days following the cessation (rather than the onset) of bleeding. Reisner also argues forcefully for maintaining the language of purity. Here's a bit of his argument that I found particularly eloquent:


Fundamental to the biblical description of reality is the notion of the twinned states of tum'ah (impurity) and tohorah (purity), one of which (tum'ah) is incompatible with the sacred....It would be convenient, but inconsistent with the Biblical foundation of our religion, to simply profess disbelief in a system described by the Torah at length. It might be noted, in this regard, that God, the soul and the metaphysical reality of Shabbat in the fabric of the universe are all Biblical notions that remain impervious to scientific address.


Reisner goes on to discuss the theory, promoted by such scholars as Jacob Milgrom and Baruch Levine, that the biblical attribute of impurity is rooted in an association with death. Menstrual blood, like semen, according to this theory, causes impurity because it constitutes a loss of potential life. On this basis, Reisner proposes that the cycle of niddah and purification can be viewed as a process of continual rebirth and renewal.

When I read the voting records for the three teshuvot, I was struck by the fact that Susan Grossman voted in favor of Miriam Berkovits's teshuvah in spite of their radically different practical conclusions, while she voted against Avraham Reisner in spite of their basic agreement on practical halakhah. This brought home like nothing else how important the language issue is to Rabbi Grossman.

Frankly, I can see where both Grossman and Reisner are coming from. On the one hand, I think that the concepts of purity and defilement are worth trying to understand and apply to our lives. On the other hand, applying these consequences to women alone can have troubling implications.

These are my thoughts for now. More later, God willing.

* I'm told that congregational rabbis weren't informed of their existence, which led to some rather awkward moments.

6 comments:

elf said...

Somehow the comments for this post got screwed up. The blogger comment feature wasn't displayed and the Haloscan comments (which should be hidden) were. I've fixed that. Here are the previous Haloscan comments:

Something I thought about recently is how tum'ah and kedushah are pretty much the same thing in terms of effect. They both make the object in question "untouchable" in some way. (That's Milgrom's read of "kol ha-noge`ah bo yikdash" in his famous article on Sancta Contagion.)

As ofr the teshuvot, it seems like too much time was spent on language issues and too little time on considering what niddah could be about in effect. (E.g., one of the effets of niddah is to prevent marital rape -- all a woman needs to say to a (frum) husband is "I'm bleeding" and that's the end of that. It also dictates a particular sexual rhythm that some couples might find useful. There are other effects as well, not all positive, obviously.) It felt like the teshuvot were very much in the spirit of "well, we think this basically sucks/is dumb, but we're sort of stuck with something like it, so let's redescribe it to death and get rid of as many of the derabbanans as possible."
hotshot2000 | 05.03.07 - 8:20 pm | #

The thing that struck me the most was the insistence that Conservative Jews are observing T.H., or at least are interested in doing so, or could be convinced to do so with more education. My experience is that even committed Conservative folks take T.H. much less seriously than kashrut or Shabbat - I'm not sure there's much of an audience for these tshuvot.
Kate | 05.04.07 - 3:32 pm | #

hotshot2000 wrote:

Something I thought about recently is how tum'ah and kedushah are pretty much the same thing in terms of effect. They both make the object in question "untouchable" in some way.

Very true. Both involve "setting apart."

As ofr the teshuvot, it seems like too much time was spent on language issues and too little time on considering what niddah could be about in effect.

I focused on the language issues in my dvar Torah mainly because they were relevant to the parshah and easy to condense into a brief speech. Susan Grossman is certainly very concerned with language, and Avraham Reisner was pretty concerned with disputing Susan Grossman. However, the teshuvot do all deal to some extent with the potential practical benefits of TH/KY. I don't think that the authors come off as reluctantly accepting the necessity of observing these laws. They seem to really think they're worthwhile.

Kate said:

The thing that struck me the most was the insistence that Conservative Jews are observing T.H., or at least are interested in doing so, or could be convinced to do so with more education.

I don't think the authors have any illusions about the fact that the vast majority of Conservative Jews don't use the mikveh. This fact is the primary motivation behind trying to make the laws more accessible, easier to relate to, and less onerous. There has actually been an increase in interest in mikveh use by non-Orthodox Jews in recent years, which I believe is why the CJLS is suddenly paying attention to the issue.
elf | Homepage | 05.06.07 - 12:25 am | #

Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) said...

this isn't much of a comment, but i like translating טומאה/טמא as "taboo". of course, as hotshot2000 pointed out, many cases of קדושה/קודש/קדוש could also be translated that way.

elf said...

Interesting. Like most translations, it has its pros and cons. I'll think about it.

Pearly penile papules said...

Unlike women, men do not readily discuss personal medical conditions and disorders with their friends. It is for this reason that pearly penile papules are very misunderstood.

It is not surprising that you would be plagued by worry and paranoia at the appearance of a bump on the rim of your penis. Immediately you would suspect venereal disease or even worse, cancer. The likelihood is that you do not have either, but rather a simple case of pearly penile papules. Pearly penile papules are very common among men, especially uncircumcised men. They are not as a result of bad hygiene and are not contagious in any way whatsoever. Many men actually find that they appear and disappear without any treatment at all.

However, if you are feeling uncomfortable with them, they can be effectively removed with a simple treatment of radiofrequency surgery. You should however consult your doctor and have them seen to should they emit a discharge or are physically painful.

Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.

epic4tan said...

Thanks for sharing these useful information! Hope that you will continue doing nice article like this. I will be one of your loyal reader if you maintain this kind of post!
Aviglatt.com is the best kosher where you can find quality kosher and passover foods. Learn new recipe from kosher new york specialists; visit our web.