Mikvah - Non Jewish Husband

Question

Can a woman use a Mikvah if her Husband is not Jewish (She is currently on the road to becoming a BT)

Devorah, welcome to mi.yodeya, and thank you very much for the extremely interesting and sensitive question! Please consider clicking on register, above, to create your account. This will give you access to all of mi.yodeya's features and will allow you to take full credit for your contributions. Also, please note the red disclaimer at the top of the page. Especially for questions like this, the woman should get advice from her Rabbi before taking any action. — Isaac Moses, Jul 02 '10 at 19:01

score 10 · Answer 1 · answered Jul 02 '10 at 19:24

10

Tough question. I know a lot of nerves can be frazzled by this one.

In Temple times, when ritual purity affected all sorts of aspects of daily life, this might be a different question; but today, women's regular use of mikva is only to end the status of nida.

On the one hand, the woman would like to increase her religious observance (a wonderful thing), and this is certainly a major act.

On the other hand, from a strict Halachic perspective, she's accomplishing nothing:

ד,ד הגויים--אין חייבין עליהם משום נידה, ולא משום זבה, ולא משום יולדת. וחכמים גזרו על כל הגויים, זכרים ונקבות, שיהו כזבים תמיד, בין ראו בין לא ראו--לעניין טומאה וטהרה.

Rambam Hilchos Issurei Biah 4:4

To paraphrase: the laws of Nidah only pertain to a couple where both is Jewish. If either partner is non-Jewish, their nida status (and hence mikva observance) makes no difference.

So it's something that would make her feel better about herself, but is (frustratingly) of no Halachic significance. This is further complicated because in many cases, mikva use is really limited to those who Halachically need it. (See for instance this question).

ובאמת בנידון דידן אין קידושין תופסין ואולי אסורה לטבול כשאר פנויות, אבל אין כך עונין המעיקות

You can try asking yoatzot.org if you like. The final decision may come down to the rabbi or women in charge of the local mikva, but those are the issues that I know of.

answered Jul 02 '10 at 19:24

Shalom

132,602
8
193
489

2

Shalom, I think you are misreading that RaMBa"M. I cannot speak with any authority on the matter, but I've always understood that statement to refer only to gentiles, not to a woman in a relationship with gentile man. In other words, a Jewish woman has an additional Issur of Be'ilath Niddah (on top Be'ilath Zenuth) if she has sexual relations with a gentile while in a state of Niddah. Again, I could be wrong. But it's how I've always understood that RaMBa"M. – Seth J Dec 29 '10 at 22:42
1

@Seth, afraid I have to strongly disagree. Leviticus 18:19 is addressed as a prohibition for MEN. A woman has a mitzva to count and purify herself (when in the context of marriage), but to the best of my knowledge, the prohibition on relations is on the man. See Sefer HaChinuch: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40631&st=&pgnum=284 & http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40631&st=&pgnum=239. Normally he says "this mitzva applies equally to males and females", but for this he only speaks of the man's sin. – Shalom Dec 30 '10 at 04:32
1

Similarly, see the Rambam's opening to Laws of Prohibited Relations, where he counts out all the prohibitions connected to it http://mechon-mamre.org/i/51.htm . Note the presence of "don't be with a Nida", not "don't be with a man when you're a Nida." – Shalom Dec 30 '10 at 04:34
1

Rambam is not saying "non-Jews need not keep taharat hamishpacha." (The laws binding upon non-Jews are the Noahide laws, and they appear in his Laws of Kings and their Wars.) His chapter opens up with "what type of woman is considered a Nida and therefore relations with her would violate this prohibition?" He then says, "gentiles, one is not punished for Nida because of them." That's the halacha for a Jew involved with a non-Jew. – Shalom Dec 30 '10 at 04:38
1

"Be'ilat Nidah" means שלא לבעול נידה "consorting with a Nida"; not "consorting while a Nida." The word "liv'ol" here is transitive, and is a word for which I can't think of an analogous English word that's not obscene. – Shalom Dec 30 '10 at 04:42
3

Re: If either partner is non-Jewish, their nida status (and hence mikva observance) makes no difference. Does this mean that there is no nidah-issur for a Jewish man to be bo'el a non-Jewish woman who is a nidah? That does not seem obvious at all from quoted Rambam. – jake Dec 13 '11 at 21:55
1

@Jake, that is exactly what the Rambam is saying. "[Jews] are not liable for nida relations vis-a-vis non-Jews, though the Sages enacted that all non-Jews be treated as Nida." This isn't Hilchot Melachim where Rambam discusses the Noachide laws; he's talking about prohibitions for Jews here. – Shalom Dec 13 '11 at 23:37
And rabbinically there is a nida prohibition regardless of the non-Jewish woman's state. – Shalom Dec 13 '11 at 23:38
1

@Shalom, Apologies. I misread the Rambam. – jake Dec 13 '11 at 23:41
Wouldn't the woman's mitzvah to count and purify herself still apply to her? (independent of any mitzvot relevant to the husband) --Or does the mitzvah specify that she must count and purify only if she is married to a Jew? – SAH Feb 13 '12 at 23:10
2

If a Jewish Niddah accidentally has relations with a Jewish man they both have to bring Korbanei Chattat. Clearly there is a prohibition on her as well. – Double AA Oct 18 '13 at 18:59
1

It could be somebody else already asked this, but just because there is rabbinic kares in the case of a Jewish woman and a non Jewish man, how do you see that that biblical kares wouldnt be present without immersion, and thus avoided with immersion? – mevaqesh Feb 13 '15 at 04:21

score 6 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 06 '10 at 16:06

6

There is no halakhic reason why this woman cannot immerse in the mikveh. She should be encouraged to make whatever decision is right for her.

The link listed in the previous response does not mention anything about immersing for non-required reasons - unclear what the responder's basis is for this. People have immersed for non-commanded reasons for hundreds (if not thousands) of years: before Shabbat, before Yom Kippur, 9th month of pregnancy.

A mikveh is "lo mikabel tumah" - it cannot receive impurity. As long as it was built under rabbinic supervision and is maintained under rabbinic supervision, there is no way it can be "messed up" for anyone else because of who goes in, when, and for what reason.

answered Jul 06 '10 at 16:06

3

Agreed that a mikva can't be fouled up by someone immersing in it (well provided no one is pumping liquids in and out of it), though a dramatically increased user base can necessitate cleaning more often (hence, for instance, R' Samson Raphael Hirsch's concern in Frankfurt that Hassidic men, for whom mikva is popular but not required, were making the mikva less clean and convenient for married women, for whom it is required.) – Shalom Jul 06 '10 at 16:21
2

Your answer accurately reflects Mayyim Hayyim's philosophy of mikva as always no worse than neutral, so why not if it seems right? This is not the normative practice in Orthodox circles. If you read between the lines in the cited yoatzot link, the glaring omission of mikva from "any cleansing ceremony I can do?" was intentional. – Shalom Jul 06 '10 at 16:31
1

Among the potential issues to which my answer alluded was this: http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=3089
Recall that halacha really does not recognize any marriage between Jew and non-Jew.
– Shalom Jul 06 '10 at 16:37
Carrie Bornstein, Welcome to mi.yodeya, and thanks very much for providing your perspective on this question. Please consider clicking on register, above, to create your account. This will give you access to all of mi.yodeya's features and will allow you to take full credit for your contributions. – Isaac Moses Jul 06 '10 at 16:58
1

I would love to see primary sources backing up both Carrie Bornstein's or Shalom's assertions about normative Mikveh practice, although I expect that CB's position is that non-traditional uses are permitted in the absence of a source for prohibition. Even that position could be bolstered by quoting authorities or sources who back it up. – Isaac Moses Jul 06 '10 at 17:02
2

Shalom - yes - agreed - the mikveh does need to be kept sparkling-clean. (This should be the worst of our problems - many many people wanting to use the mikveh!) As we know, however, clean and tahor are not the same thing.
You are definitely right - immersing for non-required reasons in Orthodox mivka'ot is not normative - but it is not prohibited halahkically.

Isaac Moses (and others...): See Shulchan Aruch 606:4 re: immersing in the context of reconciling with a friend prior to Yom Kippur. The Mishnah Berurah supports this by discussing this minhag.
– Jul 07 '10 at 14:42
1

The examples cited of minhag for non-obligatory use are men or married women. There is a prohibition on single women using the mikva -- need to cite sources soon. Regardless, the rabbi/women who are in charge of a mikva have every right to restrict its non-obligatory use as they see fit. In some communities, the women vote on whether to allow men's use. – Shalom Jul 07 '10 at 15:58
From yoatzot.org (emphasis added): "In a situation in which a married woman is not considered niddah, she is permitted to immerse in a mikveh without a bracha on any night she pleases." (5741); "Throughout your married life, you may immerse in the mikveh if you so desire." (5437) ; "...for a spiritual purpose alone, and has no practical halachic implications ... It would be best to explain the situation to the mikveh attendant and consult with a local rabbi." (4979) – Shalom Jul 07 '10 at 16:00
"unclear what the responder's basis is for this" Not so unclear... http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/28458/759 – Double AA Oct 22 '13 at 07:32

Mikvah - Non Jewish Husband

2 Answers2

Linked