Levi Cooper is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah and teaches Jewish Studies a Machon Pardes and other university level programs in Jerusalem. He is Contributing Editor to Jewish Educational Leadership.
It is the task, often hapless, of leadership to encourage commitment to any number of values; commitment to the community, to Jewish tradition, to Israel, etc. In periods of Jewish autonomy, performance could be coerced, but where coercion was not a feasible or effective option, leadership needed to find other avenues for encouraging commitment. What were some of the tools used by Jewish leadership to encourage commitment amongst their constituents?
Broadly speaking most attempts fell into one of two categories: Leadership either sought to push the laity for more commitment, or opted to compromise the commitment requirements. Traditionally, the rabbi’s pulpit was the locus for exhortations calling for fidelity to a cause. The success of the sermon in moving people to action differed from place to place, from time to time, and from speaker to speaker. The alternative was to reassess the requirement and come to the conclusion that allegiance was not dependent on the heretofore neglected value.
On rare occasions, a third avenue was proposed; a path that opened new vistas, without altering the core. One such example is reflected in two parallel, yet independent, attempts – one in Toronto, Ontario and the other in Oakland, California – to promote a sensitive aspect of Jewish Law, Taharat HaMishpaha (Family Purity).[i]
Taharat HaMishpaha
It is clearly beyond the scope of this paper to present the philosophy or gamut of norms that are included in Taharat HaMishpaha, nevertheless a few words are in order. The laws of Taharat HaMishpaha are constructed of different strata. Some of the directives are biblically mandated, others are rabbinic enactments and many norms are the product of time-honored custom. The kernel of Taharat HaMishpaha as we know it today requires separation between a husband and wife while the woman menstruates and for 7 days afterwards. During this period the woman is classified as a niddah, and intentional relations between a man and a woman in the niddah state carries the grave sanction of karet – a Divine punishment, commonly understood to mean either dying before the age of 50 or 60, dying without children, or spiritual excommunication of the soul.[ii]
Even after the period of separation is over, the woman is still classified as niddah until tevilah, that is, until she immerses in a mikveh (plural mikvaot) – a body of water that conforms to set requirements. Not attending the mikveh effectively leaves a woman in the niddah state indefinitely.
It would appear that mikveh attendance was on the wane in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. This trend might be understood as part of a general decline in Jewish observance at the turn of the century in North America – a fact that lead Jewish leaders to censure any move from the Jewish communities in Europe, and for some to even call for a return to the Old Country.
Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg’s Mikveh Yehuda
At the beginning of the 20th century a booklet entitled Mikveh Yehuda, written by the remarkable Rabbi Yehuda Yudel Rosenberg (1860-1935), was published in Toronto – the first Hebrew book published in that city.[iii] R. Rosenberg (1860-1935) was born in Skaryszew, Congress Poland. He served in the rabbinate in a number of cities – Tarlow, Lublin, Warsaw and Lodz – before emigrating to Canada in 1913. R. Rosenberg was a prolific writer and his literary output was wide ranging. His oeuvre included a translation of the Zohar into Hebrew, and – unbeknownst to many people – the fictitious accounts of the Golem created by the Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Yehudah Loew ben Betzalel, ca. 1520-1609). But for all his idiosyncrasies, R. Rosenberg was clearly interested in educating the Jewish community towards commitment and fidelity.[iv]
It was in this vein that R. Rosenberg published the 30 page Mikveh Yehuda after identifying a neglect of mikveh attendance upon his arrival in Canada. The title page summarizes the work:[v]
The book Mikveh Yehuda: In it it will be explained that it is possible to make a small kosher mikveh for ritual immersion in every home. As long as the water from the main river will be channeled into [the mikveh] through pipes that are laid on the ground. And a great solution is taught here, to save many souls from the karet punishment, may the Merciful One save us, for they will purify [themselves] in pure water.
In a sort of introduction, R. Rosenberg explained the situation that drove him to write the pamphlet:[vi]
I wish to hereby publicly announce a good solution that can be instituted for Jews who live in such places where they are unable to make a communal mikveh for a variety of obstacles, and the women are unable to travel to distant places for a tevilah house. There are those who, because of foolish shame refuse to travel; and not only to travel, but even to walk to the tevilah house. And the enlightened ones amongst them say that according to the hygiene science, there is a grave possible danger in immersion in a communal mikveh. And it is almost as if the karet prohibition of niddah had been rendered permissible, since it is violated so regularly. Woe to the ears that hear this.
R. Rosenberg continued with his proposal for solving the problem and encouraging mikveh attendance:
Therefore I have been inspired to propose small home-mikvaot for them, that will be kosher and suitable for niddah immersion according to the law of our holy Torah. And such a small mikveh requires neither great expense nor a large space. It is even possible to put it in any room, as long as the water is channeled into the houses by pipes from the large river.
R. Rosenberg was optimistic about his chances of affecting a change, as he continued:
And through this, without a doubt, many Jewish souls will be saved from the punishment of karet associated with the transgression of niddah. As we have a rule that a person does not forsake the permissible and [purposely] eat the forbidden.
Mikveh Yehuda was thus published to combat the decline in mikveh attendance by women in North America. R. Rosenberg’s solution was innovative. Instead of merely calling on women to attend mikveh and reminding his audience of the grave consequences associated with the neglect of this requirement, he proposed a new model that would alleviate the primary concerns of women (as he identified them) – hygiene, proximity and privacy. The proposal, if adopted, could solve the problem, without incurring serious costs and without compromising the halakhic requirements.
The booklet is made up of two sections, the first part is in Hebrew and addresses a range of halakhic issues and provides guidelines for the construction of the mikveh.[vii] R. Rosenberg concludes this section with the words:[viii]
And thus immersion in a home-mikveh like this is a sterling and appropriate immersion, regarding both halakhic validity and cleanliness.
The second section of Mikveh Yehuda, written in Yiddish, offers concise, practical instructions for the implementation of the theoretical model.[ix]
Rabbi David Miller’s Mikveh Israel and The Secret of the Jew
A short time later, Rabbi David Miller (ca.1869-1939) of Oakland, California made a similar suggestion.[x] R. Miller hailed from a poor family in Lithuania. He studied in Ruzhany (Ружаны, today in Belarus) and later at the Slabodka Yeshiva.[xi] He arrived in America in the last decade of the 19th century and served in the rabbinate in New York and in Providence, Rhode Island. With time, he became disillusioned with serving in the rabbinate and moved to the west where he was successful in real estate and construction. R. Miller described himself in the following terms:[xii]
I am an authorized Rabbi, ordained by highly esteemed Jewish religious leaders, among them the great Rabbi Isaac Elchanan of Kovno. For conscientious reasons I have given up the Rabbinical profession and am working for a living as a layman. I desire no material profit from Jewish affairs.
Elsewhere he called himself “an authority on building construction”.[xiii]
His first work was a 30 page booklet in Yiddish entitled Mikvah Israel and published at the earliest in 1920 in Oakland. In this work, R. Miller outlined the simply constructed home mikveh, and included measurements and sketches of his proposal.[xiv] In 1930, R. Miller published a lengthy English book entitled The Secret of the Jew: His Life – His Family, a book that was printed in an astounding 20 editions.[xv] Moreover, according to R. Miller the book appears to have reached many lands; in 1937, seven years after its first release, R. Miller would write that his book[xvi]
has rapidly spread all over the Jewish world. It has reached such far distant lands as China, Australia, South Africa, India and the Arabian Desert.
The book contains much urging towards observance of Taharat HaMishpaha, and in that respect it resembles rabbinic sermons. R. Miller, however, went further offering detailed instructions as to how to construct a home mikveh for a mere $5.[xvii] R. Miller also expanded the number of illustrations, including suggestions for how the home mikveh could be inconspicuously stored in convenient places or disguised as other furniture.[xviii]
R. Miller’s altruism and commitment to the cause were impressive. The Secret of the Jew was “dedicated to the improvement of the human race, to the conservation of the Jewish family and to the revival of the observance of Nidah-Tvilah-Mikvah.”[xix] R. Miller’s business success afforded him the opportunity to distribute the book free of charge, as he wrote on the cover of the book:[xx]
This book is not for sale. It is loaned by the author to whomsoever may be concerned in the subject.
This sense was also reflected in R. Miller’s approach to his copyright:[xxi]
Permission for translation or reprint, as a whole or in part, for the purpose of fathering [sic] the cause, will be granted on application.
R. Miller’s communal work was not limited to the field of Taharat HaMishpaha: He was an active supporter of Orthodox Jewish education, giving generously of his time and of his money.[xxii] Late in his life he authored a third work entitled: The Secret of Happiness, which emphasized Shabbat observance and was also distributed gratis.[xxiii]
Like, R. Rosenberg, R. Miller sought to offer a halakhically viable mikveh that was hygienically acceptable to the modern person.[xxiv] R. Miller, it appears, was unaware of R. Rosenberg’s work:[xxv]
I find no literature in the English language on the rules of Mikvah, and I do not know of any popular work in any language, except my own previous work in Yiddish – ‘Mikvah Israel’ – which tells how to construct a Mikvah.
In many ways R. Miller went a step further than R. Rosenberg by adding exact measurements, estimated costs and detailed sketches of possible home mikvaot. Moreover, he sought to make his ideas accessible to the general Jewish public and to disseminate and promote his suggestion primarily through the free distribution of his books.[xxvi]
Tap water for a mikveh
I have heretofore consciously avoiding any discussion of the halakhic validity of the proposed solutions (a topic clearly beyond the scope of this paper); nevertheless, one central issue should be addressed. Both authors assumed a halakhic position that today is considered to be beyond the pale. One of the rules of a valid mikveh is that the water is not classified as sheuvim (drawn). R. Rosenberg and R. Miller were both acutely aware of the sheuvim limitation, yet their analysis of the relevant sources and observation of modern water works led them to the conclusion that city supplied tap water was not to be considered sheuvim and was hence permissible for mikveh use.[xxvii]
Indeed, almost half of R. Rosenberg’s booklet offers a halakhic analysis of this very issue.[xxviii] For his part, R. Miller dealt with the matter in his Yiddish work.[xxix] In his English work he stipulated that when using a hose to fill the mikveh, it “must lie absolutely by itself when the water is let into the Mikvah. Under no condition should a person hold or support the hose” for human intervention would render the water sheuvim and invalidate the mikveh.[xxx] Moreover, R. Miller’s volumes include indicative pictures of his suggested finished products – a DIY mikveh made from planks of wood cut to measure, with a hose leading into the box to fill the mikveh.[xxxi] In the English volume, R. Miller offered more sophisticated constructions, suggesting mikvaot constructed like a built-in bath where the water comes from taps in the walls.[xxxii]
For people familiar with current mikveh norms these pictures are startling, and while this position is not part of current normative mikveh practice, neither author thought that he was suggesting a solution that was contrary to Jewish Law. The two rabbis were aware that not all authorities would agree with their position, but they offered solutions grounded in halakhic analysis which they unreservedly shared with their readership. Moreover, both authors had worthy rabbinic credentials and received rabbinic endorsement for their suggestion.[xxxiii] R. Rosenberg and R. Miller, independent of each other, sought to encourage Taharat HaMishpaha observance and their answer led them to detail and promote a new mikveh paradigm.[xxxiv]
New paradigms
It is unclear how many people adopted the idea proposed by R. Rosenberg in Toronto and R. Miller in Oakland and built home mikvaot.[xxxv] Be the reception of the idea as it may have been, the solution to the widespread problem of lack of commitment to Taharat HaMishpaha is undoubtedly creative. The novelty of the suggestions proposed is highlighted by recalling that the two most common approaches for educating towards commitment involved calls for increased observance or relaxing rigid rules in a bid to promote the core values and to allow for greater inclusion.
Faced with the decline of mikveh observance, the famed Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (1838-1933) – more commonly known by the titles of his seminal works, Hafetz Hayim and Mishnah Berurah – opted for the first route. In 1893, the Hafetz Hayim exhorted his readers in distant lands not to ignore this central precept, highlighting the gravity of its neglect.[xxxvi] R. Rosenberg and R. Miller independently realized that such sermonizing in North America would not be effective. While they both acknowledged and highlighted the import of Taharat HaMishpaha, they chose to encourage commitment by addressing then current concerns and arguing for a new way to fulfill the precepts of old.
[i]The following abbreviations have been used:
MY: ר’ יהודה יודל ראזענבערג, ספר מקוה יהודה, טאראנטא תרע”ג?.
MI: ר’ דוד מיללער, ספר מקוה ישראל: וועגען אידישע האָפנונג – אידישע מקוה און די דריטע גאולה, אָוקלאַנד, קאַליפאָרניא תר”פ?.
TSOTJ: R. David Miller, The Secret of the Jew: His Life – His Family, Oakland 1930 (citations refer to the 2nd ed., unless otherwise stated).
TSOH: R. David Miller, The Secret of Happiness: How to Enjoy Life, Oakland 1937 (citations refer to the 4th ed.).
[ii]A full discussion of karet is beyond the scope of this paper. For the biblical reference as it refers to niddah, see Leviticus 18:19; 20:18; see also M. Keritot 1:1. As I implied, the nature of the karet punishment is far from clear; for the various opinions, see B. Moed Katan 28a; B. Sanhedrin 64b, 90b, 99a; Y. Bikkurim 6b (2:1). Rashi, Genesis 17:14; Keritot 2a; Rashi, Shabbat 25b, s.v. karet (following Leviticus 20:20-21; cf. Tosafot, Yevamot 2b, s.v. eshet). Ibn Ezra, Genesis 17:14. Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishna, Introduction to Chapter Helek; Laws of Repentance 8:1, 5. Nahmanides, Leviticus 18:29; Shaar HaGemul. On the severity of the karet punishment, see: Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 1:7.
[iii]MY was also the only Hebrew book published in Toronto until 1940. For a description of the booklet, see Yosef Goldman, Hebrew Printing in America, 1735-1926: A History and Annotated Bibliography, Brooklyn 2006 (herein: “Goldman 2006”), entry 631. The booklet carries a facsimile of a hand written approbation written in Warsaw and dated מוצאי ש”ק שמיני תרע”ג, that is March 29, 1913 (see: MY, [p. 2]). On the title page R. Rosenberg is described as currently serving as a rabbi in Toronto. R. Rosenberg’s tenure in Toronto ended in 1919 following a dispute with the local authorities in charge of kashrut, at which time he moved to Montreal.
The booklet has about 20 pages in Hebrew, and an additional 9 pages in Yiddish entitled דער פּלאן מיט די דינים אויף זשארגאָן (=the plan with the laws in jargon, i.e. Yiddish).
[iv]Much has been written on R. Rosenberg and it is apparent that this complex character is yet to be fully understood. See, for example: Ira Robinson, “Kabbalist and Communal Leader: Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg and the Canadian Jewish Community,” Canadian Jewish Studies, vol. 1 (1993), pp. 41-58; Goldman 2006, entry 631 and bibliography therein. On R. Rosenberg’s Golem notoriety, see, for example: Ira Robinson, “Literary Forgery and Hasidic Judaism: The Case of Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg,” Judaism 40:1 (Winter 1991), pp. 61-78; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London: R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague,” Tradition 36:1 (Spring 2002), pp. 26-58.
[v]MY, on the cover and again on the title page (all translations of MY presented herein are mine own – LC).
[vi]MY, [p.3].
[vii] See MY, pp. 4-22. Halakhic topics that R. Rosenberg dealt with include: the permissibility of tap water (see below near note 28), appropriate structures that could be used, their materials and measurements, how to fill the mikveh, whether the same structure could also be used for bathing before tevilah, how to heat the water, the need for the presence of another person to verify total immersion, etc. R. Rosenberg added a further requirement: after constructing the home mikveh, it must be shown to a competent rabbinic authority to ensure that the halakhic guidelines have been met.
[viii]MY, p. 22.
[ix]See: MY, pp. 24-32. Many of the guidelines in the Yiddish are translations of the Hebrew section, indicating R. Rosenberg’s assumption that readers might not be interested in the legal discussions, or not able to wade through the halakhic analysis, preferring to skip to the practical instructions. In this vein, the measurements in the Hebrew section are given in talmudic units (amah, tefah, etzba, etc), while in the Yiddish section they are given in imperial units.
[x]R. Miller has generally escaped the attention of scholars; the best biography to date appears to be Yitzchok Levine’s “Rabbi David Miller: Forgotten Fighter for Orthodoxy,” The Jewish Press, September 13, 2006, available at http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/19404 (herein: “Levine 2006”). See also: TSOTJ, 20th revised ed., vol 1, pp. xi-xiv; Fred Rosenbaum, Free to Choose: The Making of a Jewish Community in the American West – The Jews of Oakland, California from the Gold Rush to the Present Day, Berkeley 1976 (herein: “Rosenbaum 1976”), pp. 87-88 and note. The Yeshiva University Archives, Rabbi David Miller Collection and Koenigsberg Collection hold correspondence of R. Miller. A template with R. Miller’s portrait appears at the beginning of some of the editions (for example: TSOTJ, 14th revised ed.; 20th revised ed., vol 1; TSOH, 4th ed.; 11th ed., 15th ed.; et al).
[xi]See: TSOTJ, Hebrew foreword.
[xii]TSOTJ, p. 290 (also quoted in the posthumous TSOTJ, 20th revised ed., vol. 1, pp. xi); originally rendered in Yiddish in MI, p. 3.
[xiii]TSOTJ, note at p. 381.
[xiv]MI is available at: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/41215. I have given the title as R. Miller transcribed it on the cover of his English volume (see below). The complete title is: ספר מקוה ישראל: וועגען אידישע האָפנונג – אידישע מקוה און די דריטע גאולה (= The Book Mikveh of Israel: Concerning Jewish Hope – Jewish Mikveh and the Third Redemption). This title may be a play on words, for the Yiddish word האָפנונג could be rendered as מְקַוֶה (hope), the same letters as the word מִקְוֶה. Below the title: ווי צו מאַכען אַ פרייוועט מקוה, לייכט און גיך, ביליג און גוט (= how to make a private mikveh, easily and quickly, cheap and good).
The year of publication does not appear on the work, however the two approbations on the inside of the cover are dated 3 and 5 Av 5680, that is July 18 and 20, 1920.
Besides approbations (see below note 33) and R. Miller’s introduction, MI has the following subsections (loosely translated from the original Yiddish): women’s tevilah obligation, tevilah from a hygienic standpoint, the laws of niddah from a psychological standpoint, the importance of Taharat HaMishpaha, the third redemption (as it is dependant on Taharat HaMishpaha), the way to raise Jewish children, the holiness of the Jewish home, how every woman can keep Taharat HaMishpaha, what is a mikveh, the structure of the mikveh (with measurements in inches), which water can be used in the mikveh, how to fill and how to empty the mikveh, how to heat the mikveh and a summary of significant laws mentioned in the booklet. MI also includes illustrations of the finished product (see: MI, p. 23-27; back cover).
[xv]The second edition of TSOTJ has 507 pages, as well as a 3 page Hebrew foreword. On the back cover, a Hebrew title of the book is given: סוד נצח ישראל (= The Secret of the Eternity of Israel). The 3rd edition is available at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/2920, and volume 2 of the 20th revised edition is available at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/2921. Chapters 17 and 19 of TSOTJ – with a few omissions, but significantly complete with R. Miller’s pictures – are available at http://www.homemikveh.org, a website dedicated to building your own mikveh. For the purposes of this article I have consulted the 2nd, 14th revised and 20th revised editions. My thanks to Zvi Grumet and Shalom Berger for bringing this work to my attention.
[xvi]TSOH, pp. xvii-xviii.
[xvii]It would appear that US$5 in 1930 is approximately the equivalent of US$65 today. This amount may be alluding to the “five-dollar workday” introduced by Henry Ford (1863-1947) in 1914, more than doubling the minimum daily pay from $2.34, in a bid to improve the lot of his workers.
[xviii]See: TSOTJ, pp. 412-423, 417-420, 424-426; these pictures are available at http://www.homemikveh.org/sotj/ch19.html (with an appended comment: “Although the rabbi’s tastes in interior decorating probably were retro even for his day (75 years ago!), the basic ideas laid out above are sound”). R. Miller also included drawings of suggested public mikvaot; see: TSOTJ, pp. 428-438.
[xix]TSOTJ, back of first title page.
[xx]TSOTJ, cover and second title page. In the posthumous 20th revised edition the language is slightly different: “This book is not for sale. It is given to anyone interested in its contents.”
[xxi]TSOTJ, back of second title page. Cf. the standard copyright warning at the beginning R. Rosenberg’s work (MY, [p. 2]):
“אזהרה: ידוע לכל שעל פּי דין תורה כל אדם יכול לאסור את שלו, וכן גם חק המדינה. לכן אוסר אני על כל אדם לבל יהין להדפיס חיבור הזה בלתי רשותי. העובר ענש יענש. והשומע יברך.” המחבּר
[xxii]R. Miller opened and supported a Talmud Torah for the children of Oakland, which was met by opposition and eventually closed in 1921. R. Miller called this “the greatest blow I ever received in my spiritual life, and the hardest struck on the innocent Jewish children” (quoted in Levine 2006). On the unpopularity of R. Miller, Fred Rosenbaum wrote: “The Oakland Jewish leadership felt that Miller was a crank or, according to one reporter in 1929, ‘detrimental to the best interests of East Bay Jewry.’ A short-lived Jewish community newspaper, The Menorah, was instructed by the Federation to cease the publication of Miller’s articles. The [Jewish Federation] Fund, meanwhile, icily replied to his request for money on behalf of a Lithuanian Yeshivah with the statement, ‘We do not recognize David Miller as the representative of anything.’” (Rosenbaum 1976, p. 87). One of the approbations to R. Miller’s Yiddish work also makes mention of his philanthropic commitment to Jewish causes (see: MI, back of cover). For more on R. Miller’s philanthropic attempts on behalf of Orthodox Jewish education in Oakland, see: TSOTJ, 20th revised ed., p. xii-xiii (which includes a list of institutions he supported); Levine 2006. In his will dated February 23, 1938, R. Miller left money to nine prominent yeshivot in Europe and America.
[xxiii]Published in Oakland 1937. On the back cover the Hebrew title of the book is: סוד האושר (= The Secret of Happiness). The book is available at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/2907..
[xxiv]See, for instance, the first approbation to the Yiddish work (MI, back of cover):
…מבואר ומתואר איך לעשות מקוה כשרה כדת, לכל אחת בתוך ביתו, שיהי’ כשרה, ושיהי’ גם לפי חוקי ההיגעניא, שלא יהי’ שום התנצלות גם להחפשים ביותר לעבור בזדון חלילה על איסורי כריתות.
[xxv]TSOTJ, p. 279.
[xxvi]As R. Miller explained, the choice of language of publication – Yiddish and then English, rather than the traditional Hebrew – was aimed at giving his works a wider readership (see: MI, p. 3; TSOTJ, p. 289).
[xxvii]For an analysis of the validity of tap water for mikvaot – besides the works of R. Rosenberg and R. Miller – see: ר’ ניסן טעלושקין, טהרת המים: ילקוט של דיני מקואות לכלליהם ופרטיהם, ניו-יארק תש”ז, עמ’ קכב ואילך. Rabbi Telushkin (1880-1970) – recognized as an authority in the field of mikvaot – was born in Russia, served as a rabbi in New York and was a prominent in the leadership of the Lubavitch hasidic community. It is noteworthy that when R. Telushkin dealt with the issue of city supplied tap water, he consulted, inter alia, with R. Miller (p. 123):
…אף השתמשתי בהידיעות שמסר לי הרר”ד מילער בהיותו כאן והוא כארכיטעקט עפּ”י אומנתו בקי בדבר …
Moreover, R. Telushkin acknowledged R. Miller’s stature and contribution (note at p. 115):
גברא רבא ויקירא שהקדיש בחייו את נפשו וכל מאודו להחזקת התורה והמצוה בארץ זו, ביחוד מצוות טהרת המשפּחה, וזכה לזכות את הרבים בספרו המצויין ‘סוד נצח ישראל’ (באנגלית) … והפיץ י”א מהדורות מספרו זה בחנם.
(see also below note 35). While tap water is not used in today’s mikvaot, its validity was not dismissed out of hand but debated rigorously. The positions taken by R. Rosenberg and R. Miller should be considered in this light.
[xxviii]See: MY, pp. 4-15.
[xxix]See: MI, pp. 29-31.
[xxx]See: TSOTJ, p. 401. R. Miller was well aware of the critique of his position, and on a number of occasions he restated his contention that tap water could halakhically be used (see, for instance: TSOTJ, 14th revised ed., pp. 360ff).
[xxxi]See: MI, pp. 23, 26, back cover; TSOTJ, p. 417.
[xxxii]See: TSOTJ, pp. 420, 434, 435, 440. I specify that the illustration is of a built-in bath, for a detached, portable bath on legs is invalid for use as a mikveh on other grounds.
[xxxiii]R. Rosenberg’s work carries an approbation from Rabbi Pethahiah Horenblas (1844-1914) of Warsaw.
R. Miller’s Yiddish work carries approbations from Rabbi Shimon Zvi Album of Chicago, Rabbi Shalom Elhanan HaLevi Jaffe of New York and Rabbi Gavriel Wolf Margolis, rabbi of the United Hebrew Community of N.Y. (R. Margolis’ approbation is missing from the hebrewbooks.org version). All three approbations were reprinted in R. Miller’s English work, together with an additional approbation from the dean of the American Orthodox rabbinate of the time, Rabbi Moses Zevulun Margolies, (Ramaz, 1851-1936), rabbi of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun (see: TSOTJ, pp. 291-293). The approbations not only attested to R. Miller’s standing, but also approved of the halakhic analysis he presented. In a later edition, R. Miller noted that these rabbis had endorsed his mikveh as “kosher to all opinions without any doubt whatsoever.” He then detailed the positions filled by these respected rabbinic leaders, stating that their pedigree – and by association, R. Miller’s mikveh – should not be questioned (see: TSOTJ, 14th revised ed., pp. 297-300). In another edition, the four approbations were rendered into English (see: TSOTJ, 20th revised ed., vol. 2, pp. 19-20). R. Miller acknowledged that the endorsements were for his Yiddish MI, adding that they “are in a measure equally applicable to my present work in English,” although “in some instances I have found it advisable to revise my first issue and improve upon it with the present work. For these amendments I myself assume full responsibility,” but for practical reasons he did not print them all (TSOTJ, p. 294). R. Miller also mentioned other rabbis who were present when R. Elbaum wrote his approbation and added their approval: Rabbi Silver of Minneapolis, Rabbi Horowitz of Saint Paul, Rabbi Daidchik of Des Moines, Iowa, and Rabbi Kordon of Chicago (see: MI, p. 25). In his English work, R. Miller wrote that since publishing MI, he “received numerous voluntary endorsements from great rabbis the world over” (TSOTJ, p. 290). The English volume also included a foreword by Rabbi Dr. Charles Eliezer Hillel Kauvar (1879-1971) of Denver (see: TSOTJ, pp. 9-26) and a preface by Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel (1885-1940) (see: TSOTJ, pp. 27-31).
[xxxiv]While I have suggested that this is a new mikveh paradigm, it is possible to point to precedents. Excavations at Second Temple period sites throughout Israel have revealed mikvaot in private houses. These mikvaot, however, were used for a range of ritual purity needs (that is, eating and handling terumah, eating hullin in purity, etc.), and not primarily for Taharat HaMishpaha (my thanks to Yonatan Adler).
My own great-great grandfather, Hayim Shalom Shnider, a Bohush hasid, was amongst the first settlers of Rosh Pina, and had a small mivkeh in his back yard there.
[xxxv]In his approbation, R. Horenblas alluded to opposition to R. Rosenberg’s suggestion:… ויש מי שמחשבים זאת לדרך ריפורמית… (MY, [p.2]).
Writing in 1947, R. Telushkin acknowledged R. Miller’s contribution (above note 27), but noted his lack of success in introducing home mikvaot (p. 115):
אולם המנוח הרב ר’ דוד מילער ז”ל, בשקדו הרבה לתקנת בנות ישראל, וביחוד לתקנת מצוה זו של טהרת בנות ישראל שנפרצה ביותר במדינה זו, אחרי שראה שעצותיו ותחבולותיו בהוראות לעשות מקואות פרטיות בבתים ולהכשירם במימי העיר לא הספיקו עוד למשוך אליהן את בנות ישראל, הלך וטרח וחפש עצה להקטין מדת המקוה עד כמה שאפשר עפ”י דין, בכדי להקל על הרוצות להזהר בטהרה ולאפשר להן תיקון מקואות בחדר המטות שלהן וכדומה
R. Telushkin’s reference is to the chapter entitled “The Revision” that appeared in later editions of TSOTJ, where R. Miller significantly downsized his original minimum mikveh measurements (see: TSOTJ, 14th revised ed., pp. 334-365).
[xxxvi]See: ר’ ישראל מאיר הכהן מראדין, נדחי ישראל, ווארשא תרנ”ד, פרק מא, אות כג. The Hafetz Hayim authored two fascinating halakhic words before embarking upon the famous Mishnah Berurah. Mahane Yisrael (Vilna 1881) was written for Jewish boys conscripted to the Russian army, and Nidhei Yisrael (Warsaw 1893) was written for Jewish emigrants from Russia to far off lands. These works are yet to be fully explored; for now see the overview provided by Ira Robinson in his introduction to Simcha Fishbane, The Boldness of an Halakhist: An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, The Arukh Hashulhan, Boston 2008, pp. xiv-xxi. According to Robinson, “[i]t was, in fact, the immense influence and popularity of Mishnah Berurah which eclipsed Rabbi Kagan’s former attempts at halakhic popularization.” As Robinson argued, these two works are still important for they contribute to understanding “the intellectual origins of Mishnah Berurah.” I would add that these two works also provide an important window into the time period.
The Hafetz Hayim, however, addressed his concerns regarding mikveh attendance specifically to Jews living in Africa, not Jews in North America. The Hafetz Hayim did, however, specifically mention America in other contexts (see his introduction, the first chapter and chapter 36; see also the introduction of his son to the New York 1951 edition that was printed with an English translation).