State-Funded Ritual Baths Bar Single Women To Prevent Extra-Marital Sex

"The bottom line is that we are asking state-funded authorities to refrain from becoming involved in women’s personal reasons for wanting to immerse themselves in a mikva, and to recognize that each woman has the right to choose for herself.”

State-Funded Ritual Baths Bar Single Women To Prevent Extra-Marital Sex
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

At the direction of Israel's haredi-controlled chief rabbinate, Israel's state-funded mikvaot, ritual baths, are barring single women.

The vast majority of women using mikvas are married. They use the mikva to "purify" themselves after menstruation, allowing them to have sex with their husbands – which would otherwise be prohibited according to Jewish law.

Except for converts who immerse as part of the conversion process, single women have been barred from immersing by the chief rabbinate, which cites a 10th Century CE halakhic ruling forbidding single women from immersing in mikvas. The ruling was made primarily to help put an end to premarital sex, relationships with concubines and ad hoc conversions done to convert local servant girls for the purpose of marriage or concubinage.

Kolech, the Center for Women’s Justice, petitioned the High Court of Justice to force mikvas to allow single women to immerse. It cited reasons beyond sex that could cause a single woman to want to use the mikva. Among those reasons is visiting the Temple Mount, which by Jewish law requires immersion in a mikva, something Zionist Orthodox rabbis often allow but haredi rabbis usually forbid.

But haredi and even many Zionist Orthodox rabbis refuse to allow single women to immerse for the purpose of visiting the Temple Mount, because the rabbis fear that doing so would lead to immersion for extra-marital sex.

Another reason cited by Kolech is immersion before Yom Kippur.

Susan Weiss, Kolech’s founding director told the Jerusalem Post that the state has no legal right to impose values on women:

The state has no right to impose its values on these women.

This issue is also a microcosm for the many human rights problems women face in this country and highlights the egregious power the rabbinate has over women. It is right that they should have to account and justify their power over us proves how egregious.

The bottom line is that we are asking state-funded authorities to refrain from becoming involved in women’s personal reasons for wanting to immerse themselves in a mikva, and to recognize that each woman has the right to choose for herself.

Before the 10th Century CE, especially during the period that the second Jerusalem Temple stood, single women are believed to have commonly immersed in mikvas.

Kolech argued in its petition to the High Court that the state-funded mikvas' attendants had no legal right to question women seeking to immerse to determine why the women want to use the mikva, or to ban those who are single from immersing.

The High Court gave the Religious Services Ministry 45 days to account for its ban.

[Hat Tip: Seymour.]

Comments

[Bench Kvetcher]

Swim in the ocean instead?

[Yossi Ginzberg]

The Churches bar many from receiving Holy communion or being baptized. Why can't a Mikvah bar those that it wishes to?

I'm all for freedom and womens rights, but this campaign is just silly. Don't like religion? Stay away from it, don't try to force it to accomodate your whims.

[Shmarya]

The Churches bar many from receiving Holy communion or being baptized. Why can't a Mikvah bar those that it wishes to?

I'm all for freedom and womens rights, but this campaign is just silly. Don't like religion? Stay away from it, don't try to force it to accomodate your whims.

Posted by: Yossi Ginzberg | September 10, 2012 at 01:33 PM

The churches are NOT funded by the state.

The mikvas are.

[Maskil]

Yossi,

Because the Mikvehs are state-funded, therefore there cannot be selective accessibility.

Shmarya,

... to recognize that each woman has the right to choose for herself.

And why stop with women? It is state-funded, so shouldn't it be open to all citizens regardless of gender, creed or religion? It's not a restroom or public bath. Even the women never see each other naked. Given the privacy, anyone, Jew or Muslim; male, female, or hermaphrodite should have equal access. You are just proposing replacing one form of selection with another. That is not equality. But you don't care if it's equal, as long as someone is sticking it to the Orthodox, right?

[Shmarya]

And why stop with women? It is state-funded, so shouldn't it be open to all citizens regardless of gender, creed or religion? It's not a restroom or public bath. Even the women never see each other naked. Given the privacy, anyone, Jew or Muslim; male, female, or hermaphrodite should have equal access. You are just proposing replacing one form of selection with another. That is not equality. But you don't care if it's equal, as long as someone is sticking it to the Orthodox, right?

Posted by: Maskil | September 10, 2012 at 01:43 PM

Sigh.

The state recognizes gender-specific restrooms as legal and it allows one religion to ban prayers by other religions at holy cites the religion controls and pays for.

When the state pays for the site, however, the state is allowed to broaden (and for security reasons, restrict) who can and who cannot pray there.

But the state cannot say to a Jew who wants to pray privately at the kotel, do you pray as a haredi Jew or as a Reform Jew?, and then ban those who want to privately pray as Reform Jews.

In the same way, it does not have the legal right to determine that one woman's religious reason for immersion in a state-funded mikva is kosher while another's is not (with the probable exception of "rogue" conversions, because the state already has rights regarding conversion).

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Yeah, that makes sense in light of "lifnei iver lo titen michshol"—a Torah commandment—last time I checked.

Generally speaking, we rule safek d'oraita le-chumra and safek d'rabanan le'kula.

It's only my opinion, but methinks someone is operating in fabrication mode.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. —H. L. Mencken

Chareidism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having sex. —Nigritude Ultramarine

[Bas Melech]

So is it better for her to have intercourse when still unclean? What would the rabbis say about the baby? With or without going to a mikveh, these men and women will still have sexual relations.

[blueberry muffins]

The real issue is why is the state funding a religious operation. If you accept the premise that the state does fund religious operations, then naturally the operation will be bound by halacha.

[Shmarya]

The real issue is why is the state funding a religious operation. If you accept the premise that the state does fund religious operations, then naturally the operation will be bound by halacha.

Posted by: blueberry muffins | September 10, 2012 at 02:09 PM

Not at all.

That isn't how Israeli law works.

In this case, for example, non-Orthodox single women who want to use the mikva for whatever reason have to be allowed to do so – even if that reason is to have sex or to comply with a ruling from a non-Orthodox rabbi that does not conform to Orthodox halakha.

If you don't like that, don't take state money.

[A. Nuran]

Good to see you back Nigritude Ultramarine.

I have to disagree with your statement "Chareidism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having sex." They're even more afraid that someone may be having unauthorized thoughts

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

@A. Nuran - Thanks!

[Sluts]

If they plan on performing extra-marital sex then they probably don't give two shits about using a mikvah.

[Jeff]

Chareidism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having sex engaging in mixed dancing. —Nigritude Ultramarine

Fixed it for you, NU.

[Sol]

How do they even know if a woman is single? Are they asked to show a wedding pic on the way in?

[Sol]

How do they even know if a woman is single? Are they asked to show a wedding pic on the way in?

[Sarek]

I was unaware that the mikvaot in Israel were the personal property of the rabbis. If that is the case, then they may well have the authority to deny access to those who displease them.

BUT THEY DON'T!!! The public is paying, therefore the public is allowed in. The rabbis don't get to dictate this.

What's next, the rabbis decree they own all vaginas?

[Bas Melech]

Many years ago, the rabbis stressed the importance of non-married women keeping the laws if nidah and mikvah, if they had sexual relations.

Can't the rabbis make up their minds?

[JK2]

What's next, the rabbis decree they own all vaginas?

Posted by: Sarek | September 10, 2012 at 03:56 PM

It seems that they believe they already do.

In Israel, are people (both sexes) charged for using these facilities?

[jancsibacsi]

Sarek-They already own all dicks:)

[Rebitzman]

If the only reason for mikveh was to promote kosher sex, the rabbinate might have a point.

It isn't, and they don't.

[David]

The ignorance of some people is saddening.

1. Ritual purity is a must for all women. See how far some went to make sure their unwed daughters kept it, e.g., in http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_65.html#PARTa .

2. Sex is not the only thing a loving couple can do. Unlike some Haredim, not everyone is sex-crazed rabbit who will have sex with anything that walks if not prevented by layers upon layers of “fences”. Some couples may want to, oh, hold hands. This requires ritual purity. Once the girl has immersed, there is absolutely no halakhic or moral reason that they should not be able to touch each other. In fact, this was the norm until Jews decided to compete with Muslims and Christians and make themselves far more chaste than Judaism ever asked of them. God forbid Jewish couples should be allowed to hold hands before marriage! People who seriously oppose this are sick.

3. The only one who prohibited premarital sex was Maimonides, and there were real problems with his view (which is quite anti-sex and uncharacteristically untextual in several places). Many disagreed with him, including but not limited to Raabad and Nahmonides. See, e.g., http://spacechabad.blogspot.com.br/2005/11/what-does-judaism-say-about-pre.html . If an observant couple is going to have sex, why force them to do so by violating an explicit biblical prohibition when it's possible to do so in a way that is permitted according to so many? Just to spite them? That's just evil.

I hope people come to their senses and realize how psychologically and spiritually detrimental the no-single-women rule has been for Jews. With this rule, Jews are forced either to repress their urges in a very unhealthy way for years and years or to violate halakhah and feel guilty for merely holding hands. So why have such a rule? We are not Puritans. This is not Authentic Judaism!

[Jeff]

I hope people come to their senses

Well, David, that presupposes they have senses to come to. I wouldn't give odds.

[Shlomo1]

Some women especially if they don't want anyone else to know use the ocean as a mikvah

[Rebitzman]

Some women especially if they don't want anyone else to know use the ocean as a mikvah

Yo are suggesting that if the wish to be descrete, they should walk butt naked into the ocean?

You have GPS directions to the beach where this is possible?

[David]

Posted by: David | September 10, 2012 at 04:37 PM

This wasn't me, the usual David.

[zionist goy]

David, i think the ultras adherence (at least by most) of Shomer Nagia is a most useful emotional prophylactic to protect from harm and physical ills. Some who have experienced both sides of the coin can attest to that.

[Shlomo1]

Rebitzman, There are ways of doing this modestly by putting on loose robes for instance. I know that this is done

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

Maybe those Israeli rabbis rule thusly, but here in my jurisdiction, that's exactly how we get the sweet young things to aquiesce: we tell 'em that if they go to the mikveh, it's OK.

You should come around when we have "Singles' Night" at our community mikveh! The avreichim are lined up all around.

[Modesty Blase]

What have I missed? Since when does a woman have to declare her marital status on entering the mikvah? Even in the depths of haredi Londonistan, it's a 'no-questions-asked' policy.

[Sandi Seto]

There's no simplistic twist to lasting longer in bed. Just equivalent perception up recipes won't learn you how to be a belligerent chef, vindicatory equal measuring a Forbes article doesn't pretend you Tunnel Sideboard, and fitting equal performing a few chords on your bass doesn't alter you Jimi Guitarist, you give requirement to administer yourself and piddle changes in the way you mentally move sex if you necessity to genuinely superior the art of lasting yearner in bed and unendingly charming.

[put a squae in to a hole]

To slut.

You are 1000% correct.

Will any married man, screwing around behind his wife's back. (especially summer time) gonna make sure his misstress went to the mikvah for a dip before they fuck??????????? PURE BULLSHIT.

Is there any married lady that goes to the mikvah before going to be with a married man??

This seems to be just another case of bashing the frum community by the womens lib organizations, if not, it's a horney lesbian that heard what goes on in the ladies mikvah and thinks she will get an orgy by being seen naked by the mikvah lady.

[mikvah is not sanitary . it should be abolished .]

who needs to go to the mikvah ?

it's disgusting . it's dirty . you catch infections . it's not sanitary .

mikvah should be abolished .

in the old days , back thousands years ago , there was no individual bathtubs or showers in ppl's home .

the only way to bath was the communal bath = the mikvah , where ppl bath one after another , in the same bath .

but today , ppl have their own bathroom ,
with their own bathtub , changing the water after each bath , for hygene purposes . noone baths into the same bath that someone used before .

the idea of the mikvah is disgusting .

no wonder religious ppl looks dirty , and smell , bc dozens of ppl keep bathing in the same water .

also, for young boys, the shock of entering a fag communal bath where they have chances of being molested by old
sick in the head old men, bc of the reaction it triggers to their head , seeing young naked boys .

[Didn't want to stand idly by...]

(irregular) David wrote: the only one who prohibited premarital sex was Maimonides

Even according to the writer in your link, that is false. Additionally, the writer asserts such a position as m'deoraisa without actually showing that it is, and ultimately winds up addressing the matter as "pilagshuth", concubinism, which is not synonymous with pre-marital sex in so many ways that addressing them would simply be a waste of time.

[Ma'ayan Alexander, CWJ]

Thank you for discussing this issue, which has become increasingly relevant for women and Israel.
The Center for Women's Justice is a public interest law organization dedicated to defending and protecting the right of women in Israel to equality, dignity and justice within Jewish law. Kolech - Religious Women’s Forum is the first Orthodox Jewish feminist organization in Israel. We cooperate on many activities, but we are two different organizations.

[dlz]

mikvah is not sanitary:
What exactly is the difference between a "disgusting, filthy" mikvah and a swimming pool?

[Jeff]

What exactly is the difference between a "disgusting, filthy" mikvah and a swimming pool?

Filtration and chlorine.