By Daniel Abraham and Shmuli Phillips
An article on theTorah. com by Hayah Katz (linked at the end) argues that ancient cultures which had plenty of water nonetheless often cleansed themselves from impurity through pouring water on their bodies. Katz concludes that, other than the few instances in which mayim chayim is specifically required
“In all other cases of defilement, purification is accomplished by washing in water, without any requirement that it be running water. It is reasonable to assume that the form taken by ritual washing for the purpose of purifying the body was directly derived from the forms of washing that were possible in the various regions of Judah.”
In Isaac Sassoon’s article (discussed in last week’s post), he also questions how the Israelites in the Sinai would have had enough water to cleanse themselves through immersion. Yonatan Adler goes as far as to suggest that the practice of immersion and building mikva’ot was influenced by and a response to the Hellenistic hip-bath practice that eventually somehow evolved into full immersion for the Jews.
These claims can be challenged from several different angles:
First off, it should be recognized that there were a number of ancient cultures that had large pools and required immersion in water for ritual purposes. For starters, Yiğit Erbil and Alice Mouton describe water cults that existed among the ancient Hittites. All sorts of large pools were built near temples for ritual purification. They even describe how animals required full immersion before sacrifice (see here). In a similar vein, Professor David Shapira describes a number of purification rituals involving water which were uncovered from excavations in the proximity of ancient Egyptian temples (The “Molten Sea” Revisited David Shapira 2020).” Professor Hector Avalos in discussing the ancient magical texts known as Namburbi writes "In one medical Namburbi a man must immerse himself in the river seven times."
Clearly then, bathing in large pools and immersion was a practice in ancient times and this cannot be simply dismissed.
Secondly, the availability of water for bathing purposes in ancient Israel must be looked at more closely. There were lakes, rivers, streams, wells, cisterns, and reservoirs that could easily serve as a mikvah.
Whereas reservoirs were much larger, unroofed, and for public use, cisterns were often built for private use. In the words of Sennacherib in 2 Kings 18:31 “Don’t listen to Hezekiah. For thus said the king of Assyria: Make your peace with me and come out to me, i.e., to my representative the Rabshakeh. so that each man may eat of his vine, and each man may eat of his fig tree, and each man may drink from his cistern."
James Kugel describes how new technologies aided the early settlement in the highlands of Israel, writing “…the introduction of a new type of waterproof plaster to line these cisterns allowed rainwater to be collected and preserved far more efficiently.” Kugel adds that “Before these innovations, permanent settlements had been located mostly in places of abundant water; now a village could survive solely on rainwater collected in the new cisterns.” (p. 384)
Some of the earliest plastered cisterns have been discovered in Hazor and Gezer, around 1800 BCE. Even in areas such as the Negev where rainfall is much less, archaeologists have nonetheless discovered advanced rain collecting techniques in cisterns that date to the Bronze age.
Thus even as early as possibly 4,000 years ago, there is the very real possibility that the inhabitants of the region had developed highly advanced water storing techniques.
In the Temple itself, Chronicles 4:6 states, “…But [Solomon’s] Sea was for the Cohanim to wash in it.” The Jerusalem Talmud suggests that the Molten Sea that Solomon built was one big mikveh that the Priests used to immerse themselves in. The Temple – and Jerusalem more generally – would have required a significant reservoir of stored water in order to purify arriving priests and pilgrims.
In 2012, the Israeli Antiquities Authority discovered a cistern in the Jerusalem that they say likely dates to the first Temple and could have held 66,000 gallons of water. Tvika Tsuk, chief archaeologist of Israel's Nature and Parks Authority, said: 'Presumably the large water reservoir, which is situated near the Temple Mount, was used for the everyday activities of the Temple Mount itself and also by the pilgrims who went up to the Temple and required water for bathing and drinking.” While there is some disagreement about the dating of these reservoirs, the fact remains that there is ample evidence that the means for immersion were quite available.
But what of the claims that the Israelites did not have enough water in the desert? For one, there are some oases in the Sinai desert that the Israelites could have used for all their ritual needs. The Israelites would naturally be led from water source to water source as need be. The ocean could have served this purpose whenever they were near one. We also read in Psalm 68:9-10 that generous rain poured down on Israel in the desert – as well accounts of God miraculously producing water when required.
Yonatan Adler’s article claims that it would be unlikely that Bathsheba would have a roof that could support a full mikveh. However, the verse in question may be saying only that David was on his own roof while Batsheva was bathing somewhere below on the ground level.
Turning now to an analysis of the biblical laws and specifically the claim that the Torah did not require immersion.
When dealing with the Torah, one must be very careful when making argument from silence. The Torah, like any book, was given to a specific audience and its wording and instruction therefore took into account the background knowledge of its initial recipients. There are many instances in which the Torah will give us a law that is not fully explained. The Torah forbids work on the Sabbath, but never spells out exactly what work is. The reader is expected to know what the Sabbath labors are.
The laws of immersion may be no different. When it was first commanded, the Torah may have expected its readership to know that “washing” referred to immersion because that is what everyone did.
The most powerful argument in favour of interpreting biblical “washing” as full-body immersion emerges from an episode in Kings, in which the Aramean general, Na’aman, is smitten with leprosy and seeks a cure from the prophet, Elisha. When Elisha tells Na’aman to wash in the Jordan - "וְרָחַצְתָּ֚", Naaman understood that to mean immersion - " וַיִּטְבֹּ֚ל." “So he went down and immersed himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had bidden”. (II Kings 5).
In conclusion, we have found that ancient near-eastern cultures did require full-body immersion to purify, and that the First Temple conditions did potentially allow for an abundance of stored natural water to be used for ritual baths. Most significantly, we also saw how the terms “wash” and “immerse” were used interchangeably. This phenomenon suggests that modern scholars who construct theories based on an attempt to distinguish “wash” from “immerse” might be displaying insufficient sensitivity to the realities of the ancient world and how the Torah’s first recipients are likely to have interpreted its terms.
https://www.thetorah.com/.../biblical-purification-was-it...
https://www.thetorah.com/.../the-purification-of-a-niddah...
https://www.thetorah.com/.../on-the-origins-of-tevilah...
First posted on Facebook on 18 May 2022, here.
