Berakhot 065

Alan Ganapol writes concerning Mishnah Four:

This mishnah, dealing with the ritual impurity of a man who experienced a seminal emission, as opposed to having sexual relations, is interesting… but, very troubling. Perhaps no more so than other rulings associated with other involuntary bodily emissions. Perhaps because I enjoy understanding motivations I am trying to put some logical sense into the variety of these rulings. Why the convolutions, the halakhic constructions and the evident variations addressing this issue emanating from Vayikra 15:16? Were they troubled by bodily functions that didn't, in their opinion – given their knowledge – seem to have any purpose? Maybe these functions represented a person out of control at some level and was therefore something to be concerned about. Therefore the need to have a "time out", which is represented by a visit to the Mikveh and/or a separation from the community, to then regain the state of ritual purity (i.e., control). As a "progressive" Jew I am gladdened by the variations in the understanding and the rulings associated with this mishnah… certainly given our "black hatted" brethren's insistence on a single halakhic path.

I respond:

First of all let me make something very clear that was not perhaps made clear in my previous explanations: the requirement of the takkanah of Ezra that men were to bathe in a mikveh after emitting semen was not – as Alan seems to assume – restricted to a seminal emission unconnected with sexual intercourse. For every emission of semen, whatever the purpose or manner, it was considered necessary to bathe in a mikveh before resuming normal liturgical activities – so that they would not be "pestering their wives like roosters". Is it any wonder that this takkanah "did not become accepted throughout Jewry" and therefore was eventually abolished?

As far as Alan's surmising the reasons for the takkanah – his guess is as good as anyone else's – including mine. My own view is that emissions from the body were considered "impure" in that they required water to keep the body clean, and there was no practical distinction made between ritual cleanliness and what we would call simple hygiene; this, even if there was an ideological distinction made between the two. Add to this the "mystery" of semen and menstruous blood and the picture is complete. I mean "mystery" in the nicest sense of the word – a sense of awe and reverence for these bodily functions so intimately connected with the creation of human life. (However, there is no doubt that at certain stages in our religious development the sexual act was looked upon as something "degrading". I think in particular of the time of Ezra and the 16th-18th centuries CE. In view of the almost rabidly permissive and, in my opinion, degrading attitude to sex that may be observed in our modern society in general, perhaps we should re-emphasize these more reserved attitudes as a temporary corrective. Or would we then be seen as out-dated old fuddy-duddies?)

Ed Frankel writes concerning Mishnah Five:

I wonder, perhaps it is hidden between the lines, but might the rules of Mikveh as listed in this mishnah for men be tied with the notion that we are talking of the particularly righteous only, and that the tenuous link of the Reisha and Emzaita are through that device. If absolute purity was a standard that most of the nation could not handle, perhaps it was relegated to the most devout, as unfortunately too many relegate ritual practice to the "known observant few" and clergy. That is to suggest, that although mitzvot were inherently binding on all men, they were practiced more and more by a select few. As for the seifa, the distaste for prayer in malodorous places also appears in Tractate Megillah, where there are limits placed, I believe it was by R. Yehuda, on the purposes for which a synagogue building could be sold. If memory serves, it could not become a tannery, bathhouse or public toilet. As I studied that mishna it seemed to me that a way of understanding it was through the light of modern times when donations and sales are made, and where ownership can be transferred (but not possession) to raise funds for communal needs. It notes the types of fundraising that might be disallowed because prayer does not mix with malodorous and vile locations.

I respond (in part):

In Talmudic times certainly a distinction was observed between the Am ha-Aretz, the masses, and the Ĥhaver [colleague]. The ĥaverim undertook to observe the laws of ritual purity – in all its aspects – to their utmost degree, and reserved a certain disdain for the masses who did not do so (and whose kashrut could therefore not be trusted). However, I'm not sure that this is what Ed is referring to.