Bathing in the nine days

The Talmud (Pesachim 54b) quotes R. Eleazar that a man is forbidden to dip his finger in water on Tisha B'av, and based on this statement the Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim 554) rules that one cannot bath on Tisha B'av. The Shulchan Arukh (1488-1575, 554:7) follows the Tur, though he allows (554:9,10,14) one to wash to remove dirt, to do netilat yadim in the morning, and to wash one's feet if they are sore from travelling.

The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a) also has a discussion about whether it is permissible to bath on erev Tisha B'av after the seudat ha-mafseket, the final meal before the fast. The Rosh (1250-1327, end of paragraph 38) rules that it is permissible to wash one's self after the seudat ha-mafseket. The Meiri (1249-1306) notes that this passage in the Talmud is not recorded by the Rif and that there are people who permit bathing after the meal, but he thinks that is should be forbidden. The Tur (553) quotes the Ramban (1194-1270) who also thinks that it should be forbidden, but he rejects this approach based on his father's (the Rosh's) opinion that it is permitted. The Shulchan Arukh makes no mention of any prohibition and the Rama (16th century, 553:1) rules that it is permitted to wash one's self until sunset.

Accordingly, it would seem from the Talmud that it is permitted to bath during the nine days since it was only forbidden on Tisha B'av and possibly for some short time on erev Tisha B'av. However, in the period of the Geonim (9th, 10th centuries) restrictions on bathing began, and according to Gartner (1983, 1985) this development was due to the influence of the group called the Mourners of Zion who were almost definitely Karaites. The custom from the Geonim of not bathing prior to Tisha B'av developed differently in the Middle Ages between the Sefardim and Ashkenazim.

Rambam (Laws of Fasts 5:6) records that it was the accepted custom not go to a bathhouse during the week of Tisha B'av. Accordingly, R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yehaveh Da'at, vol. 1, p.109) writes that the only restriction for Sefardim is to bath with hot water during the week of Tisha B'av, but it is permitted to bath in cold water or to go swimming during the week of Tisha B'av.

On the other hand, in medieval Europe, R. Klonimos of Rome (d. 1096 in Worms, Germany, quoted in Gartner, 1985, pp.207-208) wrote that in Ashkenaz the custom was not to bath from the beginning of the month of Av. Similarly, the Tur (551) quotes from the Ravyah (Germany, 1140-1225) that the custom was not to bath from Rosh Chodesh Av, but he did not state whether the custom was just with regard to hot water or also for cold water. In the 15th century, R. Yisrael Isserlin (Terumat ha-Deshen, 1390-1460, Germany, quoted in Bet Yosef, Orah Chayyim, 551, Ketav Avi ha-Ezri) wrote that the language of the Or Zarua (Austria 13th century) and the Mordechai (Germany, 13th century) implied that one was not to bath even in cold water, though he remembered seeing people swimming in the rivers and nobody protested, and he concluded that one who is strict in this matter should be blessed.

This concluding statement by the R. Isserlin that it is preferable not to bath even in cold water became the standard practice of Ashkenazim for the next 400-500 (600?) years. The Rama (16th century, Darkei Moshe, 551) notes that the Ran (Spain, 1290-1375) writes that it is permitted to bath, but that the practice (of Ashkenazim) is that it is forbidden to bath. Similarly, in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh, the Rama (Orah Chayyim 551:16) writes that the custom (of Ashkenazim) was not to bath even in cold water, and that it is forbidden on erev Shabbat to bath except for one's face, head and feet in cold water, though he notes that some permit washing one's head with hot water if one is accustomed to do so.

Accordingly, the Sefardi and Ashkenazi customs with regard to bathing prior to Tisha B'av differ not only with regard to the time period of the restrictions, the nine days (Ashkenazi) as opposed to the week of Tisha B'av (Sefardi), but also with regard to the basic nature of the custom that the Sefardi custom only precludes bathing in hot water, while the Ashkenazi custom does not allow bathing even in cold water. The difference in the time of the custom is part of the general difference between Ashkenazim and Sefardim with regard to the prohibitions leading up to Tisha B'av, but why should there be a difference with regard to hot and cold water? Maybe this difference was due to different climates that since the Sefardim lived in more southern and hotter climates than Ashkenazim this made not bathing at all much more problematic in the hot summer. (See Sperber, 1995, pp.65-78 for a discussion of other possible customs that were influenced by differences in climate.)

Another possibility is that the acceptance by the Ashkenazim not to bath even in cold water was influenced by the cultural norms in Europe. In the end of the Middle Ages, there developed a general custom of not bathing in Western Europe due to a fear of diseases from the water. The Economist (The joy of dirt, 12/19/2009, Vol. 393 Issue 8662, p139-141) writes:
Paradoxically, it was fear of disease, including syphilis and the Black Death, that put water out of favour… By 1538, François I had closed the French bath houses. Henry VIII shut the "stews" of Southwark in 1546. Thus began an era when rich folk and poor rubbed along with dirt just fine. Even private baths were judged suspect. According to meticulous notes kept by Jean Héroard, the French court physician, the young Louis XIII, born in 1601, was not given a bath until he was almost seven…Indeed, bathing, certainly in hot water, was considered a veritable health risk. France's Henri IV was famously filthy, "stinking of sweat, stables, feet and garlic". Upon learning that the Duc de Sully had taken a bath, the king turned to his own physician, André du Laurens, for advice. The king was told that the poor man would be vulnerable for days. So a message was dispatched in forming Sully that he was not to go out, or he would endanger his health. Instead, he was told, the king would visit his Paris home: "so that you come to no harm as a result of your recent bath." In England, Elizabeth I bathed only once a month and James I, her successor, seems to have washed only his fingers. The myth of the danger of water was long-lived, and its demolition during the 18th and 19th centuries protracted. Louis XIV had sumptuous bathrooms built at Versailles but not, explains Mathieu da Vinha in "Le Versailles de Louis XIV", in order to clean the body. Valets rather rubbed his hands and face with alcohol, and he took therapeutic baths only irregularly. During the 19th century, germ theory combined with foreign trade, colonial administration and travel spread all manner of new ideas: hammams from Turkey and north Africa, "champu" (shampoo) from India, or bidets and olive-oil-based savon de Marseille from France. Water, and hygiene, were trickling back, and dirt was the new pest.

A "Jewish" proof of this practice not to bath is from the comments of the Magen Avraham (Poland, 1637-1683, 551:40) who writes that one should not treat this custom of not bathing in the nine days lightly since we are not regular bathers.

In the last two hundred years, even amongst Ashkenazi Jewry the practice has become to be lenient with regard to bathing, and this change accords with the change in western society's outlook on bathing. The Chayyei Adam (R. Avraham Danziger, 1748-1820, 133:19) writes that he thinks that a person who is accustomed to washing one's face, hands and feet with hot water every erev Shabbat can also do so on erev Shabbat in the nine days (Shabbat Hazon). This was a new development since the Rama had only permitted using hot water for washing one's head. Approximately 100 years later, the Arukh Hashulchan (Byelorussia, 1829-1908, 551:36,37) decried that people in his time were bathing in hot water (apparently their entire body) on erev Shabbat, but then he wrote that anybody who was dirty was allowed to bath even in hot water. Approximately 80 years later, R. Moshe Feinstein (US, 1895-1986) and Rav Yosef Henkin (US, 1880-1973, ordained by the Arukh Hashulchan) ruled that today one can bath with hot water on erev Shabbat since today we bath more frequently (quoted by R. Shimon Eider, 1978, p.13).

In addition, authorities have permitted bathing even when it is not erev Shabbat. For example, R. Chayyim David ha-Levi (Israel, Kitzsur Makor Chayyim, 96:21) permits workers who do physical work to bath. Similarly, R. Shimon Eider (p. 12) writes that, "if one is dirty or perspired, he may wash or bath to remove the dirt of perspiration." He also quotes R. Moshe Feinstein that one can swim for a short time to remove dirt and perspiration.

This leniency to bath to remove dirt marks a new development since previously the only exemptions from the prohibition had been if one had to go to the mikvah since this was a religious obligation, and was not considered as bathing for pleasure. However, there was no permission to bath to remove dirt and most likely that would have been considered bathing for pleasure. However, today because people bath more frequently, regular bathing is no longer considered as bathing for pleasure. If this idea is correct, then swimming, which is for pleasure (excluding instructional swim?) would still be prohibited, but all bathing would be permitted.

R. Hershel Schachter (America, 1994, p.198) quotes a more sweeping permission from Rav Soloveitchik that since today mourners for parents bath in the 30 day period of mourning, then one can bath during the nine days. Was Rav Soloveitchik also referring to swimming that it too would be permitted? If yes, then with this approach we have returned to the law of the Talmud that bathing is only prohibited on Tisha B’av itself.

Bemidbar 24:16 – Was Bil'am prophesying when he said his fourth blessing

Bemidbar 24:14-24 records Bil'am fourth and last blessing. After Bil’am’s third blessing, Balak yelled at Bil’am, 24:10,11. This caused Bil’am to turn on Balak, and he announced that in the future Jewish people would smash (destroy?) Moav, 24:17. Bil’am then continued and spoke about Edom, Amalek, and the Kenites, 24:18-24. Was Bil'am prophesying when he made these statements?

I believe that the basis for thinking that Bil'am was a prophet when he said his fourth blessing is the third introductory verse of the fourth set of blessings, 24:16, where Bil’am states about himself that he, “Utters the hearer of Godly sayings, who knows the knowledge of Most-High envisaging a vision of Shaddai, bowed, but with eyes uncovered,” Fox translation (1995).  

Based on 24:16, Ramban (on 24:16, in other versions end of 24:14) writes that Bil’am’s declaration in 24:17-24 were prophecies from G-d. To support this contention, Chavel (1993, footnotes on Ramban) points out that the phrase “utters the hearer of Godly sayings” also appears in the third blessing, 24:4, and then just as the third blessing was a prophecy so too Bil’am's declarations in 24:17-24 were prophecies. Furthermore, the phrase “knowledge of Most-High,” as noted by the Ibn Ezra (on 24:16) also seems to refer to Bil’am’s prophetic abilities.

I doubt that 24:16 implies that Bil’am was speaking as a prophet of G-d by his fourth blessings since the verse is a statement from Bil’am. The Torah does not state that Bil’am’s fourth blessing were prophecies or from G-d. This is in contrast to Bil’am's first three blessings, where the Torah specifically states that Bil’am was speaking G-d’s word, 23:5,16 or that the spirit of G-d came upon him, 24:2. Furthermore, as we noted in our discussion on Bemidbar 22:23-35, "Bil’am’s amazing donkey," there is a parallelism between the episode with the donkey and Bil'am's prophecies, but the parallelism is only until the third blessing since by the fourth blessing, Bil'am is speaking his own mind.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105b, Berakhot 7a, see Rashi on 24:16) states that it is preposterous that Bil’am could have knowledge of G-d when he was bested by a donkey, and the Talmud concludes that he had a limited ability to know when to curse the people. Yet, even this seems to be giving him too much credit. With regard to Bil’am’s first three blessings, he wanted to curse the Jewish people, so G-d intervened to change the curse to a blessing (see Devarim 23:6), but by Bil’am’s fourth declaration, he never intended to curse the people, so G-d did not have to intervene. Bil’am claimed he was talking as a prophet, but this was just part of his act. As we discuss on Bemidbar 22:8-35, "Bil’am: The wizard of Petor," Bil’am was a big talker. When Balak first sent him messengers, he claimed to speak to G-d, and so too here, by his fourth blessing, he was a big talker that he claimed in 24:16 to know G-d’s knowledge.

Accordingly, my understanding is that as the Torah does not state that Bil’am’s last statements/ blessings were from G-d, then they were not, and 24:17-24 records Bil’am personal thoughts. Bil’am was a temporary prophet from the time of the incident with the donkey until his third blessing, and afterwards he reverted back to his usual personality of pretending to be a prophet.

With this approach, after reciting three blessings, Bil’am was in a good mood thinking a lot of himself since he had become a temporary prophet, and then when Balak got angry at him, he decided to continue the role of being a prophet. He made predictions about Moav’s future (24:17, 19?) since Balak was the king of Moav, and then for good measure he added on predictions about Edom, Amalek and the Kenites. These statements were based on his general knowledge, and after seeing that G-d intervenes in this world he was sure that the Jewish people would prevail with Moav. 

Bibliography:

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Bemidbar 17:27,28 (Korah) - The people’s state of mind after the rebellion of Korah and the miracle of the blossoming of the staffs: Hopeless in the desert

After Korah's rebellion and its aftereffects, 17:27,28 record, “And the Israelites said to Moshe, saying, “we gavanu, we are lost, all of us are lost. Whoever so much as comes near to the mishkan of G-d will die. Ha-im tamnu legvoah? (variation on Alter’s 2004, p. 772, translation). The words gavanu and legvoah are translated by Alter as to perish, while Fox (1995, p. 746) translates them to expire. Why did the people think that they were dying? There was no plague at that moment, and even the test of the staffs (the previous narrative, 17:16-26) did not involve any plague.

I believe the standard explanation of verses 17:27,28 is that these verses are an introduction to chapter 18. The next verses (chapter 18) record that G-d spoke to Aharon to tell him about his work in the mishkan to guard the mishkan. Rashi (on 18:1) explains that this message to Aharon at this point was for him to ensure that the priests and Levites would stop the general public from improperly entering the mishkan since the people just said they would die if they entered the mishkan. Similarly, Ibn Ezra (on 17:27) explains that the people had just seen the 250 men die by the rebellion of Korah when they attempted to offer an incense offering, and they were worried that they too would die if they came to the mishkan. This approach is difficult since if the people were scared of entering the mishkan, then why was there a need for the priests and the Levites to keep them out since they would stay out on their own?

Yet, maybe there was a fear that one person would enter the mishkan improperly since he/ she was not scared, and the entire nation would be punished due to that person. The basis for this idea could be that 18:5 refers to the Levites saving the people from a ketsef and a ketsef could mean a punishment for the entire nation. Yet, ketsef can also refer to punishments that are focused just on the sinners, and the term negef in 8:19 indicates that the potential danger here to the people was only to the person would enter the mishkan improperly and not to the entire nation.

Rashi (on 17:28, also see Rashbam and Bekhor Shor on 17:28) explains that in 17:27,28, the people were expressing their fear that they would accidentally enter the mishkan and die. This is also difficult. The people stated in 17:27,28 that they were gavenu and all lost, but if they were referring to a person who accidentally entered the mishkan, then this would be a few people, and does not relate to the fears of everybody dying.

There is also a discontinuity between the statements of 17:27,28 and chapter 18. The people complained to Moshe in 17:27, and there is no record in chapter 18 that Moshe responded to them. In the beginning of chapter 18, G-d spoke to Aharon and there is no indication that the message was to be immediately passed on to the people in response to their fears expressed in 17:27,28.

My guess is that the people’s statement in 17:27,28 is a conclusion to the rebellion of Korah, and not an introduction to chapter 18.

My understanding is that Korah's rebellion occurred after the sin of the spies. (This follows the Ramban's position, on 16:1, and not the Ibn Ezra's position, also on 16:1.) The sin of the spies caused the people to be punished that they would die in the desert. This decree must have been pretty depressing because it meant that their lives were literally going nowhere. After the people heard this decree they tried to go to Israel on their own, but this failed, 14:40-45. What was left for the people to do?

Maybe they thought that if they would increase their worship of G-d, then the decree could be rescinded. The desire of the 250 men to be priests was an expression of this desire to increase their worship of G-d. However, this was also unsuccessful when the 250 men died (16:35) since man is to worship G-d as G-d commands and not as man chooses. Afterwards, the test of the staffs showed that the people could not even become helpers in the mishkan like the Levites, 17:16-26. Thus, the people were now at a complete loss since they realized that they could not become priests or Levites, which meant that the decree of dying in the desert was not going to be rescinded. 

17:27,28 expresses the people's realization of the hopelessness of their situation. The word gavah (twice) in these verses does not refer to death, but to a condition where a person is alive but something (in this case, G-d’s decree) is impacting the person that he/ she will die because of this thing, the person understands that the thing will kill him, and a person has no ability to reverse this thing, see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:29 and Devarim 10:6, "Where did Aharon die?" and Bereshit 47:18. This was the situation of the people once they realized that they were doomed to die, 17:27. This dying is referring to the decree of death for their initial refusal to enter the land of Israel. They also said (the first half of 17:28) that if they went to the mishkan they would die since this shows that they understood that they could not increase their worship of G-d to have the decree rescinded since they would die if they entered the mishkan. There is nothing left for them to do other than to state, the second half of 17:28, Ha-im tamnu legvoah, which can be understood as the people saying “Is there no way to stop G-d’s decree from being fulfilled?” This was a rhetorical question with the answer being no. The people understood that they would have to accept the punishment of dying in the desert, and there was nothing for Moshe to say.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.