Issue Number 2 --- 22 Tammuz , 5755
Compiled and Published by Kollel Menachem - Lubavitch (Melbourne, Australia)
in the zechus of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, o.b.m.
The topics to be discussed are:
Derivation of the Mechitza The earliest reference to a mechitza (partition) between men and women is in Gemora Succah [1] in the description of the balcony that was erected each year in the Beis Hamikdosh for the use of women during the simchas beis hasho'eivo (water drawing ceremony). Initially women had been placed in the ezras noshim (women's section of the Beis Hamikdosh) and men outside. This had led to light-headedness. At a later stage men were placed inside with the women sitting outside, but again there were the same consequences. Finally, projections were inserted into the walls of the ezras noshim and each year a balcony assembled. The women sat in the raised section with the men below.
Although it is prohibited to make alterations to the Beis Hamikdosh, Rav explains that the Rabbis based themselves on a prophecy of Zecharya allowing this to be done. Zecharya prophesied that, in the future, Moshiach ben Yosef would be killed in the war of Gog and Magog. At his eulogy men and women would sit separately.
The Rabbis reasoned from this that if men and women needed to be separated on such a sad occasion, when also - because of the advent of Moshiach - the yetzer hora (animal or evil inclination) would no longer be active, then surely at a time of rejoicing, prior to that time (such as in the Beis Hamikdosh at the time of simchas beis hasho'eivo), when the yetzer hora is active, separation of men and women was required.
The Chasam Sofer [2] indeed states that the source of the requirement for a mechitza in Shule is from this Gemora.
Reb Moshe Feinstein infers from this Gemora that separation of men and women is a requirement of Torah law (rather than a Rabbinical requirement). The proof of the Gemora, from the prophecy of Zecharya, that a balcony is essential to separate men and women, demonstrates that it is as though the balcony had been explicitly stated in prophecy amongst the other requirements of the structure of the Beis Hamikdosh.
Reb Moshe rejects the suggestion that specifically in the Beis Hamikdosh the commandment to "Fear my Temple" applies, excluding light-headed behaviour, whereas in a Shule there would only be a Rabbinic prohibition. He proves that on the contrary there is a Torah prohibition against irreverence during prayer anywhere.
Reb Moshe quotes the Mishna Torah of the Rambam [3], stating that the reason for the separation of men and women in the Beis Hamikdosh was that men and women should not mix. He learns from this that the prohibition is upon the mixing of men and women, not on men seeing women. From the Gemora itself it is evident that men and women in the initial arrangement (prior to the construction of the balcony) could see each other: the women were placed inside and the men outside and the only way for the men to view the simchas beis hasho'eivo was by looking through a gate, where they had to look past the women.
The Rabbis were not concerned that the men would intentionally look at the women. When the situation deteriorated and came to light-headed behaviour and mixing, it was decided to place the men inside and the women outside. Since at the gates, through which the women looked, there was no barrier, and again there tended to be mixing of men and women, it was finally decided to construct the balcony to exclude the possibility of mixing.
Based on this consideration Reb Moshe Feinstein ruled that for practical purposes a mechitza has to be above the height of women's shoulders to prevent men and women mixing, i.e. three amos, approximately 5 1/2 feet. Nevertheless, nowadays that women's shoulders are lower, one should not invalidate a mechitza that is only 5 feet high. Even though at these heights women's uncovered hair might be visible, one can rely on the Rif and Rambam that in extreme circumstances it is not prohibited to pray and study in front of women's uncovered hair.
Even according to the Shulchan Aruch which prohibits this, the Aruch Hashulchan suggests that since nowadays so many women have their hair uncovered, although this is prohibited, the prohibition against saying Shma and studying Torah in their presence does not apply as in the presence of those parts which are not usually covered. It is, however, preferable that the mechitza be higher than their heads. If this is not possible, one should at least turn one's head the other way while praying, or at least close one's eyes.
He reasons that it is better for women to be on a balcony (even with a low mechitza) than to be on the same level with a mechitza, because the Gemora explicitly states that the women were seated at a higher level. It is only by extension that we can say that a mechitza permits men and women to be on the same level. Accordingly, a Shule which already has the women's section above should not place women downstairs with a mechitza. A glass mechitza would similarly also be satisfactory for although the men could see the women no mixing could occur.
Reb Moshe Feinstein, however, adds that a glass mechitza or a low mechitza on a balcony would be acceptable only if the women who come to Shul are dressed modestly. If this is not the case, a complete mechitza would be required such that the women, at least to shoulder height, cannot be seen. Furthermore, Reb Moshe states that those who are stringent and erect mechitzas in all cases to a height that women are not seen at all, are to be praised. [4]
Most authorities, however, maintain that the mechitza always needs to be such that men cannot see the women. This is based on the Tosfos Yom Tom [5] founded on the Pirush Hamishnayos of the Rambam which states that the women were placed in an elevated area in the Beis Hamikdosh so that the men would not see them.
Thus, a group of over 70 leading Rabbinic authorities in 1876, headed by Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (author of Kitzur Shulchan Oruch), proclaimed that a mechitza between men and women had to be in such a way that the men would not be able to see the women. [6]
The previous Satmar Rebbe [7] points out that although from the Gemora discussed above it is clear that originally men and women could see each other at the simchas beis hasho'eivo and the Rabbis were not concerned about that at the time, nevertheless we often find cases where the Rabbis later became concerned about a situation that had earlier not been of concern to them. Originally people attended the simchas beis hasho'eivo to watch the dancing of the pious and men of deed. The men never thought of gazing at the women. Only with the decline of subsequent generations did the Rabbis become concerned about the situation. This resulted in the balcony which was to prevent the men from seeing the women.
Maharam Shick [8] was asked his opinion regarding a Shule in which a number of congregants wanted to replace the mechitza, which was a solid board, with pillars so that the women could see and be seen. These congregants threatened to leave the Shule and open their shops on Shabbos if they did not have their way. Maharam Shick replied that it was certainly wrong for the other congregants to stand by and allow this to happen and that the mechitza halachically had to be in a fashion that the women could not be seen.
Moreover if a protest were not made this would transgress the commandment to rebuke those who are doing wrong (hochei'ach tochi'ach). Finally even if the rebels would open their shops on Shabbos it is wrong for a person to sin to prevent another person sinning (when the other is a poishei'a - a deliberate sinner).
The Lubavitcher Rebbe [9] also rules that the mechitza needs to be of a height so as to prevent men from seeing women. In one t'shuva he rules that the mechitza should be at least 6 feet high. The Rebbe emphatically rejected a mechitza with the upper part made of glass.
Reb Moshe Feinstein [10] favours the approach that there is no obligation for a mechitza for ordinary gatherings including weddings. He proves this from the laws of Pesach. The paschal lamb, could not be eaten in separate groups. A number of families (sometimes up to forty or fifty) would combine to eat the same sacrifice [11]. There were certainly men and women eating together without a mechitza.
Also, the Gemora [12] writes of the bride turning to the side to eat so as not be embarrassed. Clearly it was not from her father or brothers that she was embarrassed but from other men who were present at the meal.
Reb Moshe therefore rules that a mechitza is required only if two criteria are fulfilled. First, there must be a gathering of men and women - excluding a situation of a single woman entering (Chana prayed at the Beis Hamikdosh next to Eli the High Priest, without a mechitza).
Second, the gathering must be for a matter of sanctity (dovor shebikdusha) such as davening. (Reb Moshe, therefore, would seem to maintain that the simchas beis hasho'eivo and the future eulogy mentioned in the Gemora were considered matters of sanctity, but that a wedding is not.)
Sridei Eish [13] rules that although gatherings, which are not for matters of sanctity, do not require a mechitza, nevertheless men and women should sit separately so as not to mix.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch [14] (based on the Bach and Beis Shmuel) rules that "shehasimcho bimoinoi" ("in whose abode there is joy") is not said during the benching of a sheva brochos if men and women are seated in the same room because there is no simcha when the evil inclination is active. On this basis many contemporary poskim rule that there must be a mechitza at weddings and sheva brochos.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe [15] in a letter to parents who were planning a wedding for their children writes [free translation] "...When one arranges a wedding with a partition according to the stipulation of our Holy Torah the din is that we should say (in the Grace after meals) shehasimcho bimoinoi, which means that when mentioning Hashem's name we do so in connection with simcha. This means that we should bring simcha into the world and especially to the choson and kallah.
"Surely it is superfluous to write about what has happened in recent years in the world generally and particularly among Jews. If in all ages we had to rely on Hashem for a blessing, success and even more for a happy and healthy life, how much more so is it essential in our generation, and the only one who can provide this is the One who is the Master of the whole world - the Holy One Blessed be He.
"...Therefore it surprised me that parents who do everything within their power to ensure that their children should be blessed with good fortune, would be willing to apply energy towards preventing there being simcha at their daughter's wedding.
"...it is not my custom to use harsh words, therefore I wish to conclude my letter talking about that which is good. When I gave my consent to the shidduch I was sure the parents on their part would do everything dependent on them that their daughter and future son-in-law would be ensured of goodness and happiness, as much as feasibly possible, for the tens of years that they will be together. It is self understood that it is of no consequence whether or not her friends will be pleased, as long as the Holy Torah is satisfied with the arrangements of the wedding. As mentioned previously, if we truly want the Holy Torah to pasken that we can say shehasimcho bimoinoi at the wedding, and thereby be happy thereafter for the rest of life, the Shulchan Aruch states that the wedding should be with a mechitza..."
The Rebbe refers in this letter to the Lvush [16] who discusses the case of Rav Gidel in the Gemora. Rav Gidel used to stand at the mikva and instruct women how to immerse themselves. When questioned about this he explained that the women were like white geese to him - of no physical importance. The Lvush suggests that one might similarly suggest nowadays, that men and women in general mix more freely, that improper thoughts do not follow from these gatherings and one could say "shehasimcho bimoinoi" even without a mechitza. Nevertheless the Rebbe rejects this permission with the observation that nowadays it is simply not so.
Similarly the Oz Nidberu [18] writes that these words of the Lvush were not accepted by many authorities as halacha.
[1] 51b
[2] Choshen Mishpot 190
[3] Hilchos Beis Habchiro Ch5:9
[4] For above see: Igros Moshe
- Orach Chaim Vol 1:39-44; Vol 2:43; Vol 3:33-34; Vol 4:29-33
- Yoreh Deah Vol 2:109
[5] Succah Ch5:2
[6] For above see:
Responsa Maharam Shik - Orach Chaim 77
Lev Ho'Ivri - Minhogei Beis Haknesses
Zichron Yehuda - Orach Chaim 62
Sharai Halacha U'Minhag (from the Lubavitcher Rebbe) Vol 1 pp 198-199
Orach Mishpat (from Rav Kook z"l) - Laws of Beis Haknesses
Tzitz Eliezer Vol 7, 8
Shaivet Halevi Vol 1, 21
Minchas Yitzchok Vol 2, 20
Taharas Yom-Tov Vol 6, pp28-60
Bar Moshe Vol 4, 187
Oz Nidberu Vol 12, 48
[7] Taharas Yom-Tov Vol 6, pp28-60
[8] see above
[9] see above
[10] Igros Moshe - Orach Chaim Vol 1, 41
[11] see Pesachim 64a
[12] Pesachim 86a
[13] Vol 2, 8
[14] 149:1
[15] see Sharai Halacha U'Minhag p126
[16] Likutei Minhogim 36
[17] see Berachos 20a
[18] Vol 12, 46-48
The above is not intended to decide halachic questions, but rather to clarify them in a clear and concise form. Please refer all your practical questions to your local Rabbi.
Index of Practical Halacha Pages
Please note: Many hours of research is put into compiling "Issues in Practical Halacha" and we request that you do not reproduce them in any magazine, journal, newspaper or the like. If you wish to reproduce any issue please contact us.
Information on joining the Practical Halacha mail list may be found here.
The original hard copy and softcopy of this publication was produced on computer equipment purchased with a grant made possible by the Belfer family.
İMelbourn Kollel Menachem, June 2000
Melbourne Kollel Menachem
92 Hotham Street, East St Kilda, Vic., 3183 Australia
Havienu L'Shalom is pleased to host these Practical Halacha Web pages.
If you would like to support our efforts with a tax deductible donation, please send e-mail to:
İPage Layout and Design Havienu L'Shalom, June 2000