- This topic has 126 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Did you last check the eiruv on the West Side? or in Boro park? R’Moshe zz’l was against them both.”
This is not correct; the Eruv on the Upper West Side of Manhattan was constructed after Rav Moshe’s death. As it was made with real walls, it presents few halachic difficulties. It is possible that even Rav Moshe z’tz’l might have approved it had he still been with us.
In any case, Rav Henkin z’tz’l publicly endorsed the more conventionally constructed Manhattan eruv in the 1960s, publicly disagreeing with Rav Moshe z’tz’l.
“It is incredibly, incredibly difficult to ever even advise anyone to Pasken against Rav Moshe in America.”
Not when your position is supported by someone of the stature of Rav Soloveitchik z’tz’l or Rav Henkin z’tz’l. Both were here in America before Rav Moshe z’tz’l. Or, to give another example, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, who endorses eruvim in Manhattan.
benignuman: thank you for your analysis. I did not have much time yesterday to go over in detail sll the teshuvos that R’Moshe zz’l wrote on mechitza (there are about a dozen) and he does tackle the matter of three amos. If my memory serves me right ,he mentions tosfos but I do not remember where the tosfos are. You can enlighten me because “pashtus’ of the gemoro does not indicate that it starts below the head. As far as your indication that the measures change all the time, it is difficult to envision this, as this would mean that there is never an actual measure you can rely upon-whether it is shabbos (alpaim amos), mikve (3x1x1amos) and a multitude of other measures. I know that the “nodah bejehudah” does indicate that the “shiurim’ have changed but yo uassert that they change all the time. Will be happy to hear from you on this.
daasyochid: You proved my point because a multitude of people accept the eiruv in Boro park.
charliehall: I said that “bechayov”- during his lifetime, R’Moshe zz’l disapproved of any eiruv in Manhattan. his main reason was that the streets were “mefuloshim” (through streets) and there was “shishim ribu” (600,000)people in manhattan that invalidates most eiruvim. I also know that-prior to R’Moshe zz’l- Rav Henkin was the possek in america. In some ways, it is sad that he has virtually been forgotten.
The following is a serious question. Does a blind man need to be concerned with issues like the height or transparency of a mechitza?
WIY says (perhaps jokingly) that the short ones are there to help the men look. My understanding is that when there’s a machlokes regarding a new mechitza, it’s often the women who argue for a short or transparent mechitza so they can look (presumably at what’s going on, rather than at the men). I know my wife likes to daven in a shul with a balcony so she can see what’s happening. A balcony seems to be the ideal solution, but very few shuls are built with one these days.
Mechitza: Eilu Devarim She Ein Lahem Shiur; Elu Devarim She Ein Lahem Makor, but it’s a minhag nitpashet.
daasyochid: You proved my point because a multitude of people accept the eiruv in Boro park.
Point is far from proven, if their acceptance is considered unfounded.
ROB: SHU”T Chassam Sofer OC 1:127, I believe, says that Shiurim always change based on the size of olives at the time.
Rd, -3
rabbiofberlin,
It is Tosafos D”H “B’rum Shalosh Amos” to Pesachim 109b. The teshuva from R’Moshe where he says that the shiurim for etzba and ama regarding mikvaos (where the point of the shiur is to have enough water to cover an actual person) change depending on the size of the people in each generation is Yoreh Deah Ch”2, S”66.
benignuman: just checked the tosfos, but the tosfos makes the shiur we are talking about more problematic. Tosfos says that the height of a person is “four amos” and says that the mikveh is enough to be three amos because when the person immerses himself, the water rises. Now, if we maintain that a person’s height is FOUR amos, what does that make the actual amoh? It is almost impossible to accept the Chazon Ish shiur of sixty centimeter [24 inches] as this would make a person’s normal height 2.40 meter high! (eight feet!). It is almost a given that we have to accept the Chassam Sofer or R’Noeh’s shiur that is 45-48 centimeter and that would make a normal person’s height a manageable 1.80 – 1-92 centimeter (appx. six feet four inches). Still very high for the size of men two thousand years ago but possible. However, this would make the height of the mechitza three amos -shoulder high- and that would be 135 centimeter[53 inches] and maximum 144 centimeter [57 inches]. This is either 4 feet 5 inches or 4 feet 9 inches. This would be roughly shoulder high of today’s average person.
rabbiofberlin,
I think we need to distinguish two things. The literal “ama” of a person, i.e. from the tip of their middle finger to the bottom of their elbow, and the standardized measurement used for building.
When it comes to mikva and mechitza where the shiur needs to serve a practical purpose, the ama will be the literal one and will changed based on the average ama in each generation. When it comes to things like the mishkan or the teyva we are dealing with a standardized measurement. The Chazon Ish can be right as to the standardized measurement used, even though that shiur will not be what is used for mikvah and mechitza.
Tosafos is stating a fact about normal human body proportions. The average human is the height of 4X his ama (elbow to fingertip).
to Sam2 and benignuman: I saw both the teshuvah by R’Moshe and had the good fortune to find the Chassam Sofer too. if you are able to see what R’Moshe zz’l actually wrote, it is a confusing teshuvoh. He starts by maintaning that we measure according the the people of the time asnd then concludes that the people-throughout all the centuries, dor hamidbor, gemoro times, our times- have not changed and hence, we have the same measurements. Confusing, at least to me.
He concludes that he made many measurements and that an “amoh’ would be between 21.5 inches and 23 inches. (here you have a source for the 66 inch mechitzah). I must say that -as I wrote- if you accept the tosfos opinion that a person is 4 amos tall- it seems totally out of proportion to reality- even t 21.5, the height of a prson would be 86 inches- seven feet tall!
Mechitza is obligatory in the same way as a yarmulke; these became over time binding minhagim, but lack any real legal valence.
So when the gemara says shiurin chatitzin and mechitizin are halacha l’moshe mi’sinai and Rashi says it’s referring to hilchos mechitza – what do you propose the gemara/Rashi are referring to? Only by the defanos of a Succah? I’m having a difficult time reading Rashi that way.
Rd, read the teshuvah, you’re wrong.
These teshuvos are unprecedented; nobody before R’ Moshe or R’ Soloveitchik, no rishonim, not the Rambam, nor Shulchan Aruch, ever discuss a mechitza for separating the sexes during prayer.
I am not in opposition to our practice, but there must be intellectual honesty. The gemara in Sukkah 51b-52 is speaking of a separate section erected within the context of simchat beit hashoevah due to kallut rosh; there is no enactment of the bet din hagadol to erect such a section in all instances of public prayer, which qualitatively, is far different than a joyous water-pouring ceremony. Neither has any rishon made such an extrapolation.
son: No. Our use of the word Mechitzah is a borrowed term. The Halachah L’Moshe MiSinai about Mechitzin is referring to Hilchos Shabbos.
a mechitza for a shul is not to measured in inches – it is simply a thousand+ year tradition of total separation in a shul.
the entire question is unfortunately an American question – which if responded to by prior generation gedolim out of the necessity of those times to those who needed to ask – need not be extended to today for those who in a shul can “lift their eyes” to the one above and not elsewhere.
Hi Joseph.
At the risk of being attackedon by many posters, I venture to say that “rebdoniel” is actually right. Inexplicably- certainly if you think mechitza is me’doraisa- the shulchan aruch does not mention mechitza anywhere. I am aware that for over a thousand years, the shuls in europe had balconies and so ,clearly, this separation of sexes during tefillah is very old – but the Shulchan Aruch does not mention it.
May I add that the Rambam says that this balcony in the Bais Hamikdosh was only put up during sukkos but taken down afterwards- so you have the additional problem that, all year round, there was no balcony at all.
Rabbi of Berlin,
Thank you for being an ish emet.
ROB, your tone, when arguing with the gedolei haposkim, really aught to be more humble. Anyhow, the reason the mechitzah was unnecessary after succos was because there wasn’t a mass gathering, hence no fear of kalus rosh and no chiyuv.
DaasYochid; I am puzzled by your criticism. When was I ever – g-d forbid- disrespectful to any gedolim?? All I have ever done is ask questions “lo habbaishan lomed” and it is never -g-d forbid- “lekanter”, only to know what their answers might be.
As for your second point- of course, the sukkos gathering was different but you surely know that women continued to come to the bais hamikdosh for many reasons. What happened on pessach? all year round? If we accept that there was no balcony-hence, no separation- why do we have today [in the chareidi world] a mechitza virtually everywhere ? is it a ‘midus chassidus” or is it halacha?
DaasYochid; I am puzzled by your criticism. When was I ever – g-d forbid- disrespectful to any gedolim??
Not overtly disrespectful, but you make it sound like you’re a bar plugta. You should preface your comments with phrases such as, “What I don’t understand is…”.
you surely know that women continued to come to the bais hamikdosh for many reasons. What happened on pessach? all year round?
Fewer women.
I am not in opposition to our practice, but there must be intellectual honesty.
Are you insinuating that R’ Moshe and R’ Yoshe Ber weren’t being intellectually honest?
rationalfrummie- this is the answer I got over the years when asking the question, but, in truth, it is not satisfactory. There are many halachas that ae ‘self evident’ and they still codify them in shulchan aruch.
daas yochid: well, would you take down the mechitza in a shul when there are few women? Of course not- so you cannot simply say that the mechitza is based on the bais hamikdosh.
Sam2:
Not trying to be contradictory, simply asking questions – where did you find that? Rashi doesn’t mention it and the reason I presumed it was the case is also because the shiurim appear to be borrowed from that same gemara. I haven’t looked at other rishonim, so by all means enlighten me 🙂
son: Eruvin 4b Rashi D”H Aron Tisha. It’s clear that it’s talking about different Reshuyos.
ROB, they weren’t “gathered”. A shul is, by definition, a gathering place.
In my shul we have always had a mechitza b’peh, a separation made by words of mouth, which is learned from the Halachos off Teruma. It is very effective at keeping men and women separate because it is understood that if you don’t abide by the mechitza b’peh you are undermining the separation of Terumah, and no G-d fearing person would want to eat tevel. It also has the fringe benefit of ensuring that no kiddush clubs are formed because all the women would see clearly who left and that is an effective deterrent.
This old minhag has come under some attack recently by the more modern folks who insist on having a mechitza b’kli, a separation using a wall. They are not afraid to degrade the mechitza b’peh because they don’t worry about hilchos terumah- everything they eat is either grown in chu”l or is grown with some concocted heter mechirah (why they don’t require a heter mechirah b’kli is beyond me). I see that this newfangled shtus is getting some support here, no one even mentioned the original preferable mechitza. Is there no one who will stand against this?
Some women are hard of hearing. I assume they sit in the aural section.
DaasYochid: My point was not about “gathering’ but simplt about women having access to the main Bais Hamedrash. from Chana, the korbonos and even the gemoro i nsukkos, it is fairly clear that women had access to the centers of worship except during sukkos. if you can accept that, then the idea of mechitza is much less founded than what is intimated.
My point was that a mechitzah is not required any place women can come, it’s required in “gathering places”. If you can accept that, you’ll see that the question you pose is no difficulty at all.
Does the S’A specify that men and women cannot be seated together next to each other in shul? If not, how is that omission any different than it not mentioning a mechitza?
DaasYochid; we are going around in circles and maybe we are both right. But I have a question for you that has been bothering me for some time. The gemoro in sukkos brings proof that,in certain circumstances, there must be a separation of the sexes from “novih” -zecharyah ,to be exact.(see sukkos 52A)Why doesn’t the gemoro bring proof from the Torah- when Miriam and the women went out to say shirah? it is explicit that the women were separate from the men. Wouldn’t that be proof enough?
One could have argued that separation was required because of kol isha.
‘My point was that a mechitzah is not required any place women can come, it’s required in “gathering places”. ‘
Not true; it is required for devarim she be kedushah. And as mentioned it is really hard to say that it is more than a d’rabbanan since there wasn’t one in the beit hamikdash until late in Bayit Sheni times, and devarim she be kedushah is itself a d’rabbanan.
DY: That would be difficult as according to most Kol Isha is D’rabannan. If you say like R’ Moshe, it makes sense. You need a Passuk to prove that it’s enough of a Din D’oraisa to be Mevatel Hakol Biksav… Having seen a separation in the past (in Chumash) would only prove that it’s a Middas Chassidus or Eitzah Tovah, not that it’s an absolute Chiyuv (I guess that answer would work if you hold it’s D’Rabannan too).
Interestingly, Rav Moshe himself doesn’t seem to follow his rule completely. In OC 1:39 he seems to say that Min Hatorah anything relating to Kedushah needs a Mechitzah. But if I recall correctly in his T’shuvah about a co-ed book club that wants to give a D’var Torah (“Meeting Shel Society; I think it was in OC 3) I don’t think he requires a Mechitzah (I could be wrong about that though as I have not seen that T’shuvah in a very, very long time).
Not true; it is required for devarim she be kedushah.
Actually, the requirement for the mechitzah is only with both conditions. Technically, a mechitza is not required for a minyan at a chasunah, for example.
And as mentioned it is really hard to say that it is more than a d’rabbanan since there wasn’t one in the beit hamikdash until late in Bayit Sheni times
That’s circular; if you hold it’s d’Oraiso, you assume it was there during the first bayis as well.
Rejoining this discussion, allow me to make a few points.
It is patently clear from the gemoro sukkos that the balcony was not present for long stretches of the SECOND Bayis (and none in the first Bayis) and this makes R”moshe’s zz’l contention that it is d’oraisa even more problematic. I don’t know how R”moshe answers this question.
As for Sam2’s pointing out that R”Moshe zz’l holds that anything relating to “kedushah” needs a mechitza = this brings a plethora of questions, not the least that at R”moshe’s zz’l sons’ weddings, the seating was mixed (as attested by many).
Adding to this imbroglio about “kol isha”, Rav Weinberg zz’l held that “trei kole lo mishtamei”, two voices cannot be distinguished and, therefore, we can hear many women singing in unison. That would make the matter of Miriam and the women “because of kol isha” not possible.
I still have a gut feeling that, for long stretches of time, the shuls had separation of sexes but no mechitza, thereby respecting the “novih” and the gemoro sukkos that only required the balcony during yom tov. The architecture of the early shuls in europe tend to support that- a balcony was enough as long as there was separation.
DY and rob: R’ Moshe agrees that there was no Mechitzah until Bayis Sheni. That in and of itself is his proof. He says it must be a Din D’Oraisa that in any case of public religious matters in which there is a concern of Kalus Rosh that you must separate the sexes. That is the basis of his P’sak. Because if a balcony for women was just a normal part of the Beis Hamikdash, it wouldn’t prove that you have to have a balcony, only that there was one and therefore it’s probably a good idea. The fact that they were allowed to add to the Binyan proved that it must be a Din Min Hatorah to allow this.
Sam2: I respect your knowledge but your statement,trying to justify R”Moshe zz’l psak, is nonsensical. So, if a balcony actually WAS there- it is NOT proof that mechitsa was needed and may be “midoraisa’ , but , if there was no mechitza AND THE CHACHOMIN istalled it, it IS proof that it is “midoraisa”?? HUH?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.