Mechitzah question

“if you hold it’s d’Oraiso, you assume it was there during the first bayis as well”

Chazal say it wasn’t. I guess if you were a Karaite you could say that it was.

charlie:

Maybe you’ve said this already, but I’d like you to explicate what you are contending.

Are you saying that a mechitza is not halachically required in a shul?

Or are you saying that it used to not be but now is?

Charlie: Because there was not such a Chashash for Kalus Rosh in the Azarah during the rest of the year. At first, the Gedolei HaDor in Bayis Rishon and Sheini didn’t think there was a Chashash either. At some point during Bayis Sheini, they realized it was a problem. That everyone agrees to (Bimchilas Kevodo, I think DY misspoke when he said that those who hold it was D’Oraisa said it was there in Mayis Rishon).

Now comes R’ Moshe’s Chiddush. Yes, it is a Chiddush, but it is not beyond the pale of logic as ROB seems to contend. R’ Moshe asks a simple question. He says there is an Issur MiDivrei Kaballah of changing anything in the Beis Hamikdash. And we know that Ein Koach B’yad Chachamim La’akor Davar Min HaTorah B’kum V’asei. Building a balcony, even a temporary one, is being Over on this B’kum V’asei. Hence, it must be that there is a Din Min Hatorah saying to build a separation whenever there is a Chashash of Kalus Rosh. (I will try and find the Mekoros again because I lost the notebook I wrote this down in, but I think I remember once showing that R’ Moshe’s Chiddush could actually be shown as a Machlokes Rishonim; it had something to do with the Ra’avad on this issue. B”N when I get time I will look at the Rishonim again and try to piece together what I once had.)

And ROB, I have to speak out against this. Your nice statement to me rings absolutely false because you are showing more respect for me here than R’ Moshe. Everyone, especially someone knowledgeable, is entitled to disagree with even the Gedolei Haposkim if they feel that they have strong Ra’ayos (R’ Moshe says so himself; maybe they can’t disagree L’ma’aseh, but certainly in learning). But take great care in how you do it. A certain modicum of respect must be maintained, even if no disrespect is intended in your words.

(Bimchilas Kevodo,

lol

I think DY misspoke when he said that those who hold it was D’Oraisa said it was there in Mayis Rishon).

Yes, that was a mistake.

“Are you saying that a mechitza is not halachically required in a shul?”

No.

“Or are you saying that it used to not be but now is?”

Not necessarily. I am saying that the requirement for a mechitzah is almost certainly a d’rabbanan (at most), as (1) the mitzvot for which mechitzot are required are d’rabbanans, (2) there was no mechitzah in the Beit HaMikdash except for Yom Tov, (3) and even that balcony was only instituted by rabbinic decree at the very end of the Bayit Sheni period, (4) were such a balcony a d’oraita the people who built Bayit Rishon and Bayit Sheni would have been over a d’oraita, chas v’shalom, which is impossible, (5) even after the balcony was built, a woman could still enter the priests’ courtyard itself to shecht her own korban with the male priest right next to her capturing the blood, (6) not only does the gemara in Chullin say that a woman can shecht, but (7) the mishnah in Middot says that there was a separate women’s entrance to the priests’ courtyard. This is all documented in rabbinic sources. Rav Soloveitchik z’tz’l held that the requirement for a mechitzah is d’rabbanan.

However, it is possible that mechitzot were ALWAYS required in a beit knesset as (1) a beit knesset is very different from the beit hamikdash, (2) we don’t know exactly when the first beit knesset was built, (3) at the very institution of communal tefillah the Anshe Knesset HaGadol might have included a requirement for separate seating and a mechitzah. However, with the exception of the attribution of the institution of tefillah to the Avot, and to the Anshe Knesset HaGadol, there really aren’t any sources to back this up that I have ever seen. I heard from Prof. Lawrence Schiffman that the very earliest written documentation of a beit knesset (during late Bayit Sheni times) is actually from a Christian source. We have lost so many of our sources :(.

Benignuman, to be fair, did not actually say that mechitzsa is d’Oraisa, rather that the problem it addresses is. It’s semantics, though, I think.

charliehall (and others): tefillah ,in its present form, came to us quite late-certainly after the ‘anshei knesset hagedolah” and even afterwards if you know when “velamalshinim’ was instituted.For a long time ,we had the ‘bekki-im’ who repeated the tefillah for those who could not read. Hence, I am not sure whn regular minyanim were established and certainly, we don’t have any idea when “botei knesset’ were established. It strains credulity to think that “botei knesst” in their present form were established during the Bayis Hamikdosh’time.The architecture of synagogues date from the late geonic time, not before. I still think that the separation of sexes was pretty common but not necessariyl the mechitza. And -as charliehall notes- never i nall circumstances.

benignuman- please inform us where R”Moshe zz’l says that “kalus rosh” is “midoraisa”. How do you measure it? In which circumstances do you enforce it? And what do you make of the testimony of many people that at the chassunos of many Rabbonim (including R”Moshe zz’l)in the forties and fifties, there was mixed seating?

Ben: “Having a girlfriend” is a misrepresentation of what that T’shuvah actually says and makes him sound much, much more Meikil than R’ Moshe was on this issue. I don’t recall a T’shuvah on mixed seating at weddings, though. Could you share it if/when you find it please?

Source:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=916&st=&pgnum=102

?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??

I just want to make sure to recognize squeak’s post before he forgets about it. I held off hoping I would have a clever response, but I don’t.

DY,

Thank you for correcting me about R’Moshe’s shitta on mechitza by a wedding. However, I should point out that the teshuva you cited is holding that a mechitza is not required, it is not clear what R’Moshe would hold about separate seating.

Furthermore, R’Moshe’s rationale is that by a wedding it is closed group, primarily family, and therefore kalos rosh is more easily controlled and prevented. It seems to me that there is a question of metzius here and that judgment needs to be made on a case by case basis.

R”Moshe zz’l brings proof that no mechitza is needed by a “chasunoh” from korbon pessach- when families ate together and no separation was required to eat together. So, it seems pretty clear that we are talking about eating together-without separate seating.

There’s absolutely no indication that there was mixed seating (other than no mechitzah). It is clear, though, that there were separate families, yet no mechitzah.

There are also those who disagree with R’ Moshe and require it m’dina by chasunos. The minhag in yeshivah circles has been that way for decades.