Mechitza III: Separation In Society

On the one hand, the tradition of tzeni’ut in Judaism does not view mingling of men and women favorably. On the other, there is no doubt that halacha did not demand absolute separation in every situation.

The attribute of tzeni’ut causes many benefits in the world, and because of this it deserves to override things that would have been good in their own right…The attribute of affection and friendship, with all its manifestations and pleasant speech, would have been fitting to be equal between genders, but because of the precious value of tzeni’ut, the attribute of derech eretz (the way of the world) is pushed aside…

We have not found sources that deal directly with society on the day-to-day level. Given the lack of such sources, and from a spiritual perspective regarding the relation of Torah to life, we have turned to basic derech eretz (the way of the world), to the nature of our world in which men and women conduct themselves…

Abbaye placed jugs. Rava placed reeds.

“Jugs” – where men and women gathered for a derasha or for a chuppa, he would set up many pottery jugs between them so that if one would come into the other’s area, they would rattle and make noise…“Place reeds” – He would set up reeds so that if someone passed through them, they would make noise.

Avin said: the most vulnerable time is the festival.

The most vulnerable time is the festival – the most hazardous days of the year for yichud and transgression are the days of the festival, when there is a gathering of men and women hearing the derasha and discussing it with each other…

“And Boaz took ten men from the elders of the city and said, sit here, and they sat”… Rav Pinchas said: from here we learn, regarding this house, that they appoint elders in their houses of feasting.

To supervise the matter so that they do not act with frivolity in their houses of feasting.

They found a verse and expounded. “And the land mourned, each family to itself, the family of the house of David to itself, and their women to themselves” (Zecharya 12:12). They said: Are the matters not a kal va-chomer (a fortiori)? Just as in the time to come, when they are occupied with eulogy and the evil inclination has no power over them, the Torah said men to themselves and women to themselves, now that they are occupied with rejoicing [on Sukkot] and the evil inclination has power over them, how much more so [should they be separated]!

Women and bondsmen and minors are not counted towards a zimmun.

Women and bondsmen, if they wish to join together for a zimmun do not. Why not? …Because of immodesty.

Women and bondsmen and minors are not counted towards a zimmun [with men], but they can recite zimmun on their own. A group of women and bondsmen and minors may not recite zimmun together because of the immodesty of the bondsmen. Rather, women may [recite zimmun] on their own and bondsmen on their own…But when they [women] eat with men, they are obligated [in zimmun] and discharge their obligation with our [the men’s] zimmun.

…For we rule regarding the law of zimmun: A group of women and bondsmen and minors should not recite zimmun together because of the immodesty of bondsmen, and women recite zimmun for themselves, but when they eat with men, they are obligated and discharge their obligation with our zimmun (OC 199:6,7) and from this it is explicitly proven that even at a party of feasting we are not concerned about immodesty, and specifically when there are bondsmen together with them we are concerned about the immodesty of bondsmen…

Two groups that were eating in one house, these turn their faces to one side and these turn their faces to the other and they eat, and the water boiler is in the middle…And the bride may turn her face away and eat.

And the bride may turn her face away— What is the reason? Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said Rabbi Yochanan said: because she is embarrassed.

…For we find with eating the Pesach that the men and the women would eat in one house, and there were a few families there, for there was no Pesach offering that did not have more than ten people counted for it…Further, the bride turning away her face, which Rashi explains in light of what Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, because she is embarrassed to eat before the men, since they look at her. This does not apply in front of her father and brothers but before other men. If so, it is clear that there was no mechitza between them.

It is a general principle that it is impossible to derive a new law from what is said in the gemara tangentially, and not where they are discussing that matter. For since it is not the place of this law, they were not very precise…The proof he brings in the above responsum from a mishna (86a) “the bride turns her face away,” is not a proof. For one can well say that she is embarrassed before such relatives [notwithstanding the fact] that, for purposes of the prohibition of mingling, they are considered her familiars [with whom it is permissible to mingle]…

…But they are prohibited at a meal at a time when they are intermingled, the men and the women, for it is prohibited for a man to mingle with women at a meal, except for his sister or his father’s sister or his mother’s sister or his wife’s sister, on condition that his wife be at the meal, for she keeps him from sin.

It is forbidden for the women to mingle with the men, whether for a meal or for dancing or for any matter. Rather, women to themselves and men to themselves, from a kal va-chomer [a fortiori argument]: If in a time of mourning it is written “And the land mourned, each family to itself, the family of the house of David to itself, and their women to themselves,” how much more so for a party that includes drinking, or merriment…

[There is[ a prohibition for men and women to be together actually intermingled. This prohibition was a received tradition for our sages, Halacha Le-Moshe Mi-Sinai, and Zecharya connected it to a verse, and this is an independent prohibition…But this prohibition applies only if they are actually together, but if the men stand on one side and the women on another side, even though there is no mechitza between them but some open space, this is considered men to themselves and women to themselves, and they have already kept themselves from violating this prohibition…

A beit din is obligated to set up patrols on the festivals that will circulate and search in gardens and orchards and by rivers in order that men and women not gather to eat and drink there and come to sin. Similarly, they should caution the entire people about this, in order that men and women not mingle in their homes for celebration, and not be drawn on by wine, lest they come to sin.

And so they should caution the entire people- Behold the matter of this obligation is always to caution against and to protest [violations] when one is able, but on festivals the sin is more common.

It seems in my humble opinion that the verse in Zecharya deals only with synagogues and study halls [batei midrash], which have sanctity, and not with other places…For a typical eulogy of the masses is held in the synagogue and not in another place…

“And I will be for them a small Temple.” Rabbi Yitzchak said: These are the synagogues and batei midrash of Babylonia.

A mechitza that one makes simply for tzeniut is permissible [to erect on Shabbat], like the mechitza that we make between men and women at the time of the derasha is permissible to make on Shabbat.

Only in the synagogue is there an early enactment to make high mechitzot…but in gatherings of a non-obligatory nature, as when welcoming a kalla to the chuppa or during speeches and derashot, they were never particular to make mechitzot, they were simply particular that men and women not sit together and not intermingle. Indeed, I saw that he brings the words of Mordechai, who wrote: “like the mechitza that we make at the time of the derasha between men and women is permissible to make on Shabbat,” meaning that they also made mechitzot at the time of the derasha and not just at the time of tefilla and reciting Shema. It seems that this is a pious measure and not a matter of law, and we never saw in the lands of Lithuania or Poland that they were particular with this. And leave it to Israel [that if they are not prophets, they are sons of prophets].

There are those who are particular to also set up a mechitza during a Torah derasha that takes place in the synagogue. However, in my humble opinion, one should consider carefully whether this does more harm than good. Experience shows that women who sit behind a mechitza feel distanced from what is happening in synagogue. This makes it difficult for them to listen to the speaker. So it’s not surprising that women find themselves engaging in chitchat during the derasha and causing a disturbance, and this is not their fault. In order to prevent this, I have been particular that the gabbai’im (sextons) should roll back the mechitza during the derasha, in order that the women should be able to listen to it. For a mechitza at that time is not a halacha but a good custom.

In a moment, I will discuss what his honor wrote, that we could find grounds to regret the old custom to set up the chuppa before the courtyard of the synagogue, for men and women come to be intermingled…I say that one should not seek nor check, God forbid, for flaws in the place of the great ones who established the generation, but see what the people do, and no one has questioned this [practice]… In any case certainly it is good and right nevertheless to enact that they [men and women] not come to mix, and one [who does so] will be called repairer of the fence, restorer of the streets with dwellings [cf. Yeshaya 58:12].

However, from the eulogy in future times [in Zecharya], from which we learn [about gender separation], it is inferred that it [mingling between genders] is prohibited in a place where they gather for some obligation to gather. And without the need of an obligation of gathering, it was permissible even in the Temple, as in the case of Chana who prayed in the Mikdash near Eli…

For it is permissible for his honor to invite a congregation of people to derashot on matters of Torah and ethics, in order to bring them close to Torah and to mitzvot, even though it is impossible to arrange that there be a mechitza separating the men and the women, because of what his honor said, that there is a concern that they will refuse to come if they are required to be separated by a mechitza. Even though according to the law there needs to be a mechitza, as my grandson responded to his honor, since the invitation is to the general public, and not to individuals, as explained in my responsa OC I:39-44, in any case, since here there is no other possibility, one should not refrain from influencing them in order to draw them near to Torah and mitzvot for want of a mechitza, so long as this is not at the time of prayer.

Reason indicates that any serious gathering or purposeful conversation does not involve immodesty, and every day men meet with women for business transactions, and they transact business, and yet there is no breach or outcry. Even those who are most in violation of modest norms will not think about that which is forbidden while they are seriously involved with business dealings…. Sitting in one area and grouping for public service, which is a holy service, does not accustom one to sin or lead to frivolity, and all Israel, men and women, are holy, and are not suspected of breaching the boundaries of modesty and ethics… [The requirement of separation] applies only at a large gathering of modest and immodest people together, and in such cases we are concerned about the minority of immodest people, and more so if they are involved with festivity…

Regarding the meetings of the society to which men and women come to discuss and debate and decide everyday matters of the society, and they established that at each meeting one of the group teaches a devar Torah of a halachic ruling from Shulchan Aruch or of a matter of ethics or awe of Heaven, this is a good enactment for which they are to be commended. Regarding whether the women can also be present during the study as they are during the conversations and discussions in everyday matters, or whether they need to go out to a different room, behold the words of Torah and ethics are no worse than everyday matters, and since they are not stringent about letting them come to the meeting, like all societies in this country, for women also participate in all affairs, even though the reason that they are lenient in this country as a given is not known, but since they are lenient there is no reason that they should leave during the study.

…Whoever recites the beracha “that joy is in His dwelling” must investigate whether they have fulfilled “rejoicing with trembling,” whether there is trembling at this place of rejoicing. But if …women sit among the men, so that inappropriate thoughts are present, it is inconceivable to recite the beracha “that joy is in His dwelling.”…Any mitzva that leads to a transgression, it is better that one not perform the mitzva, like the mitzva to cause the groom to rejoice. And if there are breaches of modesty and one knows that it won’t be without immodesty or if he cannot avoid inappropriate thought or cannot avoid seeing women, he should not be there.

Since at that same meal on the second night [from the wedding] only relatives make the meal and everyone sits in the winter-house and eats together with the groom, men and women, therefore we don’t say “that joy is in His dwelling” in accordance with Sefer Chassidim. This is not the case on Shabbat at the third meal when we make a large meal and men and women sit separately and so at the meal on Shabbat eve and Shabbat morning, in Cracow only young unmarried men and women eat there, there are no inappropriate thoughts. Rather specifically when non-virgin women [join men at a meal] on the second night [there is a constraint]…

They say in Sefer Chassidim [393] anywhere that men and women see each other, as at a wedding feast, one may not recite “that joy is in His dwelling,” since there is no joy before God in the presence of inappropriate thoughts of transgression. We are not careful about this now, perhaps because now women are accustomed a great deal to be among the men and inappropriate thoughts of transgression are not present to such an extent, for they [the women] seem to us [the men] like “white geese” [i.e. not provocative] on account of being habituated to having them among us, and since they have trodden that path, they have trodden it.

…At simchas the danger is greater because the evil inclination grows stronger to cause sin. Here (in Johannesburg) the vast majority of weddings are fully mixed, and men and women sit at one table, and in our great iniquity rabbis participate in the weddings…In my opinion the participants transgress very serious prohibitions and publicly desecrate God’s name. It is beyond our power to establish things correctly, and, thank God, to the best of our ability, there are those with fear of Heaven who try to make the weddings in accordance with the Halacha with full separation of men and women each in their own room, or in one room they try at least to make a special place for men to themselves…(And they relied for no reason on weak arguments of some rabbis in America who were lenient with this, and participated in mixed weddings, for it is a clear halacha that this is fully prohibited, and it is proper also to be concerned about the sin of desecrating God’s name for there is no greater sin than that.)

Also our master Chida in Responsa Yosef Ometz cited the words of Levush above. So he [Rav Yehoshua Ardit] wrote in the book China Ve-chisda to rely on the above Levush. And so in the book Taharat Ha-mayim he brought the words of Levush and wrote that even in the great Jewish city of Saloniki they were not accustomed to be concerned about this [separate seating at wedding feasts]. And so he wrote in Menachem Meishiv II that in Ashkenaz as well they were not concerned for this, see there.

Therefore, nowadays is different from long ago…The woman does not sit in the confines of her home as long ago and they [men] are more habituated to seeing women in the street; therefore, their weakness is their strength, for now there is not so much inappropriate thought in walking behind her [a woman] as then…Something like what was said [here] I found in Levush OC Minhagim…

…For the obligation for mechitza is only for an event open to the masses, and a wedding is considered a private affair.

…[A] modest mixed society in the spirit of the Torah of Israel. This is not simple to implement, it requires constant work, internal and external, on the personal level and the educational level. We must strive constantly to improve and be improved in the area of tzeni’ut…Our existence as a mixed society in adult life is not bedi’avad, but is the way of the world, upon which, as we have said, the entire halacha is based. Truly, it is necessary to sanctify adult society, and the demand to live according to the four halachic principles…exists in full force. The obligations of tzeni’ut, of avoiding frivolity, yichud, and touch – these define a society that conducts itself according to the Torah.

The mehitza was always there: in big banquet halls and at the small-scale venues where Hasidic relatives held celebrations. We would go as a family, enter the hall together and then split up and meet again, standing on both sides of the mehitza. The mehitza was friendly there, too – not hermetic; you could move it and talk around it. Expanding when possible, narrowing when necessary. It’s hard for me to remember exactly when this happened, but suddenly there was a mehitza everywhere. It is a second kind of mehitza, one that is no longer friendly. It’s opaque. Sometimes it’s made of plywood; sometimes it’s an actual wall; sometimes it’s only virtual, but no less divisive than a wall….Suddenly, we no longer enter the hall together with the men – there’s a special entrance for women, an afterthought, by way of a dark and dank alleyway. There’s also separation on buses.

[A] large segment of women have experienced: a slow, quiet shift of cultural norms that results in a two-tier, hierarchical society. Enough women (frum, content-with-our-roles-but-concerned-with-current-trends women) have since spoken up, and far too many to be dismissed as anomalies. Women who are perfectly content praying behind a mechitza are upset about the lack of air conditioning…space or grape juice to make kiddush. About the lack of dignity. They’ve shared stories of trying to speak up and repeatedly being shut down.

Separation isn’t discrimination. Separation between men and women enables free conduct in the public sphere. Thus it is at the beach, on the dance floor, and sometimes also at a show or lecture. Separation isn’t a decree, but a community’s choice to conduct itself in its sphere in its way.

Human sensitivity to different things is affected by the environment, and by the society’s accepted policies and ways of life, which engender different responses to similar phenomena. That is to say, the same phenomenon might lead to different effects and responses based on the accepted way of life of each and every society…Indeed there were distinct ways of life in different places…Social reality has an effect on the desirable standards…For the conditions of a society establish the level of sensitivity to different stimuli…Just as there are trials of exposure, so, too, there are corresponding ones in a place where fences and protections are established by the society…Every congregation needs to worry about its community and to endeavor that this community conduct itself in accordance with the laws appropriate for it. However, one should know that whatever public policies and rules may be established, they cannot guarantee to prevent all failure, and at the end of the day every person must be responsible for his own behavior.