Norma Baumel Joseph
MEljITZAH: HALAKHIC DECISIONS AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
The separation of men and women in public places has a long and
complicated history.1 Biblical stories of women as singers, dancers, and mourners attest to their presence at communal events.2 Other sources also indicate that women were participants at Templepublic celebrations3 (see Grossman, pp. 19ff.). The subject of this chapter is not the question of their presence but rather of their place in the synagogue, the place that has been the focus of public ceremonies since before the destruction of the Temple. At present, a variety of seating arrangments exists, ranging from mixed pews to balconies and separate rooms. Many presume the separate seating model to be a replica of ancient patterns. However, as Professor Shmuel Safrai indicates, much more research must be done before any- one can conclusively date the use of a structural barrier between the sexes for the purpose of prayer.4 Of course, the absence of a me/:litzah(barrier) does not automatically imply the existence of mixed seating. It could mean that men and women sat separately without a barrier or that no evidence of one remains. Others conclude that women did not attend synagogue.5 However, since the evidence available does indicate that women frequently did attend --- - Meill/zull: IIalllklltc PI'clS/OIIS(llIti !'ol//lral COlISrqllfl/CI'S lit/It/kilt/II
The hala\
interpretation and the primary text to be developed. That text means thill when a group of Jews appear-known as Conservatives-who change nothing in Temple practice, procedure, or structure can be changed, and !!orne of the rules, claiming their intent is to save Judaism and Jews, that this principle rests on the absolute sanctity and authority of Scriptll/'c.' Pl'Instein needs to delegitimize their claims at every turn, especially in the as understood by tradition. All possible relevant sources are then viewed fl'alm of public synagogue practice. Therefore, it is important for him to as explicating and implementing that statement. In arguing for the COli. 'Ihow that they are violating Torah, Le., biblical law, and not just rabbinic ceptual unity of the Talmud and for the biblical basis of mel:zitzah,Fein- 1.lw.He also wishes to indicate to those who follow these leaders just how stein indicates through both form and content the seriousness of this issut' for him. ~reatly they err. In the introduction to the Litvin essay, he assumes that many pray without a mel:zitzahout of ignorance. He thus tries to impress Given the clear biblical text forbidding changes to the physical struc- \lpon them how serious is their straying and how obvious and sacred is ture of the Temple, and the absence of any special instructions to those in Ihe source forbidding this. charge of the building, Feinstein reasons that there must have been a Having shown the biblical requirement of having a mel:zitzahin the known requirement for a physical separation (1M Oa I: 39). No rabbinic Temple, Feinstein argues that the extension of the mel:zitzahto the syna- law or amendment could have overridden the injunction of I Chronicles Hogue is not just rabbinic, but has Torah authority also.27"Frivolity during (as is clarified in auI. 83). He sees the mel:zitzahas "implicit in the verse as prayer would then be proscribed by Scripture." 28 Feinstein'sequation of a pre-existing.. . Scripturallaw."23 In other words, it is mi-de-oraitaby Temple with synagogue is not new, as many rabbinic authorities (using default. Only a Scriptural command could override the prohibition of the text of Meg. 29a) have so ruled.29What is new is his insistence on the change. Since the change was made, there must have been a known law. 24 biblical foundation of mel:zitzahin synagogues. One questioner went so far as to imply that people enter synagogues for the purpose of mitzvah and It becomes dear, then, that a balcony was necessary by original Biblical law, so therefore do not need separation. His response (1M Oa I: 41) is that that the women would be above and the men below, and then they would in no sense mingle or communicate. As the Mishnah states; [The wall of the women's people entered the Temple in awe and for the purpose of mitzvah, and court] was smooth at first, and then a balcony traversed its length, so that the still, physical separation was required. Both synagogue and Temple are women would see [the festivities] from above, and the men from below, and they equatable in function and, therefore, in structure. would not be intermingled (Mid. 2; 5). This proves that originally, though they He then must clarify what kind of structure. The Temple had a bal- were separated by an adequate mechitzah, they were considered as if commin- cony, and that is therefore preferable (1Moa 2 :43). Interestingly, he does balcony.gling; such25 a situation violated Biblical law, which implicitly demanded, then, a not make any case for the transferability from balcony to partition. Some- how he assumes that it is permissible to use a partition, and he writes many teshuvot on their required height, though not on their permissibility. The biblical source of the mel:zitzahis of such importance to Feinstein Theminimumheightrequired,as indicatedin Shabo92a (seeRashiand that he writes a separate letter to Litvin clarifying that the biblical law Tosafot, ad. loc.) is three amot or eighteen tefal:zim(handbreadths).30 Fein- doesmel:zitzah.26not just prohibit mixed pews but prohibits prayer without a proper stein rules that five and one-halffeet, or sixty-five inches, is a satisfactory translation of those ancient measurements (1M Ol,I 3: 23, 4: 31). How- Why is Feinstein so insistent on the biblicalbase of the law when his ever, because we live in difficult times, Feinstein allows himself the le- Orthodox rabbinic colleaguesdo not make the sameclaims? It ispossible to see the source of his claim in the ambiguous texts themselves.It is also niency to use the solitary opinion of Rashbam (BB IOOb) that requires only seventeen tefal:zim.Thus, he permits sixty inches (1M Ol,I 3: 23, possibleto understand his perspectivein twentieth-century America. His 4: 29- 31) and in one place even allows fifty-eight inches because women sense of the Jewish world is one of a world in chaos, losing its hold on are shorter(l) today (1M Ol:I 3:24).31 tradition. He frequently makes disparaging comments about America, For Feinstein, the whole discussion of height is intelligible only in the such as "in this Country,because of our many sins. . . ." In that context, context of the reasons given for sepa'ration. Ifwe know why we must sep- , I IIIIIIAItlllt
arate-what it is the separalion must prevent-then the decisor can rl" 1101ayah, and pra~~r is not prevented. The Talmud warns that the hair of spond accordingly. The most intricate part of this whole approach lies in .1woman contains an erotic element that requires covering.34The same is his understanding of why: why the Bible requires a me/:titzah. trllc for a woman's shoulders and arms. For Feinstein, as well as for a sig- Kalut rosh, translated as frivolity, is the forbidden state. Feinstein IIlflcant segment of Orthodox Jewry, these warnings have been translated claims that frivolity occurs when people are able to talk, to communicate 11110a specific dress code. A married woman must cover arms and hair. in any fashion (1M O.ij 1: 39). The partition must therefore be high Problems arise, however, in pinning down the legal consequences of enough to prevent the communication and mingling that bring with them Ihese warnings. Even though he wants married women to cover their hair frivolity (1M 01;11 :41). Both verbal and physical Contact are classified as at all times, especially in the synagogue (1M 01:14: 32), he rules that it is mingling and are, therefore, forbidden (1M O.ij 3: 23). permissible to pray, to say the Shema, and hear the Torah read even if men Feinstein further explains that these acts are matters of public behav- can see the uncovered hair of married women (1M 01:11 :42). Since it is ior, recognizable (nikar), and thus of a different genre from other experi- not the custom of women today to cover their hair, it cannot be consid- ences that require separation (1M O.ij 1: 40). In fact, he is very careful to ered ervah or nakedness. Hence, the me/:titzahcan be shoulder height, distinguish the laws of me/:titzahfrom other laws that appear similar but covering the arm and shoulder areas that are still ervah, but allowing for are due to reasons of personal moral laxity such as those that fall into the the visibility of hair. category of ervah (nakedness, see below) or yi/:tud (the prohibition that The legal decision in this case is determined to a degree by public cus- man and woman, other than husband and wife, not have the opportunity tom. Looking at women, deriving pleasure from that act, involves a per- for intimacy). Me/:titzah,he insists, is not required to prevent men from sonal code of modesty and license and affects men and women differently. seeing women.32 "The obligation of the me/:titzahis due to frivolity and not Me/:titzahapplies to public behavior and to men and women equally (1M gazing" (1M O.ij 1: 40). Therefore, a glass partition fulfills the legal re- 01:11 :43). Though he prefers that men never look at women, he rules quirements of a me/:titzah-though perhaps not of ervah (1M O.ij 1: 43, that female visibility does not enter into the category of kalut rashand that 3 :23). A balcony, which inherently prevents mingling, does not require a erva is not the reason for me/:titzah(1M 01:11:40). Despite his preferences, partition such as a curtain to block the view of the men (1M O.ij 1:41). Feinstein will not allow anyone to confuse the issues or to argue for His reasoning is quite consistent and rests on the Talmudic discussion of me/:titzahon the wrong grounds. the seating arrangements in the Temple. At first the men were outside and Though halakhic flexibility and leniency emerge from careful defini- the women were inside. Then the men were inside and, according to tions and separation of issues, Feinstein is not satisfied with the minimum Feinstein, unable to see the women, but there was stilI a problem with standard. His ideal design forbids all forms of contact between the sexes, levity that required the balcony. either visual or verbal. Thus, after stating that visibility does not prevent prayer, he is quick to add that it is best to be strict and have a high And so, if women are on an upper level, even without a screen or curtain, or if me/:titzah that will prevent all visibility (1M 01:1 1: 40). He is especially they are below,but behind a veritable,high mechitzah,so that there be no fear of levity,it is of no consequenceif the women are visible.3} careful to warn all those who are capable of higher standards, the "God fearers," to look away and never gaze at women (1M01:11:40,42; 4: 29). To reinforce his division between minimal practices and the preferred In a series of responsa, Feinstein examines the prohibition involved in ideal, he always prefaces statements of acceptance of lowered standards looking at women. The laws of ervah prohibit a man from looking at a with such expressions as: "because of our many sins," "in extremis," "in woman ifhis intent is to receive pleasure; but intent is not the only deter- this country," "in our day." He is not an idealist, although he presents an mining characteristic. Equally important is the nature of the exposed ideal standard. He does not like the exigencies of daily living, but he area. If it is a part of the body that is usually covered, then it is prohibited understands and writes with practical concerns. for a man to look and he cannot pray under such circumstances. On the In one case"dealing with separate seating without a me/:titzah,his deci- other hand, if women usually appear with this area uncovered, then it is sion indicates his constant practical approach combined with his view "1'JmrllmrrTJ'
that there are layers of possible, preferred, and prescribed patterns. Thll~, ,,1'lll'ral,but especiallyso in meJ;zitzahcases. The meJ;zitzahmust separate he rules that mixed seating is a graver sin than prayer without a partilloll 1111'11from women and Orthodox from non-Orthodox Jews.3? Anyone but with separate seating (1M01;11 :44).35He reasons that if people trallS- who lampers with this division comes under suspicious scrutiny. His or gress a minor law, they should not be encouraged or allowed to transgn'ss IIt'I motives might stem from a desire to cross these sacred boundaries. in a more serious arena. In fact, he claims that the proper procedure is 10 I!wn if the act might be halakhically permissible, it becomes forbidden in convince a mixed seating congregation to at least sit separately. This is till' Ihis context of interdenominational polemics. riousfirst andmatteronlythanindicationmel:zitzah.that, for Feinstein, separate seating is a more se. Women, even those who keep the commandments, fall under suspi- don when they ask for any change in this arena. Thus, when a group of women requested a change from a balcony to a kosher meJ;zitzahon the Separation Between Orthodox and main floor, Feinstein prohibited it. He explains in his responsum that we Conservative or Reform Judaism know (nikar) that the women really want mixed seating, and this is only Ihe first part of their campaign. The claim of the women that they find climbing the stairs difficult is quickly discounted as an untruth. He states In this matter, as in many others, Feinstein's approach is that if the ideal is lhat the women would willingly climb the stairs for physical pleasure. If not Possible, we must do what we can. In one related area, however, he they were acting "for the sake of heaven," there would be no difficulty.38 insists on a consistent standard. One must not pray or attend any service He insists that the women only wish to change the traditions of the in a non-Orthodox congregation.36 A synagogue that is Conservative is people, and that is forbidden (1M01:12: 43). Since the attributed motive is considered a community of kofrim (deniers), even if they do not know unacceptable, the act becomes illegal. any better. He extends this category to Reform congregations and rabbis There is no evidence as to why Feinstein discredits the women's re- in other responsa. It is therefore forbidden to pray in their building (1M quest. He neither provides halakhic evidence for this decision nor ex- 01;14: 91, sec. 6). Even if they establish a special room with an acceptable plains why he assumes the women have "wrong" motives. The respon- mel:zitzahfor those who wish it, it is still forbidden to pray there (1M 01;1 sum is very brief, a statement of opinion rather than a legal brief with 2 :40). Feinstein argues that one must not do anything that will bring sus- precedents. In fact, he mentions that for legitimate reasons the change can picion (I:zashad) upon one's self, nor do anything whose appearance of course be made. More space for the women might be such a legitimate might be misinterpreted, thereby leading others astray (marit Cayin).En- reason. The rabbi's job security is another acceptable justification. If he tering the building of such a synagogue falls into these categories. If might lose his job, then Feinstein allows the change that is, after all, well someone is seen entering a Conservative synagogue, he or she will be sus- within halakhic requirements. Earning a living does not excuse all, but it pected of being Conservative or will lead others astray by example. In his is a powerful alibi. In a different case, Feinstein permits a man who is a terms, the non-Orthodox synagogue benefits both financially and mor- cantor in a Conservative synagogue to write a get (Jewish bill of divorce). ally, as it can claim that it satisfies all needs. For both halakhic and social He has transgressed, he has prayed in a place of mixed seating with a mi- reasons, then, Feinstein prohibits praying in such a room, even if it has a crophone, but only in order to earn a living. The category of kofer can proper mehitzah. However, if the same arrangment exists but the syna- only be applied to one who knowingly and willfully denies God. Fein- gogue in question considers itself Orthodox, he permits praying in a sepa- stein does not give him permission to remain in his post, but he does de- rate room with a mel:zitzah(1M 01;14:91, sec. 6). If the Orthodox con- clare him a kosher scribe (1M Even ha-Ezer 2: 20). gregation uses a microphone or does not have a proper partition (and In those cases where he assumes that the intention of the individual or there are some), the members are not considered kofrim. They have ac- group is to transgress the law, in open defiance of God and Torah, Fein- cepted the mitzvot and are just disrespectful in this one area. Avoidance is therefore not required. stein is very harsh in his condemnation and his decision is on the strict side. However, when he assumes the practice in question is the result of Intent and motive playa significant role in his halakhic scenario in ignorance or economic need, and not rebellion, then he writes a careful Mrb/llll/r 11"/"kl,,( I '('I'/.~iol/.\ 11111'1'0111/1'''' 0111,\('1/1/('1/1'(.\
and detailed responsum whose purpose is to educate and set the record No halakhist has thus far been able to validate the family pew from traditional straight. In such cases there is room for leniency. Some changes are per- sources, nor has it ever been adopted as a tagganah by a recognized rabbincal body. The tacit surrender of the segregation of the sexes in synagogues of all ten- mitted, some motives are acceptable; those that appear to breach sacred dencies is another example of minhag triumphing over accepted law. In this in- borders are quickly denied. stance, it is minhag America!7 Feinstein's purpose is to promote and preserve Jewish separateness. Separation of the sexes is part of his strategy. Part of it also involves sepa- Certainly, the Orthodox polemic against the Conservative community rating the elite "God fearers," those capable of extra effort, from ordinary points to this absence of responsa permitting mixed seating. In Orthodox Jews.)9 For Feinstein, the most significant battle is waged to separate not terms, the Conservative stance remains illegitimate and unjustified. On Jew from non-Jew, but Orthodox Jews from Conservative and Reform the other hand, from the Conservative point of view, there are no re- Jews. The me/:zitzahis the symbol of this separation and the focus of this corded laws specifying the mel;.itzahin ancient times; "if a prohibition is battle. Feinstein's commitment to the me/:zitzah-and in this he is typical not specifically mentioned and promulgated as such by the Talmud or of all Orthodoxy-is also part of his campaign against all things Conser- Codes, the restriction is, at best, a minhag or local ordinance of regional vative or Reform.40 Truly, the me/:zitzahis the "great divide," separating validity."48 male from female, elite from ordinary, and Orthodox from Conservative The halakhic issue aside, the debate became one of denominational and Reform. polemic that reached its peak in the 1950s in America.49 At that time, For the past 150 years, all Orthodox responsa have consistently main- there were Orthodox congregations that had mixed seating. The Ortho- tained the me/:zitzahrequirement.4. In Europe, when the Reform Move- dox Movement's Yeshiva University even allowed rabbinical students to ment removed the me/:zitzahwhile still retaining separate seating, the re- accept posts in mixed seating congregations, with the hope that they sponse of Orthodox rabbis was swift and condemning.42 However, when ~ would influence their congregants to change. Both those practices are no ~ the Reform Movement instituted mixed pews in America, the Orthodox longer permitted. so Movement for the most part ignored the action and kept to itself") On the Legal battles were fought in the 1950s in America, as Jews used the other hand, when the Conservative Movement moved to change seating civil courts to force one or the other practice.s1 One of the most famous patterns a generation later, the Orthodox entered the debate. Between the cases was the Mt. Clemens case, in which one man, Baruch Litvin, sued two World Wars, some Conservative congregations began to be built with- his congregation for depriving him of his rights by changing the seating to out separations. Though one of the two synagogues at the Conservative mixed pews. The court ruled in his favor and the mel;.itzahremained. This Movement's Jewish Theological Seminary continues to have separate case was an important element in the hardening of the Orthodox posi- seating, it is not the policy of most member congregations. By 1955, tion.52Litvin collected various rabbinic sources, statements, and responsa Marshal Sklare could write that mixed seating was the practice in the ma- in the book, previously cited, The Sanctity of the Synagogue.Though Ortho- jority of Conservative congregations.44 dox responsa forbidding mixed pews had been written before, after the It was not until the 1950s that the debate became a central focus of the publication of Litvin's volume, all Orthodoxy became defined by this one denominational divisions, and stands that were taken became frozen practice. Today, an Orthodox congregation is largely defined by the pres- principles of faith.4s For Conservative Jews, the mixed pews were ac- ence of a partition. cepted as the way of the people that did not require formal responsa. Ac- cording to the Conservative Movement's position, the absence of a cod- ified requirement for me/:zitzahallowed for re-evaluation. Therefore, "No The Me1:Jitzahas a Symbol of Communal Allegiance official responsum has ever been issued to justify this move."46 Robert Gordis, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, explained that The mel;.itzahis now the symbol of one's communal allegiance. Therefore, this was a real case of custom overcoming tradition: the debate today over women's place and position in synagogue practice is ""It" M"/,//111I1r /III/Ilk/1/1' nrd.t/(II/.f II"d 1'(llIllra/ C(lII.I'rqlll'llcI'.f
seen as threatening the denominational borders that were drawn by tl1(' dltilraflions of any male presence. The laws and customs that limit me/:titzahdebate. In this Context,Feinstein'ssuspicionof the women'smo. womcn do not result from the requirement of a meJ;1itzah.Restrictions on tives regarding the balcony becomes understandable, if not acceptable. womcn's ability to be called to the Torah or to serve as prayer leaders "Ultimately,observanceof the law becomessecondary to correct ideology I1I'l'derived from other laws and customs (seeHaut, p. 137). However, and politicalloyalty."53 Thedebateis, ofcourse,voicedin legalrhetoric, II/I'/,titzahhas become the symbol of women's limited participation. but the conflict is political. Feinstein and most of his Orthodox collegues As the separation of men and women became linked with political wish to suppress pluralism within the Jewish world. The question re- Ideology and practice, the limits on women's participation appear to have mains; why is the me/:titzah-which restrains women and even removes Increased. The great divide stands as Feinstein envisioned it: Separating them visibly-the issue chosen through which to supress pluralism? 54 men and women, elite from ordinary, and Orthodox Jews from Conserva- There are, of course, other areas of conflict and dispute. Thus, in one re- tive and Reform Jews. sponsum (1M OI:II: 104), Feinstein forbids a Bat Mitzvah because the idea comes from the Conservative Movement. Thus, the opposition to things tivelynon-Orthodoxsuppressed.is the determinant, but in the process, women are effec- Notes
Furthermore, problems arise with the reasoning process underlying 1. Louis Epstein, Sex Lawsand Customsin Judaism(New York: KTAV,1967 [1948]), the debate, and also with the attitudes the me/:titzahappears to engender. chap. 3,67-103. Does me/:titzah indicate that women are irrelevant to the service? The 2. Miriam led the women in song and dance, Exod. 15 :20,21; Deborah sang her song of victory to the assembled armies, Judg. 5; Hannah prayed in the Sanctuary, 1 Sam. 1; men's section is called the beit knesset, the synagogue, by Feinstein. This women were professional public mourners, Jer. 9: 16; women participated in the choral ser-
usage also occurs consistently in Litvin's book. 55 Is the ezrat nashim not in vices of the Temple, Ezra 2: 65. the beitknesset?Are women too distractingto the men? What about men 3. Women were included in the public reading of the Bible, known as HakheI, Kid. 34a; they were present at Sim/:latBeit ha-Sho'evah, see infra; they were permitted to participate in being distracting to the women? Feinstein and his colleagues would be the laying on of hands (S>mikhah),part of the sacrificial ritual. l:Iag. 16b; and women were quick to deny any attributions of secondary status to women. In fact, obligated to participate in the Passover sacrificial meal. Pes. 91b. See S. Berman, "The Status Feinsteininsists that seeingand distraction are not the primary problems; ofWomenin HalakhicJudaism," Tradition 14 (Fall 1973) 5-28, for interestingexamplesof women's obligations. however, he does prefer that men should not look at women. And even 4. S. Safrai, "Was there an EzratNashimin the Ancient Synagogue?" (in Hebrew), Tar. though he claims me/:titzahapplies equally to men and women, he is only biz, 32 (1963): 329- 38. The Talmud records the use of different types of temporary parti- concerned about men looking at women. So the problem remains that tions-jugs and reeds-that were used when men and women gathered (Kid. 81a: Abaye made a partition of jugs; Raba made a partition of canes; trans. H. Freedman, London: Son- the me/:titzah,though not necessarily established to limit women 56 nor to cino Press, 1966). The Sanctity of the Synagogue, ed. B. Litvin (New York: Litvin, 1962),231; thesetreat themends. as irrelevant or secondary, nonetheless sometimes leads to the editor cites sources claiming that these barriers were used to separate men and women other than in the synagogue, implying that there was always a permanent me/:litzah for As a great divide, me/:titzahwould appear to be the restricting factor in prayers. The Talmud, however, is unclear as to when these barriers were used and nowhere specifies the use of a partition for prayer. Even Litvin (ibid., 230) must include the reference women's participation in synagogue life. This is not necessarily so. It is from The Jewish Encyclopedia (1916) that there is no mention in "the old sources" of the possible to construct a synagogue such as the Hebrew Institute of River- separation of the sexes in the synagogue and that the archaeological record is obscure on dale, New York, wherein the partition splits the room exactly in half. The this point. Epstein, SexLaws, 81, arguesthat the temporary barrierswere in use only when women have theoretical access to both the bimah and the ark. This struc- the synagogue was used for a general public assembly, at which times women came in large numbers. He claims that they were not used for regular worship, as women did not fre- ture would appear to fit Feinstein's perspective of me/:titzahbeing a com- quently attend. However, there are many sources that indicate women did attend services munal obligation equal for men and women. Under such circumstances, and were activein synagoguelife;forexample,seeB.Brooten, WomenLeadersin theAncient it is possible to speak of women sitting separately as Jews before God-on Synagogue(California: Scholars Press, 1982). Seealson.6 infra. Cf. Grossman,pp.22-29. 5. Litvin, The Sanctity, 225. their own, not as adjuncts to the men in their lives-protected from the 6. TB Ber. 17a; TB Sot. 22a; Lev. R. 9:9; Sofrim 18:6. Solomon Schechter, "Women in ...
S.I/ml, pp. 39-49. '/bllplt. .1/111Syllol/lOj!Ul IIISIIU/it'sill Jllt/ili.lm. vol. I (/'hlJ/ldl'/phl.l: JI'S. 191/). 313-25. Cf: . III,Ithlllk It Is lUll,IUSlllkd.Thl' words do nOIIU:cessarlly have 10be wrluen In Scripture in 7. Jonalhan Sarna, "The Debale Over Mixed SCaling In Ihe American Synagogue:' in IIIIIt-. 10 how !Ill' aUlhorlty of Torah as long as they arc derived from Ihe Bible. For Fein- Universily Press, 1987), 363-94. 111'111.\rpcHalc seating with a mebl/zah Is derived from the Bible, though it does not explicitly Tit/!American Synagogue: A Sancluary Transformed, cd. J. Werlhelmer (New York: Cambridge "'Y \0. n.llher, he presents a long argument to prove that mel;tltzahis implied in the Torah 8. Lilvin, The Sanctily, 139-40. Some of Ihe rabbis treat the requirement for separate /lilli, tlll'refore, can qualify as ml-de-oralla. In the process, Feinstein adds a new mode of ml- .If "/'III/a by allowingthe later part of the Bibleand not just the Pentateuch to provide the seating differently than the requirement for a mel:zilzah.Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik claims that ""I/l'l' for this category. I am indebted to Jack Lightstone for this clarification. separate seating is a "Pentateuchal injunction" (issur de-oraila), having Divine provenance, ll. See n.4. while a me/:zitzahis only a rabbinic ordinance. This an/cle by Rabbi Soloveitchik is a reprint l2. See n,17. theof alaw.letter to Rabbi Lapidus, originaJly published in ConservativeJudaism, vol. I I (Fall, 23. Feinstein, in Litvin, The Sanctity, 120. 1956): 50-51. As we shall see later, Rabbi Feinstein does not accept such a bifurcation of 9. Litvin, The Sanclity, 145,167. 24. Alan Yuter also describes Feinstein's reasoning and originality Qn this issue. "Mchltsa, Midrash and Modernity: A Study in Religious Rhetoric:' Judaism, 28 (1979): I ~2. 10. Medieval European synagogues definitely had a separate women's section, fre- quently called the Weibershul.This area, somelimes a room or annex, was so separate that 25, Feinstein, in Litvin, The Sanctity, 122. 26. Feinstein, ibid. 125. some women, called firzogerin, would lead the others in prayer. The communities in Worms 192, 226. 27. Feinstein, ibid. 124; cr. R. Nessim in his novellae to Meg. fol 26; TB Meg. 29a. and Frankfurt built separate buildings for the women. EncJud, s.v. "mel:zitzah" and ibid., 28. Feinstein, in Litvin, The Sanctity, 124. I I. Cited in Litvin, The Sanctily, 98, 209. 29. Ibid., 98, 169-73. 30. An amah (pI. amo/) is an ancient measurement. Translated as a cubit or an ell, it imply12.a majorThe wordhalakhiclikkunenactment.might simply refer to a physical alteration, a repair. It might also measures between 446-521 mm. (EncJud, s.v. "Weights and Measures.") Feinstein takes it 13. "And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David 10 be approximately 22 inches. 3I. This statement is not based on any empiricaJ evidence but rather derives from wivesapart, apart"and their(Zech.wives12:apart;12- 14).. . . All the families that remain, every family apart, and their his acceptance of a twofold meaning for the word gadol-great, large. The ancients were 14. 2 Sam. 6:22; Exod. 15:20; Judg. 16:27,21 :21; Jer. 31: 12. gedolim, greater than we are today. We are less in stature, both spiritually and physically. It is unusuaJ for a play on words to have halakhic consequences, although distinctions based on funerals.15. Jer. 9: 16. Women as official wailers raises interesting questions about the prohibi- physical differences between "now" and "then" is a consistent Orthodox strategy. tion of ko/ ishah, the voice of a woman. 2 Chron. 35: 25 also lists women as official singers at 32. There are others who claim that viewing women is part of the problem, e.g., Rabbi 16. Sanh. I: 5. According to legislative procedure, no additions could be made to the Aaron Kotler in Litvin, The SanctilY, 125-39. 33. Feinstein, in Litvin, ibid., 123. city or the COUrtsof the Temple without a Beil Din (court) of seventy-one ~ages, It is unclear nal plan. 34. TB Ber. 24a; EH 21 : 2; 01;175: 2. whether a balcony would require such a rabbinic process or whether it was part of the origi- 35. In this he comes closer to the ruling of Rabbi Soloveitchik (seen.8 supra)who dif- ferentiates between separate seating, without a pan/tion, and segregated seating, with a Upon17.me IevenChron,all the28: works19. "Allof thisthis inpattern."Writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand mel;titzah. For both of them, separate seating is a grave matter that cannot be overturned 18. The literal meaning is light headedness, but different decisors vary on the condi- under any conditions. tions that bring it about, from gazing to physical mingling. 36. Rabbi Soloveitchik also takes an uncompromising position on prayer in a Conser- 19. Many studies confirm this concern, such as: D. Ellenson, "Jewish Legallnterpreta- vative or Reform synagogue. He rules that it is preferable to pray alone, even on Yom Kippur, tion: Literary, Social and Ethical Perspective:' Semeia 34 (1985), 93-1I4; J. Gurock, "Re- than to enter a synagogue where there is no separation (Litvin, The Sanctity, 110). 37. Feinstein restricts contact with Conservative or Reform institutions in a number of sistors and Accomodators: Varieties of Orthodox Rabbis in America, 1886-1983:' American Jewish Archives 35, (Oct. 1983), 100-130; Norma Joseph, "The Traditional Denial of responsa. He even forbids answering "amen" to a Conservative rabbi's blessing. 1M 01;1 Change: Women's Place in the World of Rabbi Moses Feinstein," Journal of Religionand CuI. 2: 50,51; 01;13:21,22. See Robinson, "Because of Our Many Sins:' pp. 40-41. 38. This is consistent with other rulings concerning women's increased ritual participa- lure 2 (1987), 190-201; I. Robinson, "Because of Our Many Sins:' Judaism 35 (1986), and unchangeable. . . ." tion. If they were righteous women, their motives would be for the sake of heaven, and 35-46. In Litvin, The Sanctity, 43, Saul Bernstein claims that the Oral Torah is "unchanging therefore, the acts that are nowhere forbidden, would be permitted. 01;14:49, and a re- 20. Mi-de-oraila is best translated as having the authority of Torah. Many scholars use sponsum written with his approval by his grandson, 4 Sivan 5743; unpublished. (See the words biblical, Scriptural, or Pentateuchal as acceptable translations. However, there is a Haut, p. 146, n.lb.) definite difference between the concept mi-de-oraila and the genre of the written Torah, 39. Robinson, "Because of Our Many Sins:' 38. Torah she-be-khlav. They are not necessarily equatable. Rabbi Feinstein uses the word mi. 40, Ibid., 40-41, 44. Yuter, "Mehizah, Midrash and Modernity," 153-54. de.oraila. Although the English translators in Litvin's book, The Sanctity, use the word bibli- 41. Litvin, The Sanctity. chap. 2, 147, includes letters from many representative groups within Orthodoxy as well as the statements of Chief Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog, Rabbi 134 Halakhah
Abraham Isaac Kook, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, and Rabbi Aaron Kotler. "One couId go on, page after page, enumerating all the similar responsa, without a single dissenting orthodox legal opinion, which appeared over the last 150 years" (Litvin, 147). 42. Litvin, The Sanctity. chap. 3, pp. 142-220, especially pp. 193, 198. The sharpest condemnations of the Reform Movement in the nineteenth century came from Maharam Schick, I;fatam Sofer, and Rabbi Eliyahu Guttmacher. 43. David and Tamar De Sola Pool. OldFaith in a New World(New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1955), 100. Toward the end of the nineteenth century there was an unsuc- cessful movement in Shearith Israel. the leading Sephardic synagogue in New York, to re- move the balcony and institute family pews. Many women protested against such radical innovations. 44. Cited in Sarna, "The Debate Over Mixed Seating," 380. 45. Ibid., 378. Sarna commented: "In time, 'separate seating' and 'mixed seating' be- came shorthand statements, visible expressions of differences on a host of more fundamen- tal issues that lay beneath the surface." His article offers an excellent analysis of the history of mixed seating in the American synagogue. 46. Lawrence Kaplan, "The Dilemma of Conservative Judaism," Commentary (Nov. 1976): 145. 47. R. Gordis, "Seating in the Synagogue: Minhag America," Judaism, 36 (1987): 53. 48. Yuter, "Mehizah, Midrash and Modernity," 151. The Conservative position is pre- sented in a special edition of the journal, ConservativeJudaism 11 (1956). 49. The debate continues to split congregations to this day. 50. Litvin, The Sanctity, 340-41; Rabbi Soloveitchik states that even though some members of the Rabbinical Council of America occupy pulpits in congregations with "im- proper seating arrangements," it is still against halakhah. Ibid., 141. See also N. Lamm's ar- ticle in ibid.. 311- 38. 51. Sarna, "The Debate Over Mixed Seating," 381-86, has shown that in the Reform and Conservative Movements the issue of me1:zitzahwas presented on the basis of family to- getherness, women's equality, and the modernity of Judaism. In the Orthodox world, the debate focused on a dissociation from all things Reform and Conservative, which were seen as ultimately being imitations of church patterns. 52. Lawrence Schiffman, "When Women and Men Sit Together in American Orthodox Synagogues," Moment. 14:7 (Dec. 1989); 48-49. 53. Yuter, "Mehitzah, Midrash and Modernity," 158. 54. Sarna notes that only American Orthodoxy defines itself by the me1:zitzah.British Orthodoxy separates itself from the non-Orthodox world through its position on mixed choirs, German Orthodoxy on the use of an organ, and Hungarian Orthodoxy on the posi- tion of the pulpit. Ibid., Wertheimer, The American Synagogue, p. 394, n.l09. 55. See n.4 supra. 56. The pattern of separation of the sexes might be embedded in social etiquette and would not necessarily indicate a desire to limit women for fear of their sexuality. SeeEpstein, Sex Laws and Customs. chap. 3, pp. 69-83.