Daughters of the King: Women and the Synagogue (A Survey of History, Halakhah, and Contemporary Realities)

MEḤITZAH: HALAKHIC DECISIONS AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES

Norma Baumel Joseph MEl:lITZAH: HALAKHIC DECISIONS AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES The separation of men and women in public places has a long and complicated history.I 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 Temple public celebrations ~ (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 ofpublic ceremonies since before the destruction ofthe 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 anyone can conclusively date the use ofa structural barrier between the sexes for the purpose of prayer.4 Of course, the absence of a mebitzah (barrier) does not automatically imply the existence ofmixed 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.s However, since the evidence available does indicate that women frequently did attend 118 Halakhah services,6 no absolute statement on seating arrangements is plausible. Whether its origin was in biblical, late antique, or medieval times, the me/.1itzah has become a symbol ofdenominational allegiances and policies in the twentieth century.7 This chapter focuses on the debates in this century and on the use of ancient sources and texts to claim authority and legitimacy. There was an ezrat nashim (Women's Coun) in the Second Temple, according to rabbinic tradition. Men and women did congregate there. Talmudic references indicate that it became necessary to separate men and women for one specific celebration during Sukkot, namely. Sim/.1at Be;t ha-Sho>evah (the Water-Drawing Festival). The reasons given for this restriction or restructuring is the presence of ka/ut rosh (light headedness). The Sages understood this as frivolous or lewd behavior, the prevention of which becomes the key factor in later halakhic pronouncements and developments (see Grossman, pp. 22-37). As clouded as the archaeological and historical records are, the halakhic issues are equally ambiguous. Questions remain about the requirement that the sexes be separated for prayer (with or without the me/.1itzah) as well as for all public occasions.S The wording ofthe Talmudic texts is unclear, and the codes nowhere explicitly require a me/.1itzah.9 There is neither a direct prohibition nor a direct requirement; there are merely a few references to the ezrat nashim, indicating that there was such a thing.IO Maimonides refers to the women's section in his compilation of laws dealing with the Temple and not in the section dealing with prayer and synagogue,ll Other medieval texts specifically mention using a panition for public occasions such as the rabbi's lecture. The Mordekhai, a thirteenth -century German rabbinic authority, states specifically (Shab. 311) that a screen could be set up for such a purpose even on Shabbat. (One might question whether this permission to erect something on the Sabbath , an ordinarily forbidden act, might not indicate the absence ofa permanent mebitzah in the synagogue.) It was not until the modem period, when the Reform Movement first removed the me/.1itzah and later instituted family pews, that responsa explicitly requiring a mebitzah for prayer services were written. Orthodox decisors today all agree that one can only pray in a synagogue with separate seating and a mebitzah. No matter what the historical record, the Temple pattern of that one day has thus been extended to the synagogue permanently. 119 Mel)itzah: Haklkhic Decisions and Political Consequences The halakhic process surrounding this one issue involves many levels of interpretation, differential weighting of sources, a variety of reasons, and a serious difference of opinion concerning women's "disturbing" presence during prayer. In the last 150 years, the issue ofa separation has taken on political overtones that impinge on the legal ones. The legal questions raised are fascinating and begin with the ambiguous sources relied upon. The primary text is the Talmudic discussion of Mish. Suk. 5: 2, which states that on Simhat Beit ha-Shlfevah they went into the arat nashim and made a great improvement (repair) or a major enactment (u-matkinim...