Talk:Mechitza

Height of mechitza[edit]

User:Shaul avrom has suggested adding a section with information about the proper height of a mechitza. Agree since this has been a notable controversy in recent years. Would welcome input from an editor who is an expert in this area. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, I have seen a Modern Orthodox synagogue where nothing more than a braided rope down the center aisle was in use. Rather than have halachic information here, I suggest we document the diversity of the world's synagogues, and refer to sources of such information elsewhere. Trying to present Jewish Law sounds like a can of worms for Wikipedia. It is a problem for which a general purpose wiki cannot possibly provide a satisfactory solution. Most readers of the English Wikipedia are not Jewish. There is a lot of diversity in Jewish opinions, and most of the people that would read this article will not understand that. This might be one of those cases where Hillel and Shammai disagree, and both are right. --Metzenberg 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a Hillel-Shammai Machlokes. Whichever shul that was, Their "Mechitza" is posul according to all poskim. The mechitza is supposed to be, according to Chareidi Poskim, as tall as the tallest woman, or, at minimum, eye level of the tallest man. Modern Orthodox Poskim, paskend that It only needs to be 36 inches off of the ground.--Shaul avrom 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metzenberg, Notable controversies over halakha have been considered appropriate content for numerous other articles, for example, Temple Mount, The Third Temple, Partnership minyan, Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Why not here? One need only summarize the existence of the controversy and say A says X and B says Y. Of course sociological aspects could be documented as well. --Shirahadasha 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that Reb moshe paskened that it only needs to be up to shoulder height the women. The reasoning being that a woman's face is not eirvah (even a married women not covering her hair would not be problematic in this regard). I would imagine that the most lienent opinion is 10 tefachim like any fence, but then you have big problems if there is a women not dressed modestly (wearing short sleaves for example). I see what I can find. Jon513 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, As you said, with the Tznius issue, The Mechitza would have to be taller than the tallest woman, I won't doven at my parents shul for that reason. But I am pretty Sure that it wasn't Reb moshe who paskened like this. I think it was a Rov here in baltimore.--Shaul avrom 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to write a paragraph on the 6 feet vs. 10 tefachim dispute using sources I could find on the Web. Perhaps others can find better sources for these views, as well as in-between views. --Shirahadasha 03:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch HaRav ?????[edit]

BS"D

When did anyone write a Kitzur on the Shulchon Oruch Harov?? And also, I'm Pretty sure that it wasn't R' Soliveichik who paskend as such. --Shaul avrom 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources were found on the web and are not ideal. If you can find better sources, it would be appreciated. The reference is not to Rav Joseph Solovetchik. Shabbat Shalom, --Shirahadasha 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it was not R' Yoshe Ber to whom you were refering to. Thats why I spelled the surname Soliveichik that way. His Father and various other family members spelled it as I put it. Gut Shabbos --Shaul avrom 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue at JTS[edit]

There are actually two separate synagogues at Jewish Theological Seminary. The larger (and newer) one, Women's League Seminary Synagogue, is egalitarian and mixed seating. The original one, Stein Chapel, is non-egalitarian and I am pretty sure it is separate seating with no mehitza to this very day. I'll (bli neder) look into it and edit accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.244.92.26 (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There is technically a mechitza but it is very low. Valley2city 07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opacity[edit]

Should we discuss opacity and thickness. The mechitza at Shira Chadasha in Jerusalem, for example, is thin and almost completely transparent. I have also seen mechitzas with holes/uniform gaps throughout Valley2city 07:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! You're welcome to add details if you cite appropriate sources --Shirahadasha 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should talk to the students of Yavneh at the University of Chicago. They have a completely clear mechitzah with a design on it made of thin lines. It's completely transparent. The backstory is that through long discussions with the various students of the Hillel, the Architect, and Rav Gedaliah Shwartz, Rav Shwartz ended up in a position where he oked a clear mechitzah verbally. There are apparently some notes from that meeting still available, and there are defitinely faculty who were around for the discussion and can explain the backstory. (Rav Gedaliah Shwartz has historically been the posek for that minyan when they can't figure out what to do) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.6.200 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and mechitza[edit]

The lack of mechitza in reform and reconstructionist shouls should also be described in feminist terms. the leadership believes its a statement of the equality of men and women before g-d, not just as an 'affont' to tradition, which is what the article currently reads like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.240.69 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical events may be somewhat different from contemporary beliefs. The 19th century events long predate organized feminism, the 19th century arguments for family pews weren't generally feminist in nature. Understanding that contemporary reasons are now different and are appropriate to include, do you have a source, perhaps one that could discuss this subject in more detail? Agree the current article says very little about Reform and Reconstructionist views and could certainly say more about both historical and contemporary views, as long as statements are properly sourced. Final, a WP:NPOV issue: the article needs to state explicitly that Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism believe a mechitza to be inconsistent with their understanding of male and female equality. This is a religious belief, and leaving it unstated and assumed presents a WP:NPOV issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that German Reform had separations. Addition to article with academic citation to follow.Mzk1 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehitza Or Mechitza[edit]

Personally, I think its a travesty what has been done, No one I know of spells it "mehitza, and anyhow there are 16,100 more hits on google for mechitza than for mehitza, so think about that and I propose a vote for the name. --Shuliavrumi (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a halachic separation?[edit]

I am no expert in the area, but at school we are learning the gemara bava batra, and it uses the word mechitza to describe the halachic separation of a courtyard, perhaps that should be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.123.165 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not required?[edit]

The statement the Orthodoxy is divided on whether a mechitza is required is quite interesting. Is there any source for this? The fact that a synagogue called Orthodox does not have one is not proof of anything, not in the modern era. I don't really want to remove it just for lack of citation. Also, is this in the WSJ article? And if so, what is the source there? It is not longer accessible.

P.S. Early Reform had a balcony.Mzk1 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Most mechitzot divide the front and back of the synagogue"?[edit]

This is true only if one is including a balcony. Any reason for this statement?Mzk1 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-war European synagogues I've visited with Mechitzas (The Hague, Geneva, Warsaw) had side balconies for the women on one or both sides of the bimah. B'nai Jacob Synagogue (Ottumwa, Iowa), built in the early 20th century, has a side balcony on just one side. In sum, I've seen no evidence to support the assertion that front-back divisions dominate. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I overstep?[edit]

I added to the "Reform" section a part about the use of a balcony by the original German Reform movement. I would appreciate if people could check to see if they think there is undue weight (and therefore to fix it, not revert) and whether the JE article is enough to use the US as the origin, as there are countries besides Germany and the U.S. The reference to the Habburg temple is quite interesting; the rabbi gave up an offer of one million marks from an Ameican businessman and offered his resignation (not accepted) to keep the Temple German - in particular not to sit men and women together. His experiences in the US make it clear the Orthodox synagogue practice in the US is not an indicator of Halacha.Mzk1 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oheb Zedek[edit]

I removed the statement in the Mechitza article about Oheb Zedek. The statement was, "Oheb Zedek-The Taylor Road Synagogue, in Cleveland Heights is an OU-affiliated synagogue in Cleveland Heights, Ohio that has separate seating but no actual mechitzah in its sanctuary. However, the sanctuary is rarely used." No source was cited.

I grew up attending services at Oheb Zedek, and it most certainly has a mechitza in the main sancutary, at least according to the Modern Orthodox definition. The men's section floor dips downward toward the front-back center of the room, while the side women's sections have floors which move up, making the mechitza appear larger on the men's side but smaller on the women's side. It was controversial in the Cleveland Heights community due to having a large Hareidi population in the neighborhood which refused to recognize the mechitza.

According to the book "History of the Jews of Cleveland" by Lloyd P. Gartner, pp. 168-9, Oheb Zedek became a congregation when 85 dissenters left B'nai Jeshurun in 1904 due to the latter having moved to family pews instead of separate seating. (It seems the change had been years earlier.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H is in OH (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)H is in OH (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mechitza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mechitza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105070214/http://www.utj.org/Viewpoints/?p=63 to http://www.utj.org/Viewpoints/?p=63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence seems wrong[edit]

However, the Orthodox Union (OU), the main body of Modern Orthodox synagogues in the United States, adopted a policy of not accepting as new members synagogues without mechitzot, and strongly encouraged existing synagogues not to use them. 73.56.199.1 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I've corrected the sentence, with a quotation from the article. Ibadibam (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]