The Mechitza: A Structure for Empowerment and Intention

The mechitza; it’s one of the most noted, and contested structures in our synagogues today. It comes in many forms – a wall or curtain down the middle, a balcony gallery, one way- glass partition, or maybe even in the very stringent communities, a separate room. Mechitzot serve a particular purpose – the separation of men and women. They can also be found at weddings to ensure separate dancing, and depending on the community, sometimes at funerals or Torah classes. Over the last number of decades, this separation has been the issue of much debate. Many subgroups of the religious world, and evidently, several of those who have separated themselves from the mainstream Orthodox world, argue that a mechitza is in fact not a Torah obligation and it is derogatory towards women. This article will examine the roots of the mechitza as it pertains to prayer and synagogues¹, and argue that rather than discriminatory against women, it is a structure that helps us to empower our relationship with Hashem. 

The Sources for Mechitza

The first time the idea of a separation between the sexes for prayer is alluded to in Tanach is when Yitzchak and Rivka, married for many years without children, pray spontaneously for a child. The pasuk states: “And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren… ”². Rashi explains that each stood in a different corner and prayed.

The first time an actual physical separation between the sexes is mentioned, is in the Talmud in the context of the celebrations of the Simchat Beit Hashoeva on the festival of Sukkot³. The gemarah explains how initially the periphery of the etzrat nashim and chatzer was smooth and that later a balcony was added. Why? So that the women would sit upstairs and the men downstairs, as any other arrangement (the women inside and men outside, or vise versa) had resulted in ‘frivolity’. 

The Talmud Yerushalmi provides us with the source for this separation, a verse from the book of Zecharia:  

“What arrangement would they make there?  That they would set up the men by themselves and the women by themselves… From whom did they learn?  From the verse (Zekharya 12:12), “And the earth mourned, each family alone.”⁴

Rashi explains that the verse is referring to the Messianic era when the nation will be mourning the death of Maschiach Ben Yosef who will be killed in the war of Gog uMagog, the battle preceding the final redemption. Despite the fact that it will be a time of great pain and the Yetzer Hara (evil inclination) will no longer rule, there will still be a separation of the sexes. The Gemera goes on to say that if in times of sadness the sexes should be separated, how much more so in times of joy, when the chance of engaging in frivolous behavior is greater.

The first time an actual physical separation between the sexes is mentioned, is in the Talmud in the context of the celebrations of the Simchat Beit Hashoeva on the festival of Sukkot. The gemarah explains how initially the periphery of the etzrat nashim and chatzer was smooth and that later a balcony was added. Why? So that the women would sit upstairs and the men downstairs, as any other arrangement (the women inside and men outside, or vise versa) had resulted in ‘frivolity’. 

In the 1950s, as Reform temples began to institute mixed seating in their services, the gedolei hador addressed the place of the mechitza in Orthodox shuls. Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that the mechitza was not a ‘rabbinic recommendation’, but rather a Torah obligation stating, “It is biblically forbidden to act with frivolity during prayer…” and that the mechitza was the means of ensuring we do not. He proved this by showing that changes (the addition of a balcony) could only be made to the Beit Hamikdash in order to ensure the fulfillment of a mitzvah. According to Rav Feinstein, the prohibition does not include the sexes seeing each other, and this has implications as to the halachic requirements in terms of height and materials used to build it⁵.

Rav Kook suggested a different approach to mechitzot, seeing them not as a means to prevent frivolity, but rather as a means to come as close as we can to recreating the holiness of the Beit Hamikdash in our replacement for it, that is, our shuls⁶. He bases his proof on the gemara in Megilla that says: “Yet have I been to them as a little sanctuary (mikdash me’at) in the countries where they have come” (Yechezkel 11:16) – these are the synagogues and study hoses in Bavel…” ⁷

Just as the Beit Hamikdash had a mechitza, so too should our shuls, our mikdash me’at.

Avoiding Mingling and Distractions 

Both positions can help us to understand the role of the mechitza specifically as a mechanism for proper kavana (intention) in prayer. The shul is referred to today as a mini Beit Hamikdash. Since the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash and the inability to conduct the avoda, tefillah, prayer, has become our avoda. Shul is a place to work on our relationship with G-d. It is not a place to develop family dynamics (indeed, it is forbidden to kiss one’s child in shul, since we are supposed to focus our love on G-d), and that is why it is so important to ensure that the environment in which we pray is as free from distractions as possible. To quote the words of Lisa Aiken, author of To Be a Jewish Woman, “just as a married couple can relate most intimately to each other when they remove any distractions, we do the same when we want to focus our attention exclusively on our Maker.”⁸ In this vein, we can see the opinions of Rav Feinstein and Rav Kook merging. This mikdash me’at should be free from frivolity and as close as possible to the status of Mikdash, so that we can come to Hashem in the right mindset. Rabbi Lamm, in explaining Rav Feinstein’s psak of the mechitza writes the following: “This complete concentration on God, this awareness only of Him and nothing or no one else, is called kavana… without kavana, prayer becomes just a senseless repetition of words…” ⁹

Derogatory or Empowering?

Some groups may decry the mechitza as sexist and irrelevant, even as anti-democratic, however, nothing indicates that the mechitza seeks to discriminate against women. There is no such reference in all talmudic or rabbinic writings. It is true that there are unfortunately some mechitzas that are unappealing, and prevent women from properly seeing or hearing the service; one reason for such a phenomenon is that throughout history, women have been less frequent shul visitors. 

But in recent decades as women have become more frequent shul goers, many shuls are working to make sure their mechitzas are as comfortable as possible, while adhering to the Halachic and community standards. The mechitza is there to ensure us a space to connect with Hashem. Yes, it brings with it a recognition of the powerful interplay between the sexes (which in the right framework results in beautiful marriages, strong families, and strong communities). However, viewing the mechitza as providing both men and women with the opportunity to connect to Hashem deeply and free from distractions turns the argument of the mechitza as derogatory on its head, and helps us to focus our intention where it should be when we come to a place of prayer. Rather than derogatory, this is empowering. 

1. This article will not examine the halachic implications of different approaches to the law of mechitza. It only looks at the role and obligation of mechitza in shuls and in prayer, and not in social situations, or it’s various requirements such as height and materials.  ↩︎
2. Bereishit 25:21 ↩︎
3. Masechet Sukka, 51B ↩︎
4. Sukka 5:2 ↩︎
5.  Iggerot MosheOC 1:41. ↩︎
6. Ma’amarei Ha-Ra’aya, “Le-Mikdash Me’at” ↩︎
7. Megilla 29a ↩︎
8. Lisa Aiken. To Be a Jewish Woman. p.69 ↩︎
9. Tradition 1:2, 1959, 141-164 ↩︎