I. Frequently Cited Foundational Sources
מתני׳ מי שלא ראה שמחת בית השואבה לא ראה שמחה מימיו במוצאי יום טוב הראשון של חג ירדו לעזרת נשים ומתקנין שם תיקון גדול...
מאי תיקון גדול? אמר רבי אלעזר: כאותה ששנינו, חלקה היתה בראשונה והקיפוה גזוזטרא, והתקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מלמעלה ואנשים מלמטה. תנו רבנן: בראשונה היו נשים מבפנים ואנשים מבחוץ, והיו באים לידי קלות ראש, התקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מבחוץ ואנשים מבפנים, ועדיין היו באין לידי קלות ראש. התקינו שיהו נשים יושבות מלמעלה ואנשים מלמטה. היכי עביד הכי? והכתיב (דברי הימים א כח, יט) הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל! אמר רב: קרא אשכחו ודרוש (זכריה יב, יב) "וספדה הארץ משפחות משפחות לבד משפחת בית דוד לבד ונשיהם לבד." אמרו: והלא דברים ק"ו. ומה לעתיד לבא, שעוסקין בהספד ואין יצר הרע שולט בהם, אמרה תורה אנשים לבד ונשים לבד, עכשיו שעסוקין בשמחה ויצה"ר שולט בהם, על אחת כמה וכמה...
MISHNA: One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water never saw celebration in his days. This was the sequence of events: At the conclusion of the first Festival day the priests and the Levites descended from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair...
GEMARA: What is this significant repair? Rabbi Elazar said that it is like that which we learned: The walls of the Women’s Courtyard were smooth, without protrusions, initially. Subsequently, they affixed protrusions to the wall surrounding the Women’s Courtyard. Each year thereafter, for the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, they placed wooden planks on these projections and surrounded the courtyard with a balcony [gezuztra]. And they instituted that the women should sit above and the men below. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Initially, women would stand on the inside of the Women’s Courtyard, closer to the Sanctuary to the west, and the men were on the outside in the courtyard and on the rampart. And they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity in each other’s company, as the men needed to enter closer to the altar when the offerings were being sacrificed and as a result they would mingle with the women. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the women should sit on the outside and the men on the inside, and still they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity. Therefore, they instituted in the interest of complete separation that the women would sit above and the men below. The Gemara asks: How could one do so, i.e., alter the structure of the Temple? But isn’t it written with regard to the Temple: “All this I give you in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19), meaning that all the structural plans of the Temple were divinely inspired; how could the Sages institute changes? Rav said: They found a verse, and interpreted it homiletically and acted accordingly: It is stated: “The land will eulogize, each family separately; the family of the house of David separately, and their women separately, the family of the house of Nathan separately, and their women separately” (Zechariah 12:12). This indicates that at the end of days a great eulogy will be organized during which men and women will be separate. They said: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If in the future, at the end of days referred to in this prophecy, when people are involved in a great eulogy and consequently the evil inclination does not dominate them, as typically during mourning inappropriate thoughts and conduct are less likely, and nevertheless the Torah says: Men separately and women separately; then now that they are involved in the Celebration of the Drawing of the Water, and as such the evil inclination dominates them, since celebration lends itself to levity, all the more so should men and women be separate.
"ואהי להם למקדש מעט" (יחזקאל יא, טז), אמר רבי יצחק: אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבבבל. ור"א אמר זה בית רבינו שבבבל.
The verse states: “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they have come” (Ezekiel 11:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is referring to the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia. And Rabbi Elazar said: This is referring to the house of our master, i.e., Rav, in Babylonia, from which Torah issues forth to the entire world.
(א) במוצאי יו"ט הראשון של חג ירדו לעזרת נשים וכו':
תיקון גדול, ר"ל גדול התועלת, והוא כי העם היו מתקנים מקום לאנשים ומקום לנשים, ומקום הנשים למעלה ממקום האנשים כדי שלא יסתכלו האנשים בנשים.
"A great enactment"--That is to say, the purpose was great, and it was that they established a designated place for women and a designated place for men, and the place for women was above the place for men, taller than it such that the men would not look upon the women.
(ט) עֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים הָיְתָה מֻקֶּפֶת גְּזוּזְטְרָא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַנָּשִׁים רוֹאוֹת מִלְּמַעְלָן וְהָאֲנָשִׁים מִלְּמַטָּן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מְעֵרְבָּבִין.
The Women's Courtyard was surrounded by balconies so that women could look on from above and the men from below without intermingling.
II. Modern and Orthodox Perspectives
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, “On the Law of Mechitzah” (As printed in The Sanctity of the Synagogue, ed. Baruch Litvin, 1959, p.118-125)
The basic rule is that even if men are on one side and women are on the other, it is still forbidden for them to be without a mechitzah; and this would seem to be a Biblical injunction. The proof lies in Sukkah 51a: there the Talmud speaks of the balcony that was erected [in the women’s court of the Temple] for the eve of the second day of the Sukkoth Festival, so that the women could be relegated to the upper level and the men to the lower… they came across a verse in Scripture [Zechariah 12:12, signifying] that it was necessary to have a separation between men and women…
Quite obviously the import of the reply is that with the verse they found, it is as if the projecting balcony had been explicitly ordained… Now had the balcony been required only by a Rabbinic proscription, it would be impossible to say that a Rabbinic law could override the Biblical dictum that all this [all the Temple plans, were given] in writing [and hence were not to be modified]—and in Hullin 83 the Talmud makes it quite clear that this is Scriptures ruling.
Therefore, if a balcony was required to separate the men and the women, that too must have been by Biblical law…
From the Talmud’s discussing in Sukkah 51a we learn something more: Even if there is a mechitzah (separator), but such as could still permit a state of levity to come about, the same Biblical prohibition remains in force. For originally women were within and men outside; Rashi explains that actually the former were in the women’s court proper while the men occupied the Temple mount and the enclosure within the rampart; there was a great mechitzah between them, as the law required, but because people had to stand near the open gate to see the proceedings, it was noticed that levity soon obtained, against which the mechitzah availed nothing. It was this situation which Biblical law forbade, and therefore it was decided to build a balcony.
Nor did the Biblical prohibition apply because a man and woman might seclude themselves (which situation is likewise banned by Scripture), for… with so many men and women as were present at the Sukkoth night festivity, there was no reason to fear such seclusion… Hence, necessarily, the problem was only the onset of a frivolous mood.
Now, at first it was thought that perhaps they became frivolous because the men had to look across the women’s court; although the Sages had known from the beginning that the men would thus have the women in view, this apparently did not in itself warrant their objection, and they permitted this arrangement, not realizing that frivolity would develop. But seeing the spectators reach a state of levity, for, looking at each other they went on chattering idly and illicitly, the Sages decided to reverse the arrangement and have the women outside, behind the men—a better arrangement, as is evident from Sanhedrin 20a (q.v. and Tosafoth there). Nevertheless levity still came to prevail, for the mechitzah did not fully separate them or screen them from one another’s view; they could still see right through the open gates. Insofar as a mechitzah was required, there was a fully adequate one; but it was of no avail in keeping the men and women separated, since they were still as if commingling, and they yet reached a state of frivolity.
It becomes clear, then, that a balcony was necessary by original Biblical law, so that the women would be above and the men below, and then they would in no sense mingle or communicate…
In my humble opinion a mechitzah reaching above shoulder-height is sufficient. We have noted that the mechitzah need not prevent the people’s glimpsing one another, for originally an arrangement was sanctioned in the Temple with the knowledge that it would permit such glimpsing, but by itself this was no cause for concern. Even after the amendment on the balcony is mentioned… and “balcony” does not imply any screen or curtain… Only when such visibility can lead to frivolity should a prohibition be in effect.
Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Message to a Rabbinic [RCA] Convention” (Litvin p.109-114)
I do hereby reiterate the statement I have made on numerous occasions, both in writing and orally, that a synagogue with a mixed seating arrangement forfeits its sanctity and its Halachic status of a mikdash me’at [a Sanctuary-in-miniature], and is unfit for prayer and aboadah she-beleb [the service of the heart]. With full cognizance of the implications of such a Halachic decision, I would still advise every orthodox Jew to forgo tefillah be-tzibbur [group prayer] even on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, rather than enter a synagogue with mixed pews…
Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “On Seating and Sanctification” (Litvin p.114-118)
My stringent position regarding the mingling of men and women [in the Synagogue], arises from several reasons.
First of all, such mingling is forbidden according to the halachah. In certain instances, Biblical law prohibits praying in a synagogue where men and women are seated together. Such a locale has none of the sanctity of a synagogue; any prayers offered there are worthless in the eyes of the Jewish Law.
Secondly, the separation of the sexes in the synagogue derives historically from the Sanctuary, where there were both a Court of Women and a Court of Israelites. In its martyr’s history of a thousand years, the people of Israel have never violated this sacred principle. Moreover, when primitive Christianity arose as a sect in the Holy Land, and began to slowly introduce reforms, one of the innovations which the sect established at once in the externals of synagogue practice, was to have men and women sit together. In may instances mixed seating what the unmistakable sign by which a Jew could recognize that he had found not a place of sanctity for Jews to pray, but rather a prayer-house for a deviating sect… It would seem to me that our remembrance of history alone should keep us from imitating today the practice of primitive Christianity almost 1900 years ago.
Thirdly, the entire concept of “family pews” is in contradiction to the Jewish spirit of prayer. Prayer means communion with the Master of the World, and therefore withdrawal from all and everything. During prayer man must feel alone, removed, isolated. He must then regard the Creator as an only Friend, from whom alone he can hope for support and consolation. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He be gracious unto us (Psalms 123:2).
Clearly, the presence of women among men, or of men among women, which often evokes a certain frivolity in the group, either in spirit or in behavior, can contribute little to sanctification or to the deepening of religious feeling; nor can it help instill that mood in which a man must be immersed when he would communicate with the Almighty. Out of the depths have I called to Thee, O Lord (Psalms 130:1), says the Psalmist. Such a state of being will not be realized amid “family pews.”
Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “An Open Letter” (Litvin p.139-141)
…As to whether or not the Halachah also requires segregation, I wish to say that there is certainly a requirement for the erection of a partition, and the synagogue which fails to erect one is guilty of violating a very sacred tradition. However, there is a basic difference between this wrong and that of the complete mingling of the sexes, for, as I indicated above, separation has its origin in the Bible itself, whereas the requirement of a mechitzah must be attributed to a Rabbinic ordinance. The Biblical passage from which the Talmud derives the interdiction against mixed pews [Zechariah 12:12 in Sukkah 51b], and also the Pentateuchic injunction, Let Him see no unseemly thing in thee (Deuteronomu 23:15), deal with separation only. There is no mention, however, of segregation. The latter has been introduced in accordance with the old maxim, va’assu seyag latorah, “Make a fence around the Law” (Aboth 1,1), as a safety measure in order to prevent the mingling of the sexes. The Biblical law itself, however, only requires separation.
Note: This distinction (that separation of the sexes is a Biblical requirement, and that the construction of a divider is Rabbinic) is also made by Rav Yehuda Henkin in Chapter 13 of "Responsa on Contemporay Women's Issues," which is entitled, "Mechitzah in the Synagogue: Torah Law or Rabbinical Enactment."
Rav Abraham Isaac Kook, “As a Little Sanctuary” (Litvin p.96-101)
To our beloved Jewish communities and individuals in the United States of America and Canada…
Dear Brethren: I have heard of the plight of traditional Judaism in your country, and am deeply disturbed b it. It is reported that there are people who are ready to destroy “God’s vineyard” and to forsake the Lord and his true teachings.
We refer to the so-called “reformers,” who have succeeded in placing themselves in key positions inside the camp of orthodox Jewry. … And how painful it is today to see traditional Jews, who otherwise keep aloof from the “reformers,” flout our established custom. They build synagogues to accommodate the male and female worshippers in one and the same section; they thus emulate the ways and manners of the non-Jews, and hurt the holiness and purity of our people.
…And now what shall we say when… Torah-inspired arrangements, such as the separation of the sexes into two separate sections during services in the Synagogue, are nullified, Heaven forfend, and strange usages of non-Jews are introduced instead!
According to the Talmud (Megillah 29a), synagogues are to be looked upon as sacred Temples-in-miniature. It is, therefore, our duty to exalt them to the same level of holiness as our Holy Temple (may it be rebuilt soon in our day.) Indeed, our fathers, in establishing two separate divisions for men and women in the House of Prayer thereby continues the system inaugurated in the Temple.
Rabbi Aaron Kotler, "A Responsum on Mixed Seating" (Litvin p. 125-139)
I have been asked to clarify, according to the laws of our sacred Torah, whether it would be permissible for an orthodox congregation to change its traditional seating arrangement so as to have men and women sit together in the synagogue… I shall now cite, with the help of the Almighty, some of the sources drawn from Talmudic writings to establish this prohibition…
3. The Rama states in Yoreh De'ah (265,11) that according to an ancient custom, when a circumcision takes place in the synagogue a woman may help in the ceremony by bringing the child to the synagogue door, whereupon her husband would take it from her. The Rama is careful to emphasize that the woman brought the child to the synagogue and not into the synagogue. Thus we see that though the woman was taking part… nevertheless she did not enter the synagogue.
4. It is expressly stated in the Talmud, Berachoth (24a) and in Rabbinical codes, that the uncovered hair of a married woman is considered indecent, and it is forbidden to pray or to reach the Shema in the presence of such hair… and when you have men and women not separated by a proper partition, it is impossible to guard against this.
5. It is expressly stated in the Talmud, Abodah Zarah (20b) that a man is forbidden to gaze upon the fancy clothes of a woman whom he knows, even if she is not wearing them at the time. It is surely proscribed if the woman is wearing the clothes. The reason… is that such gazing would bring one to have indecent thoughts. Therefore it is expressly forbidden during prayers…
10. There is, further, a question of usurpation of property rights. Most, if not all, of the original contributors to the construction of the synagogue proffered their money to build an Orthodox synagogue in accordance with the Laws of the Torah and the decisions of the Talmudic sages… Surely the founders would not have contributed a penny to the building of such a synagogue. There can be no doubt that the proposed change is completely contrary to their intentions; it would therefore be, according to the Laws of our holy Torah, a usurpation of property rights of both the living and the dead.
III. The Road Not Taken (By Orthodoxy): Revisiting Separation in the Temple
מתני׳ המקדש בחלקו בין קדשי קדשים בין קדשים קלים אינה מקודשת...
גמ׳ נימא, מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי הגלילי? דתניא (ויקרא ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה' לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממונו, דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי! אפי' תימא ר' יוסי הגלילי, כי קאמר ר' יוסי הגלילי—מחיים, אבל לאחר שחיטה לא...
תנו רבנן: לאחר פטירתו של ר' מאיר, אמר להם רבי יהודה לתלמידיו: אל יכנסו תלמידי רבי מאיר לכאן, מפני שקנתרנים הם, ולא ללמוד תורה הם באים, אלא לקפחני בהלכות הם באים. דחק סומכוס ונכנס, אמר להם כך שנה לי ר' מאיר: המקדש בחלקו, בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים, לא קידש. כעס ר' יהודה עליהם; אמר להם, לא כך אמרתי לכם: אל יכנסו מתלמידי ר"מ לכאן, מפני שקנתרנים הם, ולא ללמוד תורה הם באים אלא לקפחני בהלכות הם באים? וכי אשה בעזרה מנין! אמר ר' יוסי, יאמרו: מאיר שכב, יהודה כעס, יוסי שתק, דברי תורה מה תהא עליה! וכי אין אדם עשוי לקבל קידושין לבתו בעזרה? ואין אשה עשויה לעשות לה שליח לקבל קידושיה בעזרה? ועוד דחקה ונכנסה, מאי? תניא, ר' יהודה אומר: מקודשת ר' יוסי אומר אינה מקודשת.
MISHNA: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he did so with offerings of lesser sanctity, she is not betrothed... GEMARA:
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath concerning unlawful possession of the property of another: “If any one sin, and he commits a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). As the verse is discussing property belonging to another, the phrase “a trespass against the Lord” serves to include in the obligation of an offering a false oath with regard to possession of offerings of lesser sanctity of another person, which are the property of the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the portion of an offering of lesser sanctity that the priest receives belongs to him, so he should be able to betroth a woman with it. The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that an offering of lesser sanctity belongs to its owner only while the animal is still alive, but after its slaughter it does not belong to the priest who receives portions from it...
The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious [kanteranim]. And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Sumakhos, a student of Rabbi Meir, pushed and entered anyway. He said to them: This is what Rabbi Meir taught me: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of the offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda became angry with his students. He said to them: Didn’t I say this to you: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious? And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Rabbi Yehuda explained his objection to the statement of Rabbi Meir: This halakha is not relevant, as from where would a woman appear in the Temple courtyard? Women may not enter the area of the Temple courtyard where the priests eat the offerings of the most sacred order, so there is no reason to address an impossible scenario. Rabbi Yosei, who was present, said: They will say: Meir died, Yehuda grew angry, and Yosei remained silent; what will become of the words of Torah? He said: In fact, this halakha is relevant; but isn’t it common for a man to accept betrothal for his daughter in the Temple courtyard? There is no need to give the betrothal item directly to the woman; it can be given to her father. And additionally, isn’t it common for a woman to designate an agent for herself to accept her betrothal in the courtyard? And furthermore: What would be the halakha if the woman pushed and entered? Since it is possible for her to do so, the halakha in such a case must be determined. It is taught in a baraita that the Sages discussed the issue of a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of offerings of the most sacred order: Rabbi Yehuda says she is betrothed, and Rabbi Yosei says she is not betrothed.
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, "Women in the Men's Section of Synagogue" (Responsa on Contemporary Women's Issues, p.120-121)
To return to the question of a woman in the men's section of a synagogue, the basic design of separate sections for men and women in the synagogue is derived from the Temple. In Kiddushin 52b, "R. Yehuda said… 'What is a woman doing in the azarah [Ezrat Yisrael, the men's court]?'"
Rashi explained that "women do not enter it [the azarah]," but his meaning is unclear. Sha'ar haMelech in Hilchot Beit haBechirah, no. 17, understood Rashi to mean that it was never considered necessary for a woman to enter the azarah. If so, Tosafot disagrees with Rashi on two counts: first, that sometimes women did need to enter the azarah, and second, that women were permitted to enter even when there was no need for them to do so. This is clear from Tosafot's language, "What is a woman doing in the azarah? It is not usual for her to enter in order to become [more] sanctified." They did not write that she was forbidden to enter, only that it was not commonplace.
Tosafot haRosh, however, wrote that according to Rashi, "the same was that an Israelite does not enter the Ezrat Kohanim except when he needs to, so, to, a woman [does not enter] in[to] the Ezrat Yisrael." According to this, Rashi and Tosafot agree that women entered the azarah when necessary, and disagree only about unnecessary entry. In all likelihood this was indeed Rashi's position, for Tosefta Archin 2:1 states that "a woman was never seen in the azarah except at the time of her sacrifice"--but at the time of her sacrifice, clearly, yes.
מתני׳ בא לו כהן גדול לקרות, אם רצה לקרות בבגדי בוץ—קורא, ואם לא—קורא באצטלית לבן משלו. חזן הכנסת נוטל ספר תורה ונותנו לראש הכנסת, וראש הכנסת נותנו לסגן, והסגן נותנו לכהן גדול, וכהן גדול עומד ומקבל וקורא אחרי מות ואך בעשור...
גמ׳ וכהן גדול עומד. מכלל שהוא יושב; והא אנן תנן אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד בלבד, שנאמר (דברי הימים א יז, טז) ויבא המלך דוד וישב לפני ה'! כדאמר רב חסדא: בעזרת נשים, הכא נמי—בעזרת נשים.
MISHNA: The High Priest came to read the Torah. If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, i.e., the priestly vestments he wore during the previous service, he may read wearing them; and if not he is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, which is not a priestly vestment. The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue that stood on the Temple Mount; and the head of the synagogue gives it to the deputy High Priest, and the Deputy gives it to the High Priest, and the High Priest stands and receives the scroll from his hands. And he reads from the scroll the Torah portion beginning with the verse: “After the death” (Leviticus 16:1) and the portion beginning with the verse: “But on the tenth”...
GEMARA: The High Priest stands and receives the scroll from the Deputy. By inference, until that point he had been sitting. But didn’t we learn in a mishna: Sitting in the Temple courtyard is permitted only for kings of the House of David, as it is stated: “Then King David went in and sat before the Lord” (I Chronicles 17:16)? How, then, could the High Priest have been sitting? The Gemara explains: As Rav Ḥisda said in a similar context: This took place not in the Israelite courtyard, where the prohibition against sitting applies, but in the women’s courtyard. Here, too, the reading was in the women’s courtyard, where it is permitted to sit.
(ה) עֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ... וַחֲלָקָה הָיְתָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ כְצוֹצְרָה, שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים רוֹאוֹת מִלְמַעְלָן, וְהָאֲנָשִׁים מִלְּמַטָּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְעֹרָבִין...
(5) The Woman's Courtyard was one hundred and thirty five cubits by one hundred and thirty five cubits... A[The wall around the Women's Courtyard] was originally smooth [with no protrusions from it] but later a balcony was built around it, so that the women could watch from above with the men from below so they would not intermingle...
כצוצטרה. כמו גזוזטרא הקיפו סביב לעזרת נשים, שיהיו הנשים עומדות למעלה על הגזוזטרא והאנשים למטה לראות בשמחת בית השואבה, כדי שלא יבואו לידי קלות ראש:
Ketzutztra- Like "Gezuztra" ["balcony"], which surrounded the women's court so that the women would stand above on the balcony and the men below to watch the rejoicing at the place of the water-drawing, so that they would not come to a state of frivolity
וענין חלקה, שהיתה פרוצה ואין כותל מקיף לה. וכבר נתבאר בסוף סוכה (דף נא) שבה היתה הכניסה לשמחה בימי החג, ומיראה שמא יתערבו הנשים בין האנשים, הקיפו אותה בשקופין אטומים ועשו בהם כמין מעלות כדי שיביטו מהן הנשים בשעת כניסת ישראל לשמחת בית השואבה שם כמו שבאר בסוף סוכה.
And regarding "bare," that it was wide without walls surrounding it. And as was already explained at the end of Tractate Sukkah, they would gather to rejoice on the days of the holiday [of Sukkot], and because they feared the mixing of the men and the women, they surrounded it with pillars and made a form of steps so that the women could watch from them during the time that Israel was gathered there for the rejoicing at the place of the water-drawing, as we explained at the end of Tractate Sukkah.
תשובה בעניין המחיצה בבית הכנסת
שאלה זאת עלתה לכותרות בשנות החמישים כשפרצו מריבות בקרב מספר קהילות בארצות הברית קבוצה אחת דרשה להנהיג ישיבה מעורבת ואילו השנייה דרשה להמשיך להתפלל עם עזרת נשים או עם ישיבה נפרדת בלי מחיצה. הקבוצה השנייה גייסה את גדולי הרבנים בקרב המחנה האורתודוקסי לכתוב תשובות ולהזהיר נגד שינוי כלשהו בסדרי בית הכנסת… חלק מרבנים אלה טענו שמדובר "באיסור דאורייתא שאי אפשר לעזבו ע"י מעשה תחוקתי כלשהו מצד גוף של רבנים או הדיוטות בלי להתחשב בכוחו המספרי או חשיבותו החברתית. מה שנגזר ע"י ה' לא יכול להיבטל בידי אדם." (הרב י"ב סולובייציק...).
ברם אנו נראה להלן שתמונה זאת רחוקה מאד מן המציאות. נווכח לדעת שאמנם התפילה בהפרדה בין גברים לנשים מנהג עתיק היא אבל אינה דין דאורייתא, ולא מדרבנן. אין זכר להפרדה כלשהיא בבית המקדש בתקופת בית ראשון או בראשית תקופת בית שני. לקראת סוף תקופת בית שני "התקינו" החכמים להקים גזוזטרא לנשים ב"עזרת הנשים" של בית המקדש בחג הסוכות כדי להימנע מ"קלות ראש" שהיתה עלולה לקרות במשך שמחת בית השואבה. אולם גזוזטרא זאת לא היתה בשימוש במשך שאר ימות השנה וברור שהורידו רובה או כולה כל שנה בסוף החג. אדרבה, יש להניח שבמשך שאר ימות השנה הסתובבו נשים וגברים בצורה חפשית בעזרת הנשים ויתכן שכך היה המצב אף ב"מחנה שכינה" שעל יד המזבח.
Va'ad Ha'Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel (Conservative Movement) - Volume 2, Responsum 1, 1987
Rabbi David Golinkin, with unanimous approval by all members of the Va'ad
This question made headlines in the 1950s when fights broke out among a number of communities in the United States. One group sought to institute mixed seating and the second group wished to continue to pray with a women's section, or with separate seating without a mechitzah. The second group solicited the greatest rabbis in the Orthodox camp to write response and to warn against a change in synagogue procedure… a portion of these rabbis protested that it was "a Biblical prohibition and [the practice[ could not be abandoned by a legal enactment on the part of any body of rabbis or laymen, regardless of its strong numbers or social importance. What G-d had decreed could not be nullified by man." (Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik).
However, this picture could not be farther from the truth. We will argue for the position that prayer with a separation between men and women is an ancient custom, but it is not a Biblical law, and not a Rabbinic one. There is no mention of separation in the era of the first Temple or in the beginning of the era of the second Temple. Towards the end of the second Temple period, the sages "repaired" things by building a balcony for women in the "Women's Court" of the Temple on the holiday of Sukkot in order to prevent the "frivolity" that was likely to occur in the course of the Simchat Beit HaShoeva. However, this balcony was not in use on the other days of the year, and it is clear that it was mostly or entirely taken down every year at the end of the holiday. In fact, it's possible to conclude that throughout the rest of the year, men and women moved freely through the Women's Court, and it's possible that this was the case even in the "Camp of the Divine Presence" near the altar.
IV. Notes on Included Sources
(Information adapted from MyJewishLearning.com, Wikipedia.org, and Nishmat.net)
The Babylonian Talmud (included: Tractates Sukkah, Megillah, Kiddushin, Yoma) was compiled by sages in Babylonia (modern-day Iraq) in the period spanning 200-600 CE. It is a written and edited rendering of the discussion-style teaching of the rabbis in the centuries following the destruction of the second Temple. It forms the core of rabbinic literature and constitutes both a direct commentary on the laws of the Mishnah (explaining unclear words or phrasing, providing precedents or examples to assist in application of the law, offering alternative opinions from sages Mishnah and their contemporaries, and making connections between the biblical text and legal practices and opinions) and a much broader discussion of topics of Jewish import.
The Book of Zechariah is one of the books of the prophets, included in the "Trei Asar," or twelve minor prophets. He served as a prophet of Israel after the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem, during the Persian exile.
Maimonides, known as Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) was a twelfth-century Jewish thinker, Talmudist, and codifier of the law. He was born in Spain and lived in Egypt most of his life. His major works include a commentary on the Mishnah, which he wrote in his twenties, and the Mishneh Torah, a codification of Jewish law.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was a rabbi, teacher, and major authority on Jewish law. He lived from 1895-1986 and lived most of his life in the United States, where he immigrated from Russia at the age of 42. His published responsa are collected in the multi-volume work Iggerot Moshe (the Letters of Moses).
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is considered to be preeminent figure of twentieth-century Modern Orthodox Judaism. Heir to an important rabbinic family, Soloveitchik studied intensive Talmud with his father and also pursued a secular education, receiving a doctorate from the University of Berlin. He immigrated to the United States in 1932 at the age of 29, and nine years later was appointed the head of Yeshiva University's rabbinical school.
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) was the first Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine and is considered to be one of the fathers of religious Zionism. He was an important halachic authority as well as a Jewish philosopher and kabbalist.
Rabbi Aaron Kotler was an ultra-Orthodox rabbi who, after serving as Rosh Yeshiva in Slutzk, Poland and then fleeing Europe in the face of World War Two, eventually found his way to Lakewood, New Jersey, where he established Beth Medrash Govoha, now a major center of classical Yeshiva learning in the United States.
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin is a contemporary teacher and halachic devisor living in Jerusalem. He is the author of three volumes of responsa, Bnei Banim and the Torah commentary Chibah Yeteirah. He currently serves as the halachic authority for Nishmat, an institution of women's Torah study, of which his wife, Rabbanit Chana Henkin, is the founder and dean.
The Mishnah is Judaism's first major canonical work following the Bible. When the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans and the decentralization of Jewish life made the preservation of a purely oral halachic tradition increasingly difficult, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi undertook to collect and edit a written version of this tradition. The Mishnah is the culmination of this effort.
Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenurah was a 15th-century Italian rabbi best known for his commentary on the Mishnah. In his later years, he immigrated to Israel and was a revitalizing force in the Jewish community of Jerusalem at the time.
Rabbi David Golinkin is a contemporary Conservative Rabbi and author and the President of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Israel. He is a member of the Rabbinical Assembly and is a major halachic decisor in the Conservative movement.