We must start our answer with some
sources that serve as the basis for the need for a mechitza. Most
explicit discussions on the matter are relatively recent, as the
mechitza was taken for granted without halachic discussion until the
19th/20th century.”
The gemara (Sukka 51b)
tells of structural changes made in the Beit Hamikdash to deal with the
growing realization of problems of modesty between the genders. Rav Moshe
Feinstein (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim I:39) is prominent among those who learned
from the fact that such changes in the Beit Hamikdash are generally
prohibited that the need for separation must be a matter of Torah law.
The only context in which there is
any Orthodox unanimity that a physical separation is necessary is when
davening in shul. It appears that the concept need not be
linked specifically to davening, as the gemara says that Beit
Hamikdash renovators based themselves on a pasuk relating to a
funeral (Zecharia I:28:12). On the other hand, in practice there is not a
history of anything close to universal separation between the genders. Rav Moshe
(ibid., OC V:12) makes a distinction between settings that are private (i.e., by
permission only), which do not require separation, and those that are open to
the public, which require.
Since the setting of davening
in shul is unique in its unanimity and its level of
definitiveness, it is worthwhile to investigate the halacha’s
scope by broadening your question. Does all tefilla require a
mechitza? Does everything in shul? How do we define a
shul? A man is not allowed to daven, learn aloud, or even make
berachot when exposed to a lack of modesty (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 75
with commentaries). However, it is agreed that regarding davening in a
place that is not set for tefilla, the formal requirement of
mechitza per se does not exist. This is more obvious in a public place,
like a plane. The need for a mechitza is more of an obligation to put
one in the proper place than a prohibition to daven without it.
Therefore, since there is no way to expect an airline servicing Jews and
non-Jews to put up a mechitza, there is no problem. Even in places like
sheva berachot and a shiva house, there is not a formal need
for a mechitza (see Igrot Moshe ibid.).
If men are davening in a
shul at a time when there is no minyan, it would seem that a
mechitza is needed if women are present (one or two women are likely
not a problem (see ibid.; Ishei Yisrael 9:28 )). After all, they are davening and the
shul has sanctity that elevates tefilla even without a
minyan (see Shulchan Aruch, OC 90:9).
What about a place that is set for
tefilla without a minyan? The gemara in Megilla 27b
can be instructive. In explaining the various positions on whether a communal
beit knesset can be sold to become a beit knesset of an
individual, the gemara raises the claim for R. Meir that an
individual’s shul does not have kedusha. Rashi (ad loc.) and
others explain that this is because matters of kedusha (i.e., elements
of prayer that require a minyan) are not recited there. On one hand,
this downplays the status of a shul without a minyan, but many
posit that even according to R. Meir it has some kedusha
(Ramban, ad loc.) and at least the status of a beit knesset. We
note that many places that have semi-regular davening but without a
minyan usually have several other uses, which also makes it less like a
classic shul, in which we know a mechitza is required.
Tying things together, we suggest
the following approximate guidelines (there are many slightly varying cases). In
a room that is treated like a shul, just that it belongs to such a
small community that there is not usually a minyan, there should be a
mechitza. In a multi-use room that has semi-regular davening
but without a minyan, davening should be done with a
separation between men and women, but a mechitza per se is not
necessary (assuming it is done in a way that there are no modesty in dress
problems).
Eretzchemdah.org
