[Avodah] mechitza [was: heter mechira produce]

[Zev Sero]

T613K at aol.com wrote:
> From: David Riceman <driceman at att.net>
>>I suspect this is a sociological phenomenon rather than a halachic one. 
>> One analogue in America is the elevation of mehitza in shul from a
>> custom not even mentioned in Shulhan Aruch to the fourteenth ikkar,
>> which distinguishes observant Jews from non-observant Jews. <<

> Mechitza is only a "minhag"?  In Europe they didn't have mechitzos in 
> shul?  Men and women sat together?  Or they sat separately but with no 
> physical separation?

Having a mechitza in a shul is a "custom" in the same sense that having
two sets of dishes is a "custom".  Having two sets of dishes is only
necessary if one eats both milk and meat at home, regularly enough that
one needs dishes for them.  If meat (or milk) never enters the home, or
does so so rarely that it makes sense to use only disposables for it,
then there's no need for two sets of dishes.

AIUI before about the 16th century women rarely went to shul, so there
was no need for shuls to be built with any sort of mechitza.  Even today
not every shul follows the "custom" of having a separate women's section;
some shtieblach don't need one, because women rarely come.  (As RMF
writes, the practise in Lita was that even on those occasions when a
woman or two did show up no mechitza was put up for them; it's only
required if there are a lot of women, or if it happens regularly.)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas