[Avodah] mechitza [was: heter mechira produce]

[Zev Sero]

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> On 10/3/07, *Zev Sero* <zev at sero.name <mailto:zev at sero.name>> wrote: 

>> 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.

> Rema mentions having an extra knife and marking milchig knives as a 
> standard for all so taht each house conforms to the same practice.

I think you're missing the point.  The Rema doesn't mean there's some
sort of din that one *must* have two knives, even if one has no need
for them.  One may have only a milchig one, or only a fleishig one,
and then there's no need to mark anything.  But because it was common
in his day for people to eat both meat and milk at home, he mentions
the need for two knives; if it weren't common to have both kinds of
food at home, then there would have been no custom about having two
knives, and the Rema wouldn't have mentioned one.  Then when people's
diet became more varied, and rabbonnim started saying that it was
necessary to have two knives, there would be those carping and saying
"why doesn't the SA or the Rema mention it"?  And the answer would be
that if you want to live as they did, and only ever bring one kind of
food into the house, then you can follow the SA and Rema, and not have
two sets of dishes; otherwise you do.

And in the same way, it's not a din that a shul must have a mechitza -
so long as it's not the kind of shul where women go regularly.



> There is NO mention of Mechita in Shulchan Aruch. That is problematic
> at best.  It does not mean ther is no answer. It does mean that no one 
> codified one.

It just means that there was no need for it, because it wasn't common
for women to come to shul.

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