8

What to do when helping make a minyan for mourners in a shiva house when at prayer time they insist on davening conservative style, men and women sitting together?

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
Ken
  • 3,794
  • 22
  • 39

2 Answers2

13

My understanding has been that a Mechitza is only required for a minyan Kavuah (a minyan that meets regularly at established times and place)

While we continue to separate at private irregular minyam from custom and perhaps Tzniut, I don't think the lack of separation would prohibit participating in the Tefillah.

In my personal opinion (and you should ask your LOR) once you are there, the reasons to stay outweigh the reason to leave. One should go to great lengths to avoid embarrassing people publicly; I would think particularly mourners.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
Aaron Greenberg
  • 2,309
  • 1
  • 19
  • 13
  • Rav Feinstein disagrees. See Igrot Moshe. Aurch Chayim helek alef, siman lamud tes, the very first sentence after the introductory remark - "duraita" For those who don't know the word, that means he views mechitza has having the stature of a written obligation of the Torah. He does not consider it Rabbinic or optional, or somehow limited to this mnyon yes and that one no. That this is marked correct is misleading. The cite to siman yud-beis below, deals with special cirumstances where they refuse, that is not to be confused with the basic din. – DrM Feb 08 '23 at 00:08
13

There are places that count women to make the minyan; that's a different issue.

Aaron's notion of "minyan kavua" sounds familiar; Rabbi Y. H. Henkin has an essay on the topic, if I recall: http://www.amazon.com/Responsa-Contemporary-Jewish-Womens-Issues/dp/0881257826/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260672749&sr=8-3

UPDATED: Hat tip to R' Yahu for pointing to R' Moshe Feinstein's rulings on some related matters:

  • A shiva house is considered "open to the public", so a mechitza is appropriate for prayers there. "But if practically the women don't agree to move to another room, this is considered b'akrai -- a rare occasion -- so prayers shouldn't be prevented because of this."
  • An engagement party, sheva brachos or the like is intended for family, not the public, so it is certainly sufficient that the men simply sit together, "so they can concentrate better."

So Rav Moshe certainly allows, if the family insists, to have the men and women in the same room, no mechitza, for davening in a shiva house. He still assumes that they'll be sitting separately; I can't tell from his language whether that would be a deal-breaker to the point of telling people not to daven there.

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • Misleading, Rav Feinstein first points out that it is required and says it unambiguously. What is cited here, is where the women refuse. "Prefers" is not the right word for Rav Moshe's position on this. – DrM Feb 08 '23 at 00:16
  • @DrM thank you. The question above was phrased in the bedieved case -- "the women are refusing to move to another room, now what?" at which point we go to the second line in the Igros, that davening can still be held there. In this latter scenario, that they insist on staying in the room, he concludes that dai bekach that there is separate seating that they can still daven there. He was assuming the women in this case would at least separate in the room. He didn't say "uvilvad she..." -- essentially, he wasn't addressing that case. I will rephrase slightly. – Shalom Feb 08 '23 at 09:27
  • maybe re-read the tshuvah lamud-tes. His states it clearly, even with the men in one place and the women in another, the mechitza is a duraita obligation. That is the context, and calling it "sufficient" sans-context for what he means by that, is still misleading. – DrM Feb 09 '23 at 12:14
  • "Deal breaker" - the answer is you have to consult the local Rav. He will assess the situation and decide. You and someone reading this, do not decide. If you go there the first time, and you're stuck with no Rav present, that is one thing. For the second time, before you go, you normally have time to call a Rav and ask. – DrM Feb 09 '23 at 21:03
  • @DrM Thank you. We are trying to answer the question as phrased above. "I showed up at the minyan, but now the family insists on one room." The original teshuva, OC1:39, is clearly, merosh ve-ad sof, about a synagogue. (Or theoretically the obligatory hesped of a nassi.) OC8:12 says, black-on-white: "I said in OC1:39 that a synagogue needs one absolutely; a shiva house does too, but if the women refuse to leave the room, you can daven anyhow.... it's enough that the men go to their own corner." That is as close as we can get to the question asked above. – Shalom Feb 10 '23 at 01:49
  • Are you concerned that if we publicize OC8:12 in English that people will be lenient about a synagogue, though OC8:12 itself says not to do so? Do you feel that OC8:12 should only be left available in English as "ask your rabbi"? (Feel free to raise those as questions on Meta, what J.SE's policy should be?) Or do you feel, as some do, that OC8 does not accurately reflect Rav Moshe's opinions? If you'd like to caveat this that just because you can pray there on Day One doesn't necessarily mean you can do so on following days, that's fine; but that's not what the question was asking here. – Shalom Feb 10 '23 at 01:54
  • I am concerned for any answer that does not start with "ask your Rav" or includes phrases like "you can ....". Mi yodea, a forum whose members are not necessarily Rabbonim with shimush, can discuss topics in general terms. But answering shailos should be completely out of bounds. –

    And in general, somebody searching for this while standing in the shiva house, can and should close their browser and dial their Rav.

     – DrM Feb 12 '23 at 01:52