Was there a women’s section in the ancient synagogue? TB Sukkah 51b

One of the most significant architectural differences between an Orthodox synagogue and synagogues from the liberal streams of Judaism is the mekhitza (מחיצה) separating the men from the women. The size and shape of the mekhitza is varied from synagogue to synagogue. I once visited a Yemenite synagogue in the vicinity of Meah She’arim, Jerusalem where the women sat in a separate room in the back of the synagogue with only a window opening of no larger than 1 ft.² I davened (prayed) in several synagogues where the women sat upstairs in the balcony looking down upon the men. I’ve even davened in a synagogue where the men and women sat facing each other in a semi-circle with a very small wooden railing that constitute the mekhitza.

When I was back in college I read the book The Sanctity of the Synagogue: the Case for the Mechitzah, Separation Between Men and Women by Baruch Litvin. The only Talmudic source the author could muster for his case was the Gemara TB Sukkah 51b. Apparently the festivities in the Temple during Simkhat Beit Hashoava became so wild that the rabbis felt the necessity to separate the sexes.

“The mishna continues: At the conclusion of the first Festival day, etc., the priests and the Levites descended from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair. The Gemara asks: 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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

This is a very weak proof for the mekhitza in a synagogue. First of all, the separation took place at a party and not during a prayer service. Secondly, the separation took place only once a year in the Temple. To extrapolate the halakhic obligation of a mekhitza from our text is very unsatisfactory. Beyond our Gemara, archaeological proof of a mekhitza in synagogues is nonexistent. My teacher Prof. Lee I. Levine in his book Judaism & Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict a Confluence? writes:

“The Byzantine churches seemingly strict division among various populations within the congregation, i.e. clergy, laymen, women, catechumens, and penitents, was unknown in the ancient synagogue. Other than seats of honor for its leaders or specially designated individuals, a relatively status free ambience seems to have prevailed in the latter.

“The statement is true with regard to the seating the women in the ancient synagogue. In contrast to the contemporary church, we have every reason to believe that the sexes were not separated here. That women came to the synagogue regularly is well tested, and both archaeological and literary sources indicate that men and women sat together. Archaeological discoveries have not revealed any traces of separate area that might even remotely be labeled a women’s section; nor has any inscription taken note of the special accommodation for women come to light. In the vast majority of synagogue buildings, only a single room or hall in which the congregation gathered was found, and there was no trace of a balcony. Even when there is evidence for a balcony, such as a stairway or columns of different size than those on the first story, we have no reason to assume that this balcony served as a woman’s gallery. Rabbinic sources contain numerous references to non-liturgical activities in the synagogue, some of which are at times associated with a balcony. Finally, rabbinic literature, in the 400 or so pericopae that relate to the synagogue never mentions a women’s section.” (Pages 175-176)\

Even that magnificent synagogue in Alexandria, Egypt had separate seating only where “…the members of the various crafts would not sit mingled. Rather, the goldsmiths would sit among themselves, and the silversmiths among themselves, and the blacksmiths among themselves, and the coppersmiths among themselves, and the weavers among themselves. And when a poor stranger entered there, he would recognize people who plied his craft, and he would turn to join them there. And from there he would secure his livelihood as well as the livelihood of the members of his household, as his colleagues would find him work in that craft.” (TB Sukkah 51b, Sefaria.org translation)

Because I am a Conservative Rabbi, none of the synagogues I have served in have ever had separate seating for men and women. We can paraphrase what the Supreme Court decided back in 1954 case Brown versus the Board of Education “separate, but equal seating, is inherently unequal.”