Article from 1957 Regarding Acceptability of Men and Women Sitting Together in Synagogue Under Jewish Law

caption:
defendants further testified that synagogues were autonomous and that each synagogue, under the guidance of its rabbi, must decide for itself the interpretation of Jewish law it will accept. They stated that the problem of mixed seating arose in this country when it was found that segregation seating was not compatible with the mores of this country.

Rabbi Agus, a former member of the Rabbinical Council of America, stated that there is a constant struggle in the Council between the liberal and reactionary elements on all issues, especially the question of rabbis serving congregations with family seating. The liberals, he acknowledged are in the minority.

CHASSIDIM VS. MITHNAGDIM

Rabbi Aronson cited as an example of disagreement in Jewish life, the controversy between the Chassidim and the Mithnagdim and pointed out that the Gaon of Wilna, his illustrious ancestor, excommunicated the Chassidim. He stated that he has searched all sources for the removal of the ban by a central authority, but never could find an reference to such authority. Nevertheless, he said, as the heat of the controversy decreased, the two groups started to mingle again and before long, the Chassidim were considered more pious the an Mithnagdim. Rabbi Aronson also pointed out that although the synagogue is considered a “miniature Temple,” Jewish law has gone out of its way to prohibit imitating the Temple in many instances, and therefore what applied to the Temple in Jerusalem does not necessarily apply to the synagogue.

Closing arguments were yet to be presented by both attorneys, David Gentler for the plaintiffs and Robert Weinstein for the defendants.