[Avodah] [Areivim] More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead

[Joseph Kaplan]

Rn'CL, in discussing RYBS's famous statement advising Orthodox Jews not to daven in a shul with mixed pews even if it means foregoing hearing the blowing of the shofar, tries to explain his position thusly:

> The only explanation that makes sense to me is that by designating something
> as a shul, those supporting it are claiming that it has the sanctity of a
> makom tephila, and then by going there, even solely to hear shofar and not
> to daven, the individual is providing some support or strengthening for that
> proposition.  Perhaps you could phrase it as lifnei iver?  But the reason it
> can be considered lifnei iver is because it will cause people to believe
> that which is halachically not acceptable is acceptable.  And the psak is
> saying that a man is required to forgo a mitzvah d'orisa because it will
> lead people to believe that something completely different which is
> halachically not acceptable is acceptable.  
> 
> This is exactly the same logic that is often utilised regarding accepting
> halachic acts from the R or C movements as a whole.  That is, if we
> recognise these acts (eg  we recognise the shofar blowing) then it will lead
> others to believe that other acts done by these movements (such as the way
> they set up tephila) is acceptable. 

Well, that may be the only way it makes sense to Rn"CL, but that's simply not what RYBS wrote or said.  He never extended his position, which he reiterated a number of times, to any halachic act other than davening in a mixed pew shul -- a critical issue to the Orthodox community in the 1950s when these statements were made and when many shuls with mechitzot were changing to mixed pews.   If one reads his statements (I wonder whether Rn'CL did that), it's all about mixed pews; there's no indication that it can, or should, be extended to any other "halachic act from the R or C movements as a whole."  It wasn't a case of not "recognizing the[ir] shofar blowing"; it was a case of keeping the O Jews out of mixed pew shuls. The clear implication, if one actually reads what he said (a number of his statements on this issue can be found in Baruch Litvin's "The Sanctity of the Synagogue"), is that if the C Jew who blew the shofar in the mixed pew shul would come to the O Jew's house to blow it for him/her after davening, there would be no problem.   Thus, applying this well-known position of RYBS to the issue under discussion about C and R Jews performing taharot simply doesn't wash.  Perhaps it's true about others who said this, but that not the case with RYBS (whose publically stated position on this is, I believe, the one that most often quoted).

Joseph Kaplan