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

[David Riceman]

RCL:
> 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.

I'm not a student of RYBS, so my guesses are second hand, but my
impression is that you need to take into account two opinions of his.
The first is that synagogues are to be used only for prayer. See Nefesh
HaRav p. 257, #6, which mentions Rabbi Soloveitchik's opposition to
weddings in the synagogue for this reason. Incidentally I find that
opinion extremely puzzling, since the Rama (YD 391:3) mentions the custom
of holding the huppa in the synagogue with no apparent signs of distaste.

The second is his opinion that mixed seating in synagogues violates the
prohibition of uv'hukoseihem lo seileichu (ibid. pp. 231-232). Apparently
he viewed the impetus for mixed seating to be a desire to emulate
churches. Again I find that puzzling since my friends-and-relations who
attend conservative synagogues find mixed seating no more surprising
there than anywhere else in modern American life, and find our habit of
sitting separately in the synagogue extremely weird.

I think he viewed tkias shofar in shul as part of prayer, and hence
included in uv'hukoseihem lo seileichu, even if the listener attends
only to hear the shofar.

I don't know whether he would have prohibited a separate mixed gender
gathering in a conservative synagogue, not to pray, but only to hear
tkias shofar, but I guess he would have found it inappropriate as a
misuse of the synagogue.

David Riceman