According to the position of Rashi and Tosafot, in which a village shul is obligated a mezuzah and a city shul is not obligated because of viewing the ownership of the village shul as a partnership rather than corporate ownership, would a contemporary urban American shul that is clearly owned by the members of the shul, yet serves people far beyond that membership, be obligated like a village shul or exempt like the city shul?

According to the position of Rashi and Tosafot, in which a village shul is obligated a mezuzah and a city shul is not obligated because of viewing the ownership of the village shul as a partnership rather than corporate ownership, would a contemporary urban American shul that is clearly owned by the members of the shul, yet serves people far beyond that membership, be obligated like a village shul or exempt like the city shul?

Thanks for reaching out! Nowadays, even city shuls typically have a defined membership and therefore can be characterized as having בעלים מיוחדים. Bear in mind that Rashi and Tosfos understand that the פטור בית הכנסת is driven by the criterion of ownership (based on this understanding of the second בית*ך*, as per Tosfos 44a). [Please see as well the comment in the "Description" of this shiur on this page.] TC

Thanks for reaching out! Nowadays, even city shuls typically have a defined membership and therefore can be characterized as having בעלים מיוחדים. Bear in mind that Rashi and Tosfos understand that the פטור בית הכנסת is driven by the criterion of ownership (based on this understanding of the second בית*ך*, as per Tosfos 44a). [Please see as well the comment in the "Description" of this shiur on this page.] TC