Community Magazine January 2012

THE POWER STRUGGLE According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, when one makes a donation to a Torah organization, it is recommended to have a plaque mounted bearing his name and the names of his family members in honor of his contribution. Commemorating his donation serves not only to publicize his respect for Torah causes, but also as incentive for others to follow his example. This custom mentioned in the Shulhan Aruch has been universally practiced by the entire Jewish nation for over seven centuries. The Shulhan Aruch rules that any mode of acquisition widely practiced in the market of each industry is legally binding. Hence, since it is commonly practiced by institutions to receive monetary compensation when offering honorary dedications for appointments in a synagogue, the sale is legally binding as soon as money is transferred. In certain instances, an honor may be sold merely by verbal commitment, such as the customarily practiced bidding of aliyot. According to many halachic authorities, this mode of acquisition is binding even if the article for sale has not yet reached the possession of the seller, and may not even yet be in existence. In addition, even in industries in which the transfer of funds is considered legally insufficient to finalize a deal, Torah law restricts a party from reneging by imposing a severe injunction against such behavior. Although the monetary transaction is not binding, a bet din will often take these measures in order to prevent the deal from falling through. According to Torah law, when dedicating a religious article, fixture, or space, it is permissible for the donor to stipulate the terms regulating his donation. This right is commonly exercised when dedicating a Sefer Torah to a synagogue by stipulating that the donor is still the legal owner of the Sefer. Without this formal condition, the Sefer Torah becomes the legal property of the synagogue and cannot be transferred from the synagogue merely at behest of the donor. Hence, it stands to reason that one who dedicates any religious article or space may condition that a plaque be mounted in honor of his donation. While it is obvious that the donor does not privately own the article or space, nevertheless, his stipulation entitles him the right to a plaque in return for his money. The Shulhan Aruch records the well-known opinion of Maimonides that money collected by a synagogue for a specific purpose may not be reallocated to an alternate function, unless that alternate function is a higher purpose than the one for which the money was solicited. Thus, if a synagogue collects money with the intent of building an Aron Kodesh, the funds may not be misappropriated to another cause. Needless to say, the money cannot be simply returned to the donor for his own personal use. Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din Bet Din ruled in favor of Joseph and denied the synagogue the right to return the funds they collected. As mentioned, any mode of acquisition widely practiced in the market of each industry is legally binding. The age-old custom of mounting a plaque in honor of a donation has become part of Jewish tradition, and is typically sold by transfer of funds to the institution. Since Joseph had already transferred $50,000 to the synagogue, the agreement is binding. Furthermore, transfer of money has halachic ramifications even in industries in which it is not considered legally binding. In addition, the money collected by the synagogue for the aron kodesh may not be returned to Joseph for mundane use. Monies collected by a Torah organization have a unique holy status and cannot be misappropriated. Our Bet Din informed the parties of its decision, though we suggested that they attempt to renegotiate the matter in accordance with Torah law. the case Joseph, an accomplished businessman, was approached by the president of a synagogue and asked if he would dedicate the aron kodesh (holy ark which contains the Sefer Torah) of the new sanctuary that the synagogue was building. Joseph generously pledged $126,000 and clearly stipulated that in exchange for his donation, a plaque with his name and the names of his beloved family members should be mounted on the wall alongside the aron. Joseph wired $50,000 to the synagogue’s bank account, and faxed the text of the plaque to the synagogue’s office. Approximately three months later, he received a phone call from the president informing him that a well-known Jewish philanthropist pledged $750,000 for the entire main sanctuary, including the aron kodesh and the tevah (elevated platform from where the Torah is read). Considering that Joseph was a congregant of the synagogue and aware of the financial hardships they were experiencing, the president was sure he would be willing to rescind his pledge, accept a refund and allow the synagogue to finalize the deal for $750,000. The president further explained that a contract was never signed between the two parties, and although money was transferred to the synagogue, the plaque was not purchased and never put up on the wall. Joseph, however, insisted on the right to donate the aron and have the plaque mounted in his honor, as they had agreed. The two parties turned to our Bet Din to resolve the matter. How should the Bet Din rule, and why? torah law verdict: A DEAL IS A DEAL Shulhan Aruch YD 249:13 and HM 201:2 Pithei Teshuva 201:2 Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 204 (see Pithei Teshuva 2) Shulhan Aruch Orah Haim 153:5. Endnotes: 40 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE