Community Magazine April 2014

54 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE Jack, a member of his local synagogue, volunteered to organize the sale of raffle tickets to benefit the shul’s youth program. Although Jack purchased only one ticket for himself, he fiendishly accredited himself with five more tickets free of charge. On the night of the raffle drawing, one of Jack’s tickets was picked, and he won the $18,000 grand prize. Realizing the severity of his action, he approached the rabbi and confessed to having placed five illegitimate tickets into the pot. The rabbi instructed that the five illegitimate tickets be removed, and a second raffle drawing made Morris the new grand prize winner. Upon inquiry, Jack discovered that all six of his tickets were removed from the second drawing, sincehisoriginalwinningticketwasnever reentered into the pot. He complained to the rabbi that he had indeed purchased one ticket and was upset that he was left out of the raffle. He initially called for a third drawing, but Morris persuaded Jack to forgo his complaint by offering him $3000 of his prize. Harry, a synagogue committee member, complained to the rabbi that Jack was not entitled to $3000 of the prize. Harry protested that Jack had tampered with the first raffle drawing and should therefore be completely disqualified. Jack countered that he was surely entitled to at least $3000, because it was possible that he is the true winner of the entire sum, as the winning ticket drawn on the first round of the raffle may have been the one he paid for. Alfred, another raffle participant, who for months had his heart set on winning the grand prize, suggested a redrawing to get another shot at winning. Is Alfred right, that a third drawing should be held? Or perhaps Jack is the true winner of the grand prize? And if Morris is the real winner, can he, or should he, be prevented from sharing his prize with Jack, or can he divide up the proceeds as he sees fit? How should the Bet Din rule, and why? The Shulhan Aruch addresses the case of two brothers who divided three fields they inherited from their father via a raffle, but then discovered the existence of an unknown third brother. Although the raffle allowed for the two brothers to each possess a complete field, and agreeably divide the third, nevertheless, the Shulhan Aruch ruled that the entire raffle is rendered null and void upon the arrival of a third heir to the estate. Interestingly, the raffle is void even if the subsequent raffle drawing awards the third brother with the same field originally split between the two brothers. Although the third brother’s lot did not affect the outcome of the original drawing between the two brothers, nevertheless, the two brothers need not remain with their initially allotted fields, and either brother may demand a redrawing to determine the ownership of those two fields. Furthermore, the original drawing is void even if the third brother accepts the third field as his portion without asking for a new drawing. Despite his acceptance of the outcome of the first drawing, the other two brothers are not bound by the outcome, and either one has the legal right to demand a redrawing. The underlying principle is that all raffle drawings must be performed accurately in order for the fate of a raffle to reflect Gd’s will. Otherwise, its result is not “heaven sent,” and is subject to a random, and hence non-binding, outcome. Tampering with a raffle in any way interferes with the good fortune of the other participants, who are then entitled to demand a redrawing. In short, Divine Providence will not govern the outcome of a raffle unless it is performed justly. Leading halachic authorities conclude that all raffle drawings are subject to the same regulations. Hence, if an eligible participant is accidently omitted from a raffle, any of the other participants may disqualify the raffle and demand a redrawing. Although one may reason that only the party omitted from the lottery should reserve the right to nullify the raffle, nevertheless, according to Torah law any of the participants may make such a demand. Therefore, even if the winner of the raffle settles with the omitted party by offering him monetary compensation, the other participants may reject their deal. Just as, in the aforementioned case, either of the two brothers may reject the outcome of their raffle on account of the omission of their third brother, by the same token, all participants in a raffle may dismiss its outcome if an eligible participant is omitted. And just as either of the two brothers may renege even if the third brother honors the raffle by agreeing to accept the third field, all raffle participants may demand a redra wing even if the omitted party accepts the outcome. As explained above, omitting eligible participants affects the fortune of all participants in the raffle, and they may thus demand a redrawing. Needless to say, if a participant rigs a raffle by duplicating false entries, the outcome of the raffle is rendered null and void, as it does not reflect the will of Providence. JACK PLOT Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din Torah Law photo by: Abraham Amzalak The Case Verdict: YOU GOT TO BE IN IT TO WIN IT The Bet Din ruled in favor of Alfred, instructing the rabbi and members of the congregation to conduct a third drawing. As aforementioned, Divine Providence will not govern the outcome of a raffle unless all eligible participants’ names are included. Thus, since Jack’s ticket was omitted from the second drawing, any participant enjoys the right to void its outcome. As such, despite the fact that the winner – Morris – struck a deal with Jack, any of the other participants may claim that the omission of Jack’s ticket affected the results and thus renders the outcome void. (The famous idiom “You Got to Be in It To Win It” seems to take on a deeper meaning than ever before...) It goes without saying that the first raffle drawing, which included several unlawfully added entries, is invalid. Tampering with a raffle by adding false entries clearly interferes with the Providential process of the drawing and thus renders its outcome null and void. A third raffle drawing was conducted, and Eddie became the first and only true winner of the grand prize. Sources: Baba Batra 106b, Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 175:3 and Pit’hei Teshuvah, Havot Yair 61.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjg3NTY=