The Case
The Most Valuable Possession on Earth
Charles, may he rest in peace, was a leading community member who back in the 1970s dedicated a Sefer Torah to his local synagogue. Upon his passing, his two sons built a new synagogue in memory of their beloved father and they requested of their local synagogue to return to them their father’s Sefer Torah. They explained that their father never intended to give the Sefer Torah to the shul as a gift. As heirs of their father’s estate they wish to reclaim the deposited Sefer Torah and transfer it to the new synagogue dedicated in honor of their father. The shul’s committee objected to returning the Sefer Torah insisting that it was the shul’s property. They reasoned that Charles, a”h, donated it over forty years ago and although he was a regular congregant, he never mentioned his intent to one day remove it from the shul. Furthermore, Charles passed on nearly two years ago and this is the first time his sons are requesting the Sefer Torah. The sons counterclaimed that the simple reason why they or their father never mentioned their ownership rights, is because it was obvious to them all along that the Sefer Torah was their private property.
Do the sons have the right to transfer the Sefer Torah to another shul? Who is the rightful owner of the Sefer Torah? How should the Bet Din rule and why?
Torah Law
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, one who dedicates a Sefer Torah to a synagogue is entitled to repossess it at any given time. However, the logic behind this ruling is subject to multiple explanations, making the terms and requirements before taking back a Sefer Torah a matter of halachic dispute.
Numerous leading halachic authorities rule, that it is evident that the owner of the Sefer Torah did not permanently give it to the synagogue at the time of its dedication. For if one does so he consequently forfeits his mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah. This view maintains that the fulfillment of the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah is contingent on its eternal ownership. Other halachic authorities differ, explaining that one maintains the mitzvah and perhaps enhances it by permanently donating it to an entire congregation. Providing that the donor along with the rest of the members of the congregation have access to reading from it, the donor clearly does not forfeit his mitzvah once the Sefer Torah is donated. Hence, according to this latter opinion, unless stipulated otherwise, we assume the donor intended to give the Sefer Torah permanently to the synagogue’s congregation.
Some leading halachic authorities reason that a Sefer Torah is unlike any other item dedicated to a synagogue. While one who donates vessels or ornaments to a synagogue clearly intends to permanently give them to the congregation, when dedicating a Sefer Torah it is unnecessary to have such intention. Bringing vessels, ornaments, and decorations to a synagogue is not considered a mitzvah unless they become the permanent property of the synagogue. Since these items have no inherent holiness, it is impossible for one to achieve a mitzvah unless the items become the synagogue’s permanent property.
In contrast, a Sefer Torahthat possesses the greatest level of inherent holiness, need not be donated permanently in order to achieve a mitzvah. The owner has achieved a mitzvah by the mere writing of its scrolls and is not required to give it to a congregation. Therefore, according to this view, one may recall his Sefer Torah from a synagogue even decades after its dedication.
Finally, some halachic authorities explain that since customarily one only intends on depositing the Sefer Torah to the synagogue for safekeeping, he is entitled to repossess it. However, other opinions differ and require a clearly stipulated condition at the time of the Sefer Torah dedication, that it is not the property of the synagogue and that the owner is only depositing it with the synagogue for safekeeping.
The above conflicting opinions are all in explanation of the words of Shulhan Aruch. Since in most instances the physical possession of the Sefer Torah is in the synagogue, the synagogue seemingly has the upper handand may withhold the Sefer Torah unless proven that the donor stipulated from the onset that he only deposited it for safekeeping. Nevertheless, a Bet Din will do its best to settle the matter peacefully, since many halachic authorities allow the donor to recall his Sefer Torah from the synagogue.
VERDICT:Peace, for the Torah’s Sake
Upon verification that no evidence existed that Charles formally stipulated that he only deposited the Sefer Torah with the synagogue, our Bet Din chose to resolve the matter peacefully. We explained to Charles’ two sons and to the committee that the matter is a complex halachic dispute between leading halachic authorities, and requested of them to provide a solution. The committee expressed their need for the additional Sefer Torah in order to meet the growing needs of the congregation, though they insinuated that they are willing to be flexible to accept a different Sefer Torah in exchange. Charles’ sons actually liked the idea and agreed to dedicate yet another Sefer Torah in memory of their father, upon receiving their father’s personal Sefer Torah in exchange.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Eviction
Sam rented a private home from David for many years. When Sam fell behind with his monthly payments, David refused to renew his lease and requested that Sam find a more affordable property to rent. Sam persisted and refused to vacate, leaving David no alternative but to file for eviction of his nonpaying tenant. In less than a year’s time, one evening Sam returned home only to find a new lock on the front door and some of his valuables on the sidewalk in front of his home. His neighbors collected some of the more desirable loose items found on the street, assuming Sam willingly threw the stuff away. Sam opened a file at our Bet Din claiming that David had no legal right to remove his private property from the home without informing him and he demanded compensation for his loss. David countered that he was preparing to immediately move new tenants into his fully furnished home and had no alternative but to make available closet space for paying customers. David added that Sam owes him nearly six months of outstanding rent and that if any money is due, it is strictly to him.
Was David permitted to remove Sam’s private belongings and place them on the sidewalk? Are the neighbors required to return the items they found or are they considered legally abandoned merchandise? How should the Bet Din rule and why?