Q&A: Is There a Mistaken Transaction in Buying Torah Honors?
Is There a Mistaken Transaction in Buying Torah Honors?
Question
With God’s help,
Hello and blessings to the Rabbi; I hope you are well.
This past Sabbath it happened that the Torah reading was not divided according to the usual breakdown printed in the chumashim. There were several additional honorees who read new sections, and therefore the original purchasers received a shorter section.
In a conversation with one of the worshippers who had purchased an aliyah, he did not want the money back, but claimed that this was not proper. (I agree that it is not proper, but life is dynamic and sometimes changes are made on the fly.)
My question is whether there is a halakhic problem here of commerce and transaction (a bit absurd that I am asking about commerce on the Sabbath), or perhaps this is an accepted norm. The question arises because of the variety of synagogues: some regularly call up additional honorees, and therefore this case is not unusual there, while others do not, and therefore in their case this is unusual. In our synagogue, as stated above, this is an unusual case.
Thanks in advance, and with blessings for good news
Answer
First of all, this is not a business deal or purchase, but a donation. It is forbidden to conduct business transactions on the Sabbath.
Beyond that, I do not see any difference whether someone “received” three verses or ten. He was called up to the Torah.
If there is a clear presumption, or prior notice, that he personally donated only on condition that he would receive the full aliyah, then of course that is a different matter.
Discussion on Answer
In my late grandfather’s synagogue,
there was one elderly man, of blessed memory,
who during the auctioning of the aliyot would fill with vigor and youthful energy, and he would count how many verses there were in each aliyah, and based on that he would compete and buy.
Apparently there are people for whom this is a central factor in deciding whether, and how much, to pay.
See here from p. 210 onward: