Gambling

CURR 56-62

GAMBLING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SYNAGOGUE

The C.C.A.R. and the U.A.H.C. have passed resolutions opposed to gambling of all kinds sponsored by the synagogue. Have these resolutions so firm a foundation in Jewish legal and ethical tradition that the Rabbi and the Board of the Congregation should absolutely prohibit such method of raising money for the synagogue? (From Rabbi Paul H. Levenson, Fords, New Jersey.)

THE Central Conference and the Union do not have a governmental authority over the rabbis and the congregations. They are voluntary associations. Their resolutions, therefore, are primarily advisory and are meant to be of guidance and assistance to the rabbis and the congregations. Therefore it is quite justified to ask how strong a foundation in Jewish tradition there is or is not for these resolutions against any gambling sponsored by the congregation. Besides the question of the right to independent judgment on the part of rabbi and congregation respectively, the question itself has special importance nowadays, when increasing suggestions are being made for secular lotteries to be established to help finance local and state government. When these questions come up as public questions, the rabbi and the congregation may well need to express an opinion in the name of the ethics of our religious tradition. Thus, the whole subject of, public gambling, at least in relation to our religious institutions, deserves a fuller discussion than is available in encyclopedic articles.

The matter cannot be discussed entirely upon the basis of Jewish law, because changing sentiments are involved and have to be considered. For example, nowadays many Catholic churches in America receive considerable income from bingo games, and I am told that there are some Jewish congregations which follow that practice. More widespread than bingo games for the benefit of Jewish congregations in America is the use of lotteries for many types of Jewish social and philanthropic organizations. There is hardly a year in any large Jewish community in which automobiles or bonds are not raffled off. The fact that people are getting used to the idea as normal tends to give raffles and lotteries almost the status of an accepted custom; and an accepted custom, if it is not manifestly bad, has certain status in Jewish law. However, a distinction would naturally be considered between social or philanthropic organizations and the synagogue itself. The synagogue must be treated with special sanctity. It was this feeling that the sanctity of the synagogue itself should be especially protected against general laxity, which must be the motivation behind the resolutions referred to. What, then, is the opinion and the mood of Jewish tradition on this matter?

It is a manifest fact that gambling is not mentioned in the Bible itself. Evidently our people in Biblical times were free from that vice or it certainly would have been mentioned as a prohibited sin. Objections to gambling do not appear until the time of the Mishnah. Nevertheless, the Bible makes frequent use of the device of casting lots. For example, which of two goats should be used for which of the two sacrifices on Yom Kippur was determined by lot (see Leviticus 13:8 and also M. Yoma IV, 1). The land was divided among the tribes by lot. The various duties of the priests were distributed by lot (M. Tamid I, 2) . In fact, the use of lots was sanctioned by the later law codes. The Shulchan Aruch in Orah Hayyim 322:6 says that the man may distribute the various portions of the meal by lot on the Sabbath to members of his household. This law goes back to the Mishnah, Shabbas XXIII, 2. However, if this casting of lots, which is permitted, results in one person gaining much more than another, then it is prohibited as gambling (m’shum kuvya). This is the subject of occasional discussion in the Responsa literature: Certain property belongs jointly to a few men. They may divide it by lot. This is legitimate, unless the casting of lots gives one of the men (the winner) a great advantage (see Jacob Reischer, Shevus Yaacov, II, 167). In other words, a difference must be made between the casting of lots and a lottery. Merely to determine who gets what, without any particular advantage but just to avoid disputes, is only a casting of lots and is permissible, but who shall win a special prize is lottery and is gambling.

If, then, a lottery which will result in some one or a certain few winning a special prize is to be considered gambling, we must now ask what is the attitude of the tradition to gambling. There is no question that gambling of various kinds finally spread among our people in post-Biblical times up to modern times and, therefore, in reaction to that fact, there is a great deal of material in the legal tradition on the subject. The original source of the laws is in Mishnah Sanhedrin, III, 3, which lists those who are ineligible to give testimony in the Jewish courts, and at the beginning of the list, there are mentioned “those who play with dice and those who race pigeons.” The Talmud takes this up in b. Sanhedrin 24 b. and 25 b., and gives as the reason for the ineligibility of such gamblers that they do not participate as they should in constructive social efforts (b ‘yeshuvo shel olam). From here on the law is carried over into the codes. Maimonides, in Hilchos Gezela, VII, 7, says the objection to gambling is that it is a form of robbery. So the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpot 370:2, gives this as a definite law. Some of the authorities (based upon a minority opinion in the Talmud) wish to confine the ineligibility (to testify) to those who have no occupation except gambling, but this exception remains only a side opinion.

The large amount of legal discussion which the literature contains is itself an evidence of how widespread the habit of gambling became. Frequently communities passed communal regulation against any sort of gambling in the community (i.e., even private gambling; see Pachad Yitzchok, s.v., “Cherem”). This practice of public prohibition by the community of all gambling naturally led to questions which are analogous to the one you are asking. When is the cherem applicable and when is it not applicable? When is it deemed properly ordained or improperly ordained and, therefore, invalid? What if a man from a community which does not have such a ruling visits a community which does have such a ruling; is he in duty bound to refrain from gambling during his visit? (See Shevus Yaacov II, 79; see also Reischer’s full discussion of this matter in his commentary, Chok Yaacov to Shulchan Aruch Orah Hayyim 468). In addition to these communal decisions there are many instances of men disgusted with their own addiction to gambling, who take personal vows never to gamble again. This habit led to a series of legal questions as to whether such vows can be released by the proper authorities or not.

In spite of all this evidence that gambling was an urgent problem all through the Middle Ages, and the law and individuals struggled against it, I do not recall at the present any discussion of whether gambling would be acceptable if carried out for the benefit of the congregation. I have the impression that I once read such a responsum about a lottery and that the suggestion was indignantly rejected. But the fact that such discussions, if they have occurred, are very rare, would in itself indicate that it would hardly enter anybody’s mind to think that it would be permissible.

While, then, there is no specific prohibition of a lottery in behalf of a synagogue, the whole mood of the Jewish struggle against gambling, even private gambling, makes it evident that such a proposal would be deemed flagrantly wrong. However, the Committee on Responsa of the Conference (Jacob Mann, Chairman) in the Yearbook Volume XLVI, page 126, cites a rather permissive opinion by the Rabbi of Modena, Ishmael Sacerdote (died 1811) in his Zera Emeth, Volume III, 144 (p. 171d). He gives this rather permissive opinion in an analogous situation: A man had become poor, but he possessed a Sefer Torah which he wanted to sell by a lottery, in order to support himself and his family. The rabbi agreed to it on the ground that this method of selling would not be a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. He even gave the man a letter to send out to prospective purchasers of the lottery tickets. To this opinion cited by the Conference, one can add another which Rabbi Ishmael quotes, namely, that of Meir Eisenstadt in Hungary (Panim Meiros, III, 43). His case was very much like the one of the Rabbi Ishmael’s: A man needed to provide a trousseau for his daughter and he wanted to sell a Sefer Torah by lottery. Eisenstadt agrees that this is no disgrace to the Torah. In fact, he says, it is an honor to the Torah to have people compete and want to pay a higher price for it. He says further that it is the custom in his part of the country for scribes, when they write the scroll of the Book of Esther, to sell it by lottery. However, there is a contrary opinion to these two, cited by the editor and pupil of Rabbi Ishmael. The contrary opinion is by Zvi Ashkenazi of Amsterdam, in his responsa Chacham Zvi, 123. He speaks of the custom in Amsterdam of selling a Sefer Torah by auction (i.e., by competitive bidding) and he objects to it strenuously.

But these isolated opinions which are not in agreement with each other are not sufficient to help decide the question before us. We must judge by the general mood of the law. Although the decisions of the Union and the Conference on this matter do not have (as we have mentioned) the prohibitory force of the medieval cherem, it does indeed represent the spirit of the Jewish tradition. As Jacob Reischer properly says, “The cherem against gambling is a public vow and ‘a fence’ to protect the commandments.” Your congregation, therefore, is not prohibited and cannot be prohibited from conducting its “Las Vegas” night, but the spirit of tradition would urge them to refrain.

Some additional references for completeness’ sake: Israel Mizrahi in his Peri Ha -Aretz, II, 16, decides that the Torah may be sold by a scribe by lottery, although he is concerned that his own teacher says that it may not be so sold. Joseph Messas in his Mayim Chayim, 78, also decides in favor of an indigent scribe, permitting him to sell the Torah by lottery.

Mordecai Roller in Be’er Chaim Mordecai, Volume I, 50, asked whether it is permitted to raise money for a synagogue by a dance, (i.e., men and women dancing together) forbids it based on the verse in Deuteronomy, “The hire of a harlot, etc.” Kalman Zuckerman in Minchas Ha-Komtez, 9 and 10, refutes this on the usual ground that it means only the actual object given to the harlot (e.g., a lamb may not be brought to the altar).

RRT 229-232

OCCASIONAL GAMBLING AND STATE LOTTERIES

QUESTION:

What is the Halachic attitude to the man who gambles only occasionally? Also, what would be the Halachic attitude to the legalized off-track betting and lotteries instituted by the various states of the Union? (Question by Rabbi Jack Segal, Houston, Texas.)

ANSWER:

THE GENERAL TALMUDIC TERM for gambling is “those who play with cubes,” i.e., dice; and the statement is made that such gamblers are not eligible to be witnesses in the Jewish court (thus the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 3:3 and in Shevuos 7:4). Of course there are other forms of gambling besides dicing; and all these other forms are meant to be included in the denunciation of gambling. It is interesting that Isaac Lampronti, the rabbi of Ferrara, Italy, in the eighteenth century, author of the great encyclopedia Pachad Yitzchok, discusses this question: Why do the Mishnah and the Talmud specify dicing, when they actually mean to include all other sorts of gambling? Remembering that Isaac Lampronti was also a scientific-minded physician, it is not surprising that he consulted “authorities” on this ques tion. He says that the reason dicing is mentioned specifically is that in this particular form of gambling, it is easiest to cheat and rob one’s fellow gambler by concealing another die between the fingers.

The Talmud, in discussing the law of the ineligibility of dice throwers (Sanhedrin 24b), says that the reason is that they do not participate in the maintenance of society (yishuvo shel olom). In other words, their life and their occupation have no constructive value to society, In fact, they are considered robbers; that is to say, their winnings are not earned by constructive work. Then Rabbi Judah is quoted, that this ineligibility applies only when they have no other occupation but gambling; but if they do have another occupation, i.e., if their gambling is only occasional and is not their main effort at livelihood, then they are quite eligible to be witnesses in the court.

The discussion then continues on to the next page, a boraita is quoted to the contrary effect, namely, that a gambler is ineligible to be a witness even if he is only an occasional gambler. But the law is not according to this boraita; it is according to Rabbi Judah. This is evident from the fact that the bulk of the later authorities do not declare the occasional gambler ineligible (see the Mordecai to this Talmudic passage, #690). So finally it is recorded in the Shulchan Aruch (see the laws of witnesses 34:16, in the middle of the paragraph). Thus it is clear that occasional gambling is not considered enough of a sin to make a man ineligible as a witness in the courts, as would be the case with an inveterate gambler.

Now as to the second question: What would be the attitude of the Jewish law to the legalized lotteries and off-track gambling instituted by various states of the Union? This question is hard to answer because, in general, Jewish law refrained from expressing itself as to the policies of Gentile governments, except, of course, if the policies were directed against Judaism and Jewry. This was the case of the oppressive Roman Empire, which was always referred to as “the wicked government.” Of course Judaism took an attitude to specific government laws, but only insofar as they affected Judaism and Jewry. Thus there is full discussion in Jewish law of dina d’malchuso, government laws, as to when it is incumbent upon Jews to obey them and when not. If the government law did not interfere with our religion, if it was a law dealing purely with civil matters, taxes, etc., if the law was issued by a legitimate government, if the law applied with equal justice to all citizens and subjects, then that law of the government must, according to Jewish law, be obeyed. Other than with such government laws, Jewish law does not concern itself with the decisions of non-Jewish governments.

In the case of the new laws establishing state lotteries, these are not laws which compel action on the part of any citizen. No one is compelled to buy a lottery ticket or to bet on the races because of the government auspices. Therefore the Halacha need take no stand on these lotteries, etc., since the average Jew can completely ignore them and violates no law by so ignoring them.

Of course it may be argued that the government, by legalizing gambling, while not compelling anyone to participate, nevertheless tempts people to participate and thereby encourages gambling. Thus the government might be deemed, according to the spirit of Jewish law, to be committing the sin of “placing a stumbling block,” etc. But this would be true only if even occasional gambling were deemed to be a sin; but occasional gambling is not a sin, as has been mentioned above. Hence it would be safe to say that the Halacha takes no attitude to the lotteries established by governments. If a man ignores them, he has violated no government law. If he does play them occasionally, he has committed no sin.

ARR 527-528

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

166. Games of Chance in Connection with Fundraising

(Vol. XLVI, 1936, p. 126)

QUESTION: Several organizations of our Temple are planning to raise a special fund for the erection of a school house adjoining our present building. One of the principal means they hope to use is a bazaar. That will involve certain gambling devices such as wheels of chance and other similar contrivances. They would like to know whether such measures are ethically permissible.

ANSWER: Legally, there is no objection. We can look at the matter from the following aspect: the Jewish law, while disqualifying a gambler from giving evidence in lawsuits, stipulates that this applies only to professionals whose sole occupation is gambling (see Choshen Mishpat, 34.16). Moreover, although one lending money on interest is debarred from being a witness (ibid., 34.10), if he does so with monies belonging to orphans whose guardian he is, he is not disqualified “because he thinks he is doing a mitzvah in order to increase the funds of the orphans” (ibid., 34.11).

There is further the case, bearing more directly on the subject of the question, of a respected Jew of Modena (Italy) who was in straitened circumstances and was about to sell a very valuable Sefer Torah. The rabbi of Modena, R. Ishmael Sacerdote (died 1811), a famous Talmudist and author of Responsa Zera Emet (3 volumes), even issued a letter of recommendation for this scheme, urging its furtherance as a “mitzvah” (see Zera EmetIII, no. 144).

However, “ethically” there are grounds for scruples, especially if the attractive features of the bazaar are advertised and brought to the notice of the non-Jewish clergy. The New York Times(June 14, 1935), for example, devoted a column to the report of a special committee of the United Lutheran Synod of New York, which strongly condemned games of chance at bazaars for raising money for the support of Lutheran churches. Such Jewish affairs, especially if much publicized, may lower the respect for Judaism in the eyes of non-Jews. Hence, discretion is advisable even from this angle alone.

Jacob Mann and Committee

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 528-531

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

167. Jewish Attitude Towards Gambling

(Vol. LXXXIX, 1979, p. 115)

QUESTION: Is it permissible for a synagogue to use a lottery as a means of fund raising? What is the Jewish attitude toward gambling? (Mrs. A.S., New York)

ANSWER: It is clear that the early tradition saw professional gambling as sinful (Midrash Tehilim 26.7; Yer. San. 23d). Those who were engaged in gambling were ineligible to serve as witnesses or as judges (San. 24b); yet it was never made a criminal offense. Every effort was made to help the compulsive gambler away from his vice. Those who had taken an oath to refrain from gambling were not allowed to abrogate it, no matter how difficult the circumstances (Pachad Yitschak, vol. 5, Cherem); some, however, felt that this was too difficult and that vows to avoid gambling should not be enforced. Responsa have been written on both sides of the question (Leo Landman, “Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling,” Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 58, pp. 302ff). A wide variety of communal ordinances have been enacted, but few proved successful (Adret Responsa II, 35; VII, 244, 270). Gamblers were even barred from synagogue honors and from being counted toward a Minyan. None of these strictures against professional gambling proved to be successful, and they are repeated century after century in the responsa literature.

Despite the views held against the professional gambler, occasional gambling was permitted, and ordinances against gambling were often lifted for Chanuka, Purim, and the intermediary days of Passover and Sukkot, as well as Rosh Chodesh (Leo Landman, op. cit., p. 42). Chanuka was, in fact, known as the New Year of the gamblers (I. Rivkind, Der Kampf Kegen Azart Schpielen bei Yiden, pp. 29ff). Elsewhere it was suggested that card playing even be permitted on fast days so that the individual would not feel excessively hungry (Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 284, 291). Although rabbinic authorities frowned upon the playing of cards and gambling within a Sukka, they realized that some people would not sit in a Sukka unless they were permitted such entertainment, so they allowed it as well (Leo Landman, op. cit., pp. 46ff). It is clear from all of this that gambling was permitted with some reluctance by the Rabbis. Yet a few rabbis also participated in various forms of gambling. Leo Landman’s monograph in the Jewish Quarterly Review, his article in Tradition, and Rivkind’s Yiddish book have discussed gambling in great detail, and shown the ebb and flow of the changing attitudes throughout the century.

Lotteries have also been discussed, and Jews seem to have been heavily involved in them in the 18th and l9th centuries, so major winnings were reported with approval in the responsa. One rabbi ruled that he who wins a lottery should recite the blessing “Shehecheyanu,” as well as the blessing “Hatov vehameitiv,” if he had won with a partner (B.D. Levin, Shemen Sason, p. 27). Landman also reported an incident in Bresova, Hungary, in which the congregation each year purchased lottery slips with excess funds from their budget. They inquired then whether the winnings would go back to the general treasury or be divided equally among the members of the Kahal (Landman, “Gambling in the Synagogue,” Tradition, vol. 10, pp. 81ff). Sacerdote permitted lottery tickets to be sold in order to save a valuable Sefer Torah for a synagogue (Zera Emet, vol. 3, #144). There are also reports of rabbis winning considerable sums (I. Rivkind, op. cit.,pp. 285ff). It is clear from all of these statements that a lottery was considered as legitimate entertainment, unlikely to lead to compulsive gambling, and, therefore, it should not be generally prohibited.

We must also ask whether our tradition was concerned with the source of funds used for religious purposes. Gifts of prostitutes and criminals were rejected in Deuteronomy: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog to the House of the Lord, your God, for any vow” (Deut. 23:19). The discussion in the Talmud (Bava Kama 65b; Temura 29a) makes it clear that the prohibition was restricted to harlotry and idolatry or to the bringing of the actual object used in payment. If that object had been changed to money or into another object, it became acceptable. This was the view of Maimonides (Yad, Hil. Isurei Mizbeach IV.14). This law was subsequently applied to the synagogue (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 153.21); Rabbenu Yeruham (14th century, Toledot Adam VeChava–Chava, 23.1) and Isserles expressed concern over such funds being used for a Torah or for synagogue lights. In other words, funds from a tainted source may be used to support a synagogue, and it is incumbent upon all Jews to do whatever they can to maintain the synagogue. It would be wrong to deny this right even to criminals, gamblers, etc., though they should receive no recognition for their help (Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 249.13).

We may conclude that Jewish tradition has found it impossible to prohibit gambling and has many concessions in this regard; it would, however, not favor lotteries or any other form of gambling as a regular means of raising funds for the synagogue. It is one thing to accept the human frailty, but another to approve it or to encourage it through the synagogue. Although funds from dubious sources may be accepted by a synagogue, it would be wrong to make such funds a basis for synagogue life. We would, therefore, urge synagogues to refrain from using gambling as a way of raising funds on a regular basis.

Walter Jacob, Chairman

Leonard S. Kravitz

Eugene J. Lipman

W. Gunther Plaut

Harry A. Roth

Rav A. Soloff

Bernard Zlotowitz

See also:

“Resolution,” CCAR Yearbook, vol. 89, 1979.

S.B. Freehof, “Gambling for the Benefit of the Synagogue ” Current Reform Responsa, pp. 56ff; “Occasional Gambling and State Lotteries,” Reform Responsa For Our Time,pp. 229ff;

“Resolutions,” Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1957 and 1959.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.