This discussion, dedicated to the merit of daily study of Jewish law for the complete healing and success of **Hayim Ben Mazal**, and for **Dania Koel**, delves into intricate questions concerning sacred texts and objects found in various circumstances.
We begin with the case of phylacteries found in the possession of a heretic, where the author is unknown. In such a scenario, a doubt arises: perhaps the heretic himself wrote them, or acquired them from an invalid source. However, it is not permissible to burn these phylacteries. The reason is that their possession by a heretic does not definitively prove they were written by one. If they were written correctly, burning them would constitute burning the name of **Hashem**, which is strictly forbidden. Therefore, due to this doubt, they must be placed in **Genizah** (ritual burial).
A different ruling applies if it is known that a heretic stole phylacteries from a Jew. In this specific instance, one may assume the phylacteries are kosher and permissible to wear. While such a scenario might seem unlikely in contemporary times, the principles of Jewish law address every possibility, underscoring the importance of adhering to these rulings.
Consider the case of phylacteries found in the possession of a non-Jew, where the author is unknown. Here, one does not need to be concerned that the non-Jew wrote them, as non-Jews are not obligated in the commandment of phylacteries. This leads to a broader discussion, illustrated by an anecdote from **Tangiers**, Morocco. While visiting a market there, the speaker and companions were identified as Jews by a local, who then offered them various holy writings, including Torah scrolls and phylacteries. A significant question arose: should these items be redeemed from the non-Jews, even if their kosher status was uncertain?
The **Shulchan Aruch** presents two opinions regarding a Torah scroll found in a non-Jew's possession. One opinion suggests it may be assumed kosher, while the other states it must be placed in **Genizah**. According to the interpretive rules of the **Shulchan Aruch**, Jewish law typically follows the second opinion when two conflicting views are presented with the phrase "there is this opinion, there is that opinion." Thus, the ruling for a Torah scroll found in a non-Jew's possession would be **Genizah**.
This ruling, however, appears to contradict the **Shulchan Aruch**'s stance that phylacteries found in a non-Jew's possession, with an unknown author, may be assumed kosher. To reconcile this, **Maran** (Rabbi Yosef Caro, author of the **Shulchan Aruch**) cites the **Talmud**, which also presents two opinions about Torah scrolls in a non-Jew's possession: one allowing their use, the other requiring **Genizah**. The **Rambam** (Maimonides) held the lenient view, explaining that it is highly unlikely a non-Jew would write phylacteries, as they have no need for them. However, regarding a Torah scroll, the **Rambam** was stringent. **Maran** noted that **Al-Batr** did not concur with the **Rambam**'s ruling concerning phylacteries, leading to an apparent contradiction with the ruling on Torah scrolls.
**Maran** resolved these seemingly contradictory rulings by suggesting a fundamental difference between a Torah scroll and phylacteries. A non-Jew might have a reason to write a Torah scroll, perhaps to study it, as some non-Jews might be interested in the Seven Noahide Laws or general wisdom. Therefore, there is a greater suspicion that a non-Jew might have written a Torah scroll. Conversely, no non-Jew has any reason to wear phylacteries, nor would they typically write the parchments for them. Consequently, there is no reason to suspect that phylactery parchments found in a non-Jew's possession were written for a non-Jew or by one; thus, they are presumed kosher.
This differs from the case of phylacteries found in the hands of a wayward Jew (a heretic), where there is room to suspect such an individual of writing phylactery parchments, making them invalid. Therefore, while a wayward Jew might be suspected of writing phylacteries, a non-Jew would not. The **Shulchan Aruch** ultimately rules that phylacteries found in a non-Jew's possession are kosher, whereas a Torah scroll in their possession cannot be assumed kosher without further verification. This reconciliation highlights the nuanced distinctions in Jewish law based on the object and the possessor.
The contemporary reality further complicates matters. If a Torah scroll is found in a non-Jew's possession today, it is fair to assume it was stolen, as there are many instances of holy books being stolen from Jewish communities. The quality of scribes has also become a concern; many scribes today may not adhere to the strict requirements, leading to potentially invalid sacred texts. Therefore, caution is advised even when finding phylacteries, Torah scrolls, or mezuzot in the hands of Jews or in a **Genizah** if their origin and tradition are unknown. Such items should be shown to a knowledgeable authority.
A related question arises: is it permissible to recite a blessing over phylacteries found in a non-Jew's possession, given the dispute about their kosher status? The ruling is that it is permissible to recite the blessing. This is based on the principle of **Sefik Sefika**, a double doubt. The first doubt is whether the non-Jew actually wrote them. The second doubt (if he did write them) is whether they are truly invalid. Since wearing phylacteries is a Torah commandment, the double doubt allows for the recitation of the blessing.
Regarding Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot found in the possession of non-Jews, the community is obligated to purchase them. This obligation stems from the concern that if left with non-Jews, these holy items might be treated with disrespect or used for mundane purposes. The community must pay market price, or even slightly more, to redeem them. However, when it comes to phylacteries, one should not pay more than their value. This is to avoid encouraging non-Jews to steal them, knowing that Jews will pay a premium price for their return.
While the **Shulchan Aruch** rules that a Torah scroll found in a non-Jew's possession must be placed in **Genizah**, the obligation to buy it still stands, as **Genizah** is preferable to the scroll remaining in a non-Jew's possession, where it faces potential desecration. This applies even if the Torah scroll is known to be invalid for some reason (e.g., it became invalid over time). There is no commandment to buy a Torah scroll from a heretic, however, because if it was written by a heretic, it is invalid and would eventually be burned. In such a case, it is better for the heretic to treat it as a common object than for a Jew to buy it only to burn it, which is a more severe act of destruction.
The obligation to redeem these sacred texts falls upon the community, not necessarily an individual. A community, unlike an individual, is never considered poor and can collectively raise the necessary funds. However, if a non-Jew demands an exorbitant price, holding the community hostage, then the community is not obligated to pay the inflated amount and may walk away. This teaches the non-Jew a lesson, encouraging more reasonable pricing in the future.