Print this Article
Public officials and their duty to dispel suspicion
By Rabbi Yosef Fund
For decades, every major presidential candidate has released his or her tax records. While it is not a legal requirement, this tradition is intended to shed light on whether a candidate attempts to take advantage of the tax structure, and is often a sticking point on the campaign trail.
“For the last 30 to 40 years, every candidate for president has released their tax returns, and I think Donald Trump should as well,” Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, told Business Insider in a recent interview.
Over the past several months, Trump has resisted calls to release his returns, citing legal advice to wait until the IRS completes an audit of his records. On the other side of the aisle, Hillary Clinton, potential presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, was reluctant to release a different set of records. Mrs. Clinton held out for quite some time before she was forced to release her email records, many of which included private information that the public demanded to know.
In this article we will examine the right of the public to review the records of officials in a position of power, and the duty of candidates or appointees for public office to provide such information – according to Halacha.
Avoiding Suspicion
Halacha requires one to act in a way that allows others to trust his sincerity and not suspect him. We find this requirement especially regarding one who has access to the public’s resources. The Mishna in Shekalim[1] states that the one who would enter the room where the Shekalim were kept was not allowed to wear shoes or anything similar, in order to avoid suspicion that he may have hid Shekalim on himself. The Mishna explains this requirement “as a person must satisfy others just as he must satisfy Hashem, as it says[2], ‘and you should be innocent before G-d and before Yisrael’, and it says[3], ‘and you shall find grace and good favor in the eyes of G-d and man’. Similarly, the Tosefta[4] writes: “Tzedakka collectors may not separate from each other (but rather must collect funds in pairs, to avoid suspicion). If a friend offers [the Tzedakka collector] money that he is owed, or even if he finds money on the way – he may not take it”.
The Sages praised the families of those who baked the Lehem HaPanim, that none of their children was ever found with white bread, lest it be said that they were partaking from the communally-owned Lehem HaPanim. Similarly, the families that produced the Ketoret did not perfume themselves for the same reason.[5]
Faithful Public Servants
There is a Gemara that seems to contradict the above mentioned Mishna. The Gemara[6] quotes a Beraita that says that we must not call to account the collectors of Tzedakka, nor the treasurers of Hekdesh. According to the Gemara there is no explicit scriptural proof for this, however, there is support for this idea, as it is written[7] (regarding the craftsmen who renovated the first Bet HaMikdash): ‘they would not take an account of the people who received the silver, to give those who did the work, because they did so faithfully’. Based on this, the Shulhan Aruch rules that those who strictly collect communal alms are to be trusted and are not required to offer an accounting[8], although it is preferred that they do.[9]
In order to understand this seeming contradiction, Rav Chaim Kanievsky[10] שליט”א suggests that perhaps in the case of those who are accessing the Shekalim it is impossible for the public to ascertain their honesty. Therefore, they are required to do whatever they can to prevent possible suspicion of their actions. However, in the case of alms solicitors, it is possible for others to examine their accounts if they wish to do so, therefore, they are not strictly required to offer an accounting.
Suffering Suspicion to Prevent Humiliation
Another limitation on this principle is found in Sefer Hassidim[11], who writes that one must be “innocent before Yisrael – but not all Yisrael”. The specific example given is where revealing the identity of a Tzeddaka recipient would cause him humiliation. In such a case, the treasurer should bear the humiliation of others’ suspicion, rather than causing embarrassment to the recipient. It is interesting to note that the Sefer Hassidim specifically writes that this is a case where the treasurer received approval from the communal officers to distribute funds to this specific individual.
Avoiding Nepotism and Favoritism
Jewish communities over the last several centuries often kept records of communal edicts and affairs. Many of these records have been lost, but some have been preserved and even published. These records often reflect a concern that communal servants avoid any conflict of interest, undue influence, and in general be above reproach. There is also concern with public accountability and public record keeping.
We also find a particular worry about the favoring of relatives by the assessors. In the year 5475 (1715), the registrar of the community of Poznan[12] records that the assessors were directed to swear that they must inform the other assessors if they are approached by relatives to receive funds. They are also not allowed to accept any request from any person, nor any criticism from one person regarding another. They are required to inform all the other assessors should they be approached by one person regarding another. [This is similar to what is described in Divre HaYamim[13] where the officers and fighters who served King David gave their hand in assurance that they would faithfully serve his son, King Shlomo[14].]
In the year 5458 (1698) it is recorded that if the assessor is related to either the person being assessed or his business partner, then the assessor must leave the hearing, and may not voice any opinion in the matter, and that all must swear to abide by this. All of these edicts seems to address the fear that assessors, in particular, are in a position to be influenced by improper favoritism.
It is important to note that Noda B’Yehuda[15] writes that according to strict Torah law, assessors ought to be people who have no relatives in the city. Being that it is not possible to bring in such outsiders to conduct the assessments; the custom is to allow assessors who do have relatives in a city. The Noda B’Yehuda writes that there is essentially no difference in this regard whether an assessor is assessing a relative or a non-relative. Even when assessing non-relatives, there is an opportunity to benefit relatives, because by increasing the burden of the non-relatives they are easing the burden of their relatives. Nevertheless, writes the Noda B’Yehuda, many communities have established that assessors are only to assess their non-relatives. However, communities that have not adopted this practice, are not required to follow it.
Sources
[1] 3, 2
[2] BaMidbar 32, 22
[3] Mishlei 3,4
[4] Pe’ah 4, Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 8b
[5] Tosefta Yoma 2
[6] Bava Batra 9a
[7] Melachim 2 12, 16
[8] Yore De’ah 157, 2
[9] Tur, Rama ibid.
[10] Shekel HaKodesh, 2, 10 in Bi’ur Halacha
[11] 320
[12] Published by the Mekitzei Nirdamim society in the year 5728 (1968), under the title “Pinkas HaKesherim Shel Kehillat Pozna 5381-5596” (1621-1838)
[13] 1 29, 24
[14] See Meyuhas L’Rashi, ibid.
[15] C.M. 21