CCAR RESPONSA
Reproving a Congregation for Violations of Tax Law
5758.4
She’elah
I have discovered several instances of irregularities with federal tax laws at the congregation I serve as rabbi. One of these involves the granting of a parsonage allowance to a staff member not entitled to one under the rules set by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The other two involve underpayment of Social Security and Medicare taxes by the same staff member and by a prior staff member. I have called both irregularities to the attention of congregational leadership, who have done nothing about it.
Do I have an obligation under Jewish law to report these violations to the IRS?
Teshuvah
We begin by noting the obvious: your legal responsibility in this matter is determined by the tax laws of the United States and of your local jurisdiction. Jewish law also recognizes this fact, under the principle dina demalkhuta dina (the law of the state is valid and binding upon us).[1] It is therefore vital that you consult with an attorney as to your legal obligation.
Yet Jewish law speaks as well to the substance of your question. Leviticus 19:17 reads: “Reprove your kinsman” (hokheach tokhiach et amitekha), which our Sages teach us establishes a positive duty to point out a wrongdoer’s sin.[2] As Maimonides puts it: “When one sees that his fellow has committed a sin or has chosen the wrong path, it is a mitzvah to restore that person to righteousness by informing him that by his evil deeds he sins against himself.” This reproof should take place privately and should be spoken gently, so that the sinner is made to realize that this criticism is to his benefit. It should be repeated, if necessary, until the person receiving the reproof responds in anger, making clear that he does not accept it. “Whosoever has it in his power to protest against sin and does not do so is implicated in that very sin, inasmuch as he could have issued a rebuke.”[3]
This last point bears considerable emphasis. The positive duty of reproof (tokhechah) involves us deeply in the actions of the wrongdoer. Failure to discharge this duty means that we bear partial responsibility for his or her sin; the Biblical text requires us to rebuke the sinner “so that you not incur guilt on his account (v’lo tisa alav chet; Lev. 19:17).”[4] If we are not part of the solution, in other words, we are part of the problem; when we do not meet our ethical responsibilities in this matter, we commit the sin of “hating our kinsman in our heart.”[5] For this reason, we must repeat the rebuke should our message not be received the first time.[6]
On the other hand, as Maimonides and his sources point out, there is a limit to the number of times we are obligated to perform the mitzvah of tokhechah. This limit is determined by the measure of effectiveness: should it become obvious that the recipient obstinately refuses to accept one’s rebuke, one is at that point discharged from any further duty.[7] As we read in the Talmud, “just as it is a mitzvah to speak out when our words will be heeded, so it is a mitzvah to refrain from speaking out when our words will not be heeded.[8] We must also take care that our rebuke not cause shame and embarrassment to the recipient.[9] The difficulty involved in carrying out this mitzvah in a way that preserves the dignity of all led R. Elazar b. Azaryah to doubt whether anyone alive in his day could perform it.[10]
Let us now apply the lessons of our tradition to your case. Every one of us has a duty to offer reproof for wrongdoing that we perceive, and this is especially true for the rabbi of a congregation, the teacher of Judaism and its ethical doctrines to his or her people.[11] By raising the tax issues with your congregational leadership, you have begun to meet your responsibility of tokhechah, but you may not yet have discharged it in full. We are required to offer rebuke again and again, at some personal risk, until such time as we are convinced that it will not be accepted. You should therefore pursue this manner until you are certain that your efforts have come to naught. At that point, when it becomes clear that further reproof will result only in anger directed against you, then you have fulfilled your obligation under Jewish law. Inasmuch as reproof is a private matter that must be carried out so as to spare its recipient embarrassment and shame, you are under no Judaic requirement to report your suspicions to the IRS. We repeat, however, the caveat stated at the outset of this t’shuvah: you should consult an attorney as to your obligations under civil law (dina d’malkhuta).
In any event, it is imperative for our communities and for our moral standing within them that we rabbis seek as best we can to fulfill the mitzvah of tokhechah when the situation requires it. As R. Yehudah Hanasi teaches us: “which is the path of righteousness that one should choose for oneself? It is to love reproof. For so long as there is reproof in the world, there is peace of mind in the world, there is goodness and blessing in the world, and evil departs from the world, as we read: ‘to those who are reproved shall come delight’ (Proverbs 28:23).”[12]
NOTES
- For a discussion of the subject dina d’malkhuta dina, see our responsum 5757.1.
2. B. Arakhin 16b.
3. Yad, De`ot 6:7, based upon B. Arakhin 16b. “Until the person receiving the reproof responds in anger…” is a paraphrase; Rambam literally writes “until he strikes him (the one who issues the reproof).” This follows the view of Rav in the Talmud loc. cit., against those of Shmuel (“until he curses him”) and R. Yochanan (“until he rebukes him [k’dei nezifah]”). Rambam’s commentators are puzzled as to why he does not follow R. Yochanan, whose views are usually considered authoritative against those of Rav. Indeed, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (positive commandment no. 11) explicitly rejects this decision and rules according to R. Yochanan. We would suggest that all three of these suggested “end points” of reproof are synonymous with the expression here.
- According to the interpretation of Nachmanides ad loc., who citesOnkelos in support. See also ibn Ezra ad loc. In the words of the author of Sefer Hachinukh (mitzvah 239): “one who has the power to reprove a sinner and does not do so is caught up in that very sin; this is obvious from the teachings of our Sages and from the sense of the verse (i.e., Lev. 19:17).” Maimonides, for his part, adopts the alternative interpretation of the verse (see below in text), namely, that one should make the reproof in such a way that it not shame its recipient. He learns the present rule (failure to rebuke implicates one in the wrongdoer’s action) from a baraita in B. Shabbat 54b; see Kesef Mishneh to Yad, De`ot 6:7.
- After the first clause of Lev. 19:17; Nachmanides ad loc. draws the connection between the two issues. See also SeferHachinukh, mitzvah 239: one who does not rebuke his neighbor when necessary may well bear a grudge against that neighbor, “hating him in his heart” and seeking his harm at the earliest opportunity.
- And see B. BavaMetzi`a 31a, where Rava suggests we are obliged to rebuke “even one hundred times” until the rebuke is accepted. This number is not taken literally by the halakhic authorities (poskim), but its rhetorical force is clear: we should carry out this mitzvah until it has achieved its objective.
- See notes 3 and 6.
- B.Y’vamot 65b (and see Proverbs 9:8). See Isserles, SA OC 608:2: the reason for keeping silent in such a situation is that it is better that the sin remain an inadvertent one. Should we issue a rebuke that will be rejected, the sin at that point becomes one of intent and premeditation, and the sinner accordingly guilty of a more serious transgression.
- B.Arakhin 16b, based upon a midrash of the concluding words of Lev. 19:17, lo tisa alav chet, “do not bear a sin on his account”; Yad, De`ot 6:8.
- B.Arakhin 16b.
- See B. BavaMetzi`a 31a. Even the student (talmid) is obligated to reprove his teacher (rav); how much more does that duty rest upon the rabbi.
- B.Tamid 28a.