A CONVICTED ACCOUNTANT AS CONGREGATIONAL OFFICER

QUESTION:

Two business partners were convicted of a financial crime. Their accountant had gained nothing from the crime. Nevertheless the court held him guilty for having concealed the facts involved. The accountant has led an exemplary life since that verdict; and two years ago the congregation elected him to the governing board of the congregation. Now he is being considered for the office of Chairman of the Board. Is he, according to the spirit of Jewish law and tradition, to be deemed eligible for this office? (Asked by the rabbi of the congregation.)

ANSWER:

The title, “Chairman of the Board,” is the same as what in most congregations today is described as “President.” The traditional name for this officer in Orthodox congregations nowadays is generally “Gabbai” but the historical name, stemming from talmudic times, is parnas. This historical name for the president of the congregation (or of the community when the two were identical) means literally “provider” because among his many duties was the duty of providing sustenance for the poor and the needy.

The office of parnas (or president) was greatly honored all through the tradition and called for a very high standard as to character and ability. The parnas was expected to be, among other qualities, a good scholar. Rabbi Jochanan (in b. Sabbath 114a) defines a scholar as follows: One who can correctly answer any question in any part of the law and also one who is worthy to be appointed parnas over the community. In fact, it was considered that God Himself endorsed the community’s choice of a worthy parnas. The Talmud (Yomah 22b) says that the authority of the parnas is endorsed by the Torah, i.e., by God’s word, for Scripture says, “It is through Me that rulers rule” (Proverbs 8: 16). Therefore the Talmud (giving the exemplar of the true parnas) says that God gave the people of Israel two great parnasim, namely, Moses and David (Yoma 86b). Such was the ideal standard for this communal office!

This ideal of high character and deep scholarship could not, of course, be always maintained; there were times when the office was filled by men who did not measure up to the classic standard of pamas. Moses Hagiz in Amsterdam (18th Century) speaks of the fact that in his day many were appointed parnas simply because of their wealth. In his Leket Haqemah, which is a summary of many responsa opinions, Hagiz says bluntly that there were times when mere wealth dictated the appointment of a parnas who was an ignoramus and a boor (p. 103, column 2). These lapses were, of course, regrettable, but the high standard remains as a goal to be pursued in every appointment. Our direct question, therefore, is this: Is this accountant, who had been sentenced for a crime, eligible to fill what should be an exalted office?

The first question which must be decided is whether the crime for which he was convicted (of having been by his silence an accessory to the crime of the two partners) would be considered a crime in Jewish law. This is an open question. If the case of the partners were a case that came up before a rabbinical court, the accountant would be held blameworthy for not revealing the facts to the courts. “He being a witness, if he does not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1). But in his case he is punished and stigmatized for not revealing a misdeed of fellow-Jews to a civil (or non-Jewish) court, and it is an open question in traditional law whether a Jew is even permitted to denounce fellow -Jews before a civilian or non-Jewish court. This question was greatly agitated in New York City in the last few years. Jewish men who were guilty of embezzlement with regard to nursing homes had given some of their profits to yeshivot When the rabbinical heads of the yeshivot were summoned to testify as to the names of their donors and the amounts given, they claimed that it was against Jewish religious law to denounce fellow -Jews to a non-Jewish court. There is, of course, another side to this question and it is possible to decide that it is indeed their duty to bring the matter to a civil court. See the full discussion in Reform Responsa for our Time, pp. 252 ff. But at least it is a debatable question whether this accountant can be deemed sinful in Jewish law. It is uncertain from the point of view of Jewish law whether he has committed a crime altogether. It also becomes important that he had gained no financial benefit from his silence and that he has led an exemplary life. This latter fact gives him a special standing in Jewish tradition, that of a repentant (ba-al teshuvah) and the standing of a true ba-al teshuvah in Jewish law is extremely high. The Talmud says (Rosh Hashanah 17b) that true repentance tears up the decree written against a man. In other words, it wipes out his guilt.

Indeed the very fact that he has had this legal stigma on his name may be in a way a benefit to the congregation. That is to say that he will be doubly careful to avoid any questionable act during his term in office and in this way the shadow of his past may add brightness to his future. The Talmud says (Yomah 86b): “For one who repents out of love, his very sins are converted into virtues.” In like mood, the Talmud among the many opinions about the qualities of a parnas also gives this curious one. It says (Yomah 22b) that the community should pick as a parnas a man who has a bag of vile insects hanging on his back (sherzim) so that in case he gets to be too proud, one can say to him, ” Go back to your former state.” In other words, it may sometimes be an advantage if a man has some fault that he has constantly overcome.

There is one final consideration, namely the attitude of the congregation toward him. The fact that he was elected to the board two years ago, reflects the feeling of the congregation that he is not an unworthy man. The Talmud says (Arakhim 17a) if the generation of people are worthy, their parnas is worthy; that is to say, his character reflects the character of the people.

Yet is must be said finally that while the people deemed himworthy of being on the board, the question still is raised whether he isworthy to be the parnas (chairman). This might be judged as follows:Let him stand for election as he has every right to do as a ba-al teshuvah.

If he is elected, but there is a large minority who have votedagainst him, this would indicate that there is a strong element in thecongregation that deems him unworthy. This mood even in a minoritymust be considered seriously so as to avoid cynical scorn of the membersagainst the congregational leadership. If, then, a large minority votedagainst him, he should not run for a second term. But if there is no large minority against him, he may run for this office as often as the congregation pleases to have him, since by Jewish law and tradition, there is no real objection to his being parnas of the congregation. An analogous situation is referred to by Moses Feinstein in Igrot Mosheli, Vol. II, Orah Hayyim 11. There is a rumor current about a candidate for the presidency of the congregation. The rumor is that he does not observe the Sabbath properly. Feinstein says that if it is an actual fact that he is a violator of the Sabbath, of course he may not be appointed as president. But if it is only a rumor, then the mere rumor does not deprive him of the right to serve