Do Me a Favor

Rabbi Ariel Ovadia

“I would like you to do us a favor, though”
— are what triggered the House impeachment inquiry that has imperiled his
presidency.

DID PRESIDENT TRUMP commit bribery? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
leveled this accusation this month, as additional evidence emerged, potentially
implicating him directly in the abuse-of-power controversy surrounding U.S.
relations with Ukraine.

Trump was accused of
committing “bribery” by seeking to use U.S. military aid as leverage to
pressure the Ukrainian government to conduct investigations that could
politically benefit the president. Half-way around the globe, Israeli officials
finally indicted PM Benjamin Netanyahu on bribery charges of his own, after
years of lengthy – and controversial – investigations. It seems like
democratically elected leaders the world over are subjected to extreme scrutiny
by the opposition for allegations of abuse-of-power or bribery – an impeachable
offense.

Is a public official, let alone the president,
allowed to ask for favors? What if they are not conditioned on anything but
will just be accorded high-priority? In this article, we will examine the
various limits and applications of this prohibition.

The Prohibition of shochad – Bribery

The Torah
warns a Dayan not to accept bribes, as the Pasuk says: “And thou shall not take bribes, as bribes will blind the eyes of
the wise and distort the words of the wise…” The Shulchan
Aruch (C.M. 9:1)
introduces this Halacha in the following manner: One should be
very, very careful (me’od, m’eod) – an expression found in few places in the Shulchan Aruch. The Gemara in Kesubos asserts
that this prohibition applies even when the bribery is given to acquit the
innocent party or convict the guilty party.

The Chazon Ish in
Emuna U’Bitachon explains this phenomenon: “shochad is a special concept… it carries a special power to blind
the eyes of the wise which is embedded in the very creation of the world… in
addition to the nature of bribery to blind the eyes of the wise, it carries an
impure power (Koach HaTum’ah) to stuff the heart and put wisdom to sleep… the
Dayan is no longer protected by his wisdom…” This would explain why even the wisest and
most objective Dayan would still be warned against accepting even the most minute
form bribery.

Party
Favors

The Gemara in Kesubos (105b) expands
the concept of shochad to include the slightest favors. For
example, the Gemara says that there are instances in which a Dayan who has
an item on loan from someone may not adjudicate his Din Torah (see
Shulchan Aruch ibid.). Furthermore, the Gemara relates that Ameimar, one
of the Amoraim, was once sitting in a Din
Torah when a feather
landed on his head. A nice man shooed the feather away. Ameimar asked
the man what he was doing there, and he answered that he wanted to bring a Din Torah in
front of Ameimar. Ameimar told him that he wouldn’t be able to be his
Dayan because of this small favor.

The Rishonim debate
whether these cases fall under the prohibition of shochad or
whether it is just a Middas Chasidus (a pious measure) to refrain from sitting
on such a Din Torah. Tosafos (Keusbos ibid.) understand that it is only a Middas Chasidus not
to sit on a Din Torah if one has received a small favor, while
the Rambam (Hil. Sanhedrin 23:3)- according to the understanding of the Bais Yosef – maintains
that it is a violation of the prohibition of shochad.
The Bach adds
that it seems that the Tosafos in Sanhedrin
take a third position,
and distinguish between doing a favor in connection with the Din Torah which
is forbidden, and just reminding the Dayan of a favor done in the past, in which case it is not forbidden
but rather commendable to refrain from being the Dayan.

The Chukas HaDayonim (cited
in Pischei Teshuva) writes that in the case of a slight favor,
all would permit one to sit if there are two others with him. To the other
extreme, some Poskim write that if the favor was done in front
of the other party, then it is forbidden according to all opinions, as it
causes the other party to stumble and lack confidence in its arguments.

Free
Healthcare

                The
Pischei Teshuva, cites the Birkay Yosef who
discusses a Dayan who receives free medical treatment from one of the parties.
The Devar Shmuel (54) distinguishes whether the free
treatments were given long before the Din Torah arose and will continue after it or whether
they started around the time the claim arose. In the former case there would be
no prohibition of shochad although there may be an issue of judging
an ohev (close
friend, see C.M. 7), whereas in the latter case, it would seem to be classified
as shochad. The Birkay Yosef disagrees and maintains that both examples
would violate the prohibition of shochad. If, however, the Dayan pays
the doctor for his services, there would not be a prohibition of shochad, although
it may be best for the Dayan to refrain from judging his personal doctor.

Other Figures of Authority, Bnai
Noach

Is the
prohibition of shochad only on a Dayan? How
about a powerful or influential figure, such as a governor, fund trustee or
school principal? The Pilpula Charifta (on the Rosh,
Sanhedrin 3:17) as well
as the Chida and the Aruch HaShulchan maintain that all officials with power are
subject to the Torah prohibition of shochad. The Kli
Chemda (Devarim 16:18) adds
that this would also apply to police officers. The Chasam Sofer in
a teshuva (160, cited in Pischey Teshuva 8:2) and others, maintain that there is a
prohibition to accept money to appoint public officials.

The Poskim (cited
in Pischay Teshuva 9:3) argue whether there is a prohibition of
giving shochad to a Ben Noach (non-Jew) who is also commanded to establish a justice system.
The Tumim argues that just like it is permissible for a Ben Noach to
judge a relative (which is forbidden for a Jew) so too shochad is
permitted. However,
the Chasam Sofer and the Divrey
Mishpat cite the Ramban in Parshas VaYishlach who
maintains that the prohibition of shochad also applies to a Ben Noach.
The Shoel U’Meshiv and others distinguish between one who
gives shochad to a Ben Noach to skew justice which is forbidden, and one
who gives shochad to ensure that justice is served (which is still forbidden
with regards to a Dayan).

Conclusion

                Based on the aforementioned sources, it would seem
that there is a prohibition of shochad to bribe a public official, although there
may be a leniency when the desired outcome is the just and proper outcome and
the judge is a Ben Noach who is not meting out a Din Torah. [It
is interesting to note, that the President of Ukraine, Mr. Zelensky, is Jewish,
while President Trump is not!]