Marshall Breger examines the talmudic approach to the age-old problem of those who take advantage of charitable activities:
Many argue that fraud is the price of doing business, so to speak—that we cannot provide large-scale welfare, food, or health services without accepting a quantum of fraud. . . . The underlying ethical question is this: does the giver, in this case the government, have a duty to ascertain that the applicant is not a fraud? I would think so, and Jewish sources suggest the same answer.
The Talmud records a dispute between Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yehuda over the question of due diligence in charity. If one person requests food and another requests clothing, do you examine their bona fides? The rabbis differ as to when due diligence is required. Rabbi Huna argues that a request for clothing is sufficiently personally embarrassing that we can assume no one would so “demean” himself if he did not truly need it. In contrast, Rabbi Yehuda argues that no one would beg for food if he were not truly needy, so the beggar who asks for food should not be examined [to determine if he is really in need]. We understand the law to follow Rabbi Yehuda. . . . Most fraud, however, is not connected to food.
The moral obligations of those who administer charitable funds are different. They may have a stewardship duty that individuals may not have, and their money may be limited. Funds that a public charity gives improperly to X means less money for a deserving Y. Administrators of communal funds thus have a duty of due diligence and a duty to prevent fraud. The Shulḥan Arukh, [the 16th-century code of Jewish law], says, “A person should not contribute to a charity fund unless he knows its management is reliable and knows how to conduct the fund correctly.” How much more so for government social-services programs whose funds come from taxpayers.
Read more on Moment: http://www.momentmag.com/opinion-the-return-of-the-welfare-debate/