(By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times)

It was Adar, and some of the kids incorrectly took the notion of Mishenichnas Adar Marbin b’Simcha – to an extreme. One of them had pulled the fire alarm. The bells sounded, the fire department came, and – needless to say, the school got a firm warning about the matter.

The reaction from the hanhala was fast and furious. “Any person that knows who did it – must come forward. If not – the entire school will be punished.”

The students called parents. Parents went into action, and a local and powerful Rav protested. “How could the school do such a thing? It is lashon Harah. The students may not tell.”

BEIS DIN AND LASHON HARAH

The Chofetz Chaim in his Be’er Mayim Chaim 31 writes that a Beis Din may ask of people questions that would appear to be lashon hara in order for a beis din to get to the truth – to show that an action may have been properly done.  But does this also apply to a school or is it just limited to a Beis Din?

MEMBER OF EIDA CHAREIDIS’ VIEW

Rav Chaim Yehuda Kohain, a Moreh Horaah of the Eida HaChareidis in Kol HaTorah vol 54 Nissan 5763 – does extend it to a school as well.  He rules that a school or a Rebbe is permitted to ask questions that will elicit answers to find out who did something.  They should, of course, explain that it is for a benefit and therefore not to be considered lashon HaRah.

RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN’S VIEW

Presumably, the Rav in the aforementioned story based himself on no less an authority than Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.

On November 14th, 1966, Rav Moshe wrote a letter, (Igros Moshe YD II #103), as a response to an inquiry from a Mechanech at the Eitz Chaim School in Toronto, Canada, Rabbi Yisroel Yitzchok Cohen.  A second letter (printed in one of the newer Igros Moshe – YD IV #30) written on June 12^th, 1981 to Rabbi Meir Monk, further clarified his position.

He writes in the first responsum:

And in the matter of whether a teacher may ask of the students if they know who did this negative thing that they should inform him – this is an ugly thing to do.  For it causes them to take lashon harah lightly.  And even if the comparison to that which Hashem said to Yehoshua (Sanhedrin 43), “And am I a talebearer to you?” is not comparable.  For there, it will become known through the Gorel and the punishment will be fulfilled.  Whereas here, it is possible that it will not become known.  Therefore, if the purpose of it was for the intent of Tochacha for the right purpose, i.e. through this they will be punished and improve themselves, it would possibly have been permitted.  We find something similar in Eirachin (16b), where Rabbi Yochanan Ben Nuri says, ‘Many times did Rabbi Akiva get punished on account of me before Rabbi Gamliel Barebbe.’ This was Tochacha lishma – with the correct intentions, and it was necessary that Rabbi Gamliel be made aware of it.  This is also certainly true regarding the case of Rav Huna and Chiya Bar Rav who told Shmuel on him.  It was necessary for Shmuel to know of it.  This, however, is only applicable when he awakens upon himself to tell the Rebbe of his own accord in order for him to correct him.  It does not apply when the Rebbe commands it upon his students to tell him if they know of a deplorable matter – even if the students are Gedolei Olam – the greatest of people.  Regarding us (in modern times), it is not possible at all to consider it Lishma – with proper motives – even regarding adults and certainly it is possible regarding children.

Rav Feinstein further states that it is wrong to punish children with Bitul Torah.  This is because the damage done through removing them from Torah is clear and present.  Whereas, the benefit gained from the suspension is questionable.

DISSENTING VIEWS

Both Rav Moshe Shternbuch, author of the Teshuvos v’Hanhagos (Vol. I # 839) and Rav Shmuel Vosner zt”l, author of the Shaivet HaLevi (Volume X #162), on the other hand, seem to disagree (or reinterpret) Rav Feinstein’s position.  Rav Shternbuch explains that when the seriousness of Lashon haRah is explained then there is no prohibition in the Rebbe asking.

It should also be noted that in Sefer Chofetz Chaim (10:17 footnote 43) there is indication that a melamed does have a freer hand when his intention is to correct.

VIDEO CAMERAS

In recent years, the problem has been somewhat mitigated due to the advent of video cameras.  Now, a menahel could find out what he needs to know to ensure the prevention of spiritual corruption of the tudents through watching the video footage.  Yet, nonetheless, the issue has not been eliminated and the question still arises quite often.

SNITCH FACTOR

There are two other factors as well.  The first factor is that as a general rule, children do not feel comfortable being placed in such a position and can develop a longer term resentment toward the Torah authorities for placing them in such a position.  The second factor is that at times the child will think it is wrong and a violation of Torah values.  Forcing a child to go against his family values is not good chinuch per se.   This is why many Poskim and parents try to follow Rav Moshe’s psak.

CONCLUSION

Every parent and child should check with his own Rav or Posaik as to how to react in each situation and instruct his children to that effect. However, it is clear that if it is a matter of physical Pikuach Nefesh – even Rav Moshe would allow it. In this author’s view as to what might constitute exceptions to Rav Moshe’s guidelines are drug dealing, heavy alcohol use and eating disorder. Of course, the culture at each school may be different and even in general, each school and parent, should check with their own Posaik.  The list is also not exhaustive.

The author can be reached at [email protected]

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)