A SCHOOL FORCING A STUDENT TO TELL

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 inorder 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.