Lashon Harah Teacher asks student to tattle on others?

Igros Moshe (YD II #103) Question Can a teacher to tell a student to inform on misbehavior of other students?Answer: This is a repulsive and disgusting thing because it minimizes the seriousness of lashon harah. If this is merely to chastise them for the sake of Heaven because this might improve their behavior then it is possibly permitted.  However that is only when the student volunteers to tell the teacher the information but not when the teacher commands him to tell. We are not on the level that this information can possibly be considered as given for pure motivation (for the sake of Heaven) even for adults and surely not with children.

 Igros Moshe (YD IV #30.1) Question The teacher's request that students inform on other students is obviously because the teacher thinks the information is needed to benefit the students so why is that disgusting and causes lashon harah to be minimized?  This is what the Chofetz Chaim permits Answer  I had written this would be pernitted if done for pure motivation but this is true only if the informer spontaneously gives the information but not when the teacher commands it and because of the fear of punishment. In addition it should be possible to correct the misbehavior without demanding the serious sin of lashon harah to know the identity of the one who misbehaved.  

Rav Moshe Sternbuch(Teshuvos v'hanhagos 1:839): Question: A a teacher asks his students to reveal who did something wrong. - is this permitted? Answer: It would seem that the teacher first has to say to his student that the prohibition of lashon harah is very severe. However since this is l'toeles there is no prohibition of lashon harah. (See Chofetz Chaim 4 and the statement of the Alter of Kelm in Marpeh Lashon said in the name of Rav Yisroel Salanter with clear proofs that whatever is for to'eles is not prohibited as lashon harah). In this case it is clearly for the benefit of the chinuch of the student and therefore there is no concern that this is lashon harah. In fact just the opposite because just as there is a prohibition to speak negatively about others - there is an obligation to inform the teacher so that he is able to properly chastise the student and thus it is not considered lashon harah at all.

Review of The Beys Din System Today by R’ Ari Marburger (published in Dialogue) -[ Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter]

Guest post by Yehuda

“It’s common when someone loses in Beys Din that he tells his friend his innocence and says, “You can see that I’m correct and Beys Din got it backward. If my case would have been in front of So-and-So who’s know as a wise man, he certainly would have seen who’s correct and wouldn’t have reached such a terrible backwards verdict!” He then continues cursing the Beys Din because of this in ways that aren’t fit to print.”

Frustration with Beys Din is not a new phenomenon, as the above quotation from the Chofetz Chaim (L”H 6’ 8’) indicates. No one likes to lose, and it’s a lot easier to blame the Beys Din than to admit to being wrong. Yet there are legitimate complaints about the modern Beys Din system in the United States, and recognition of the problem is always a prerequisite for finding solutions. Therefore it is a pleasure to see the issue discussed in Dialogue in what is promised to be the first of several articles. R’ Marburger is the director of the Business Halacha Institute and therefore focuses on Choshen Mishpat, but most of his discussion applies to Beys Din in general.

The article begins with a very important disclaimer: The fact that Beys Din has issues does not mean secular court becomes automatically permissible. We have had an illustrious visitor to this blog argue that Tamar Epstein was justified in going to secular court because Beys Din has problems. It was noted at the time that no Rabbonim permit such an indiscriminate amendment to the Shulchan Aruch, but the misconception is unfortunately widespread.

Before we get to the legitimate complaints, it is important to define several terms. A Beys Din Kavua is a Beys Din established with the consent of the community. A Zabla Beys Din is a process in which each litigant chooses one Dayan and then the two Dayanim choose a third Dayan. A Zabla Beys Din is more problematic than a Beys Din Kavua in all of the issues at hand.

R’ Marburger primarily discusses four issues: The cost of a Din Torah, the inability to appeal the Psak, private communication between the Dayanim and litigants, and the lack of a written explanation of the Psak. All four are against the Shulchan Aruch. Yet all four are common practice and therefore justified by the Acharonim on various grounds. However, the real question is not how is it permissible, but why are we looking for loopholes? Regarding cost, the answer is simple: Dayanim don’t get paid by the community or the government, so if they wouldn’t charge the litigants they would starve. R’ Marburger notes that Zablas cost more than a Beys Din Kavua and tend to take longer (the beauty of charging by the hour). The lack of appeal is also justified by the legal requirement that arbitration agreements be final. However, the other two problems are a lot harder to justify. R’ Marburger does not present a reason per se why a Beys Din would want to communicate privately with a litigant (other than the obvious, which we’d rather not think about), rather he presents a Halachik justification for Zablas to engage in this behavior. This leads to two important ramification: A Beys Din Kavua has no such Heter, and even a Zabla can be forced to abide by the original Halacha if a litigant insists beforehand. Finally, the most difficult issue to explain is why Beys Din often does not provide a written explanation of its psak. R’ Marburger provides three possible reasons: Cost, potential embarrassment to the losing party, and the possibility that someone will make fun of the psak. This third concern seems to be based loosely on the Gemora Avodah Zarah 35a or Igros Moshe Y’D 4’ 38’ 7’, which is primarily a concern that someone will not follow the psak, not that he’ll make fun of it. Whatever the reason for the custom, in today’s climate when people already have questions with the system, it seems counterproductive to ask for blind trust from litigants.

The article is certainly thought provoking, but something very curious appears after the article: an addendum from R’ Shlomo Miller that in some ways is more significant than the entire article. It represents the first time that a mainstream publication has published a rebuke of the actions of R’ Herschel Schachter and R’ Shmuel Kamenetzky against Aharon Friedman. No, R’ Miller does not say any names. But he states that no one other than a Beys Din Kavua can issue a Hazmana; in other words, Rabbis Schachter and Kamenetzky and certainly Martin Wolmark cannot issue a Hazmana to anyone, and if you can’t issue a Hazmana then you obviously can’t issue a Seruv for failure to respond. Ben Bno shel Kal V’Chomer that you can’t order that someone be beaten, as R’ Schachter stated publically about Aharon Friedman. R’ Miller also says that you can only force the opposing litigant to use Zabla when the Dayanim are distinguished people, but otherwise they do not have the status of what the Shulchan Aruch calls Zabla. This is a remarkable statement that allows more people who are leery of Zabla to avoid it.

So what are the Gedolim going to do to fix the problems? Ask not what the Gedolim can do for you; rather ask what you can do for the Gedolim(and klal yisrael)! According to R’ Marburger, the fix will have to come from the bottom-up. He states “Change will require… widespread grassroots insistence by the end-users of the system”. Sounds like a job for a blog!

Note: As per R’ Aharon Feldman, anyone who has something to add to the discussion is encouraged to write a Letter to the Editor of Dialogue.

Psak Halacha Regarding attempts to pass “Death with Dignity”

 Psak Halacha Regarding attempts to pass “Death with Dignity” legislation: The chiyuv (Torah injunction) of “Lo sa'amod al dam re’echa”, obligates everyone to do what he or she can, to help prevent assisted suicide and/or euthanasia. Allowing the legalization of “assisted suicide”, even if this particular law in practice would only result in assisting a suicide and not euthanasia, is to allow shefichas-domim (bloodshed). Furthermore even rendering such actions not being subject to prosecution, is allowing shefichas-domim (bloodshed), al achas kama vekama (how much more so), in cases of assisted suicide leading to euthanasia. Voting on the basis of this issue. This obligation would include: 1) Thus, when voting for any public official, this issue must be considered as top priority, certainly overriding financial considerations, government programs, etc. By voting for people who support these laws, we become accountable for their actions. This ruling would still apply even if these laws were to be passed, we would still be forbidden to vote for legislators who voted for these laws. This is the most important way to fulfill our obligation. 2) Urging one’s legislators to vote against these bills, if and when they arise[1] and to urge the governor to veto such bill, were it to pass the legislature. 3) Helping in efforts to repeal such laws, in areas[2] where such legislation was already passed. Even a few votes can make a major difference, both by legislators and the public—sometimes the vote of a single legislator can decide the fate of these laws—as is evidenced by the recent vote in the New Jersey State Assembly (in November 2014), where an assisted suicide bill was passed by just one vote. We have seen in several recent races in Jewish neighborhoods, that even a handful of votes can make the difference in the outcome of the election[3] . Furthermore, some legislators keep track of the calls that are made to their offices on particular controversial issues, and vote according to their results. May the Creator of all life grace us with the merit to save innocent lives, fulfilling our role as an or legoyim (light unto the nations). In that merit, may we help usher in the Final Redemption by Moshiach Tzidkeinu. Rabbonim are listed alphabetically. Mordechai Chaim Auerbach Boruch Hirschfeld Avrohom Reich Monsey Ahavas Yisroel, Cleveland Hatzolas Yisroel < Eliyahu Ben-Haim Zalman Leib Hollander Dovid Ribiat RIETS/Kehillah Yotzei Mashad Khal Nachlas Moshe, Spring Valley, NY mechaber "The 39 Melochos" < Haim Benoliel Shmuel Kamenetsky Yosef Yitzchok Rosenfeld Bnai Yosef/Mikdash Melech Talmudical Academy of Philadelphia Monsey Dometz Gad Bouskila Yosef Meir Kantor Chaim Schabes Netivot Israel Cong. Agudath Israel of Monsey Knesses Yisroel Yitzchok M. Braun Elya Nota Katz Dovid Schustal Shaaray Zion Stamford Yeshiva Bais Medrash Govoha, Lakewood Shlomo Breslauer Eliezer Langer Yaakov Shulman Bais Tefiloh Cong. Israel, Poughkeepsie, NY Talmud Torah of Flatbush Eliyahu Brog Yeshaye Gedalye Kaufman Moshe Silberberg Bais Yisroel Hisachdus Moetz, Kruleh Dometz Shuvu/mechaber “Zichron Tzvi Meir” Simcha Bunim Cohen Amram Klein Moshe Soloveitchik Khal Ateres Yeshaya Ungvar Chicago Yitzchok Cohen Shloime Ben Zion Kokis Yitzchok Sorotzkin Yeshiva University RIETS Zichron Mordechai Mesivta of Lakewood Moshe Donnebaum Grainom Lazewnik Tzvi Steinberg Hechel Hatorah/Adas Yisroel/Melbourne Khal Adar Gbir Kahal Zera Avraham, Denver Michoel Elias Philip Lefkowitz Shlomo Stern Kehilas Yisroel, Spring Valley Jackson, NJ; mult. congregations in US, UK & Canada Debreciner Rov Eytan Feiner Moshe Tuvia Lieff Elazar Mayer Teitz Kneseth Israel, (The White Shul) Far Rockaway Agudath Israel Bais Binyomin Chief Rabbi of Elizabeth, NJ Menachem Fisher Shmuel Miller Elya Ber Wachtfogel Vien Monsey Yeshiva Bais Yisroel Yeshiva of South Fallsburg Noson Yermia Goldstein Avrohom Yaakov Nelkenbaum Boruch Hersh Waldman mechaber of “Migdalos Noson” Mirrer Yeshiva Siach Yitzchok, Suffern Avrohom Gordimer Yechiel Perr Moshe Weissman Coalition for Jewish Values Yeshiva of Far Rockaway Ohel Moshe Shmuel Gorelick Steven Pruzansky Benjamin Yudin Mesivta Ohel Torah Bnai Yeshurun, Teaneck Shomrei Torah, Fair Lawn, NJ Moshe Green Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff Yeruchum Zeilberger Yeshivah D'Monsey YU Gruss Kollel Stamford Yeshiva Yisroel Dovid Harfenes Gavriel Zinner Yisroel Vehazmanim Nitei Gavriel Institutions are listed for identification purposes only. [1] as is currently in New Jersey [2] such as Washington state and Oregon [3] most noticeably (demonstrated) in the Senate election between David Storobin and Lew Fidler, where Storobin won by less than 20 votes. Sponsored by Jews for Torah Values jewsfortorahvalues@gmail.com

RFK Jr.’s Wish Is Coming True: Everybody’s Getting Measles

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/rfk-jrs-wish-is-coming-true-everybodys-getting-measles/

RFK Jr.’s vision for America is rapidly becoming reality, with the number of measles cases skyrocketing across the country, bringing the number of confirmed cases to a total of 884.

According to data published by the CDC on Friday, there have been 884 cases of measles reported across 29 states, including Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York and Texas.

Just last month, the Health and Human Services Secretary appeared to argue in an interview with Sean Hannity that natural immunity was the best defense against the highly infectious disease. In other words, Kennedy believes that it would be great if everyone got measles.

Murdoch Paper Gives Trump Dire Warning to Mark His 100 Days

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/murdoch-paper-gives-trump-dire-warning-to-mark-his-100-days/

The Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has warned Donald Trump that a “major reset” is needed if his second term is to be successful.

The paper’s editorial board claimed the execution of some of the president’s priorities “hasn’t matched” his promises and warned that he will “fail unless he heeds the warnings” in an opinion piece published Monday.

While Trump adhered to more mainstream Republican policy objectives in his first term, the op-ed concluded, “This term he is indulging his trade and foreign-policy obsessions, and the early results are negative.”

“He’ll fail unless he heeds the warnings.”

At 100 Days, Trump 2.0 Is in Trouble

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-100-days-second-term-tariffs-economy-china-ukraine-6abc2198?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Presidential second terms are rarely successful, and on the evidence of his first 100 days Donald Trump’s won’t be different. The President needs a major reset if he wants to rescue his final years from the economic and foreign-policy shocks he has unleashed.

There’s no denying his energy or ambition. Mr. Trump is pressing ahead on multiple fronts, and he has had some success. His expansion of U.S. energy production is proceeding well and is much needed after the Biden war on fossil fuels. He has ended the border crisis in short order.

Russia Launches Massive Ukraine Attacks After Trump Tells Putin To Stop

 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-drone-attack-ukraine-trump-putin-2064914

Russia has launched its largest wave of strikes on Ukraine since Thursday, when President Donald Trump urged his Russian counterpart to halt attacks on Moscow's neighbor, according to an independent investigative Russian news outlet.

Mark Carney Wins Canada's Federal Election as Trump's Shadow Looms - Trump runs the worls?!

 https://www.newsweek.com/canada-prime-minister-election-results-mark-carney-wins-2065366

Although the election was initially expected to tilt in favor of the Conservative Party, Trump turned the tables by taunting Trudeau as "Governor Trudeau" and imposing steep tariffs on the U.S.'s closest trading partner, leading to a surge in popularity for Trudeau, Carney and the Liberal Party.

‘I Run the Country and the World’

 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/06/trump-second-term-comeback/682573/

Donald Trump believes he’s invincible. But the cracks are beginning to show.

Aharon's sons why did they die?

 Ksav Sofer (Vayikra 10:1): And they offered before G‑d an unauthorized fire which He had not commanded them. Question: The Tanchuma (Achrei Mos #8) says that Aaron’s sons died because they didn’t get married and didn’t have children. Furthermore it says that they walked behind Moshe and Aaron and said, “When are these old men going to die so that we can take over the leadership of the community?” It is necessary to understand this medrash since it does not seem to fit in with the Torah which gives the explicit reason for their death as being punishment for offering an unauthorized fire before G‑d?  It is also astounding that these righteous men - who were in fact greater than Moshe and Aaron according to Rashi (10:3) – should transgress G‑d’s command and not fulfill the mitzva of having children and also that they would speak in such an arrogant manner – “when are these old men going to die?” Answer: It appears to me that the reason that they didn’t get married is that they saw that Moshe’s children did not turn out properly as is well known. If Moshe’s sons were not fit then they felt that a lesson could be learned that surely would apply to the masses. They ascribed the failure of Moshe’s children to the fact that Moshe was constantly preoccupied with the problems of the community and therefore he didn’t have the ability to properly supervise his children. (We see a similar judgment of Chazal regarding the children of Shmuel who did not go in his righteous path because he was constantly involved with community problems.) In contrast Aaron’s sons were great tzadikim because Aaron was not so much preoccupied with the community and thus was successfully able to supervise his children. On the other hand Aaron himself never reached Moshe’s spiritual level because his energy was devoted to his family. Being aware of this they decided that the best solution to the inherent contradiction between serving the needs of the community and the needs of the family - was not to get married. They were fully aware that with the death of Moshe and Aaron they would become the leaders of the community. They reasoned that if they had children they would not be able to supervise them properly and they would end up going in the wrong path. Or if they took the path of Aaron and properly supervised their children – then they would not be able to devote the needed time to leading the community. Consequently they decided the best way to serve G‑d and His people was not to get married. We need to add two other aspects from the medrash regarding their following after Moshe and Aaron and saying “When are they going to die?” It doesn’t mean chas v’shalom that they were looking forward to their deaths or that they were discussing between themselves that when they would die they would become the leaders. The medrash means to describe that they were concerned with understanding what Moshe and Aaron lacked. Moshe was very concerned with the needs of the community and therefore he had children who were not good. Aaron who supervised his children did not have so much time for the community and therefore he did not have the merit of serving the masses so much. Therefore Aaron’s sons concluded that they should get married. In truth they erred in this conclusion. Because “what business did they have with G-d’s secrets.” Their job was not to second guess what G-d wanted. Their job was to fulfill His mitzvos which clearly commanded them to have children. (We find a similar mistaken understanding described in Berachos (10a) concerning King Chezkiyahu. He also didn’t have children because he knew through the power of prophesy that his children would be wicked. However this was a mistake and his father-in-law, the prophet Yeshayahu, was sent to him with the message,”You will die now in this world and you will not have any portion in the next world because you didn’t have children.” Yeshayahu rejected Chezkiyahu’s justification that his children would be wicked people by saying, “What business do you have with G-d’s secrets?”). Thus we see that Aaron’s had a strong passion for loving G‑d and His people and therefore they decided that to be successful as leaders and serving G-d it was best not to have children. This in fact was the “unauthorized fire” which they had not received from G-d. They in fact had not been commanded to lead the people in a manner that differed from Moshe – but they were required to fulfill G‑d’s commandments and get married and have children. Thus this mistaken idea was the “unauthorized fire” and it was the reason why they died. So even though their motivation was for the sake of Heaven it was a mistake. This is my explanation and I think it is very correct.

Radio by Hatzala on the Sabbath

Igros Moshe (O.C. IV #81): Question Hatzala using walkie talkie on Shabbos? Answer The question posed to me concerns the wearing of a radio by members of the Hatzolah organization. If they could not wear the radio and be in contact with the central office while away from home, it would necessitate their staying in their apartments with a radio receiver turned on waiting for a call for their services. Not to be able to leave home on the Sabbath would be surely a great burden and would reduce the number of volunteers so necessary for the proper functioning of this organization. The Talmudic discussion in tractate Shabbos [63a] makes it clear that an object can be classified as an ornament even though it does not serve the usual function of clothing, namely, to protect the body from the elements. The controversy recorded there concerns a soldier wearing his sword or carrying his bow, and involves the aesthetic evaluation of these items. If they are regarded as a sign of his status and importance as a defender of society, he may wear it on the Sabbath. If, however, it is a degrading symbol of his association with killing and warfare, then he may not. Clearly, if the item under discussion has no negative connotations, it can be considered an accessory to clothing, even though it may not be made of anything more than base metal. The Hatzolah beeper certainly does not signify an individual involved in a degrading activity. On the contrary, it identifies someone who is waiting to serve his fellow man in time of need. Although there is a controversy in the Talmud as to whether weapons will be needed during the Messianic era, and those who believe they will not be needed (for there will be no wars) do not look upon the sword as a symbol that gives honor and importance to the wearer, this does not apply to a beeper. Even if we accept the opinion of Rebbe Eliezer that there will be no illness in the Messianic era, and hence there will be no need for the Hatzolah organization, this in no way casts aspersions on the social approval accorded those who wear the beeper because of their great mitzvah work. There are no negative connotations to the wearing of the beeper as there may be to the wearing of a sword. In my opinion, therefore, it is permissible to wear a beeper on the Sabbath. They may leave their homes with it attached to their belts, so that they may respond quickly to a call from someone in need. It would be too burdensome to expect these people to stay at home waiting for the call to come, and as I have said, this would surely reduce the number of volunteers for this important work. Someone has suggested that the Sabbath work should be done by hiring non-Jews to serve as Hatzolah members. This contravenes the halachah that says that activities should be performed only by Jews and not by non-Jews, even when a non-Jew is readily available. In addition, a staff which works for money cannot be expected to respond with the same alacrity, the same devotion as those who do it in order to perform the great mitzvah of .

Shabbos save life of Goy

Igros Moshe (OC IV #79) Question Can doctor profane Shabbos to save non Jew? Answer The excuse stated in the gemora saying that he can’t do it since violates religious law would not be accepted in America. In fact if he is the only doctor available and he refuses to save the non Jew’s life he will be viewed as a murderer. Therefore if a non Jew comes to him on Shabbos in a life threatening condition he has to deal with him even if it involves violating a Torah law of Shabbos. To avoid treating the non Jew is not only a danger to the non Jew but also to the doctor from the patient’s relatives. Even if he thinks that his own life is not actually threatened, he needs to be concerned with the great hatred (aiva) to Jews this will produce in America from the people and government. It is necessary to understand that according to the way that today that there is a problem of his refusal to save a non Jew’s life producing great hatred even in countries in which there is legally religious freedom. I am astonished at the Mishna Berura (130.8) where the Chofetz Chaim wrote criticizing the doctors who violate Shabbos to save a non Jew’s life that even though not doing it causes aiva it is still considered a deliberate violation of Shabbos. I can certify that in Russia, in small towns where there was only a single physician for an entire district, a Jewish physician who refused to travel to care for a non-Jew on the Sabbath, regardless of his defense that his religion did not allow it, would surely have endangered his life and the lives of other Jews. Even the police would have made no effort to protect him from the wrath of the patient's relatives, who would have claimed that his failure to treat their relative had caused his death. It is obvious to me that the Chofetz Chaim was concerned with this problem, because he appended a footnote to explain that his position that the prohibition of a Jewish physician treating a non-Jew on the Sabbath applies "to the country of India, whose inhabitants are even today true idolaters." Even if there is only a small possibility, nevertheless since this is a matter of life and death (Pikuach nefesh) we are lenient. This is also the view of Chasam Sofer. Today there is a concern the world over especially with the instant widespread publicity through newspapers. There is a real concern that provacatours will magnify the hatred until there is will be massacres. Thus there needs to be concern that today this refusal to treat a non Jew will result in actual danger and therefore treatment is permitted. It has been reported, in the name of the Klausenberger Rebbe, that physicians should not take any fee for treatment rendered on the Sabbath. This ruling is right and proper. Surely, it is forbidden to profit from any Sabbath transgression, and therefore in this case, his entire motivation should be the saving of a human life and the performance of that mitzvah.

Trump Reveals Russia's 'Pretty Big Concession' in Peace Talks with Ukraine

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-reveals-russias-pretty-big-concession-peace-talks-ukraine-2063802 

President Donald Trump asserted Thursday that Russia has already made a "pretty big concession" in the war against Ukraine by not attempting to seize the entire country. The president also said that Russia's willingness to engage in peace talks that could "stop the war" is a concession.

Trump's assertion has been met with strong resistance from Ukraine and many European nations, who argue that merely halting a full-scale land grab hardly qualifies as a meaningful concession.

Torah: Prizes for learning Torah

Igros Moshe (YD III:87.2) Question: Prizes of honor to encourage students for learning fixed amount?Answer This is a good thing to encourage learning and it is is possibly more effect than monetary prizes. .However my opinion is that every yeshiva needs to have the head of the yeshiva decide what is a good prize. It is also a good idea if several yeshivas join together.  Nevertheless this should not be an obligation but should be done willingly and joyfully. The idea to make a program for all the yeshivas I think is not beneficial because what ever is publicized causes harm.