Need Source for Allowing or Not Allowing Teacher to Confiscate Items

In common law it is called “Larceny”. look it up.

You aren’t going to find precise sources. You want sources for asmachta lo kanya?

You contractually agreed to follow the school rules. By halacha, adults can enter into contracts. If the child, if under Bar MItzvah, is the only one to agree with the rules, the school has no authority since the child is a katan.

akuperma: The under bar mitzvah child owns no property. It belongs to his parents, who can enter into a contract. Thus it can be confiscated per the parents contractual agreement with the school.

(Or am I mistaken about all of a katan’s objects are his parents property?)

I Have personally seen the following Psak.

A teacher who hits a child for good reason and (mistakenly) kills him is P’tur from Golus. Similar to a doctor during surgery, or a court officer who whips within the proper amount.

THEREFORE; since a teacher/rebbe has physical authority over his students, their possessions are forfeit.

So yes the teacher, when acting in good faith- has full right to confiscate and not return.

I don’t have a source, but I have a story:

A troubled high school boy living in the dorms at Rav Aharon Soloveichik’s yeshiva in Chicago was caught with pornography. Rav Soloveichik called the young man into his office.

Holding the offensive magazine (in a paper bag) Rav Soloveichik asked the young man “do I have your reshus to destroy this magazine?”

The young man was taken aback. He had expected Rav Soloveichik to give him a stern lecture, call his parents, or threaten to expel him.

“This magazine belongs to you,” said the Rav. “Halachically I cannot destroy it without your permission. As repulsive as I find this, I cannot take it from you, or I would be over on ‘lo tignof.'”

The incident made an impression on the student, who had grown used to dismissing rabbis as dishonest hypocrites. By his example, Rav Soloveichik showed a troubled young man that Torah is an all-consuming way of life. It does not allow for shortcuts, exceptions, or special licence for adults in charge.

SiDi: That’s a Gemara in Makkos. And I believe the Rishonim there point out that if he uses unreasonable force he is Chayav for murder, but I haven’t seen it in a very long time so I’m not positive.

Say i did it;

I dont recall where. If i did i would have quoted. (not everything in one’s memory banks can be automatically recalled as to where it originates.

Yes if he has control over his student’s body (to hit) he has control ovwr his possesions.

And of course if a teacher uses unreasonable force of course he is guilty.

If i remember where i saw this, i’ll write back.

…..All it takes is for a couple of these teachers/principals to be led away in handcuffs like the hitting teachers were and this disgusting practice will come to an end.

what do you believe is the correct response to not following rules?

I believe that confiscation is the best way to deal with it.

If confiscation is assur, then the contract allowing this is not acceptable. Let’s just change one word. Instead of confiscation, let’s substitute molestation. If your child misbehaves, the rebbe/menahel has the right too molest him/her. Now that’s obviously bizarre, and no one normal would accept it. If confiscation is ????, how should a contract make it muttar?

TLIK: It isn’t ???? since the parties effectively agreed to allow that condition beforehand. And there is nothing wrong with contractually agreeing to that condition. It would be no different than if you and I contractually agreed that if the Yankees win the world series your wristwatch becomes mine. Then my taking your wristwatch after the Yankees win is not ????.

A second and additional point allowing it is that the teacher is essentially saying “if you wish us to continue allowing you to be a student of this school, the cost is for you to surrender that cell phone”. The student can choose to not pay the price of surrendering the cell phone, keep it, and leave the school. It is the schools legal, moral and disciplinary right to enforce that condition.

Yitzchok2:

I disagree, and strongly so. Having observed this practice for years, it is clear that it can be done in a manner in which it is educational. That is what I would want for my child. That rebbe returns the item, either at the end of the day or week, or to the parents. Keeping the item is unquestionably ????. Even if you remove the technicality of it via contract (if that actually works), it is still bad chinuch. It is punishing, not educational, and that is NOT called chinuch.

Your other point is simple fantasy. You noted that your parental wish for your child’s best education is also that of the rebbe. I beg to differ. That is not a given anymore. Just how many rebbes in classrooms do you know who deicated their lives to continuing the transmission of Torah? Inquire a bit more, and discover that the overwhelming majority entered the field out of lack of capability of being eligible for other fields. Backing into chinuch sometimes works, where the awe of the task generates some internal motivation. But that does not explain the lives of a huge percentage of rebbes and teachers, who just need a job and a salary. I know this sounds like sour grapes, but the frequency of interaction I have with the education field plus the parents, like me, who patronize it, makes optimism harder to grasp.

It is also alarming to watch the development of stricter and more abusive forms of “discipline” while the chinuch system tries so hard NOT to be mekarev the talmidim to connect them to the chain of transmission of Torah. Read through the contracts with yeshivos. Does the document highlight the responsibilities of the yeshiva to make your child feel nurtured and encouraged to progress in Torah based growth, or is the bulk of the terms forms of retribution for breaking rules? I read through many such contracts, and they are sickening. They reveal an attitude that bears no resemblance of what our leaders wanted chinuch to represent.

I wish to add one note to my last comment. Those who wish to advocate for chinuch, believing that the systems in place are perfectly in tune with promoting ratzon Hashem, consistently blame each and every problem observed to “dysfunctional families”.

I ask these people, “If you discovered a talmid who reported having a parent who confiscated things without returning them just to teach a lesson and comply with rules, would you brand that family as dysfunctional?” We know the answer. Well, allowing a yeshiva to carry out a consequence that is otherwise considered abusive or dysfunctional is self-contradictory.

If the policy is clearly stated and communicated that “if you bring a cellphone into school it will be confiscated and not returned” then by bringing in the phone the person is effectively mafkir it. He knows the consequences in advance and does it anyway. Then it is not gzaila. If there is no such policy, then it cannot be taken form the child beyond the time when it will harm other children. If the policy is clear it is like hefker or yiush midaas!

Rabbaim:

Placing a condition that is illegal in a contract does not legitimize it. If confiscating and keeping an item is stealing, then it cannot be included in a contract. That clause does not make it hefker or generate yiush. It does reflect on the morals of the one who demanded it. It also points to the bullying that occurs in the contracts with yeshivos, where we parents are forced to agree to prevent our children from being rejected or refused.

Iced: I worked for the Dept of Ed. There was no policy about cell phones as you described. In fact, the suggestion to ban cell phones was rejected by all the leaders in the Dept and the NYC government because doing so would prevent children and parents from communicating in case of emergency. 9/11 was the demise of that suggestion, and it has never passed muster since then. We were allowed to take the cell phones, but to return them at the end of the school day. If the infractions were more serious, we were allowed to notify parents that the phones would be returned to them, not the child.

Here are a few direct quotes (translation mine):

??? ??? ?????? ?????? – ??”? ???? ???? – ?????? ??”? ????? ???? ?????? ????”?

It is the right of the mechanech to confiscate a toy that is being played with during the shiur, and it is his obligation. But there are different ways of taking it. It can be taken with grabbing and anger, or it can be taken in a pleasant manner…… It is proper to set a date to return the object, Friday, every Rosh Chodesh, or the end of the term. If it is an object that should not be returned to the child, it should be given to the parents with the message that they should insure the child does not bring it to school.

??? ????? ?’ ?? ????? ?????? – ??”? ????? ???? ????????? – ??????? ???? ????? ?”?

(Free translation) The question is posed whether the mechanech confiscating is muttar, since the issur of genaivoh applies to children as victims just like adults. If the assumed heter is that it facilitates limud haTorah, it falls with the category of ???? ???? ??????, and it is forbidden. The Mishneh Halachos (From R’ Menashe Klein ZT”L) says this is not technically stealing because of the responsibility of the melamed. However, to confiscate an object with no intention of returning it, is assur.

In the above references, the issue of whether this “chinuch” actually teaches a negative lesson (teaching the child that stealing is permissible) is not addressed. That is addressed by R’ Moshe Feinstein ZT”L, which is the basis for his psak to not take it.

iced:

If there is specific agreement on confiscating objects, perhaps you’re right, though it is still immoral and bad chinuch. But as a term stuffed into a contract which a parent is under pressure to sign, it is not a truly agreed term. This has precedent in both halacha and in secular law. So it remains an illegal act, and is best “legitimized” but not kashered by inclusion in a contract.