In my son’s class, a teacher forced the children to put their smartphones in the front of the classroom. On the first day of the policy, one of the phones was stolen. Apparently, the parents are considering demanding that the teacher to pay, and the kids are talking about it. What does halacha say?
In my school days,
such discussions focused on baseball cards. School distractions are now more
expensive … and addictive. Our answer cannot be applied to a case whose
specifics have not been presented by both sides, but we can discuss halachic
indications.
Tannaim disagree whether one who suggests
to another to put an object in his proximity without clearly accepting
responsibility is obligated as a watchman (see Bava Kama 47b, Bava Metzia 81b).
The halacha is generally that he is not obligated (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen
Mishpat 291:2). Sometimes circumstances dictate that he accepts responsibility
without stipulation (ibid.). In this case, on one hand, the fact that the
teacher commands the students to put the phones in a certain place increases the
chances he accepts responsibility. On the other hand, if the phones were in a
place where the whole class could keep “one eye” on them while the teacher
taught, this decreases the chances he intended to be responsible.
If the teacher
accepted responsibility, it seems he was a shomer chinam (unpaid
watchman), who is exempt in cases of theft. One could claim he is a shomer
sachar since this happened as part of his job. However, since watching
cellphones is not (yet) considered part of a teacher’s obligation, the
connection to teaching is incidental, and he is a shomer
chinam.
Even a shomer
chinam is obligated to pay when an object is stolen due to his negligence
(ibid. 1 with commentaries). We thus must address the question (see below, as
well) whether the setup (phones visible to all but otherwise not guarded) is
valid or negligent. Our general feeling is that, unless the school is
crime-ridden, this is quite an innocuous, standard situation. (Kids playing ball
often leave bags on the side in the open. Airlines assume people won’t try to
slip out with another’s luggage.)
Assume that the
teacher is not obligated as a watchman for one of the above reasons. Does
forcing a situation of lower supervision of another’s object, which led
to theft, obligate him as one who damages? Let’s view related cases. Regarding
one who breaks a wall, enabling an animal to escape (Bava Kama 56b), there is a
machloket whether he must or at least has a moral obligation to pay for
the animal (see Rama, CM 396:4; Gra ad loc.; S’ma ad loc. 8). However, there it
is very common that breaking the wall will cause the animal’s disappearance,
unlike in our case. The gemara (Bava Kama 56a) also says that if one
maneuvers someone’s stalks so that they are burnt by an existing fire, he must
pay if it was expected for the fire to reach it, and there is a moral obligation
if only an unusually strong wind would cause the fire to get there.
These sources indicate
that here there would be no more than a moral obligation. Even a moral
obligation does not apply here for a few reasons. In the latter case, the person
had in mind to harm the object (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 418:11, Meiri Bava Kama
56a). Also, the list of cases of moral obligations is apparently a primarily
closed one, and it applies where the nature of the act is considered damaging,
even if indirectly. In contrast, here, while the confiscation of phones might
have upset the children, it likely was not considered damaging to the phones.
Finally, we find that teachers are exempt from damages caused in the course of
necessary educational discipline (see Pitchei Teshuva 424:4). (On the other
hand, we do not want to give teachers too much leeway. The teacher
probably should have warned the children/parents of this policy and have them
decide whether to bring phones. Still, trying to obligate a teacher to pay
dearly for dealing in a way that many educators are finding unavoidable is wrong
and educationally problematic.
[Machon Eretz Chemdah]
There is a lot to say on this topic. Maybe for a future post. If I forget you may remind me:-).
