[Avodah] Lifnei Iver/Kanaus

[Chana Luntz]

RDB writes:

> RnCL writes:
> >I note that Rav Henkin in Benei Banim (chelek sheni siman 47) 
> >has a teshuva on whether a school is permitted to take away 
> >objects from their talmidim  and only return them after a number of
days or weeks or if 
> >they improve their ways and he comes out very strongly 
> >against the practice, on the grounds that it is a violation 
> >of lo signov.  And he holds that neither the 
> >justification that a) it is done for the good of the talmid 
> >nor that b) the object will be returned at the end of some 
> >days is a valid excuse.
> 
> 
> In the "Halachos of other people's money" (Rabbi Bodner) he 
> quotes R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Pischei Choshen, as well 
> as Shu"t Mishne Halachos as holding that since the Rebbe has 
> license to strike a Talmid (Yoreh Deah 245,10), it is a 
> fortiori that he may confiscate his property. If the desired 
> Chinuch effect can be achieved if returned later, that should 
> be done. But if the effectivity is only through permanent 
> confiscation, this is allowed as well (R' Zalman Nechemia). 

Rav Henkin rejects this argument in the teshuva immediately following
(siman 48 of Chelek Sheni of Benei Banim) (clearly his correspondent had
responded to this effect) holding that in his view the one has nothing
to do with the other.  Starting from the language of the Torah (where
the one prohibition is phrased as lo signov stam, while the other is pen
yosif) and working through the various sources that discuss hitting a
talmid, he holds that while striking a talmid is mutar m'dina and its
justification, when done appropriately, can be found throughout the
sources, the taking of property has no source to permit (and he deems it
noteworthy that wherever the permission to strike a talmid is brought
down in the various sources, this is not anywhere coupled with a comment
that the halacha of lo signov can as a kal v'chomer be waived). 

Regards

Chana