Hello,
It is painful to read about this situation.
This issue should be analyzed in three stages:
The first stage is the legitimacy of the discussion itself.
WhatsApp groups must adhere to the laws of lashon hara and the prohibition of public humiliation. However, this does not forbid discussing improper conduct; rather, such discussions must be allowed. It is possible that this mother was acting in accordance with the Torah’s command: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.”
However, these discussions must follow the guidelines set by the Chafetz Chaim in Chapter 10 of his work. These include:
First addressing the individuals involved (in this case, the komonarit and youth coordinator) to see if a proper response is given. Stating only verified facts, without mixing facts with interpretation. Speaking with the right intentions—seeking justice rather than personal revenge.
If these conditions are met, the discussion is legitimate. However, even in such cases, it is crucial to minimize harm, be sensitive, and remember that everyone makes mistakes. Additionally, fair response opportunities must be given (which, based on your description, seems to have been done), ensuring a balance between avoiding lashon hara and correcting wrongs.
The Torah itself encapsulates this balance: On one hand, it prohibits lashon hara—“Do not go about as a talebearer among your people.” On the other, it commands us to correct injustices—“Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.”
It is also important that these principles apply when criticizing the mother’s behavior.
The second stage is handling the situation when discussions become inappropriate.
The ideal approach is to strive for peace—bringing perspectives closer together, addressing concerns, and ensuring that the discussion does not turn into a campaign against those who made mistakes. This is both a moral duty and a practical necessity; unresolved conflicts leave lasting scars, resentment, and a constant undercurrent of tension that reignites with every disagreement. Efforts should be focused here.
Moreover, silencing voices should be avoided. People must be allowed to express their concerns, even when their words are uncomfortable to hear. This is important both because of their fundamental right to speak and because a society benefits from hearing perspectives that challenge the establishment. Silencing dissent is often ineffective in the long run.
Only in the third stage does silencing become necessary.
Only as a last resort, when all other avenues have failed, can a group remove a member who is using the platform harmfully. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite. The Torah imposes obligations on speech, and when someone repeatedly violates them in a harmful manner, removing them from a WhatsApp group may be justified.
However, I must emphasize that this should be the very last option, an undesirable one, and only when no alternative remains. The Torah itself offers a parallel principle (though not identical) in the laws of the zaken mamre: the system allows the elder to challenge decisions extensively, does not silence him quickly, and only when all other solutions have been exhausted is the severe measure applied.
Wishing you all the best—seek peace and pursue it.
Yuval Cherlow
Rabbi Cherlow is the Head of the Ethics Division at the Tzohar Rabbinic Organization
