Private First Class: Rabeinu Gershom and the Mail

Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman

March 5, 2026

Ring, the Amazon-owned maker of video doorbell cameras, recently released an ad touting how its network of cameras could be used to find lost dogs. The public reacted negatively, as the idea stoked fears that privacy is vanishing. The backlash soon extended to other companies, leading some municipalities to cancel their contracts with Flock Safety, a company that provides license-plate reading technology to over 5,000 American cities.[1]

In halacha, one element of privacy rights was established by Rabeinu Gershom’s cheirem (anathema) against reading a letter addressed to someone else.[2] In this article, we discuss the question of whether the cheirem applies even where there is an exigent need to read the letter.

Forestalling personal harm

R’ Yaakov Chagiz considers whether one may read a letter addressed to someone else if he is concerned that its contents, should it reach its addressee, could cause him harm (like the letter Dovid Hamelech sent with Uriah to Yo’av instructing Yo’av to arrange Uriah’s death). He does not allow this and concludes that the only solution is to destroy the letter unread.[3]

R’ Chaim Palagi discusses a Jew who had business dealings with a non-Jew and became concerned that his associate might be trying to harm him financially. He came upon a letter from the associate to another non-Jew, and he wished to open it to protect himself. Rav Palagi rules that the defense of one’s property is a valid justification to open the letter, because Rabeinu Gershom did not prohibit an act of self-defense. Were such a case to arise with regard to the letter of a Jew, R’ Chaim Palagi offers arguments both for and against allowing it.[4]

R’ Yehoshua Zev Zand cites Rav Palagi’s ruling, and he adds (possibly based upon the psak of his rebbi R’ Yitzchak Zilberstein) that one may permit reading a letter addressed to another in order to forestall a wife’s betrayal of her husband. He further suggests that the cheirem does not apply between spouses, because they have committed not to keep secrets from one another, which seems to me a highly dubious argument.[5]

R’ Moshe Sternbuch also inclines toward the view that Rabeinu Gershom’s cheirem does not prohibit reading someone’s mail in order to defend oneself against theft, at least if that is the only available means to do so. He bases this on the fact that vigilante enforcement of one’s property rights is legitimate (avid inish dina lenafshei), as well as other considerations. He nevertheless stipulates that we cannot “chas veshalom” allow anyone to do this on his own, and the proposal must be brought before three talmidei chachamim (or at least a rav) for approval.[6]

Chinuch purposes

R’ Chaim Dovid Halevi considers whether a girls’ school may open a girl’s correspondence with a boy, which it believes may lead to very negative chinuch consequences. He notes that while he has not found any discussion of this in the poskim, there is extensive discussion about whether Rabeinu Gershom’s cheirem against polygamy applies even where it would prevent a mitzvah from being done. He concludes that the cheirem does not apply in such a case, and he adds that it certainly does not apply where it would entail committing an aveirah. He therefore rules that if the potential chinuch consequences include the girl straying from the way of Torah, Rabeinu Gershom’s cheirem does not apply, because this is a severe aveirah; at least, it is a failure to fulfill the mitzvah of educating the girl in the way of Hashem.

Rav Halevi adds that if the school’s chinuch goals could be equally served by simply banning the correspondence, that would be preferable. He also makes the firm condition that the letters be read only by her mechanech, with the clear understanding that anything he discovers is absolutely confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone else.[7]

Based on a similar argument to that of Rav Halevi, R’ Tzvi Shpitz also allows reading others’ mail or eavesdropping on them for purposes of “kiyum haTorah” and “ha’amadas hadas al tilah.” One example he mentions is the case of parents or teachers who, in particular circumstances, have a reasonable suspicion that their children or students are involved with people who are teaching them to do forbidden things.[8]

Similarly, R’ Doniel Neustadt writes:

There are, however, situations where it may be permitted—or even required—to open another person’s email. A parent or principal who suspects his child or student of communicating with undesirable persons, or an employer who suspects an employee of theft, are just some examples of people who may be permitted to search through personal emails in order to either confirm their suspicions or exonerate the innocent. Still, the decision to violate a cheirem—even for a compelling reason—is a serious issue, which should not be undertaken without consulting da’as Torah.[9]

Some argue that Rav Chagiz must not agree with the broad dispensation to read someone’s mail for religious reasons, because the potential harm in his case surely involved an aveirah, yet he was unwilling to allow the reading. But others refute this inference.[10]

[1]Catherina Gioino. Cities join Amazon in cutting ties with license-plate reader Flock following public outcry. ‘Your privacy is totally fine,’ says Ring CEO. Fortune.com. https://fortune.com/2026/03/03/cities-end-flock-partnership-amazon-ring-surveillance-super-bowl-ad/.

[2]Shu”t Maharam ben Baruch dfus Prague siman 1022; Kol Bo end of siman 116; Shu”t Maharam Mintz siman 102.

[3]Shu”t Halachos Ketanos cheilek 1 siman 173.

[4]Shu”t Chikekei Leiv Y.D. siman 49.

[5]Binas Hashidduch pp. 379-80.

[6]Shu”t Teshuvos Vehanhagos cheilek 3 siman 388.

[7]Shu”t Asei Lecha Rav cheilek 1 siman 42.

[8]Mishpetei HaTorah cheilek 1 siman 92 os 4.

[9]R’ Doniel Neustadt, The Internet: Halachic Guidelines, Parshas Emor.

[10]See Nachum Rakover, Hahaganah Al Tzin’as Haprat, pp. 142-43. See also the discussion of our topic by R’ Eliyahu Katz, cited there on p. 145.