Volume 24 Number 64
                       Produced: Tue Jul 16  7:54:37 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Damages by Runner
         [Steven F. Friedell]
Doing some new good thing 3 times---Is it a Neder or not?
         [Russell Hendel]
Israeli Boom Times
         [Mechael Kanovsky]
         [Harry Maryles]
Use of Electronic Medical Equipment (reply to Anonymous)
         [Lon Eisenberg]


From: Steven F. Friedell <friedell@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:05:53 -0400
Subject: Damages by Runner

I would like to add to the problem of the damages paid by a runner in a
public way.  With one exception, the codes and commentaries that I have
seen are silent on whether the runner pays only "nezek" (the loss of
earning capacity of the plaintiff measured as if he were a slave) or
whether he pays also "shevet" (loss of time), "ripui" (medical care) and
"tzar" (pain).

        In Shita Mekubetzet there is a quotation from R. Yohanan
Ha-Kohen mi-Lunel (also can be found in Shammai Friedman's edition of
the latter at pp. 72-73) the statement that the runner is pays "nezek
shalem," which means "full nezek."

         What does "nezek shalem" really mean.  I might think it means
all of the damage--but look at Maimonides Hilkhot Nizkei Mammon
7:3. There he says that if a "mu'ad" (forewarned) animal injures a man
the animal's owners pays "nezek shalem" *but not* medical expense, loss
of time, pain or humiliation.  So "nezek shalem" at least here means
full nezek, as distinguished from half nezek which would be paid by a
"tam" animal, i.e., one that had not injured at least three times before
and which has been warned.  This is also the sense in which the phrase
is used many times on the Talmud.  E.g., Bava Kamma 14a.

        Any ideas?


From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:17:43 -0400
Subject: Doing some new good thing 3 times---Is it a Neder or not?

[Luntz V24 #60 ]mentions a friend who davened Maariv during Shivah calls
for a week and found out she in effect had made a neder to always daven
maariv. However based on Yoreh Dayah 214:1 and the Shach, I have 3
heters for her not to see the Maariv as a neder. Since people frequently
do "extra good things" I think this is a very relevant matter (are those
people making a neder to do the good things forever. For example, does a
person who goes to shule for a year to say Kaddish, obligate himself to
always go to shule!?) I therefore list the 3 heters and invite

HETER 1: The SHACH (Footnote ALEPH) explicitly states that a stringency
has a Neder status only if the act was done "as a stringency or as
fence". Thus if a person is simply doing something because everyone else
is doing it(like davening maariv in a Shivah home) there is no Neder

HETER 2: Suppose (SHACH) a person always fasts during the 10 days of
repentance and then one year there is a brith milah. The person does NOT
need a "freeing from the vow" to eat at the brith milah. The reason for
this is that although the person did in effect make a Neder not to eat
during the 10 days of repentance *it is assumed that he did so according
to the way world behaves* ...  since people who want to fast don't do so
on a Brith this person does not need to free himself of his vow.

By analogy a person davening maariv in a house of shivah may have taken
a neder but nevertheless does so *according to the way the world
behaves*.  In this case it is the custom of say women when they are in a
house for a religious purpose and everyone else is davening maariv to do
so but it is not clear that any obligation occurs outside the shivah

HETER 3: The Yoreh Dayah explicitly states that "stringency leads to a
neder status" only if the person *intended to do it forever*(and I guess
if they did three times without intention then it is equivalant to doing
it forever). But it appears to me that the woman in question probably
had the following thoughts "Oh they are davening maariv; that is a good
thing to do; let me try it out also".  In other words I perceive her
intentions as intentions of trying out and not intentions of doing it

Let me give another example to clarify this: Suppose a person says to
himself: "People in first minyans(on Shabbos) are davening Kriash Shemah
on time...I think that is the proper thing to do...let me go this
month." Now, even though the person did it as a stringency and did it 3
times it appears to me he is not obligated by neder to always go to the
Hashcamah minyan since it is clear that his intention was only to try it

I admit that if the woman came to the Rabbi and worded her question
"Well they were davening maariv and I thought that beautiful and thought
I would do it" then it appears that she intended it forever (and hence
the Pesak that she can't get out of the Neder (see YD there)) however I
believe I have a strong argument that her intentions were only to try it

At any rate I am curious what other people have to say about people who
go to Hashcamah three weeks in a row, or say go to shule for a year (to
say Kadish) etc. whether they have obligated themselves for life (and if
not why not).

Russell Jay Hendel, Ph.d. ASA   rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu 


From: <KANOVSKY@...> (Mechael Kanovsky)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:21:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Israeli Boom Times

As far as the recent posting by haim maryles talking about the benefits
of the "peace process". He states that because of the so called
aforementioned process there was a great amount of economic investment
in Israel occured. According to my father Prof. Eliyahu Kanovsky, in
many published articles, the reason that Israel is having an economic
boom time has nothing to do with the ex labor government policies. It
has to do with the reduction in red tape and streamlining that was
started with the shamir goverment. Also it has to do with the amount of
educated and cheap labor that Israel has and last but not least is that
Israel is a very stable country probably the only one in that area. As
far as the danger of living in Chevron i am sure that per capita living
in jerusalem is by far more dangerous and I don't hear any one on the
list saying that we should not live there.
 mechael kanovsky


From: <Harrymaryl@...> (Harry Maryles)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 23:32:08 -0400
Subject: Tuitions

There have been a couple of posts on the subject of the high cost of
Yeshiva education. I want to include all forms of yeshiva education
[from dayschool through high school, through beis hamedrash] in this
post because the norm of the orthodox jewish community is to educate and
therefore pay for this type of education throughout the scholastic
career of all of our children, boys and girls.  I have been involved in
jewish education for over twenty years now as an active member of
several school boards including a girls high school.  I can only tell
you the cost of education has sky-rocketed over the course of the last
twenty years, going up tenfold at least and still moving higher every
year.  The reason for this is very simple.  Every parent wants to have
high quality teachers/rabbeim for their children and the only way you
can attract good people into chinuch is by paying them at least a living
wage.  Gone are the days of the starving idealistic rebbe who worked for
a meager sustenance, living in total abject poverty.  No, today we who
have gone through the system ourselves, and have been taught to value
education.We have also become more affluent and want to pay those who
educate our children a decent salary. The problem of course is: As
tuition paying parents we aren't, as a group, affluent enough to afford
it.  When my oldest son started going to day school, annual tuition for
the year was $300.  Today, tuition in our schools here in Chicago
(including building fund, give or get etc.) is in excess of $6000 per
child!  An average family of, let's say four children (I'm being
conservative, as most orthodox families are probably much larger) would
have to spend $24,000.  Needless to say this is almost an impossibility
for the average income family of let's say $50,000(before taxes) per
year.(I'm being generous most incomes are not that high).  So, we have a
problem. How can we possibly afford the type of education we want for
our children?  It's true that, today, there are more affluent orthodox
Jews then ever before but even they cannot afford to subsidize all of
the educational systems in a given city as many of the budgets are in
the several millions of dollars.  Many of these philanthropists are very
generous with their money and, still, all the schools I am involved with
are running increasing deficits every year. They are constantly trying
to increase their line of credit with a bank so the teachers can be paid
on time. Every school has fund raising events, (banquets, concerts,
raffles, etc.). Some schools are more successful then others, but, in
all cases, those fundraisers don't bring in enough money.  The system is
being squeezed to the max!  Sometimes the teachers don't get paid on
time. That demoralizes the teachers and can effect the quality of
education. It almost seems as though there is no solution and that the
problem is only going to get worse.  I don't have all the answers, but I
would humbly like to suggest A POSSIBLE STEP in a direction that would
help solve the problem somewhat.  I am certain that I am not the first
one to think of this because the solution I want to suggest seems so
simple in it's conception.
     The vast majority of schools in our religious educational system have a
general studies program. It doesn't matter whether the school  is on the left
side of the religious spectrum or the right side.  The motives for having
secular studies might be different and the quality of the secular programs
may be different but virtually all schools have it.  That means, in most
cases, paying two staffs, one hebrew faculty and one english faculty.  That
also means two sets of benefit packages.  It is my suggestion here to have as
a goal in modern yeshiva chinuch, to combine the two staffs into one; to
eliminate if possible entirely the need for a seperate secular staff.  In
other words to have the rabbeim, mechanichim, and mechanachot educated in
secular studies in all fields so that they could teach both limudei kodesh
and limudei chol. I'm not talking about taking all the rabbeim who are now
teaching and have been teaching for years and sending them to college
(although that is, also, something to think about  in some form).  That would
be an almost insurmountable task.  I am here talking about the future.  I
believe it behooves the leadership in organizations like Torah U'Msorah to
lobby  Roshei Yeshiva and Menahalim of Seminaries to implement the type of
Mechanchim program in their yeshivos and seminaries that would combine
learning with college for the sole purpose of producing rabbeim etc. who
would be able to teach Gemmorah in the morning and math in the afternoon;
 Chumash and rashi in the morning and english literature in the
afternoon; Navi and Halacha in the morning and Biology or Physics in the
afternoon. The benefits of introducing this into our system are many.
First of all, the school budget would be drastically reduced.  The
salaries for Rabbeim etc.  would be dramatically increased because they
would be teaching a full day rather than a half day. And their value as
teachers would increase because the amount of knowledge and expertise
would increase.  It would eliminate the possibility of apikursus being
taught in our system.  It would provide full time roll models for our
children.  It would, also, give an avenue for some of the yungeleit in
kollelim to pursue a career in chinuch (lechatchilah, instead of
bidieved) that would give them a living wage.  I have spoken to people
involved in chinuch here in Chicago and I have gotten some positive
feedback to the idea.  I was, also, told by one day school principal
that his Mentor, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, ZTL would not have had any
problem with this approach.  So, My question is: Why not implement such
a program In all major american yesivos, including Lakewood (towards
educating such teachers) and Philidelphia (towards hiring such
 Harry Maryles


From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:38:52 +0000
Subject: Use of Electronic Medical Equipment (reply to Anonymous)

Someone wrote anonymously:

>My father has been in a wheelchair for 30+ years, long before our
>community had an eruv.  He was advised to use a non-electric wheelchair
>and hire a non-Jewish attendant to assist him in getting to shul.  This
>attendant helps him with other needs on Shabbos that may require the use
>of other electric durable medical equipment.  While some of the DME is
>not necessary on Shabbos, some of it would appear to fall into the
>category of P'kuach nefesh (sp?).

I can appreciate the difficulties involved, and seeking rabbinic advice
(I assume that is what is meant, above) was certainly appropriate.  Of
course, if any of the DME is needed to sustain a handicapped individual,
certainly a non-Jew can operate such equipment for the Jew on Shabbath
(even a Jew could do so for piquah nefesh).  I think what may be
problematic is the desecration of Shabbath for the convenience (as
opposed to sustenance) of a handicapped individual.  For example, I
don't believe it would be permitted for a Jew to wheel an individual who
is NOT ALWAYS confined to a wheelchair in a public domain on Shabbath (I
believe that the wheelchair is like clothing for an individual who is
always confined to a wheelchair); he is not required to go out on
Shabbath (even though it may be annoying to be confined to his home).
 I'm not sure about a non-Jew wheeling him (that may come under the
category of someone ill, but not in danger).

>When thinking about the needs of the handicapped, one must use some common
>sense as well as halachah.

I think this should be reworded to read: "When thinking about the needs
of the handicapped, one must use some common sense WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
of halakha."
 The original wording could be misconstrued to imply the rejection of
halakha in favor of common sense, a statement that is not permitted in
this forum.

Lon Eisenberg   Motorola Israel, Ltd.  Phone:+972 3 5659578 Fax:+972 3 5658205


End of Volume 24 Issue 64