Volume 47 Number 57
                    Produced: Sun Apr 10 10:15:43 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

ADHD and day schools/yeshivot
Another insurance query
         [Ira Bauman]
Artscroll and "truth"
         [Tomer Shiloach]
Artscroll Siddur
         [Allen Gerstl]
Car Damage (6)
         [Tzvi Stein, W. Baker, Bernard Raab, Jack Gross, Martin Stern,
Tony Fiorino]
Changing Halacha/Baseball
         [Batya Medad]
Rabbi Toaff and the Pope (was Re: Beryl Wein history tapes)
         [Robert A. Book]


From: Anonymous
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:24:09 
Subject: ADHD and day schools/yeshivot

My stepson is a very sweet 10 yo boy with classic adhd symptoms.  When
he's good, he's very good, but when he's bad ...

We have not had good experiences with some of his teachers and the
general way in which the teachers and principals view children with
adhd.  I am interested in hearing from mj readers with some experiences
with adhd and day schools/yeshivot.  I am particularly interested in
approaches that helped improve the teacher student relationship, and in
resources that teachers, principals and others in day schools/yeshivot
can (and will) use to better manage the problems and issues that come up
when adhd boys have problems and start to lose it.  I am especially
interested in hearing about specific successes and eventual successes.

As a separate thread, one experience we had involved being told that any
people who would advise the teachers on handling adhd kids needed to be
observant.  The issue is certainly complicated and tangled, but it
struck me as somewhat counterproductive.  I am interested in hearing
about experiences, viewpoints and analyses of the issues involved in
this response.


From: <Yisyis@...> (Ira Bauman)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:02:54 EDT
Subject: Another insurance query

Reuven has dental insurance paid for by his employer.  All his dental
needs are provided by his brother-in-law, Shimon.  Shimon would not
charge Reuven any fee because of family courtesy.  Since the fee to
Shimon if he were a private patient would be $0, the insurance company
says that no insurance claim can be made to the company for the services
rendered.  The insurance company gets to cash the premium check.  The
dentist would get no reimbursement at all for the treatment rendered.
Must Reuven disclose the relationship and not submit a claim?  

Ira Bauman


From: Tomer Shiloach <tshilo12@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:46:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Artscroll and "truth"

<<With the utmost respect to R. Schwab, his purported advice to
ArtScroll "if it brings yiras shamayim, print it even if it's not
true. If it doesn't, don't print it even if it is true" seems
short-sighted.  What about the issue of ArtScroll (and perhaps even
other frum publishers) losing their credibility when it becomes common
knowledge that they are following that advice.  As a result, nothing
they publish will bring yiras shamayim, even if it's true, because
everyone will doubt it.>>

This advice has historically been one of the strong Jewish criticism wrt
Christianity, namely based on the idea that it's OK to mislead people
into becoming Christians, exemplified by Paul's statement (and strong
fodder for the claim that he was actually an erstwhile convert to
Judaism under Gamliel, rather than a Benjaminite as he claimed) in 1
Corinthians 9:20-23:

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the
law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)
so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I
became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but
am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the
weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all people, that I might by all means save some."

Compromising the truth in order to obtain a desired outcome is actually
a very old story in Torah, going back at least as far as Avraham Avinu
and his lies about who Sara was to him.  At no time, however, has there
been any indication that falsifications and misrepresentations are ever
_desirable_.  Justifying misleading people by saying "Well, it's OK, as
long as they come to believe the right thing as a result of being
misled" is obscene, and anyone who gives such advice should never be
regarded as an authority.  If this is what Artscroll does, I take back
all my extensive defenses of their credibility.



From: Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:35:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Artscroll Siddur

Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
>From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
>>...newer versions
>>of the English versions actually present "Gashem" as an alternate
>>reading to "Geshem" in the text itself, which is quite obtrusive and,
>>if I recall correctly, quite incorrect as well. I wonder what caused
>>the change.

>Gashem is correct according to Igros Moshe.  That may be the reason they
>added the alternative.

Without dealing with nusach (traditions as to wording) both forms may be 
correct grammatically.

IIRC "gashem" is the pausal form of "geshem" and pausal forms are only
found in Biblical Hebrew but not in Mishnaic Hebrew ("Lashon Chazal").
Thus if what is intended is a reference to a biblical verse then the use
of biblical Hebrew grammar would be appropriate but otherwise the
language of the siddur is generally, I understand, Mishanaic Hebrew.

I would welcome comment or correction by the dikduk experts on this list.



From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:59:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Car Damage

> But it looks like you owe the insurance company a refund to reflect
> the reduced value of the part when the second accident occurred
> (regardless of when and whether Shimon pays up).

Insurance law in my state specifies that the insurance company must
return the vehicle to pre-accident condition.  Since the second accident
(the one I claimed on insurance) destroyed the same fender as the
previous accident dented, the insurance company has no other option than
to replace that fender.  There is no way for them to restore it to the
condition of "fender with a small dent in it".  Even if they would have
known that it had a dent in it, the law does not allow them to pay
anything less then what it would cost to repair it to pre-accident
condition (or better if necessary).

Another factor is that they never asked if there was previous damage, so
I did not file an untruthful claim.

From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Car Damage

I would assume that it would not be "worth it" to the insurance company
to try to actually find out if there was any damage previously existent
to the part they must replace.  One company we once used did require
that at the time we first insured the car, which was several myers old,
that we do to a certain place and have it photographed by te company
representative.  I assume this was to ensure that they were not insuring
a beat-up car.  They did not require a new photo each year, however,
which might have showed Shimon's damage to them for which you
apparently, never filed a claim.  Unless you were in litigation,
publically, with Shimon, so that facts were fairly easy to obtain, they
would have to spend a great deal of investigative money to find out if
there was any previous damage.  They could, if they knew the fender was
previously damaged, replace it with one from a junk yard that had some
small damage. As the costs for them to find out would be great it would
not be worth it.  This, in my non-lawyerly opinion, does not obviate
your moral, if not legal obligation to give Shimon's money to the
insurance company.

This is how I see it.

Wendy Baker

From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:18:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Car Damage

In the spirit of the Gemara, dealing with principle and not
practicalities: You did file an untruthful claim if you filed for the
full value of an undamaged fender.

Bernie R.

From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:55:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Car Damage

I assume that, in principle, the insurance co. has the right to offset
prior damage.  If so, they don't really owe you for the full cost of
repair.  The fact that they in practice absorb that as a cost of staying
in the black does not obviate the question -- do you have the right to
stake a claim for the full replacement cost -- by not informing them of
the prior damage?  And the question would apply whether or not you knew
which "Shimon" inflicted the prior damage.

From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:16:09 +0100
Subject: Re: Car Damage

on 8/4/05 11:47 am, Stephen Phillips <admin@...> wrote:
> It would also be a great Kiddush Hashem if you were to write to the
> insurance company telling them that Jewish Law requires you to reimburse
> them.
> Caveat: I don't know what Jewish Law does require in this case.

Can any experts on Choshen Mishpat say whether or not this may be a case
of permitted ta'ut akum?

Martin Stern

From: Tony Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:23:46 -0400
Subject: RE: Car Damage

I'm not so sure the premise expressed in the following statements is
correct (my comments to follow):

> From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
> But it looks like you owe the insurance company a refund to 
> reflect the redcued value of the part when the second 
> accident occurred (regardless of when and whether Shimon pays up).

> From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
> It seems to me that if your insurance company paid you for 
> the total damage of your car, valued AS IF it had not be 
> damaged previously, you should collect from Shimon and pay 
> what you collect to the insurance company.  In actuality the 
> insurance paid full price for a damaged car. Anyting else 
> woudl actuall be cheating the company.

> From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
> You are right (1), but (2) the money is NOT yours to do with 
> as you wish.  That money really belongs to the insurance 
> company. If you doubt me just ask your insurance company. 
> They will tell you the obvious
> truth: The value of the fender that was already damaged was 
> NOT the value of an undamaged fender. Therefore, they are 
> only responsible for the value of the fender in the condition 
> it was in before the accident that they are paying for. 
> Looked at another way, I am sure you will agree that thay are 
> only responsible to restore the fender to its pre-accident 
> condition even though they may refuse to do so. 

Basically these writers are claiming that the insurance company's
financial obligation is defined as the amount it would cost to return
the car to its pre-accident condition, which in this case reflected some
pre-existing damage.

We know that one cannot restore the car to its prior condition - the
only repair possible is to completely repair the car.  The shop is not
going to repair the car and find a dented fender and broken headlight to
put on.  So in fact the cost of repairing the car is EXACTLY the same
whatever the extent of pre-existing damage (excluding the case in which
the pre-existing damage was major and the new damage is minor).

Thus the insurance company has no real economic basis for making a claim
that they are only responsible for the cost of the repair minus what it
would have cost to fix the initial damage.  I do not know for certain,
but I believe the insurance company assumes the burden of REPAIRING the
car - there is only one repair possible, that is to repair the car
completely - and, by the way, I am certain the companies set their
premiums based on this assumption.



From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:36:46 +0200
Subject: Changing Halacha/Baseball

first, I don't know if the "ruling" by a rabbi that one can or can't go
to a baseball game is a halacha.  I have no pretenses that I'm a rabbi,
but I'd consider these "decisions," as "psak."  That means that they are
for specific people at specific times.  If you didn't ask those rabbis,
and they're not your rabbis, those decisions aren't aimed/directed to
you, nor me.

If we could just sort these things out, and I remember writing on the
same topic to mj before.  There are the "ten commandments," there are
613 mitzvot, and there are halchot--which guide us in how to keep the
613 mitzvot, minhagim and chumrot.  I'm sure I missed something, but I
think that I got them in the order of importnace.  Oops, I left out
"psak."  Very freudian, since technically they are limited.

I apologize if I'm wrong.



From: Robert A. Book <rbook@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Rabbi Toaff and the Pope (was Re: Beryl Wein history tapes)

Gilad J. Gevaryahu (<Gevaryahu@...>) writes"

> The story is correct, but Beryl Wein inserted the wrong name into the
> narrative. Rabbi Elio Toaff was not the chief Rabbi of Rome during the
> war years, nor did he ever converted to Christianity. In fact Rabbi
> Toaff was at the time the chief rabbi of Venice and served until 1952
> and then was appointed to served the Jewish community of Rome, and
> retired a few years ago after 50 years of service in Rome. He is now
> 90 years old and lives in Rome. The rabbi who did convert to
> Christianity was Israel Zolli.

Rabbi Elio Toaff was the Rabbi who welcomed the Pope to the Rome
Synagogue in 1986.  There are recent news reports that he is one of only
two people specifically mentioned in the Pope's will (mentioned with
gratitude for welcoming him to the synagogue; it was the first time a
Pope had ever visited a synagogue), and also that Rabbi Elio Toaff "paid
his respects during a visit to John Paul's body on Monday, raising his
arm in a gesture of tribute."

(One such report is at
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050407-0824-pope.html )

--Robert Book    


End of Volume 47 Issue 57