Comments on: Business Weekly: No Parking

By: outoftownjew

outoftownjew — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:49:24 +0000

What I don’t understand is this: Mr. Spitz’s son – and I am under the assumption that Mr. Spitz himself thinks the same thing – claimed that the reason he didn’t want anyone to park there is so people wouldn’t get “used to” using the spot when his car is not there. If this is true, isn’t Mr. Abrams chayav because it is a possible chaser of people thinking that they can park there as well. If people see that Mr. Spitz’s car is not parked there but someone else’s is they might think he now allows others to use it and it would be a major inconvinience for him when he wants to park in his own spot.

By: leizer732

leizer732 — Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:28 +0000

I do not understand how the son’s machoah helps for the father. The father himself would have to notify Mr.

By: orlian

orlian — Fri, 28 May 2010 08:16:50 +0000

Author’s response:

It is doubtful that the parking itself contributes significantly to the erosion of the pavement; it is mostly an issue of time and weather. Even if nobody parked there for the month it would probably need to be repaved after the same amount of time. The imperceptible effect of parking is far less than the “blackening of the walls” mentioned in the Gemara. (BK 20b)

By: 310

310 — Thu, 27 May 2010 20:15:20 +0000

I don’t understand how this is a case of zeh neheneh v’zeh lo cha’ser, since the pavement of the driveway slowly erodes and the owner needs to repave it once every several years, at the cost of more than $1000.

If you’d divide that cost in weeks, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that the usage of a driveway costs several dollars per week.

One might argue that the cost per usage is insignificant (less than shave pruta), but that is only relevant is a person uses the parking lot once. If you use it for a week or a month, then the loss is definitely more than shave pruta, and you should be required to pay.

Has the author overlooked this nekuda?