Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 050

Friday, July 15 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:08:29 -0400
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Subject:
RYSE and RAF


> BTW, since Rav Herzog is well-known as one who held that we are not
> bound to the science of Hazal, it is worth noting that Rav Elyashiv,
> although perhaps not to be considered a talmid of Rav Herzog, was close
> with him, and Rav Herzog got him his job as a dayyan for the Rabbanut.
> My source for this information? Rav Aharon Feldman, former Rosh Yeshiva
> of Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim Ir ha-Kodesh, who seems to have been
> demoted to a position in chutz la-aretz.

Rav Elyashiv's grandfather was also close with R. Kook. In general the
family had ties with several rabbis from the rabbanut establishment.

In terms of RAF he might agree with the above comment. As far as I
have heard he accepted the job as RY of Ner Yisrael out of a sense of
obligation. His entire family of children and grandchildren live in
Israel and he was not anxious to leave Yerushalayim for Baltimore.

--
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:33:45 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur


In H. Mamrim (1:2) the Rambam writes that the prohibition of lo sassur
applies to rulings of the "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem". In the
hakdamah of the Mishneh Torah, however, he says that we're obliged to
follow all of the decrees enacted by the sages of the Holy Babylonian
Talmud, through Ravina and Rav Ashi, and he cites the pasuk "lo sassur"
as the source of the obligation. How did Ravina and Rav Ashi's beis
din aquire the status of "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem"?

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:03:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Yeridas Hadoros


brent wrote:
> But that brings up a question that I have sought for years and never
> been given an answer to. What is "Yeridas HaDoros"? Can anyone define
> it? What were they greater in? Intelligence? Spirituality?

See my post at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n047.shtml#11>. I
refer to Berakhos 20a, where R' Papa asks Abayei a similar question,
and proves that it can't mean Torah knowledge.

Here's a snippet from a post of mine in v12n123:
> The gemara already cited here twice makes a point of saying that R'
> Papa's and Abayei's generations did actually know more than their
> predecessors. There is no question of whether it's theoretically possible
> that we know more than rishonim did, given that we have their precedent.
> (Despite the "rupture and reconstruction", the change of era, between R'
> Yehudah and R' Papa or Abayei (3rd gen amora'im).

> Amora'im knew more than tana'im, at least of texts, and yet were less
> willing (or according to the CI unable) to dispute them.

> There is no principle that earlier generations knew more Torah.

And a shade earlier, in v12n120:
> Abayei's answer to R' Papa (Berakhos 20a) fits that. With the generations
> has been a decline in mesiras nefesh, while there has been an increase
> in Torah known. In R Dr Haym Soloveitchik's framework, we could say that
> textual knowledge has been on the rise, while mimetic knowledge has been
> on the decline. And with the decline, so has the intimacy with HQBH that
> one gets through cultural feel rather than intellectual knowledge. In
> fact, R' Papa's speculation was looking across a "rupture" event at the
> mimetics of the previous Torah culture. Also to be noted is that Abayei
> praises the quality of R' Adda bar Ahavah's mistake as a proof; not a
> claim that they were more right, but that even their mistakes reflected
> a more passionate relationship with the Borei.

> Have we increased in textual knowledge since Ravina veRav Ashi? I think
> so. Look at the tools of lomdus now at our disposal that didn't exist
> a couple of centuries ago. Today we have general theories about gavra
> vs cheftzah, pe'ulah vs chalos, etc... that we don't find explicitly
> amongst the rishonim. Someone who knows the rules of grammar knows things
> that someone who uses the rules implicitely because "that sounds right"
> does not. Greater formal knowledge, less of a feel for what is right. (To
> shift to R' Moshe Koppel's model.)

> I also doubt Moshe Rabbeinu knew the halachos of thermostats on Shabbos.
> He knew everything possible for him to pasqen on such a metzi'us -- if
> MRAH would ever have learned the details of such a metzi'us. For that
> matter, future history played a major role in the evolution of pesaq
> since Moshe. Did he know that we would some day hold like Beis Hillel
> over Beis Shammai because of the middos of that future school? Or even
> that two such different perspective of the same basic truth that Moshe
> brought us would emerge because they failed to perform proper shimush?
> Does not our knowing that from a Hillelian perspective one would hold X
> whereas a Shamuti would hold Y constitute our knowing Torah that Moshe
> Rabbeinu did not?

The tie in between that and halachic authority, or at least assuming their
ideas deserve precedence (if it's convention and not authority) I make
in MmD for Bamidbar <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/bamidbar.pdf>.

As for whether debating rabbanim from earlier eras would violate actual
authority or "only" norms... Others already noted that it's a machloqes,
but I have problems with R' Chaim Brisker's position that it's out of
choice and kavod. (Besides, the difference isn't /that/ much between an
issue of halakhah, and one of 2,000 yr old universally accepted minhag...)

The gemara quite clearly and frequently assumes that an amora can't
argue with the maskana of tannaim. The question "Tanna'i hi" even goes
so far as to question the point of a mesorah in the name of an amora
that establishes something already decided by tannaim!

However, the CI ties the authority of tannaim to their living during the
2,000 years of Torah. Those of us living in the 2,000 years of mashiach
lack the ability to define Torah that they had.

"Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah" similarly seems to state that the
difference between amora'im and those who come after is one of real
authority. Whatever it is a contemporary poseiq does, it's not "hora'ah"
in the same sense of the word as what amora'im did. The Rambam pasqens
this lehalakhah, that the gemara is the last collection of rulings with
the power of a Beis Din haGadol.

So what's left? Machloqesin between rishonim and achronim. Here we
do find exceptions, so it can't be a real difference in halachically
granted authority. (Either that or we're writing both talmidei haGra and
Chassidim out of the realm of shomerei Torah umitzvos.) I don't think
it's out of kavod, but (as I argued above) distrust of our gefeel for
what's the right pesaq in comparison to theirs.

-mi

--
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:28:45 EDT
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Subject:
yeridat hadorot


> But that brings up a question that I have sought for years and never
> been given an answer to. What is "Yeridas HaDoros"? Can anyone define
> it? What were they greater in? Intelligence? Spirituality? Such a huge
> emphasis is put upon this concept yet I've never found anyone that
> could put their finger upon what exactly yerida entails. Was the average
> Jew really so much different and greater than we are? What was greater
> about them? If so, how did that parallel throughout the world? Were the
> non-Jews also greater than now? What about rashayim? Were they greater
> than us now and really they were only rashayim on their madrega? Or was
> their rishus magnified to be more evil than rashayim now? There needs
> to be a balance if our chachamim were greater in some way, then that
> had to echo throughout the beriyah.

There seem to be two ways of understanding this concept in teh rishonim.
1. Various Geonim - Chazal were actually superior beings, with higher
degree of perception and greater souls and they possessed Ruach Hakodesh
which later generations did not.
2. They were not metaphysically greater but it is just that subsequent
generations persecutions and exiles made it impossible for anyone to
learna s much from their teachers as eartlier generation. This seems to
be the view of Rambam and also of Sefer Hakkabala and Matteh Dan.

A book discussion of this with review of many sourcesand the focus on
the Rambam is Maimonides on the "Decline of the Generations" and the
Nature of Rabbinic Authority (S U N Y Series in Jewish Philosophy)
by Menachem Kellner

I disagree with Dr. Kellner's thesis that the Rambam does not accept
the principle of yeridas hadoros and I think that he holds like 2 above
rather than 1- vhadvarim arukhim...

M. Levin


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:03:47 -0400
From: Russell Levy <russlevy@gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: [YGB] Interesting Question, My Question in Response


On 7/13/05, YGB <rygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>        . On a different subject, I was wondering what you think about
>> whether a person would have the din of a masis (an idoltrious missionary)
>> if he or she is masis through a sign or website (a ksivah) as opposed to
>> an amirah (speech)....

> A din of meisis requires solicitation, and writing is at best
> argumentation, no?

What about missionary junk mail (e-mail or post mail)? Or personally
addressed mail?

 -Russell


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:37:55 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject:
Re: tinok shenishba


BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> The svara of the Chazon Ish (that "moridin velo maalin" is only when
> miracles are common and all hear the Bat Kol) is confusing. How does he
> explain Rambam Hilchot Chovel u'Mazik 8:11, the Tshuvot haROSH 17:1,
> the Tshuvot Maharam mi Lublin 138 ? The dozens of executions by batei
> din in the past 1000 years of mosrim and other low life [Zichron Yehuda
> 75, Tshuvot haRosh 17:2, Zekan Aharon 95, Tshuvot haRosh 32:4, Tshuvot
> haRivash 79] ? How about the Ri MiGash who had a moser executed in shul
> on Yom Kippur ? How about the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 388:10 ? People
> in Krakow had miracles every montag and donnerstag ? :-)

What is the connection between a moser/rodef and "moridin velo maalin"?
A moser is merely a species of rodef, and a rodef is killed, not as a
punishment, but as an act of defense. Therefore his culpability is
not at issue. A rodef is killed, not only if he is a literal tinok
shenishbeh, who has no idea that he is doing wrong, but even if he is
an actual tinok! (See not only the case of abortion, but also Shu"t
Mimaamakim, about a baby who is crying when the Jews are hiding from
their enemies, and whose cries threaten to expose the entire group).
This is obviously not the case with those sinners who are subject to
extra-judicial *punishment* in the form of "moridin velo maalin".

--
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gil Student <simcha365@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[Hirhurim - Musings] Kiruv in the Parashah


This week's Torah portion tells us of the immorality some Israelites
performed with Midianite women in the desert:
    Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman
    into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the
    whole congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at
    the entrance of the tent of meeting. (Num. 25:6)

The midrashic tradition tells us that the Israelite man was Zimri, the
leader of the tribe of Simeon, and the Midianite woman was a princess
named Kozbi. What is the background story to this incident?

R. Moshe Shternbuch, in his Tuv Ta'am Va-Da'as (ad loc.), homiletically
offers the following background story: The Israelite men were attempting
to reach out to the Midianites and bring them to faith in the Jewish
God. However, in order to accomplish their lofty goal they needed to
breach the chasm between the two divergent lifestyles.

Therefore, they embraced some of the Midianite attitudes so as to be
better able to influence the Midianites and bring them to the true
faith. This corrupted the well-intentioned Israelites and led Kozbi,
a Midianite princess, to convert to Judaism for purposes of marriage
rather than belief. Zimri went to publicize his successful outreach
program by showing off his recently converted Midianite wife. However,
this accomodation was nothing more than a distortion of Judaism that led
to disastrous results. This program of outreach was so abominable that
it led to the conclusion of the story -- the zealotrous Pinehas killed
the two sinners who had brought Midianite attitudes and practices into
the Jewish people.

R. Shternbuch continues to apply this to some outreach-oriented people in
our day (without <http://www.ou.org/ncsy/> naming <http://www.aish.com/>
names <http://www.arachimusa.com/pages/3/>) who, in our great sins,
accomodate foreign attitudes in order to reach out to others. He strongly
disapproves.

--
Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/14/2005 08:34:00 AM


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: The halachos of 'borrowing' wireless access


R Elly Bachrach wrote:
> Since anyone paying for service is allowed to let any computer they want
> into their network, I don't see the comparison.  Unless you think it
> would not be allowed for a subscriber to let a friend come over and hook
> into the network?  That doesn't seem likely; if nothing else, the friend
> could be makneh me his machine, and then I am certainly entitled to hook
> it up to my home network....

Likely or not, as already proven by example (in Florida) the connection
is for the household. That would include guests, I presume, but not
neighbors in their own homes.

So, it's theft of services.

>>So, one could say that nearly always, it would be a zeh lo neheneh,
>>vezeh lo chaseir. Can one rely on that rov?

> I would say yes, but my reason is that the kind of person who would
> really need and use this full bandwith would almost certainly be the
> kind who protects his network from this kind of borrowing.

I like. It ties into my own concern:
>>What about the fact that this person chose not to "lock the door"? Does
>>this imply that he cared more about ease of use than denying reshus?

You make his lack of concern a way of guaranteeing that rov of vezeh
lo chaseir.

We still have to deal with the services of the (presumably not Jewishly
owned) provider.

>>The other people on that hub who
>>are also affected -- and at least one of them probably did make sure
>>to encrypt, not to use wireless, or otherwise lock-up his network. What
>>about needing to get their reshus? I think therefore we can ignore this
>>implied reshus on the part of one person.

...
> Also , the whole problem of many people on the hub applies more to
> cable than to DSL, Originally, when cable companies did not have enough
> bandwidth for a location, you could see service lags resulting from the
> addition of new customers. But today, it is my understanding that the
> affect of one computer negligible on the rest of users.

Not true, you can go to any HFC internet provider to check it out. On
cable, people share a cable segment. That's probably what you're talking
about. However, on DSL there is less bandwidth altogether. You're taxing a
network that include hubs that were installed well before anyone thought
of putting data on them. The bandwidth is so skin-of-the-teeth, you
need to live within 12,000 ft of the switching station -- and even if
you get close to that, you wont get the full promised bandwidth. These
effects well outweigh the relatively few people near a single telephone
pole who are sharing one cable segement.

So, I think the same answer would apply to both.

-mi

--
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:04:24 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: The halachos of 'borrowing' wireless access


Micha Berger wrote:
>Likely or not, as already proven by example (in Florida) the connection
>is for the household. That would include guests, I presume, but not
>neighbors in their own homes.

>So, it's theft of services.

I do not think this would be the case in the absence of dina d'malchusa.
What is the law in NY and NJ?

A more relevant example, BTW - let us say you have an appoinment in a
building which has a wireless network - while you are waiting, can you
use the network, just as you might read the magazines or use the restroom?


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:09:25 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: [YGB] Interesting Question, My Question in Response


Russell Levy wrote:
>>A din of meisis requires solicitation, and writing is at best
>>argumentation, no?

>What about missionary junk mail (e-mail or post mail)? Or personally
>addressed mail?

Doesn't meisis require personal suasion as opposed to mass mailing?

YGB


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:45:35 +0200
From: Seth & Sheri Kadish <skadish@012.net.il>
Subject:
[Aspaqlaria] The Psychological Model of Orchos Tzaddiqim


[Note to quesiton in the first paragraph: Aspaqlaria is my blog, found at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp>. So yes, I wrote the devar Torah in question.
Actually it's from notes for a class I'm giving lunchtime in midtown
Manhattan to a non-O audience.

[I am (unless people ask me to stop) carrying the Torah found in some
of our regular members' blogs. This goes hand-in-hand with my attempt
to move Avodah to Unicode so that it can carry Hebrew, along with my
attempt to accept and convert HTML posts. That's also an invitation
for people who want their blogs included, as long as there's a means of
email subscription. -mi]

Hello.

Please forgive me for not keeping up with things so well, such that I am
unfamiliar with "Aspaqlaria" and I don't know whether Micha, who posted
this, is its author of if he just thought it was of interest.

But since this is on Orchot Tzaddikim, I wanted to reply :-) My favorite
mussar sefer, if only I lived by it better...

It is nice to see someone write up a summary of the hakdamah. The
instinct to compare it to the Rambam's middle path is also a good one.
That is a very difficult shitah in both Hilkhot Deot and Shemonah Perakim,
and how the Rambam is understood has relevance for the entire genre of
"Middot books" among the rishonim, both those that preceeded the Rambam
and those that followed him.

Some corrections on the bibliographical details:

1. Sefer ha-Middot was written in Hebrew, not Yiddish. This was proven
conclusively by several scholars, most recently by Rav Gavriel Zalushinsky
(see his introduction). The reason some people mistakenly think otherwise
is because the first *printed* edition was the Yiddish translation.

2. Rav Zalushinsky's edition is not based on the Hebrew sources, but
upon early Hebrew manuscripts. Here and there, in places where there
is some doubt about what the correct text is, he decides based upon the
book's sources.

3. Rav Zalushinky did indeed conclude that the book was written between
1440-1500. That conclusion was based upon the dates of scribal signatures
in the manuscripts he had at hand. However, editing the book in the
1980s, before the miracle of the fall of the iron curtain, he did not
have access to the manuscripts in eastern European libraries. Dates
on those manuscripts and certain other considerations show that the
book was likely written at the very latest around 1400, and at the very
earliest (based on the internal evidence in Shaar ha-Torah) in the years
following 1306. For more information on this, see my online edition of
part of the oldest known manuscript of the book, which can be found at
"Seforim Online" here:

                  <http://www.seforimonline.org/seforim7.html>

I still hope, someday, to create a free public critical edition of Orchot
Zaddikim in digital form. If anyone is interested in collaborating on
this (though I will probably only be able to work on it seriously in
future years), please contact me. I have already assembled much of the
manuscript information.

Kol Tuv,
Seth Kadish


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:46:53 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
Subject:
Re: [Hirhurim - Musings] Realism and Cynicism


In message , Gil Student <simcha365@hotmail.com> writes
>               .... R. J. David Bleich has an article in which he puts
>forth a proposal, based on a suggestion of R. Moshe Sofer (the Hasam
>Sofer), that will prevent almost all instances of a father secretly
>marrying off his daughter and refusing to reveal the name of the groom....

>R. Bleich's proposal requires a communal ban against:
>    1) any person who accepts an object of value in order to effect a
>    marriage with his minor daughter; 2) anyone who presents an object
>    of value to a father for that purpose; 3) anyone who encourages or
>    counsels such an act; 4) as well as against anyone who serves or
>    agrees to serve as a witness to such an act.

I haven't got access to the original article, which means I am going on
what RGS has written here, but I confess I don't understand this.

The big problem with the father is that there is a pasuk in the Torah
which says that the father is believed, as set out in the gemora in
Kiddushin on 64a (and Kesuvos 22a) based on the pasuk in Devarim 22:16
"et biti natti l'ish hazeh". And for that you would not seem to need to
produce witnesses. The halacha is that a man is believed to say that he
has married off his minor daughters, and, if for example he says that he
doesn't remember to whom he has married them - then they are forbidden
from marrying *ever*. You don't need to produce the witnesses, just the
statement of the father is enough. This is explicit in the Rambam Hilchos
Ishus Perek 9 halacha 10 (and 11), the Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer siman
37 si'if 20 .

So I am not sure I understand the point of this posselling of the
witnesses, unless he is then saying that if had this ban, then their
could not have been a kiddushin, so it is a form of anun sadi, ie we
know that their could not have been a kiddushin, so therefore we override
the ne'manus that the Torah gives the father. But that suggestion would
seem to me completely uprooting a Torah situation, which makes me feel
a little queasy, should we say.

But if we are to go the communal ban route, there would seem to be a
more straightforward way to go, based on the Ran in Kiddushin on 64a,
where he makes it clear that we do not believe the father if he says
that he married his daughter off to a pasul (which would seem to include
even a rabbinic pasul). Why then if we reinstituted the ban on marrying
off a ketana, rabbinically, would we not get to the same spot? So, f we
could get a community wide consensus of the type Rav Bleich would like,
why not go that straightforward route rather than this?

But the really big problem, it seems to me, is that while to have
a *real* kiddushin you need to have witnesses, the sources seem to
show that the father is believed in the absence of the production of
witnesses (otherwise how can we explain the - I married my daughter,
but I don't know who I married her to situation - obviously just call
the witnesses). ie it is the nemanus of the father that is validated by
the sources.

So we can have as a real situation - there in actuality there was No
kiddushin, no witnesses, no nothing (remember if there was a kiddushin,
there is some man (over bar mitzvah) out there that, unless he is a
Sephardi cannot marry anybody else, is prevented from pru u'rvu etc -
obviously he has got some interest in the matter being known). In this
case - you could call for witnesses, and of course none would turn up.
And yet the halacha says that the father is believed, and the daughter
cannot ever marry.

When this was discussed on mail-jewish many moons ago ( in 1995 - volume
19, 75, 83 and 87) I wrote at the time:

"1) Might the power the Torah gives to a father to marry off his daughters
be limited to the situation where they are either physically in his
rishus, or he can arrange for them to be? I would presume that in the
case where the father sells his daughter as a slave (where merely by
designation the master can make the girl his wife), that he could not in
the meantime marry her to somebody else. Could he marry her to someone
else if she had been seized by bandits, or the malchus?

In our case, of course, the State, via a custody order, would have
removed her from her father's physical control. I don't know that it was
ever contemplated that a father would marry off his daughter in such
a situation, and wonder if there is any basis to in effect extending
the Torah's perogative to such a case. After all, the general case is
where the father will have power and control over her, or will have left
temporarily and can resume.

I further Noted that:

"the Rama brings a story in EH 37 si'if 14 in which a woman was divorced
and left with custody and raising of the daughters, and was allowed to
marry them off, over the father's objection but the difference seems to
be that the father originally willed custody and specifically gave the
power to her (before eidim), rather than opposing it.

I further suggested:

2) Is the daas of the father sufficient to constitute kiddushin, knowing
that he does not have the power to have the marriage be consummated? How
about the daas of the chossan? [Of course last goes to the validity
of the kiddushin, not the ne'emanus of the father, but mighten'ed the
first be something that also could be investigated when the father makes
his statement].

3) Do we know what the appropriate formula is for such a kiddushin?
After all Horei *at* is not exactly appropriate. The Rambam appears
to bring various loshonos for the standard form of kiddushin, but not
for this kind. And the discussions in the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam
seem to imply that the father makes some sort of statement in the course
of the kiddushin (differentiating daughters for example - otherwise
there may be problems over which daughter is meant). It doesn't appear
that this loshon is very specific, but the way we know of marriages, we
wouldn't expect it to be there at all. Of course, in times when marriage
of minors was commonplace, there would have been no difficulty, but
how does the father know (or the eidem or the chosson for that matter,
but it the knowledge of the the father we are concerned about) that a
proper marriage took place in our present state of ignorance? "

And while I wrote all that a long time ago, my suggestions still seem
to me to have some merit (I wrote a longer post elaborating on 1), which
Avi then decided not to publish, and I have subsequently lost the oist,
but the thrust of it was like this).

It is quite clear from the gemora in Kiddushin 64a and the posuk that
the fact that the father is believed is a chiddush, and not based on
the fact that hapeh sheassar. But if you needed any confirmation, the
Ran states this explicitly on 64a "d'ma shehamina torah l'av chidush hu
shaharei lo haya royi l'hiout ne'eman yoter m'ed echad" - and explains
this as why we can't use a migu to get us to believing the father where
he says that the daughter was captured and redeemed.

But the fact that it is a chiddush means, as the Ran says, that we cannot
extend the case beyond the situation in the pasuk. And this is a case
where the girl clearly previously belonged to a nuclear family where
she was within the rishus of the father - because as a precursor to the
statement by the father, the pasuk specifically mentions that the father
and the mother take and bring forth the tokens of virginity -ie the
father would seem to need his wife beside him whether to be involved
in the matter of the sheet (as per Ramban) or, and more tellingly,
because she is as involved in the upbringing of the daughter as he
(as per Rashi, and hence responsible for the bad upbringing - echos of
the ben sore u'moreh here) sowhat this pasuk does is tell us about the
nature of the girl's original home life.

So in fact, it seems to me that extending the ne'manus of the father from
a normal situation where she comes from a nuclear family to a situation
where the daughter had been taken from him and was not under his control
at the time he purported to do the kiddushin or makes the statement
(eg she had been captured, whether by bandits, or in our case the state
and/or the mother), in actual fact would seem to be an extension of the
pasuk, and I am not sure on what basis we are justified actually making
that extension.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:39:21 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: [YGB] Daf Halachah - Shabbos 73b


On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:23:26PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: /Tosafos Chaim/ suggests that it is only on Shabbos that one may not 
: smell the fruit attached to the ground lest he come to pluck it. Even if 
: Yom Kippur coincides with Shabbos he may not smell the fruit, as we are 
: afraid that he may forget that it is also Yom Kippur, and come to pluck 
: the fruit to eat it. However, when Yom Kippur falls on a weekday one is 
: permitted to smell the fruit, for we assume he will remain aware of the 
: prohibition to eat and not come to pluck the fruit.

I was with you until the "he may forget that it is also Yom Kippur". I
was figuring the lemaaseh the gezeirah was made WRT Shabbos and not YK
or other Yom Tov.

Otherwise, RSMashbaum's question seems to stand: Why would he remember
about the issur achilah of YK when it's on a Wed, but not on a Shabbos?

I was also wondering if R' Chaim Brisker's Torah about inui being a
mega-shevisah associated with it being a "shabbos shabbaton" rather
than just a single shabbos. In which case, why would the issur achilah
be treated any differently than any (other) issur melakhah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:35:07 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Meisis b'Ksav


[Umm, I added Hebrew, not highlighting. And even that, only imperfectly
yet. -mi]

Reb Moshe indicates that you *are* chayav even b'ksav, see highlighted 
part of the teshuvah below:

?Đ?•"?Š ??’?Ļ?•?Š ?ž?Đ?” ?—?œ?§ ?™?•"?“ ? ???™?ž?Ÿ ?§?Ē?‘

?‘?“?‘?Ļ ???Ī?Ļ?™ ?”?Ļ?Đ?Ē?™? ?ž?™???™?? ?Ē?Ļ?Ÿ ?Đ?™?Đ ?Đ? ?Ī???•?§?™? ??• ?Đ?ž?•?Š ?Ļ"?— ???™?•?Ÿ ?Š?Đ"?—. ?ž?Ē"?› 
?™?“?™?“?™ ??”?•?‘?™ ?”?Ļ?”"?’ ?ž?”?Ļ"?Ļ ??‘?Ļ?”? ?™?•???Ģ ?Ļ??–?Ē? ?‘?Ē?Ļ?’ ?Đ?œ?™?˜"?.

?”? ?” ?‘?“?‘?Ļ ???Ī?Ļ?™ ?”?Ļ?Đ?Ē?™? ?”?ž?™???™?? ?Ē?Ļ?Ÿ ??Đ?Ļ ?ž?Ī?™?Ķ?™? ?œ?”???™?Š ?•?œ?”?“?™?— ?•?™?Đ ?Đ? ?”?Ļ?‘?” 
?Ī???•?§?™? ?Ē? ??–?›?Ļ?•?Š ?•?’? ?Đ? ?”?•?™?” ??Đ?Ļ ? ???Š?Ī?§?Š ?? ?Ļ?Đ??™? ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī? ?ž?˜?Ē? ?“?”?ž?“?Ī?™?? 
??•?œ?™ ?œ? ? ?Š?›?•?™?Ÿ ?œ?›?œ?•?, ?•?‘?Ē?Ķ? ?‘?Ļ?•?Ļ ?Đ?œ? ? ?Š?›?•?™?Ÿ ?œ?›?œ?•? ?“?”?ž?“?Ī?™?? ??™? ?• ?ž?™ ?Đ?Ē?•?Đ?” 
?”??•?Š?™?•?Š ?Đ?œ ?”?Ē?•?Ī?Ļ?Š ?Đ?”?•? ?§?•?Ļ? ?ž?” ?Đ?›?Š?•?‘, ?“?Đ? ?‘?›?œ?œ ??™? ?• ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Đ? ?Đ?”?Ļ?™ ? ?›?Š?‘?• 
?”??•?Š?™?•?Š ?‘?”?™?Ī?•?š, ??œ? ?ž?™ ?Đ?—?•?Š? ?Ē"?™ ?”?ž??Đ?™?Ÿ ??Š ??•?Š?™?•?Š ?”?Ē?•?Ī?Ļ?Š ?Ē?œ ?”?’?œ?™?•? ?•?Š 
?•?”?•? ??™? ?• ?§?•?Ļ? ?•??™? ?• ?™?•?“?Ē ?›?œ?œ ?ž?” ? ?›?Š?‘ ?Đ?. ?•?"?› ?”?•? ?›?Đ? ?”? ?›?Š?‘ ?Đ?œ? ?‘?›?•?•? ?” 
?Đ?’"?› ????•?Ļ ?œ?ž?•?—?§?• ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ??•?œ?™ ????•?Ļ ??Ģ ?Đ?”?•? ?‘?Š?•?š ?“?‘?Ļ?™? ?ž?›?•?Ē?Ļ?™? ?›??œ?•. (?•?ž?” 
?Đ?›?Š?‘?Š ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?—?•?Đ ??•?œ?™ ?”?™?” ?”?ž?“?Ī?™?? ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?•? ?Š?›?•?™?Ÿ ?’? ?œ?Đ? ?”?Đ? ??™? ?• ?›?œ?•? ?“?? 
?”?™?” ?™?•?“?Ē ?ž?” ?Đ?›?Š?•?‘ ?Đ? ?Đ?”?•? ???Ī?Ļ ?ž?™? ?™? ?Ī?Đ?•?˜ ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?“?•?Ÿ ??•?Š?• ?œ?ž?™?Ÿ ?Đ?”?Ļ?™ ?”?•? 
?ž???™?Š ?•?ž?“?™?— ?•?’? ?œ?‘?“ ?–?” ?”?Ļ?™ ?Ē?•?Đ?” ? ?‘?œ?” ?›?–?” ?œ?›?Š?•?‘ ?Đ?ž?•?Š ?§?“?•?Đ?™? ?‘???Ī?Ļ ?ž? ?•?•?œ 
?•?ž?˜?•? ?Ģ ?›?–?”).

?•?”? ?›?•?Ÿ ?œ?Ē"?“ ?Đ?Ļ?Đ??™?Ÿ ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ??•?Š? ?Ē? ?”??–?›?Ļ?•?Š ?Đ?‘?”?Ÿ ?•?ž?ž?™?œ? ?ž?—?•?™?™?‘?™?Ÿ ?œ?Ē?Đ?•?Š ?›?Ÿ 
?ž?˜?Ē? ?Đ??‘??Ļ. ?—?“? ?“?‘?Đ?‘?Š ?“?Ģ ?§?˜"?– ?"?Ļ ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?§"?• ?•?ž?” ?œ?Ē?Đ?•?Š ?Đ?œ?•? ?‘?™?Ÿ ??™?Đ 
?œ??Đ?Š?• ??ž?Ļ?” ?Š?•?Ļ?” ?Đ?ž?™ ?Đ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?™?ž?—?” ?Ē?œ ?”?ž?™? ?”?œ?œ?• ?Đ?ž?˜?™?œ?™?Ÿ ?§? ??” ?•??™?‘?” 
?•?Š?—?Ļ?•?Š ?‘?™?Ÿ ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?œ??‘?™?”?Ÿ ?Đ?‘?Đ?ž?™? ?Ē?œ ??—?Š ?›?ž?” ?•?›?ž?” ?Ē?™?™"?Đ ?"?› ?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?Đ?ž?” ?Đ?ž?•?Š?Ļ 
?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ??"?Š ?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?”?•? ??Ģ ?‘?™?“?•?Ē ?Đ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?“?‘???•?˜?” ?”? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” 
?•?›?“??ž?Ļ ?‘?”?§"?•. *?•?œ?›?Ÿ ???Ī?Ļ?™? ?Đ?œ ?”???Š?” ?•?”?“?—?” ?›?Đ?œ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?Ē?Ļ?Ÿ ?Đ?Ē?Ķ? ?”???Ī?Ļ?™? ?”? 
?”?˜?œ?Š ?§? ??” ?•??™?‘?” ?•?Š?—?Ļ?•?Š ?•?“??™ ?”?•? ?§"?• ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?Ÿ ?•?"?› ?”?Ļ?™"?Ģ ?•?”?Ļ?"?Đ ?Đ?”?‘?™??• 
?”? ?“?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?”?Ļ?™ ?Ī???§?• ?›?ž?•?Š?• ?•?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?Ÿ ?œ?“?™?“?”?• ??Ģ ?? ?”?™?• ? ?›?Š?‘?™?Ÿ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” 
?•?›"?Đ ?›?Đ?”?•? ?Ļ?§ ???Š?ž? ?‘?œ? ?›?•?•? ?”. *

??‘?œ ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?•?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?ž?Đ?ž?Ē ?Đ?œ? ?Ī???§?• ?›?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?ž?˜?Ē? ?”?§"?• ?“?”? ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?Ī"?• 
?ž?™???•?“?™ ?”?Š?•?Ļ?” ?”"?— ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?˜?Ē? ??Ī?™?§?•?Ļ?? ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?Đ?›?Š?‘ ??"?Š ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?™?Ÿ ??•?Š?• ?Ē? ?”??–?›?Ļ?•?Š 
?Đ?‘?• ?ž?Ī? ?™ ?Đ??™? ?• ?ž??ž?™?Ÿ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?Š ?”?Đ? ?•?œ? ?›?Š?‘?• ?œ?Đ?ž?• ??œ? ?Đ?”?•? ?ž?Ē?œ?” ?‘?“?Ē?Š?• ?Đ?–?” 
?›?Đ??Ļ ?”?“?‘?Ļ?™? ?•?”?•??™?œ ?•?“?Ē?Š?• ?›?Ÿ ?œ? ? ?Š?§?“?Đ ?”?Đ? ?•?ž?Ķ?•?” ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?• ?›?“?™ ?Đ?œ? ?œ?”? ?™?— ?Đ? 
?œ??Ī?™?§?•?Ļ???™? ?•?œ? ?œ?ž?Ē?Đ?™?”? ?Ē?™?™"?Đ ?"?› ?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?Đ?? ?”?™?” ?”?Đ? ?ž?§?•?“?Đ ?”?™?” ????•?Ļ ?“?œ? 
?›?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?•?Ļ?§ ?”?•??™?œ ?•?œ? ? ?Š?§?“?Đ ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?•?ž?ž?™?œ? ?”?•? ?ž?Ķ?•?”. ?•?˜?Ē?ž?• ?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?•?ž?Ļ ?“??Ģ 
?Đ???•?‘?Ļ ?“?Đ? ?Đ?œ? ? ?Š?§?“?Đ ? ?ž?™ ????•?Ļ ?›?“?ž???™?§ ?‘?”?œ?›?” ?–?• ??‘?œ ?Ē?›?•"? ?Đ?›?Š?‘ ??Š ?”?Đ? 
?’?•? ?–?™?Ÿ ??•?Š?•, ??Ģ ?Đ?’"?› ?œ? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?”, ?“?Ē?Đ?™?™?Š ?Ē?›?•"? ??™? ?• ?œ?Đ?ž?” ?œ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ??Ģ 
?›?Đ?Ē?ž?“ ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?Ē"?’ ?•??ž?Ļ ?œ?• ?œ?Ē?Đ?•?Š ?œ?Đ?ž?” ?›?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?‘?Ī"? ?ž?Š?Ī?™?œ?™?Ÿ ?”?™"? ?•?Ē?™?™?Ÿ ?‘??•"?— 
???™' ?™"? ?•???™' ?œ"?‘. ??‘?œ ???•?‘?Ļ ?“?Đ? ?Đ?œ? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?Đ????•?Ļ ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?”?•? ?Ļ?§ ?ž?“?Ļ?‘? ?Ÿ 
?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?œ? ????Ļ?• ?”?›? ?Đ?™?Đ ?ž?Ķ?•?” ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?• ??‘?œ ?? ?”?™?” ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?Đ?”?™?” ????•?Ļ ?ž?“??•?Ļ?™?™?Š? 
?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?œ? ?”?™?” ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ??Ģ ?Đ?™?Đ ?ž?Ķ?•?” ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?›?“?™ ?Đ?œ? ?™?”?™?” ?œ?”? ?•?œ?ž?Ē?Đ?™?”? ?Đ?. ??‘?œ 
?‘?Ē?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?”? ?ž?ž?™?œ? ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?’? ?œ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?“?’"?› ?œ? ? ?Š?§?“?Đ?• ?”?Đ?ž?•?Š ?Đ?”??™???•?Ļ ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ 
?”?•? ?Ļ?§ ?ž?“?Ļ?‘? ?Ÿ ?•?œ? ????Ļ?• ?‘?ž?§?•? ?Đ?™?Đ ?ž?Ķ?•?” ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?•?–?” ?•?“??™ ?Đ?‘???Ī?Ļ?™ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?Ē?Ļ?Ÿ 
?™?Đ ?™?•?Š?Ļ ?—?™?•?‘ ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?Ÿ ?ž?‘??"?Š ?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?Đ?œ?™?›? ?Đ? ?“?‘?Ļ?™ ?ž?™? ?•?Š ?•?’? ?œ? ? ?™?›?Ļ 
?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?•?”?›? ?”? ?›?•?œ?• ?“?‘?Ļ?™ ?ž?™? ?•?Š ?•?”???Š?” ?•?”?“?—?” ?Đ?ž?—?•?™?™?‘?™?Ÿ ?œ?‘?Ē?Ļ?Ÿ ?ž?Ÿ ?”?Ē?•?œ?. 
?•? ?ž?Ķ? ?Đ?’? ?œ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?Ÿ ?Ē? ?”??–?›?Ļ?•?Š.

??‘?œ ?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?‘?’?™?˜?™?Ÿ ?“?Ģ ?ž"?” ???•?‘?Ļ ?“?œ? ?›?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?•?’? ?œ? ?›?˜?Ē? ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?Đ?›?Š?‘ ?Ē?œ ?”? 
?“?"?Ļ ? ?—?ž?Ÿ ??"?Š ?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?™?Đ?Ļ?Ģ ?“?•?“??™ ?œ?Đ? ?Ē?›?•"? ?›?Š?‘?•, ?•?"?› ??Ģ ?‘? ?›?Š?‘ ???Š?ž? 
?Đ?œ? ?œ?Đ?•? ?›?•?•? ?” ?›?Ē?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?™?Đ ?œ?›??•?Ļ?” ?œ????•?Ļ. ?•?’? ??Ģ ?‘?›?Š?‘ ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?Ē?Ļ 
?ž?ž?Đ ?‘?™?“?• ?”?™?” ?œ?Ÿ ?œ????•?Ļ ?“?”? ?”? ?ž??ž?™? ?™? ?’? ?Đ?™?Đ ?‘?•?Ļ? ?”??ž?Š?™ ?›?™?“?•?Ē ?•?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ 
?‘?Š?•??' ?‘??? ?”?“?Ļ?™?Ÿ ?“?Ģ ??"?’ ?Đ?Ē?•?‘?“?™? ?‘?Đ?Š?•?Ģ ?•?"?› ?›?Đ?›?•?Š?‘?™? ?Đ? ?”?•?™?” ?•?ž?Ē?Š?™?§?™? 
?Ī???•?§?™? ?ž?›?•?•? ?™? ?œ?”?Đ? ?ž?ž?Đ ?•?œ? ?œ?”? ?•?Ķ?Ļ?™ ?™?ž"?Đ.

??‘?œ ?”? ?“?•?—?§ ?’?“?•?œ ?œ?Ī?Ļ?Đ ?‘?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?“?›?•?Š?‘ ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?Đ? ?”?•?™?” ?œ?Đ? ?Ē?›?•"? ?”?™?™? ?• ?Đ?§?•?Ļ? ??Š 
?”?Ē"?– ?Đ?œ?• ?‘?Đ?ž?•?Š ?Đ?‘?Š?•?Ļ?” ?“?ž?”"?Š ? ?™?ž? ?Đ?§?•?Ļ? ?Ē?‘?•?“?” ?–?Ļ?” ?Đ?œ?• ?Đ? ?§?Ļ??Š ?Ī?Ē?•?Ļ ?•?‘?œ 
?•? ?‘?• ?•?›?“?•?ž?” ?‘?Đ?ž?•?Š ??—?Ļ?™? ?•?’? ?"?› ?›?•?Š?‘ ?Đ?Ē"?– ?Đ?œ?• ?ž?Ķ?•?” ?Ē?œ ?Đ?ž?™?Ļ?Š ?Đ?‘?Š ?•?Đ??Ļ 
?”?ž?Ķ?•?Š ?•?”? ??™? ?• ?Đ?•?ž?Ļ?Ÿ. ??œ? ?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?Ī?Ļ?Đ ?›?•?•? ?Š ?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?Đ?›?•?Š?‘ ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?”??"?Š ?œ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š 
?”?Ē"?– ?œ? ?•?™ ??• ?œ?Š?§?Ļ?•?‘?Š ??‘?œ ?™?•?“?Ē ?Đ?”?Đ?ž?•?Š ?”? ?Đ?œ ??œ?§?™ ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?•?Š?•?Ļ?” ?“?™?œ?™?” ?Đ?Ķ?•?” 
?œ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?”?™? ?•?ž"?ž ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Đ?›?Š?‘?” ?œ? ?•?™ ?•?œ?Š?§?Ļ?•?‘?Š ?”?Ē"?– ??• ?œ?›?•?•? ?” ??—?Ļ?Š ?œ?”?Ļ??•?Š ?ž?” 
?Đ?”?Ē"?– ?”?§?™?œ?” ?Ē?œ ?”??“? ?œ?Ē?Đ?•?Š ??Š ?›?œ ?”?Š?•?Ē?‘?•?Š ?Đ????Ļ?” ?”?Š?•?Ļ?”, ?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?. ?•??™?Ÿ 
?œ?Ī?Ļ?Đ ?Đ?“?•?§? ?›?Đ?›?Š?‘ ?œ? ?•?™ ?•?œ?Š?§?Ļ?•?‘?Š ?Đ?™?Đ ?‘?• ?“?™?Ÿ ?Đ?Ļ?Ī?” ?•?ž?“?—?” ??™???•?Ļ ?“?œ? ?Š?Ē?Đ?•?Ÿ 
?“?”?™?” ?ž?–?›?™?Ļ ?–?”, ??œ? ?Đ??™? ?• ?ž?’?“?Ļ?™ ?“?—?™?™?Š ??™???•?Ļ?™? ??œ? ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Đ?”?›?Š?™?‘?” ?”?™?Š?” 
?œ?›?•?•? ?” ?Ļ?Ē?” ??™?Ÿ ?‘?”?Đ?ž?•?Š ?Đ?•? ?—?Đ?™?‘?•?Š ?“?™?•?Š?Ļ ?˜?•?‘ ?Đ?™?Đ?Ļ?Ī?• ?ž?œ?§?™?™?ž?Ÿ. ?œ?›?Ÿ ?’? ?‘?Ē?•?‘?“? 
?“?™?“?Ÿ ?Đ? ?›?Š?‘?• ?‘?ž?§?•? ?”???Š?” ?•?”?“?—?” ?Đ?”?•? ?—?Ļ?•?Ģ ?•?’?“?•?Ģ ?§?™?•?ž?Ÿ ?Đ? ??™?Ÿ ?œ?”? ?Đ?•? ?—?Đ?™?‘?•?Š 
?•?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?Ÿ ?Đ?–?” ?™?•?Š?Ļ ?˜?•?‘. ?•?œ?Ī"?– ??Ģ ?œ?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?•??Ģ ?? ?”?™?” ?›?•?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” 
? ?ž?™ ?”?™?” ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?œ?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Đ? ?›?Š?‘ ?œ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?”?Ē"?–, ?“?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?”? ??™? ?• ?ž?—?œ?§ ?‘?™?Ÿ ?Đ?œ? 
?‘?›?•?•? ?” ?œ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?”. ?•?’? ?ž???Š?‘?Ļ ?Đ?§?“?•?Đ?Š?• ??™? ?• ?›?œ?•? ?“?”?•? ?›?ž?§?“?™?Đ ?Đ? ?Đ??™? ?• 
?§?•?“?Đ ?“?ž?“?ž?™?Ÿ ?œ?ž?§?“?™?Đ ?‘?Ē"?ž ?›"?› ?–?” ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Đ?”?•? ?—?Ļ?•?Ģ ?•?’?“?•?Ģ ?›?Š?™?‘?Š?Ÿ ?›??Ÿ ??™? ?• ?Đ? 
?”?Ļ??•?™ ?œ?”?Š?§?“?Đ ?•?”?•?™ ?›?ž?§?“?™?Đ ?‘?Ē"?ž. ?•?Ē?™?™?Ÿ /?™?•"?“/ ?‘???™' ?Ļ?Ī"? ?‘?˜"?– ?•?Đ"?š ?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?Ļ?§ 
?˜?Ē? ?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?ž?Đ?ž?Ē ?Đ?Ī???§?• ?›?•?Š?™?” ?“?“?•?—?§ ?œ?•?ž?Ļ ?Đ?œ? ?”?Ļ?’?™?Đ?• ?Đ?Ī?œ?™?’ ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?•?›?Ÿ ?”?Ļ?"?Đ 
?•?”?Ļ?™"?Ģ ?Đ?”?‘?™??• ?”? ?“?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?Ī?œ?™?’?™ ??‘?œ ?ž"?ž ?’? ?œ?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?™?Đ ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?‘?Ē?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ 
?›?“?‘??Ļ?Š?™.

?Ē?•?“ ?™?Đ ?˜?Ē? ?œ?”?Š?™?Ļ ?œ?”?Đ"?š /?™?•"?“/ ???™' ?Ļ?Ē"?• ??"?§ ?™"?‘ ?“?‘?Đ? ?Đ?œ? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?œ?§?“?•?Đ?” ?ž?•?Š?Ļ 
?œ?ž?—?•?§ ?œ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?Ē?™?™"?Đ ?•??™?Ÿ ?œ?š ?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?’?“?•?œ ?™?•?Š?Ļ ?ž?–?” ?Đ? ?›?Š?‘?• ?œ?Š?™?Ī?œ?•?Š ?•?œ?—?Ļ?Ģ 
?•?œ?’?“?Ģ ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ??Ģ ?œ?ž?” ?Đ??™?Š? ?‘?Ī"?Š ?‘?Đ? ?ž?Đ? ?Š ?—?›?ž?™? ?“?Ļ?§ ?œ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Đ? ?’?•?Ī?™?” 
?ž?•?Š?Ļ, ? ?ž?™ ?”? ?–?”?• ?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Đ? ?’?•?Ī?™?” ?Đ?œ? ?™?”?™?” ?‘?‘?–?™?•?Ÿ ?’?“?•?œ ?›?–?”. ?•??Ģ ?Đ?”?™? ???‘?Ļ? 
?’?“?•?œ?” ?•??™?Ÿ ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?œ?Ļ??™?”. ?”?•? ?›?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?‘?’?œ?™?•?Ÿ ?ž?”?Ļ?Đ"? ?“?›?Š?‘ ?Ē?œ ?“?™? ? ?“?”?Đ"?š ?“?›?ž?Ē?˜ 
?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?–?” ?‘?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?Ī"?• ?”"?— ?ž?™???•?”"?Š ?•?›?•?•? ?Š?• ?“?ž?Ī?Ļ?Đ ?‘?˜?Ē? ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?Đ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?•?ž?Ķ?•?” 
?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ??"?Š ?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?ž?Đ?•? ?Đ?œ? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?›?“?™ ?Đ?œ? ?œ?”? ?™?— ?Đ? ?œ??Ī?™?§?•?Ļ???™? 
?•?œ?ž?Ē?Đ?™?”? ?•?ž?Ī?Ļ?Đ ?Đ?”?•? ?ž?Đ?•? ?Đ?–?”?• ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?•?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?’?“?•?œ ?œ?”?Đ? ?•?Đ? ?Đ?œ? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” 
?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?œ?ž?—?•?§ ?•?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?œ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?Š?§?•?Ÿ. ?œ?›?Ÿ ??Ģ ?Đ?“?‘?Ļ?™ ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ? ?Ļ??” ?™?•?Š?Ļ ?›?“?‘??Ļ?Š?™ ?œ?Ē?™?œ 
?Đ?œ? ????Ļ?• ?‘?›?–?” ?Đ?™?Đ ?ž?Ķ?•?” ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?•, ?ž"?ž ?—?–?™? ?Ÿ ?Đ?”?’?œ?™?•?Ÿ ?ž?”?Ļ?Đ"? ???•?‘?Ļ ?”???‘?Ļ? 
?Đ?›?Š?‘?Š?™ ?Đ? ?—?Đ?‘ ?–?” ?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Đ? ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?œ?”?Đ"?š ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?. ?•?™?Đ ?œ?Ī???•?§ ?›?•?Š?™?” ?•?Ē?™?™?Ÿ 
?‘?—?Š"?? ???™' ?Ļ??"?– ?Đ??Ģ ?‘? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?™?Đ ?Đ???•?‘?Ļ?™?Ÿ ?“?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?œ?Ķ?•?Ļ?š ?Š?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Đ? ?•?›"?Đ ?Đ?™?Đ 
?œ?Ē?Đ?•?Š ?›?”?Đ"?š. ?•?‘?Ē?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?”? ?™?Đ ?˜?Ē?ž?™? ?”?Ļ??Đ?•? ?™? ?œ?›?Ÿ ?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī? ?•?›?Ÿ ?Ē?Đ?™?Š?™ 
?ž?Ē?Đ?”.

?•?˜?Ē? ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?•?Ļ?Đ"?™ ?Đ?œ? ?Ī???§?• ?›?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ??•?œ?™ ???‘?Ļ?™ ?Đ?Ļ' ?˜?Ļ?Ī?•?Ÿ ?Đ?œ? ?”?–?›?™?Ļ ?”?§"?• 
??œ? ???‘?Ļ? ?‘?Ē?œ?ž? ?Ī?œ?™?’ ?Ē?œ?™?• ?•?Ī???§?• ?›?Ļ"?˜. ??• ?Đ???‘?Ļ?™ ?“?œ??• ?§"?• ?’?ž?•?Ļ ?”?•? ??œ? 
????ž?›?Š? ?‘?Ē?œ?ž? ?ž?Đ?•? ?“?‘??"?Š ?”? ?œ? ? ?™?›?Ļ ?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?•??™?Ÿ ?‘?–?” ?”?˜?œ?Š ?§? ??” ?›"?› 
?ž?—?ž?Š ?Đ?”?›?•?Š?‘ ?”?™?” ?ž?™?Ÿ. ?•?? ? ?™?ž? ?›?˜?Ē? ?‘' ?›?“?™ ?œ?ž?Ē?˜ ?”?ž?—?œ?•?§?Š ?ž???Š?‘?Ļ ?“?Ļ?§ ?‘??"?Š 
?Đ?›?Š?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?Ī?œ?™?’ ??Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ??‘?œ ?‘???Ī?Ļ?™ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?Ē?Ļ?Ÿ ?Đ?”?›?Š?‘ ?‘?Ē?Ķ?ž?• ?ž???™?Š ?•?ž?“?™?— 
?Đ?”?•? ?ž?˜?™?œ ?§? ??” ?•??™?‘?” ?•?Š?—?Ļ?•?Š ?‘?™?Ÿ ?™?Đ?Ļ??œ ?œ??‘?™?”? ?Đ?‘?Đ?ž?™? ?”?•?™ ?–?” ?§"?• ?’?ž?•?Ļ 
?œ?›?•"?Ē ?•?™?”?™?” ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?•?ž?Ķ?•?” ?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ??Ģ ?œ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?•?Ļ?Đ"?™ ??Ģ ?? ?”?™?” ? ?›?Š?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?ž?§"?• 
?“?Ļ' ?™?Đ?ž?Ē??œ ?•?"?› ?™?Đ ?Ē?•?“ ?˜?Ē? ?œ?”?Š?™?Ļ ?•?œ?—?™?™?‘ ?œ?Đ?•?Ļ?Ī?Ÿ.

?•?‘?“?‘?Ļ ?Đ?ž?•?Š ?”?œ?Ē"?– ??™?Ÿ ?Đ?™?™?š ?›?œ?œ ?œ?”???Š?Ī?§ ?‘?Ē?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?“?”? ?”? ?§?•?Ļ?™?Ÿ ?œ?Ē"?– ?Đ?œ?”? 
?’"?› ?‘?œ?Đ?•?Ÿ ?”?œ?Ē"?– ?•?"?› ?”?•? ?›?ž?• ??œ?”?™? ??—?Ļ?™? ?Đ?ž?•?Š?Ļ ?œ?ž?—?•?§ ?•?œ?Đ?Ļ?•?Ģ ?•?œ?‘?–?•?Š.

?•?ž???Š?‘?Ļ ?œ?Ē"?“ ?Đ?‘??œ?• ?”?Đ?ž?•?Š ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?”? ?’? ?§?Ļ?™??” ??—?Ļ?Š ??• ??Ģ ?Ļ?§ ?Ī?™?Ļ?•?Đ ??—?Ļ ?›?ž?• ?Đ? 
?§?œ ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Š?• ??œ ?‘?Ī?Š?— ?Đ??™? ?• ?Đ? ?›?œ?œ ?•?›?ž?• ?Đ? ?Đ?“' ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Š?• ?Đ?“?™ ?‘?§?ž?Ĩ 
?•?—?™?Ļ?™?§ ??• ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Š ?Đ?“?™ ?‘???’?•?œ ?Š?—?Š ?”?Đ?™?Ÿ ?Đ??™? ?• ?Đ? ?›?œ?œ ?•?›?ž?• ?Đ? ?Ķ?‘' ?Đ?™?Đ ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Š?• 
?Ķ?‘??•?Š ?‘?—?™?Ļ?™?§ ?•?Đ?•?•? ?•?›?“?•?ž?” ?•??Ģ ?Đ? ??œ?§?™? ?Đ??Ģ ?Đ?”?•? ??•?Š?• ?”?§?Ļ?™??” ?ž"?ž ?”?•? ?’? 
?‘?Ī?™?Ļ?•?Đ ??—?Ļ ?Ē?œ ?“?™?™? ?™? ?•?Ē?œ ?ž?œ??›?™? ?•?Ē?œ ?Ē"?–, ?”?•?™? ?”?›?•?•? ?” ?Ē?™?§?Ļ ?‘?—?Đ?™?‘?•?Š ?”?Đ?. 
?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?‘?”?“?Ī???” ?Đ?œ ?”?Ē?Š?•? ?™? ?Đ??™?Ÿ ?Đ?•? ?›?•?•? ?” ?Ē?œ?™?™?”?• ?ž?—?ž?Š ?Đ?”?ž?“?Ī?™?? ?Ē"?™ ?”?ž??Đ?™?Ÿ 
??™? ?• ?™?•?“?Ē ?›?œ?•? ?ž?ž?” ?Đ?›?Š?•?‘ ?Đ? ??™? ?• ?Đ? ?›?œ?œ. ?•??Ģ ?Đ?Ē"?™ ?Š?™?‘?•?Š ?Đ?œ?Ī? ?™?”? 
?•?Đ?œ??—?Ļ?™?”? ? ?™?›?Ļ ?Đ?”?•? ?Đ? ??™?Ÿ ?œ?”?—?Đ?™?‘ ?›?›?•?Š?‘ ??Š ?”?Đ? ?‘?–?” ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Đ??™? ?• ?‘?”?Đ? 
?’?•?Ī?™?”. ?•??Ģ ?œ?”?œ?‘?•?Đ ?Đ?”?‘?™? ?Ļ?Ē?§"? ?‘?Š?Đ?•?‘?” ???™' ?Ē' ?“?‘?Š?•?œ?” ??•?Š ?“' ?Ē?œ ?Đ? ?”?•?™?” 
?œ?”?•?Ļ?•?Š ?Đ?Ķ?Ļ?™?š ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Š?• ?™?”?•?“?” ?”?•? ?›?ž?•?—?§ ??Š ?”?Đ?, ?ž"?ž ?œ?Ē?Đ?•?Š?• ?œ?Đ? ?‘?›?Š?™?‘?Š ?Š?™?‘?•?Š 
??—?Ļ?•?Š ?ž???Š?‘?Ļ ?Đ?œ? ? ?Ē?Đ?” ?‘?–?” ?“?‘?œ? ?›?•?•? ?” ?œ?›?Š?™?‘?” ?›?ž?• ?”?›? ?•?“??™ ?”?•? ?Ļ?§ ?›?ž?§?Ļ?” 
?‘?Ē?œ?ž? ?Đ? ???ž?›?• ?”?Š?™?‘?•?Š ?Đ?œ? ?”?™?” ?ž?Đ? ?” ?ž?›?Ī?™ ?Đ?‘?Š?—?œ?” ?›?’?•?Ÿ ?‘?? ??—?“ ?›?Š?‘ ?Š?™?‘?Š ?Đ?“' 
?œ?›?•?•? ?Š ?Đ?“?™ ?Đ?”?™?” ? ?§?Ļ? ?‘?§?ž?Ĩ ?•?—?™?Ļ?™?§ ?•??—?“ ?‘?œ? ?›?•?•? ?” ?›?Š?‘ ?œ?Ī? ?™?• ??• ?œ??—?Ļ?™?• ??™?–?” 
?Š?™?‘?•?Š ?Đ?Ē?Š?” ?ž?•?‘?Ÿ ?ž?–?” ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Š?• ?œ?”?Đ? ?•?“??™ ?Ī?Đ?•?˜ ?Đ?œ? ? ?Ē?Đ?” ?Đ? ?‘?–?” ??‘?œ ??Ģ ?‘?›?•?•? ?” 
?ž???•?Ī?§? ?™ ?•?™?•?Š?Ļ ? ?•?˜?” ?Đ??™? ?• ?›?œ?•?.

?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?‘?ž?“?Ī?™?? ?Đ??™? ?• ?™?•?“?Ē ?›?œ?•? ?Đ?Ē?•?“ ?’?Ļ?Ē ?ž?Đ?œ? ?‘?§?“?•?Đ?” ?Ē?™?™?Ÿ ?‘?Ī"?Š /?™?•"?“/ ???™' 
?Ļ?Ē"?• ???§"?˜ ??™?Ÿ ?œ?—?•?Đ ?œ?›?œ ?”?Đ?ž?•?Š ?Đ?›?•?œ?Ÿ ?™?Đ ?œ?”? ?’? ?§?Ļ?™??” ?•?Ī?™?Ļ?•?Đ ??—?Ļ ?•?Ļ?§ ?‘?Đ? 
?”?•?™?” ?™?Đ ?œ?—?•?Đ ?‘?Ē?Š?•? ?™? ?? ? ?›?Š?‘ ?Đ?œ? ?‘??•?Ī?Ÿ ?—?Ļ?•?Ģ ?•?’?“?•?Ģ. ?•??Ģ ?Đ?’? ?Đ? ?”?•?™?” ?ž?Ķ?™? ?• 
?œ?Š"?§ ?‘?Đ?‘?•?Ē?•?Š ?“?Ģ ?œ"?” ?Đ?‘?Ī?Ļ?Đ?Š ?ž?™?›?” ?”? ?—?•?œ ?•?Ī???§ ?›?Ÿ ?”?Ļ?ž?‘"? ?‘?Ī?Ļ?§ ?•' ?ž?™???•?“?™ 
?”?Š?•?Ļ?” ?”?œ?›?” ?˜' ?Ē?™?™?Ÿ ?‘?›???Ģ ?ž?Đ? ?” ?•?? ?›?Ÿ ?’? ?–?” ??™?Ÿ ?”?›?Ļ?— ?Đ?”?•? ?œ?”?Đ? ?ž?›?œ ?ž?§?•? ?œ? 
?™?“?•?Ē ?–?” ?œ??™? ?Đ?™ ?“?œ?›?œ ?”?Ē?•?œ? ?™?“?•?Ē ?Đ?Đ? ?–?” ?ž?™?•?—?“ ?œ?”?§?‘"?”. ?•?œ?ž?Ē?Đ?” ?‘?Ē?Š?•? ?™? ??™? ?™ 
?‘?•?“?§ ?œ?Ļ??•?Š ?? ?™?Đ ?Đ? ?Đ? ?ž?Đ?•? ?Đ?‘?›?œ ?”?Đ?ž?•?Š ? ?•?˜?” ?Đ??™?Ÿ ?œ?—?•?Đ ?œ?‘?“ ?ž?”?•?™?” ?Đ?œ? ?ž?Ķ?•?™ 
?›?œ?œ ?Đ?™?“?Ī?™???• ?‘?Ē?Š?•? ?™?. ??‘?œ ?? ?‘?“?Ļ?š ?ž?§?Ļ?” ?? ?™ ?Ļ?•??” ?‘?Ē?Š?•? ?™? ??Ģ ??—?“ ?ž?–' ?”?Đ?ž?•?Š 
?? ?™ ?ž?—?ž?™?Ļ ?œ?§?Ļ?•?Ē ??•?Š?• ?ž?§?•? ?ž?”?Ē?Š?•?Ÿ ?•?œ?”?Ķ? ?™?Ē?• ?œ?—?•?ž?Ļ? ?‘?Ē?œ?ž? ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Đ?œ? ?ž?Ķ??Š?™ 
?Ļ??™?” ?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ?Š ?œ???‘?Ļ?Š?™.

?•?ž?” ?Đ? ???Š?Ī?§?Š ??™?–?” ?Đ? ?œ?Ē?– ??™?Š? ?‘? "?™ ?“?’?•?Ē?Ļ?™?Ÿ ?‘?• ?›?Đ?ž?–?›?™?Ļ?• ?œ?‘?˜?œ?”. ?”? ?” ?‘?‘?Ļ?›?•?Š 
?“?Ģ ?ž' ?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?‘?Ē?•?‘?“? ?“?‘? ?™?ž?™?Ÿ ?Ļ?Ē?™? ?“?ž?Ļ?™?” ?“?”??™ ?Ī?™?Š? ??™?Ÿ ?›??Ÿ ?Đ? ?•?Ļ?—?ž? ? ?”?•? ?Đ? 
?•?œ?›??•?Ļ?” ??™?–?” ?—?œ?•?§ ?™?Đ ?‘?–?”. ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?ž?•?›?Ļ?—?™?Ÿ ?œ?•?ž?Ļ ?“?Ļ?§ ?ž?” ?Đ?§?‘?Ē?• ?‘?œ?Đ?•?Ÿ ?”?œ?Ē?– 
?Đ?™?”?™?” ? ?—?Đ?‘ ?œ?Đ? ?”?•? ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Đ? ?“?œ?Ē?– ??‘?œ ?ž?” ?Đ?œ? ?§?‘?Ē?• ?Đ?™?”?™?” ?–?” ?œ?”?Đ? ??™? ?• ?‘?“?™?Ÿ 
?Đ? ??Ģ ?Đ?ž?Š?›?•?™?Ÿ ?•?”?›?œ ?ž?‘?™? ?™? ?Đ?”?•? ?œ?Đ?. ?•?‘?œ?Đ?•?Ÿ ??Ļ?ž?™?Š ?§?‘?Ē?• ?Š?™?‘?Š ?Ļ?—?ž? ? ?œ?—?Đ?™?‘?•?Š 
?Đ? ?Đ?›?Ÿ ?§?Ļ??• ?œ?”' ?‘?Š?Ī?œ?•?Š ?•?‘?›?œ ?“?‘?Ļ ??‘?œ ?Š?™?‘?Š ?ž?Ļ?™ ?œ? ? ?§?‘?Ē ?œ?”?™?•?Š ?Đ? ?œ?›?Ÿ ??Ģ 
?Đ?ž?Š?›?•?™?Ÿ ?œ?”' ??™? ?• ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Đ?. ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ? ?™?—? ?ž?” ?Đ?Ī?Đ?•?˜ ?Đ?‘?œ?Đ?•?Ÿ ?”?§?“?Đ ?? ?‘?ž?§?•? ?”' 
?™??ž?Ļ ?‘?Ļ?•?š ??Š?” ?Ļ?—?•? ?ž?œ?š ?”?Ē?•?œ? ?œ? ?™?Ķ? ?“?”?•? ?›?‘?Ļ?›?” ?‘?œ? ?”' ?Đ??™? ?” ?‘?Ļ?›?”. ?•?Ē?™?™?Ÿ 
?‘??•"?— ???™' ?”' ?Đ?ž?Đ?ž?Ē ?Ē?•?“ ?Đ?”?Š?§? ?” ?”?™?Š?” ?‘?›?•?•? ?Š ?Đ? ?”?•?™?” ?•?§?Ļ?™??Š ?Đ? ??“' ?•?"?› ?”?™?” 
?‘?”?›?Ļ?— ?ž?˜?‘?Ē ?Đ?œ ?”?‘?Ļ?›?” ?‘?Đ? ??“' ?“?•?§? ?•?‘?•?“??™ ?œ? ?™?Ķ? ?›?Đ?™??ž?Ļ ?Ļ?—?•?, ?•?ž"?ž ?›?Đ?ž?‘?Ļ?š 
?‘??Ļ?ž?™?Š ?™?Ķ? ?‘?Ļ?—?ž? ? ?ž?Đ?•? ?“?‘??Ļ?ž?™?Š ?”?•?§?‘?Ē ?Ļ?—?ž? ? ?œ?Đ? ?•??Ģ ?Đ?‘? ??•?œ?™ ?ž?œ?Đ?•?Ÿ ?Ļ?—?•? 
?ž"?ž ?Ē?Đ??•?”?• ?§?‘?™?Ē?•?Š ?œ?Đ? ?•?ž?ž?™?œ? ?Ē?“?™?Ģ ?ž?Ļ?—?•? ?‘?œ?”"?§ ?Đ?Ē?™?§?Ļ ?”?Đ? ?”?•? ?”' ?•??“'.

?Ē?›"?Ī ?ž?Ī?•?Ļ?Đ ?“?ž?Ļ?™ ??™? ?• ?Đ? ?“?œ? ?›?“?›?Š?‘?Š ?‘?Đ? ?”?—?Š"?? ?Ē?œ ? ?“?Ļ?™? ?Đ?ž?Ļ?™ ?›?•?œ? ?”?•? ?Đ? 
?“?–?” ?•?“??™ ??™?Ÿ ?œ?—?œ?§ ?‘?™?Ÿ ?ž?Ļ?™ ?›?•?œ? ?œ?ž?Ļ?™?” ?“?”??™ ?Ī?™?Š?. ?•?’? ?œ? ?›?“?›?Š?‘?Š ?“?œ? ?Ē?“?™?Ģ 
?Ļ?—?ž? ? ?ž?Ļ?—?•?.

?•?"?› ?‘?Đ?Ī?•?Š ?”?œ?Ē?– ?”?ž?Ķ?•?™?Ÿ ??Ķ?œ?™? ?• ?Ļ?§ ?Đ? ?’?˜' ?”?•? ?”?Đ? ?•?œ? ?Đ? ??•?™?‘?Ē?Ļ?Đ?˜?Ē?Ļ ?•?›?“?•?ž?” 
?•? ?•?’?Ē ?–?” ?œ?Ē? ?™?Ÿ ?Đ?’?•?Ē?Ļ?™?Ÿ ?‘?ž?–?›?™?Ļ?• ?œ?‘?˜?œ?” ?Ļ?§ ?Ē?œ ?Đ? ?’?˜' ?•?›?Ÿ ?œ?Ē? ?™?Ÿ ?‘?Ļ?›?” ?‘?œ?Ē?– 
?Đ?”?•? ?“?•?§? ?‘?Đ? ?’?˜' ?•?‘?? ?’?œ?™?Š ?”?•? ?“?•?§? ?Đ? ?’?“'. ?™?“?™?“?•, ?ž?Đ?” ?Ī?™?™? ?Đ?˜?™?™?Ÿ

Perhaps this is based on the Taz's sevara that there is no requirement 
that the persuasion be effective, see:


?Ī?Ļ?•?Đ ?”?˜"?– ?Ē?œ ?”?Š?•?Ļ?” - ?‘?Ļ??Đ?™?Š ?Ī?Ļ?§ ?’ ?Ī???•?§ ?™?’
?›?™ ?Ē?Đ?™?Š ?”?™?” ?œ?• ?œ?”?Đ?™?‘ ?“?‘?Ļ?™ ?”?Ļ?‘ ?›?•'. ?ž?Đ?ž?Ē ??™?œ?• ?”?™?” ?ž?Đ?™?‘ ?›?Ÿ ?”?™?” ?ž?•?Ē?™?œ ?•?‘??ž?Š 
?›?œ ?”?ž???™?Š ?—?™?™?‘ ?ž?™?Š?” ??Ģ ?? ??™?Ÿ ?”? ?™???Š ?Đ?•?ž?Ē ?œ?•, ?›?Š?‘?• ?Đ? ?”?Š?•???Ī?•?Š ?‘?Ī?Ļ?§ ?–?” ?‘?•?Ļ?Ļ 
(?“?Ģ ?›"?˜) ?“?Đ?? ?™ ? ?—?Đ ?Đ?œ? ? ?Ķ?˜?•?” ??–?”?Ļ?Š ?ž???™?Š ?•?”?™?” ?ž?•?Ē?™?œ ?œ?• ?Š?Đ?•?‘?” ?–?• ?ž?Đ?"?› 
?‘??“? ?”?ž???™?Š ?Đ?ž?•?–?”?Ļ ?Đ?œ? ?œ?”???™?Š ?—?™?™?‘ ?ž?™?“ ?›?Đ?ž???™?Š ?•?œ? ?ž?•?Ē?™?œ ?œ?• ?Š?™?Ļ?•?Ĩ ?–?”:

--
Posted by YGB to YGB 
<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/07/interesting-question-my-question-in_13.html> 
at 7/15/2005 12:18:36 AM


Go to top.


*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]
< Previous Next >