Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 051

Friday, July 15 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:42:12 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Re: yeridat hadorot

From: <Mlevinmd@aol.com>
> 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.

I once argued that the Ramban in his introduction to Milhamoth HaShem
presented a third approach. Our understanding of earlier authorities is
derived from, and, in a sense, filtered by the way they were understood by
our predecessors (he's thinking specifically of the Rif). As a result we,
if we argue with the Rif, would have to take the embarassing position
that on the one hand we couldn't have understood the gemaras we cite
if the Rif hadn't told us what they mean, but nonetheless we think he's
wrong about what they mean. So even when we disagree with him we have
to recognize that it's more likely that we're wrong than that he is.

David Riceman 

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gil Student <simcha365@hotmail.com>
[Hirhurim - Musings] Religious Zionism Debate X

The Three Oaths, Part II
(see <http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-iv.html>
for Part I)

R. J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1 pp. 14-15:

  The prime argument cited in objection to the War of Independence,
  and indeed to the very establishment of the state itself, is based
  upon a literal understanding of the Talmud, Ketubot 11a. In an
  aggadic statement, the Talmud declares that prior to the exile and
  the dispersal of the remnant of Israel, God caused the Jews to
  swear two solemn oaths: (1) not to endeavor to retake the Land of
  Israel by force, and (2) not to rebel against the nations of the
  world. Rabbi Zevin [Torah She-be'al Peh 5731] maintains that these
  talmudic oaths are not binding under circumstances such as the ones
  which surrounded the rebirth of the Jewish state. In support of
  this view he marshals evidence from a variety of sources. Avnei
  Nezer, Yoreh De'ah, II, 454:56, notes that there is no report in
  any of the classic writings regarding an actual assemblage for the
  purpose of accepting these oaths, as is to be found, for example,
  in the narrative concerning the oaths by which Moses bound the
  community of Israel prior to the crossing of the Jordan. The oaths
  administered before the exile are understood by Avnei Nezer as
  having been sworn by yet unborn souls prior to their descent into
  the terrestrial world. Such oaths, he argues, have no binding force
  in Halakhah. Similarly, the Maharal of Prague in his Commentary on
  the Aggada, Ketubot 111a, and in chapter 25 of his Nezah Yisra'el,
  interprets these oaths as being in the nature of a decree or
  punishment rather than as injunctions incumbent upon Jews in the
  Diaspora. There is obviously no transgression involved in
  attempting to mitigate the effects of an evil decree. A third
  authority, R. Meir Simchah of Dvinck, author of the Or Sameah,
  accepts the premise that these oaths do apply in a literal sense.
  However, he expresses the opinion that following the promulgation
  of the Balfour Declaration, establishment of a Jewish homeland in
  Palestine no longer constitutes a violation of the oath concerning
  rebellion against the nations of the world. The text of Or Sameah's
  statement on this improtant issue is reprinted by Z. A. Rabiner,
  Toledot R. Meir Simhah (Tel Aviv, 5727), p. 164. Rabbi Zevin adds
  that this argument assumes even greater cogency subsequent to the
  United Nations resolution sanctioning the establishment of a Jewish
  There is yet another line of reasoning on the basis of which Rabbi
  Zevin denies the binding nature of these oaths at the present
  juncture of Jewish history. He advances a forceful argument which,
  particularly in the present post-Holocaust era, must find a
  sympathetic echo in the heart of Jews who have witnessed an
  unprecedented erosion of all feelings of humanity among the nations
  of the world which permitted the horrendous oppression and torture
  of the Jewish people. The Talmud, loc. cit., records that the two
  oaths sworn by the people of Israel were accompanied by a third
  oath which devolved upon the nations of the world; namely, that
  they shall not oppress Jews inordinately. According to Rabbi Zevin
  and others who have advanced the same argument, these three oaths,
  taken together, form the equivalent of a contractual relationship.
  Jews are bound by their oaths only as long as the gentile nations
  abide by theirs. Persecution of the Jews by the nations of the
  world in violation of this third oath releases the Jewish people
  from all further obligation to fulfill the terms of their
  [4] See also R. Aaron Soloveichik and R. Meir Blumenfeld, Shanah
  be-Shanah, 5734. For additional sources regarding the applicability
  of these oaths, see R. Menachem Kasher, Milhemet Yom ha-Kippurim
  (Jerusalem, 5734), pp. 63-83; and R. Shmuel ha-Kohen Weingarten,
  Hishbati Etkhem (Jerusalem, 5736). R. Chaim Vital, Ez Hayyim
  (Jerusalem, 5723), p. 3, quotes Beraita de-Rabbi Yishma'el, Pirkei
  Heikhalot, which declares that the oath remained in effect only for
  a period of one thousand years; see also Zohar, Parshat Va-Yeira,
  p. 117a.
Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/15/2005 08:43:00 AM

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: YGB <rygb@aishdas.org>
[YGB] Interesting Question Continued

Eć̢Č^ŠwbqŤ^˛ŘZˇ*.ýŞŢýČZÉŤŢ˝éŰţKżűz †X †×ĽŞíĄűaz׏†ëڅˇĽŁ˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙k˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙k˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙k˙˙˙˙˙k˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙ö˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙k˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ýŻ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ö˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙k˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙Ú˙˙˙˙˙!

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 05:27:41 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Sociological factors "known" by poskim

On a number of occasions we've discussed rulings based on societal factors
"known" to poskim of our generation (most people do x). It seemed to me
that these were often based on anecdotal evidence.

Interesting is sotah 48a where Yochanan Kohain Gadol instituted takana
re dmai and vidui only after sending out survey takers to see what the
practice was throughout the land!

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:19:36 -0500
From: "brent" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>
Chazal and science

>>>I.e., "The scientists are right that the universe appears to be 15 
>years old, but it may only look that way and "really" be only 5765 years

I've heard this understanding in the name of R. Akiva Eiger quoting a Shita 
Mekubetzes. In the sugya about science that ends "Nirim divreihem 
midivrainu." (Their words appear correct as opposed to our words). I heard 
that this shita says, "NIRIM", Their words only APPEAR correct as opposed to 
ours. But that isn't the case. Has anyone else seen this shita? I haven't 
been able to find it.

brent kaufman

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:41:46 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Order of Creation

Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.comThu, 7 Jul 2005 posted on Areivim:
>Since the sun and moon are set in place on the 4th day it would appear that
>events on the 3rd day are pre-earth. Hence, we have a basic difficulty. 
>Does anyone know of other solutions to this difficulty besides changing 
>the order of creation.

If I remember correctly, this comment was connected with the Rashi at
the beginning of Braishis that states there is no "mukdom u'm'ucher"
in the mikreh.

Since this really belongs on Avodah, I'm replying here.

The factor of the sun, moon and stars first "appearing" on the fourth day
and how that relates to the nature of the previous days, specifically
regarding the marking of their time, was previously discussed on
Avodah. Answers that don't change the order of creation are found in
Moreh Nevuchim (the sphere turned completely every 24 hours even before
the sun was created) and Malbim (there were 24-hour cycles of light and
darkness before the sun was created). Both maintain their positions while
also holding that everything was actually created in latent form at the
first moment of Creation. I think you'll also find other answers along
the same lines in the Mikraos Gedolos.

I don't know of any classical sources that claim the order is different
from that which the p'sukim present. (Unless you interpret Maharal as
saying that until the sixth day the concept of chronology did not exist.)

Rashi himself (along with his "mukdom u'm'uchar" statement), holds that
all components of Heaven and Earth was created at the first moment, and
were each then "positioned" in its proper place on the day and in the
sequence outlined in the pesukim. This is the very reason he is bothered
by the 4th day appearance of the sun in the heavens. (As is clear from the
Gemora he is basing himslef on.) He does not answer by reversing any parts
of the physical sequence of events as presented in the pesukim. Therefore,
I would say that his statement about "ain mukdom u'm'uchar" is not to
be taken as meaning that we are to dismiss the sequence as presented.

What then does Rashi mean by "ain mukdom u'm'uchar"? Tsorich iyun. But
certainly, when you look other Rashi's on these pesukim, you see he
understands the sequence of events to be as the pesukim state it to be.

Besides the Rashi I jus referred to on Braishis 1:14: "Let there be
things that shed light [...the fourth day]," where he states, "They were
created from the first day, but on the fourth he commanded concerning
them to hang in the sky. /And likewise, all the things produced of the
heaven and the earth were created the first day, and each and every one
was made permanent on the day decreed for it....,"/

There is the Rashi on 2:5, "All the grass growth of the fieldT was not
yet on the earth, because Hashem did not make rain on the earth... since
there was no Adam to work the ground," Rashi comments: [I.e.] when the
creation of the world was completed on the sixth, before Adam was created,
and all the grass of the field still did not sprout. And on the third,
where it's written 'And let the earth bring forth,' the grasses did not
[yet] come out, but they stood on the opening of the earth until the
sixth day.... [Rashi is quoting a Gemora.]

I suggest that Rashi's comment on the first posuk about the mikrah not
meaning to tell us the sequence of the creation was regarding that one
specific mikrah (1:1-3) which has the Heavens' creation listed before the
Earth's. (I.e., "the mikrah does not mean to tell you that these [the
heavens] preceded [creation of the land"]. Rashi, as others, holds and
emphasizes that both heaven and earth were created simultaneously. (He
repeats this in his commentary at least two more times.) Thus, Rashi
explains, the statement "Elokim created the heavens and the earth...and
the ruach Elokim hovered over the face of the mayyim," "is not meant
to tell us the sequence in which they were created." But, Rashi makes
clear, the sequence of the "bringing out" or "placement" of each of
the components of creation, including the sun and plant life, was in
the physical order plainly stated in the pesukim, making it necessary
for Rashi to address apparent textual difficulties and to answer them
without resorting to claims that the order is not meant as a physical one.

*As an aside, this is one reason that claiming that the days of Creation
were each actually billions of years, or not "time-as-we-know-it," would
not help (as per this Gemora and Rashi and plain sense of the posuk)
to conform the Torah's version of history to billion-years age-of-earth
claims. For the 15 billions-of-years evidence is allegedly of several
billions-of-years development of agricultural growth, not billions of
years of grass not yet sprouting (while, incidentally, birds and other
creatures developed and procreated without plant life to support them.)

Zvi Lampel

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:52:37 +0300 (IDT)
From: Efraim Yawitz <fyawitz@actcom.co.il>
Re: RAF letter

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Efraim Yawitz wrote:
>>BTW, since Rav Herzog is well-known as one who held that we are not
>>bound to the science of Hazal,

> This is not true. Look at Heichel Yitzchok OH #29 concerning killing
> germs and lice on Shabbos:

This does not show that what I said "Rav Herzog is well-known ..." to
be false, it only creates a contradiction in Rav Herzog's opinions.
The famous statement of Rav Herzog (it is published in Assia somewhere
as well as quoted by many who write on this subject) that we should not
"hide our heads in the sand" about science was said against those who
wished to use the idea from the Gemara about the "blood coming from the
mother" to invalidate blood typing as a test of paternity. Thank you
for the source, and evidently his opinion is not simple.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:43:44 EDT
From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
Starting Ruth

Many thanks to all of you who have completed the Book of Yonah with
me at Torah.org. You told me that its focus on finding the the moral
and personally meaningful message by using traditional and academic
scholarship, method of inquiry that comes from the schools of mussar
and psychological insight contributed to your understanding of our
tradition and was personally helpful. I thank you for the opportunity
and the listening ear.

We are now about to start the book of Ruth. One can subscribe at
torah.org/learning/ruth. I post the introduction for the readers of

Ruth: Its message and significance for our lives.

The book of Ruth has great universal appeal. On the surface, it is the
story of a young virtuous maiden who leaves her family and her nation
to cast her lot with a people and religion that she has not previously
known. Her purity of thought, noble behavior and charming character gain
her the role of the progenitor of a royal dynasty. A reader identifies
with the risk that she took, is impressed by her dignity and refined
bearing, and drawn to her purity and strength of her faith. The book of
Ruth leaves one with a sense of optimism, hope, and trust, and a feeling
of fulfillment and completion. There is, however, much, much more to the
story of Ruth, for it is first and foremost a story of redemption and
restoration. It is precisely this element, at times explicitly identified,
at other times only dimly surmised, that tugs at our heartstrings and
awakens that sense of identification and relevance to our own individual
and personal lives, our own struggles with alienation and despair, our
own longing and search for restoration. We take Ruth personally because on
some level we sense that it is our own story. We also long to transition
out of the foreign land, to the place of greater purpose and serene
trust. We, like Ruth, have traveled away from our Father (in Hebrew Mo
Ab). Like her, we long to return to the Land of promise. The book of Ruth
teaches us that personal redemption must occur within a family, community,
and nation. No man is an island. We are nurtured and shaped by our
families, national identities and cultural backgrounds. These are personal
limitations but we can approach Him together with others. Ruth became the
ancestor of kings because she gave kindness and devotion to others. The
way is not out of Moab but into Judea; not by leaving society behind but
by joining in, and the means to redemption is kindness. R. Zeirah said:
"This scroll contains neither laws of purity or impurity, neither what
is permitted or forbidden. Why was it written? To teach the reward of
those who deal kindly with others (Yalkut Shimoni Ruth 601)."

Ruth, as we said, is a story of redemption; however, it is a complex
story, within which can be discerned three interconnected cycles. The
first is the seed of Elimelech returning to his people. He and his
sons left his nation but his widow, daughter-in-law and their progeny
return. The second circle that is closed is the return of the prodigal
daughter of Lot to her rightful position in the family of Abraham. Lot's
branch of the family descended into licentiousness and carnality (see
Genesis 19). Thus, it separated itself from Abraham's messianic destiny
for humanity. Through Ruth and David it now came back to rejoin it. This
return, like all returns, was not easy and required struggle. Traces of
their Moabite heritage were a stumbling block for David and Solomon.
Their task was to wholly purify themselves from the daughters of Lot
within. Solomon married many wives and they turned his heart away from
Hashem. Moabite lust destroyed the lives of David's other descendants:
Adonijah, Amnon, and Absalom. David himself was tested in trials of
Michal, Abigail and, of course, Bathsheba. Knowing his background,
we can appreciate his ultimate success in overcoming temptation.

Another lesson that this book teaches us - redemption requires separation.
Ruth kissed Naomi and went with her to her future but Oprah kissed her
and turned back to her past. The Sages tell us that that very night she
again became Lot's daughter. A hundred men impregnated her and out of
that seed came Goliath who faced David upon the fateful field of battle.

We face choices every day of our lives and these choices have
consequences. We reclaim and redeem but we also must reject; this is
not an easy process and there are many pitfalls. God assists man in
this daily struggle but it is largely up to us. No amount of Divine
assistance can allow us to escape the duty to face the truth that we
already know but the heart reveals not to the mind. Before redemption
comes separation of good from evil, of that which must be redeemed from
that which must be rejected and abandoned.

The third element is the Messianic redemption for David, which stands
at the fulcrum of history. Mystics teach us that the three syllables of
Adam stand for the three stages of human history - A for Adam, D for
David and M for Messiah. The redemption of Ruth is thus a parable for
the entire panorama of human history and this element is not far from
the surface of this book.

The book of Ruth must be approached differently than the book of Jonah
that we just merited to have competed. Whereas there are few traditional
commentaries on Jonah, we are fortunate to possess a number of Midrashic
works on Ruth. Our task, therefore, will be less to innovate than
to uncover the profound wisdom of the Sages who spoke in parables and
allusions. The fountain of living truth has not ceased and we must draw
from it. Our study of Ruth will therefore be an opportunity to learn how
to extract from the deep wellsprings of Rabbinic literature. I hope that
as I attempt to draw up these deep and living waters, you, dear readers,
will come to be impressed by the wisdom and righteousness of the Rabbanim,
as much as I repeatedly continue to be.

Rabbi Dr. Meir Levin lives in Monsey, NY and is on the faculty of Ohr-
Someach Tannenbaum Educational Institutions. He studied under R. Joseph
Dov Soloveitchik and R. Shneur Kotler. A former pulpit rabbi, he is
the author of Novarodok: The Movement that Lived in Struggle and its
Unique Approach to the Problem of Man (Jason Aronson, New Jersey 1996)
and With All Your Heart: The Shema in Jewish Liturgy, Worship and Life
(Targum/Feldheim, Jerusalem, 2002).

Go to top.

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

[The first time I tride to get this email on list, I wrote:
 > Umm, I added Hebrew, not highlighting. And even that, only imperfectly
 > yet.
[Ironic, ain't it. I'll try again. The technology seems to work when I'm
only testing it. It's getting up to the point where I have to decide
the experiement was a failure. -mi]

Friday, July 15, 2005
Interesting Question Continued

   Reb Moshe indicates that you *are* chayav even b'ksav, see highlighted
   part of the teshuvah below (there is an additional mareh makom after
   the teshuvah):

   ?Š?•"?Ş ??’?¨?•?Ş ?ž?Š?” ?—?œ?§ ?™?•"?“ ? ???™?ž?Ÿ ?§?˘?‘
   ?‘?“?‘?¨ ???¤?¨?™ ?”?¨?Š?˘?™? ?ž?™???™?? ?˘?¨?Ÿ ?Š?™?Š ?Š? ?¤???•?§?™? ??• ?Š?ž?•?Ş ?¨"?— ???™?•?Ÿ ?Ş?Š"?—. ?ž?˘"?›
   ?™?“?™?“?™ ??”?•?‘?™ ?”?¨?”"?’ ?ž?”?¨"?¨ ??‘?¨?”? ?™?•???Ł ?¨??–?˘? ?‘?˘?¨?’ ?Š?œ?™?˜"?.
   ?”? ?” ?‘?“?‘?¨ ???¤?¨?™ ?”?¨?Š?˘?™? ?”?ž?™???™?? ?˘?¨?Ÿ ??Š?¨ ?ž?¤?™?Ś?™? ?œ?”???™?Ş ?•?œ?”?“?™?— ?•?™?Š ?Š? ?”?¨?‘?”
   ?¤???•?§?™? ?˘? ??–?›?¨?•?Ş ?•?’? ?Š? ?”?•?™?” ??Š?¨ ? ???Ş?¤?§?Ş ?? ?¨?Š??™? ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤? ?ž?˜?˘? ?“?”?ž?“?¤?™??
   ??•?œ?™ ?œ? ? ?Ş?›?•?™?Ÿ ?œ?›?œ?•?, ?•?‘?˘?Ś? ?‘?¨?•?¨ ?Š?œ? ? ?Ş?›?•?™?Ÿ ?œ?›?œ?•? ?“?”?ž?“?¤?™?? ??™? ?• ?ž?™
   ?Š?˘?•?Š?” ?”??•?Ş?™?•?Ş ?Š?œ ?”?˘?•?¤?¨?Ş ?Š?”?•? ?§?•?¨? ?ž?” ?Š?›?Ş?•?‘, ?“?Š? ?‘?›?œ?œ ??™? ?• ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Š? ?Š?”?¨?™
   ? ?›?Ş?‘?• ?”??•?Ş?™?•?Ş ?‘?”?™?¤?•?š, ??œ? ?ž?™ ?Š?—?•?Ş? ?˘"?™ ?”?ž??Š?™?Ÿ ??Ş ??•?Ş?™?•?Ş ?”?˘?•?¤?¨?Ş ?˘?œ
   ?”?’?œ?™?•? ?•?Ş ?•?”?•? ??™? ?• ?§?•?¨? ?•??™? ?• ?™?•?“?˘ ?›?œ?œ ?ž?” ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?Š?. ?•?"?› ?”?•? ?›?Š? ?”? ?›?Ş?‘
   ?Š?œ? ?‘?›?•?•? ?” ?Š?’"?› ????•?¨ ?œ?ž?•?—?§?• ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ??•?œ?™ ????•?¨ ??Ł ?Š?”?•? ?‘?Ş?•?š ?“?‘?¨?™? ?ž?›?•?˘?¨?™?
   ?›??œ?•. (?•?ž?” ?Š?›?Ş?‘?Ş ?Š?™?Š ?œ?—?•?Š ??•?œ?™ ?”?™?” ?”?ž?“?¤?™?? ?™?Š?¨??œ ?•? ?Ş?›?•?™?Ÿ ?’? ?œ?Š? ?”?Š?
   ??™? ?• ?›?œ?•? ?“?? ?”?™?” ?™?•?“?˘ ?ž?” ?Š?›?Ş?•?‘ ?Š? ?Š?”?•? ???¤?¨ ?ž?™? ?™? ?¤?Š?•?˜ ?Š?™?Š ?œ?“?•?Ÿ ??•?Ş?•
   ?œ?ž?™?Ÿ ?Š?”?¨?™ ?”?•? ?ž???™?Ş ?•?ž?“?™?— ?•?’? ?œ?‘?“ ?–?” ?”?¨?™ ?˘?•?Š?” ? ?‘?œ?” ?›?–?” ?œ?›?Ş?•?‘ ?Š?ž?•?Ş
   ?§?“?•?Š?™? ?‘???¤?¨ ?ž? ?•?•?œ ?•?ž?˜?•? ?Ł ?›?–?”).
   ?•?”? ?›?•?Ÿ ?œ?˘"?“ ?Š?¨?Š??™?Ÿ ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ??•?Ş? ?˘? ?”??–?›?¨?•?Ş ?Š?‘?”?Ÿ ?•?ž?ž?™?œ? ?ž?—?•?™?™?‘?™?Ÿ ?œ?˘?Š?•?Ş ?›?Ÿ
   ?ž?˜?˘? ?Š??‘??¨. ?—?“? ?“?‘?Š?‘?Ş ?“?Ł ?§?˜"?– ?"?¨ ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ?§"?• ?•?ž?” ?œ?˘?Š?•?Ş ?Š?œ?•? ?‘?™?Ÿ ??™?Š
   ?œ??Š?Ş?• ??ž?¨?” ?Ş?•?¨?” ?Š?ž?™ ?Š? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?™?ž?—?” ?˘?œ ?”?ž?™? ?”?œ?œ?• ?Š?ž?˜?™?œ?™?Ÿ ?§? ??” ?•??™?‘?”
   ?•?Ş?—?¨?•?Ş ?‘?™?Ÿ ?™?Š?¨??œ ?œ??‘?™?”?Ÿ ?Š?‘?Š?ž?™? ?˘?œ ??—?Ş ?›?ž?” ?•?›?ž?” ?˘?™?™"?Š ?"?› ?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?Š?ž?”
   ?Š?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ??"?Ş ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?”?•? ??Ł ?‘?™?“?•?˘ ?Š? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?“?‘???•?˜?” ?”? ? ?›?Ş?‘
   ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?•?›?“??ž?¨ ?‘?”?§"?•. ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ???¤?¨?™? ?Š?œ ?”???Ş?” ?•?”?“?—?” ?›?Š?œ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?˘?¨?Ÿ ?Š?˘?Ś?
   ?”???¤?¨?™? ?”? ?”?˜?œ?Ş ?§? ??” ?•??™?‘?” ?•?Ş?—?¨?•?Ş ?•?“??™ ?”?•? ?§"?• ?Š?™?Š ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?Ÿ ?•?"?› ?”?¨?™"?Ł
   ?•?”?¨?"?Š ?Š?”?‘?™??• ?”? ?“?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ?”?¨?™ ?¤???§?• ?›?ž?•?Ş?• ?•?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?Ÿ ?œ?“?™?“?”?• ??Ł ??
   ?”?™?• ? ?›?Ş?‘?™?Ÿ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?•?›"?Š ?›?Š?”?•? ?¨?§ ???Ş?ž? ?‘?œ? ?›?•?•? ?”. 
   ??‘?œ ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?•?¨?Š"?™ ?ž?Š?ž?˘ ?Š?œ? ?¤???§?• ?›?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ?ž?˜?˘? ?”?§"?• ?“?”? ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?¤"?•
   ?ž?™???•?“?™ ?”?Ş?•?¨?” ?”"?— ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?˜?˘? ??¤?™?§?•?¨?? ?™?Š?¨??œ ?Š?›?Ş?‘ ??"?Ş ?Š?•?¨?¤?™?Ÿ ??•?Ş?• ?˘?
   ?”??–?›?¨?•?Ş ?Š?‘?• ?ž?¤? ?™ ?Š??™? ?• ?ž??ž?™?Ÿ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?Ş ?”?Š? ?•?œ? ?›?Ş?‘?• ?œ?Š?ž?• ??œ? ?Š?”?•? ?ž?˘?œ?”
   ?‘?“?˘?Ş?• ?Š?–?” ?›?Š??¨ ?”?“?‘?¨?™? ?•?”?•??™?œ ?•?“?˘?Ş?• ?›?Ÿ ?œ? ? ?Ş?§?“?Š ?”?Š? ?•?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?• ?›?“?™
   ?Š?œ? ?œ?”? ?™?— ?Š? ?œ??¤?™?§?•?¨???™? ?•?œ? ?œ?ž?˘?Š?™?”? ?˘?™?™"?Š ?"?› ?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?Š?? ?”?™?” ?”?Š? ?ž?§?•?“?Š
   ?”?™?” ????•?¨ ?“?œ? ?›?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ?•?¨?§ ?”?•??™?œ ?•?œ? ? ?Ş?§?“?Š ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?•?ž?ž?™?œ? ?”?•? ?ž?Ś?•?”.
   ?•?˜?˘?ž?• ?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?•?ž?¨ ?“??Ł ?Š???•?‘?¨ ?“?Š? ?Š?œ? ? ?Ş?§?“?Š ? ?ž?™ ????•?¨ ?›?“?ž???™?§ ?‘?”?œ?›?” ?–?• ??‘?œ
   ?˘?›?•"? ?Š?›?Ş?‘ ??Ş ?”?Š? ?’?•? ?–?™?Ÿ ??•?Ş?•, ??Ł ?Š?’"?› ?œ? ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?”, ?“?˘?Š?™?™?Ş ?˘?›?•"?
   ??™? ?• ?œ?Š?ž?” ?œ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ??Ł ?›?Š?˘?ž?“ ?™?Š?¨??œ ?˘"?’ ?•??ž?¨ ?œ?• ?œ?˘?Š?•?Ş ?œ?Š?ž?” ?›?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?‘?¤"?
   ?ž?Ş?¤?™?œ?™?Ÿ ?”?™"? ?•?˘?™?™?Ÿ ?‘??•"?— ???™' ?™"? ?•???™' ?œ"?‘. ??‘?œ ???•?‘?¨ ?“?Š? ?Š?œ? ? ?›?Ş?‘
   ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?Š????•?¨ ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ?”?•? ?¨?§ ?ž?“?¨?‘? ?Ÿ ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?œ? ????¨?• ?”?›? ?Š?™?Š ?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?• ??‘?œ
   ?? ?”?™?” ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?Š?”?™?” ????•?¨ ?ž?“??•?¨?™?™?Ş? ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ?œ? ?”?™?” ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ??Ł ?Š?™?Š ?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł
   ?›?“?™ ?Š?œ? ?™?”?™?” ?œ?”? ?•?œ?ž?˘?Š?™?”? ?Š?. ??‘?œ ?‘?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?”? ?ž?ž?™?œ? ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?’? ?œ?”?¨?ž?‘"?
   ?“?’"?› ?œ? ? ?Ş?§?“?Š?• ?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ?Š?”??™???•?¨ ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ?”?•? ?¨?§ ?ž?“?¨?‘? ?Ÿ ?•?œ? ????¨?• ?‘?ž?§?•? ?Š?™?Š
   ?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ?•?–?” ?•?“??™ ?Š?‘???¤?¨?™ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?˘?¨?Ÿ ?™?Š ?™?•?Ş?¨ ?—?™?•?‘ ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?Ÿ ?ž?‘??"?Ş ?Š?›?Ş?‘?•
   ?ž?™?Ÿ ?Š?œ?™?›? ?Š? ?“?‘?¨?™ ?ž?™? ?•?Ş ?•?’? ?œ? ? ?™?›?¨ ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?•?”?›? ?”? ?›?•?œ?• ?“?‘?¨?™ ?ž?™? ?•?Ş
   ?•?”???Ş?” ?•?”?“?—?” ?Š?ž?—?•?™?™?‘?™?Ÿ ?œ?‘?˘?¨?Ÿ ?ž?Ÿ ?”?˘?•?œ?. ?•? ?ž?Ś? ?Š?’? ?œ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?Ÿ ?˘?
   ??‘?œ ?¨?Š"?™ ?‘?’?™?˜?™?Ÿ ?“?Ł ?ž"?” ???•?‘?¨ ?“?œ? ?›?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ?•?’? ?œ? ?›?˜?˘? ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?Š?›?Ş?‘ ?˘?œ
   ?”? ?“?"?¨ ? ?—?ž?Ÿ ??"?Ş ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?™?Š?¨?Ł ?“?•?“??™ ?œ?Š? ?˘?›?•"? ?›?Ş?‘?•, ?•?"?› ??Ł ?‘? ?›?Ş?‘
   ???Ş?ž? ?Š?œ? ?œ?Š?•? ?›?•?•? ?” ?›?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?™?Š ?œ?›??•?¨?” ?œ????•?¨. ?•?’? ??Ł ?‘?›?Ş?‘ ?”?ž?™?Ÿ
   ?”?ž?™???™?? ?˘?¨ ?ž?ž?Š ?‘?™?“?• ?”?™?” ?œ?Ÿ ?œ????•?¨ ?“?”? ?”? ?ž??ž?™? ?™? ?’? ?Š?™?Š ?‘?•?¨? ?”??ž?Ş?™ ?›?™?“?•?˘
   ?•?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?‘?Ş?•??' ?‘??? ?”?“?¨?™?Ÿ ?“?Ł ??"?’ ?Š?˘?•?‘?“?™? ?‘?Š?Ş?•?Ł ?•?"?› ?›?Š?›?•?Ş?‘?™? ?Š? ?”?•?™?”
   ?•?ž?˘?Ş?™?§?™? ?¤???•?§?™? ?ž?›?•?•? ?™? ?œ?”?Š? ?ž?ž?Š ?•?œ? ?œ?”? ?•?Ś?¨?™ ?™?ž"?Š.
   ??‘?œ ?”? ?“?•?—?§ ?’?“?•?œ ?œ?¤?¨?Š ?‘?¨?Š"?™ ?“?›?•?Ş?‘ ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?Š? ?”?•?™?” ?œ?Š? ?˘?›?•"? ?”?™?™? ?• ?Š?§?•?¨?
   ??Ş ?”?˘"?– ?Š?œ?• ?‘?Š?ž?•?Ş ?Š?‘?Ş?•?¨?” ?“?ž?”"?Ş ? ?™?ž? ?Š?§?•?¨? ?˘?‘?•?“?” ?–?¨?” ?Š?œ?• ?Š? ?§?¨??Ş ?¤?˘?•?¨
   ?•?‘?œ ?•? ?‘?• ?•?›?“?•?ž?” ?‘?Š?ž?•?Ş ??—?¨?™? ?•?’? ?"?› ?›?•?Ş?‘ ?Š?˘"?– ?Š?œ?• ?ž?Ś?•?” ?˘?œ ?Š?ž?™?¨?Ş ?Š?‘?Ş
   ?•?Š??¨ ?”?ž?Ś?•?Ş ?•?”? ??™? ?• ?Š?•?ž?¨?Ÿ. ??œ? ?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?¤?¨?Š ?›?•?•? ?Ş ?¨?Š"?™ ?Š?›?•?Ş?‘ ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?”??"?Ş
   ?œ?Ś?•?¨?š ?”?˘"?– ?œ? ?•?™ ??• ?œ?Ş?§?¨?•?‘?Ş ??‘?œ ?™?•?“?˘ ?Š?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ?”? ?Š?œ ??œ?§?™ ?™?Š?¨??œ ?•?Ş?•?¨?”
   ?“?™?œ?™?” ?Š?Ś?•?” ?œ?™?Š?¨??œ ?”?™? ?•?ž"?ž ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Š?›?Ş?‘?” ?œ? ?•?™ ?•?œ?Ş?§?¨?•?‘?Ş ?”?˘"?– ??• ?œ?›?•?•? ?”
   ??—?¨?Ş ?œ?”?¨??•?Ş ?ž?” ?Š?”?˘"?– ?”?§?™?œ?” ?˘?œ ?”??“? ?œ?˘?Š?•?Ş ??Ş ?›?œ ?”?Ş?•?˘?‘?•?Ş ?Š????¨?” ?”?Ş?•?¨?”,
   ?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?. ?•??™?Ÿ ?œ?¤?¨?Š ?Š?“?•?§? ?›?Š?›?Ş?‘ ?œ? ?•?™ ?•?œ?Ş?§?¨?•?‘?Ş ?Š?™?Š ?‘?• ?“?™?Ÿ ?Š?¨?¤?” ?•?ž?“?—?”
   ??™???•?¨ ?“?œ? ?Ş?˘?Š?•?Ÿ ?“?”?™?” ?ž?–?›?™?¨ ?–?”, ??œ? ?Š??™? ?• ?ž?’?“?¨?™ ?“?—?™?™?Ş ??™???•?¨?™? ??œ? ?›?™?•?Ÿ
   ?Š?”?›?Ş?™?‘?” ?”?™?Ş?” ?œ?›?•?•? ?” ?¨?˘?” ??™?Ÿ ?‘?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ?Š?•? ?—?Š?™?‘?•?Ş ?“?™?•?Ş?¨ ?˜?•?‘ ?Š?™?Š?¨?¤?•
   ?ž?œ?§?™?™?ž?Ÿ. ?œ?›?Ÿ ?’? ?‘?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?Š? ?›?Ş?‘?• ?‘?ž?§?•? ?”???Ş?” ?•?”?“?—?” ?Š?”?•? ?—?¨?•?Ł ?•?’?“?•?Ł
   ?§?™?•?ž?Ÿ ?Š? ??™?Ÿ ?œ?”? ?Š?•? ?—?Š?™?‘?•?Ş ?•?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?Ÿ ?Š?–?” ?™?•?Ş?¨ ?˜?•?‘. ?•?œ?¤"?– ??Ł ?œ?¨?Š"?™
   ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?•??Ł ?? ?”?™?” ?›?•?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ? ?ž?™ ?”?™?” ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?œ?¨?Š"?™ ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Š? ?›?Ş?‘ ?œ?Ś?•?¨?š ?”?˘"?–,
   ?“?¨?Š"?™ ?”? ??™? ?• ?ž?—?œ?§ ?‘?™?Ÿ ?Š?œ? ?‘?›?•?•? ?” ?œ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?”. ?•?’? ?ž???Ş?‘?¨ ?Š?§?“?•?Š?Ş?• ??™? ?•
   ?›?œ?•? ?“?”?•? ?›?ž?§?“?™?Š ?Š? ?Š??™? ?• ?§?•?“?Š ?“?ž?“?ž?™?Ÿ ?œ?ž?§?“?™?Š ?‘?˘"?ž ?›"?› ?–?” ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Š?”?•?
   ?—?¨?•?Ł ?•?’?“?•?Ł ?›?Ş?™?‘?Ş?Ÿ ?›??Ÿ ??™? ?• ?Š? ?”?¨??•?™ ?œ?”?Ş?§?“?Š ?•?”?•?™ ?›?ž?§?“?™?Š ?‘?˘"?ž. ?•?˘?™?™?Ÿ
   /?™?•"?“/ ?‘???™' ?¨?¤"? ?‘?˜"?– ?•?Š"?š ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?¨?§ ?˜?˘? ?¨?Š"?™ ?ž?Š?ž?˘ ?Š?¤???§?• ?›?•?Ş?™?” ?“?“?•?—?§
   ?œ?•?ž?¨ ?Š?œ? ?”?¨?’?™?Š?• ?Š?¤?œ?™?’ ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?•?›?Ÿ ?”?¨?"?Š ?•?”?¨?™"?Ł ?Š?”?‘?™??• ?”? ?“?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ
   ?¤?œ?™?’?™ ??‘?œ ?ž"?ž ?’? ?œ?¨?Š"?™ ?™?Š ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ?‘?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?›?“?‘??¨?Ş?™.
   ?˘?•?“ ?™?Š ?˜?˘? ?œ?”?Ş?™?¨ ?œ?”?Š"?š /?™?•"?“/ ???™' ?¨?˘"?• ??"?§ ?™"?‘ ?“?‘?Š? ?Š?œ? ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?œ?§?“?•?Š?”
   ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?œ?ž?—?•?§ ?œ?Ś?•?¨?š ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?˘?™?™"?Š ?•??™?Ÿ ?œ?š ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?’?“?•?œ ?™?•?Ş?¨ ?ž?–?” ?Š? ?›?Ş?‘?• ?œ?Ş?™?¤?œ?•?Ş
   ?•?œ?—?¨?Ł ?•?œ?’?“?Ł ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ??Ł ?œ?ž?” ?Š??™?Ş? ?‘?¤"?Ş ?‘?Š? ?ž?Š? ?Ş ?—?›?ž?™? ?“?¨?§ ?œ?Ś?•?¨?š ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Š?
   ?’?•?¤?™?” ?ž?•?Ş?¨, ? ?ž?™ ?”? ?–?”?• ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Š? ?’?•?¤?™?” ?Š?œ? ?™?”?™?” ?‘?‘?–?™?•?Ÿ ?’?“?•?œ ?›?–?”. ?•??Ł
   ?Š?”?™? ???‘?¨? ?’?“?•?œ?” ?•??™?Ÿ ?Ś?•?¨?š ?œ?¨??™?”. ?”?•? ?›?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?‘?’?œ?™?•?Ÿ ?ž?”?¨?Š"? ?“?›?Ş?‘ ?˘?œ ?“?™? ?
   ?“?”?Š"?š ?“?›?ž?˘?˜ ?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?–?” ?‘?¨?ž?‘"? ?¤"?• ?”"?— ?ž?™???•?”"?Ş ?•?›?•?•? ?Ş?• ?“?ž?¤?¨?Š ?‘?˜?˘? ?”?¨?ž?‘"?
   ?Š?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?•?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ??"?Ş ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?ž?Š?•? ?Š?œ? ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?›?“?™ ?Š?œ? ?œ?”? ?™?— ?Š?
   ?œ??¤?™?§?•?¨???™? ?•?œ?ž?˘?Š?™?”? ?•?ž?¤?¨?Š ?Š?”?•? ?ž?Š?•? ?Š?–?”?• ?Ś?•?¨?š ?•?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?’?“?•?œ ?œ?”?Š? ?•?Š? ?Š?œ?
   ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?œ?ž?—?•?§ ?•?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ?œ?Ś?•?¨?š ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ. ?œ?›?Ÿ ??Ł ?Š?“?‘?¨?™ ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ? ?¨??”
   ?™?•?Ş?¨ ?›?“?‘??¨?Ş?™ ?œ?˘?™?œ ?Š?œ? ????¨?• ?‘?›?–?” ?Š?™?Š ?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?•, ?ž"?ž ?—?–?™? ?Ÿ ?Š?”?’?œ?™?•?Ÿ
   ?ž?”?¨?Š"? ???•?‘?¨ ?”???‘?¨? ?Š?›?Ş?‘?Ş?™ ?Š? ?—?Š?‘ ?–?” ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Š? ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?œ?”?Š"?š ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?. ?•?™?Š
   ?œ?¤???•?§ ?›?•?Ş?™?” ?•?˘?™?™?Ÿ ?‘?—?Ş"?? ???™' ?¨??"?– ?Š??Ł ?‘? ?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?™?Š ?Š???•?‘?¨?™?Ÿ ?“?ž?•?Ş?¨
   ?œ?Ś?•?¨?š ?Ş?§?•?Ÿ ?”?Š? ?•?›"?Š ?Š?™?Š ?œ?˘?Š?•?Ş ?›?”?Š"?š. ?•?‘?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?”? ?™?Š ?˜?˘?ž?™? ?”?¨??Š?•? ?™?
   ?œ?›?Ÿ ?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤? ?•?›?Ÿ ?˘?Š?™?Ş?™ ?ž?˘?Š?”.
   ?•?˜?˘? ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?•?¨?Š"?™ ?Š?œ? ?¤???§?• ?›?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ??•?œ?™ ???‘?¨?™ ?Š?¨' ?˜?¨?¤?•?Ÿ ?Š?œ? ?”?–?›?™?¨
   ?”?§"?• ??œ? ???‘?¨? ?‘?˘?œ?ž? ?¤?œ?™?’ ?˘?œ?™?• ?•?¤???§?• ?›?¨"?˜. ??• ?Š???‘?¨?™ ?“?œ??• ?§"?• ?’?ž?•?¨ ?”?•?
   ??œ? ????ž?›?Ş? ?‘?˘?œ?ž? ?ž?Š?•? ?“?‘??"?Ş ?”? ?œ? ? ?™?›?¨ ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?”?ž?™?Ÿ ?•??™?Ÿ ?‘?–?” ?”?˜?œ?Ş ?§? ??”
   ?›"?› ?ž?—?ž?Ş ?Š?”?›?•?Ş?‘ ?”?™?” ?ž?™?Ÿ. ?•?? ? ?™?ž? ?›?˜?˘? ?‘' ?›?“?™ ?œ?ž?˘?˜ ?”?ž?—?œ?•?§?Ş ?ž???Ş?‘?¨ ?“?¨?§
   ?‘??"?Ş ?Š?›?Ş?‘?• ?ž?™?Ÿ ?¤?œ?™?’ ??¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ??‘?œ ?‘???¤?¨?™ ?”?ž?™???™?? ?˘?¨?Ÿ ?Š?”?›?Ş?‘ ?‘?˘?Ś?ž?• ?ž???™?Ş
   ?•?ž?“?™?— ?Š?”?•? ?ž?˜?™?œ ?§? ??” ?•??™?‘?” ?•?Ş?—?¨?•?Ş ?‘?™?Ÿ ?™?Š?¨??œ ?œ??‘?™?”? ?Š?‘?Š?ž?™? ?”?•?™ ?–?” ?§"?•
   ?’?ž?•?¨ ?œ?›?•"?˘ ?•?™?”?™?” ?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?•?ž?Ś?•?” ?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł ??Ł ?œ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?•?¨?Š"?™ ??Ł ?? ?”?™?” ? ?›?Ş?‘
   ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?ž?§"?• ?“?¨' ?™?Š?ž?˘??œ ?•?"?› ?™?Š ?˘?•?“ ?˜?˘? ?œ?”?Ş?™?¨ ?•?œ?—?™?™?‘ ?œ?Š?•?¨?¤?Ÿ.
   ?•?‘?“?‘?¨ ?Š?ž?•?Ş ?”?œ?˘"?– ??™?Ÿ ?Š?™?™?š ?›?œ?œ ?œ?”???Ş?¤?§ ?‘?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?™?“?Ÿ ?“?”? ?”? ?§?•?¨?™?Ÿ ?œ?˘"?–
   ?Š?œ?”? ?’"?› ?‘?œ?Š?•?Ÿ ?”?œ?˘"?– ?•?"?› ?”?•? ?›?ž?• ??œ?”?™? ??—?¨?™? ?Š?ž?•?Ş?¨ ?œ?ž?—?•?§ ?•?œ?Š?¨?•?Ł
   ?•?ž???Ş?‘?¨ ?œ?˘"?“ ?Š?‘??œ?• ?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ?Š?™?Š ?œ?”? ?’? ?§?¨?™??” ??—?¨?Ş ??• ??Ł ?¨?§ ?¤?™?¨?•?Š ??—?¨ ?›?ž?•
   ?Š? ?§?œ ?Š?™?Š ?œ?§?¨?•?Ş?• ??œ ?‘?¤?Ş?— ?Š??™? ?• ?Š? ?›?œ?œ ?•?›?ž?• ?Š? ?Š?“' ?Š?™?Š ?œ?§?¨?•?Ş?• ?Š?“?™ ?‘?§?ž?Ľ
   ?•?—?™?¨?™?§ ??• ?œ?§?¨?•?Ş ?Š?“?™ ?‘???’?•?œ ?Ş?—?Ş ?”?Š?™?Ÿ ?Š??™? ?• ?Š? ?›?œ?œ ?•?›?ž?• ?Š? ?Ś?‘' ?Š?™?Š ?œ?§?¨?•?Ş?•
   ?Ś?‘??•?Ş ?‘?—?™?¨?™?§ ?•?Š?•?•? ?•?›?“?•?ž?” ?•??Ł ?Š? ??œ?§?™? ?Š??Ł ?Š?”?•? ??•?Ş?• ?”?§?¨?™??” ?ž"?ž ?”?•? ?’?
   ?‘?¤?™?¨?•?Š ??—?¨ ?˘?œ ?“?™?™? ?™? ?•?˘?œ ?ž?œ??›?™? ?•?˘?œ ?˘"?–, ?”?•?™? ?”?›?•?•? ?” ?˘?™?§?¨ ?‘?—?Š?™?‘?•?Ş ?”?Š?.
   ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?‘?”?“?¤???” ?Š?œ ?”?˘?Ş?•? ?™? ?Š??™?Ÿ ?Š?•? ?›?•?•? ?” ?˘?œ?™?™?”?• ?ž?—?ž?Ş ?Š?”?ž?“?¤?™?? ?˘"?™ ?”?ž??Š?™?Ÿ
   ??™? ?• ?™?•?“?˘ ?›?œ?•? ?ž?ž?” ?Š?›?Ş?•?‘ ?Š? ??™? ?• ?Š? ?›?œ?œ. ?•??Ł ?Š?˘"?™ ?Ş?™?‘?•?Ş ?Š?œ?¤? ?™?”?
   ?•?Š?œ??—?¨?™?”? ? ?™?›?¨ ?Š?”?•? ?Š? ??™?Ÿ ?œ?”?—?Š?™?‘ ?›?›?•?Ş?‘ ??Ş ?”?Š? ?‘?–?” ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Š??™? ?• ?‘?”?Š?
   ?’?•?¤?™?”. ?•??Ł ?œ?”?œ?‘?•?Š ?Š?”?‘?™? ?¨?˘?§"? ?‘?Ş?Š?•?‘?” ???™' ?˘' ?“?‘?Ş?•?œ?” ??•?Ş ?“' ?˘?œ ?Š? ?”?•?™?”
   ?œ?”?•?¨?•?Ş ?Š?Ś?¨?™?š ?œ?§?¨?•?Ş?• ?™?”?•?“?” ?”?•? ?›?ž?•?—?§ ??Ş ?”?Š?, ?ž"?ž ?œ?˘?Š?•?Ş?• ?œ?Š? ?‘?›?Ş?™?‘?Ş
   ?Ş?™?‘?•?Ş ??—?¨?•?Ş ?ž???Ş?‘?¨ ?Š?œ? ? ?˘?Š?” ?‘?–?” ?“?‘?œ? ?›?•?•? ?” ?œ?›?Ş?™?‘?” ?›?ž?• ?”?›? ?•?“??™ ?”?•? ?¨?§
   ?›?ž?§?¨?” ?‘?˘?œ?ž? ?Š? ???ž?›?• ?”?Ş?™?‘?•?Ş ?Š?œ? ?”?™?” ?ž?Š? ?” ?ž?›?¤?™ ?Š?‘?Ş?—?œ?” ?›?’?•?Ÿ ?‘?? ??—?“ ?›?Ş?‘
   ?Ş?™?‘?Ş ?Š?“' ?œ?›?•?•? ?Ş ?Š?“?™ ?Š?”?™?” ? ?§?¨? ?‘?§?ž?Ľ ?•?—?™?¨?™?§ ?•??—?“ ?‘?œ? ?›?•?•? ?” ?›?Ş?‘ ?œ?¤? ?™?• ??•
   ?œ??—?¨?™?• ??™?–?” ?Ş?™?‘?•?Ş ?Š?˘?Ş?” ?ž?•?‘?Ÿ ?ž?–?” ?œ?§?¨?•?Ş?• ?œ?”?Š? ?•?“??™ ?¤?Š?•?˜ ?Š?œ? ? ?˘?Š?” ?Š? ?‘?–?”
   ??‘?œ ??Ł ?‘?›?•?•? ?” ?ž???•?¤?§? ?™ ?•?™?•?Ş?¨ ? ?•?˜?” ?Š??™? ?• ?›?œ?•?.
   ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?‘?ž?“?¤?™?? ?Š??™? ?• ?™?•?“?˘ ?›?œ?•? ?Š?˘?•?“ ?’?¨?˘ ?ž?Š?œ? ?‘?§?“?•?Š?” ?˘?™?™?Ÿ ?‘?¤"?Ş /?™?•"?“/ ???™'
   ?¨?˘"?• ???§"?˜ ??™?Ÿ ?œ?—?•?Š ?œ?›?œ ?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ?Š?›?•?œ?Ÿ ?™?Š ?œ?”? ?’? ?§?¨?™??” ?•?¤?™?¨?•?Š ??—?¨ ?•?¨?§ ?‘?Š?
   ?”?•?™?” ?™?Š ?œ?—?•?Š ?‘?˘?Ş?•? ?™? ?? ? ?›?Ş?‘ ?Š?œ? ?‘??•?¤?Ÿ ?—?¨?•?Ł ?•?’?“?•?Ł. ?•??Ł ?Š?’? ?Š? ?”?•?™?”
   ?ž?Ś?™? ?• ?œ?Ş"?§ ?‘?Š?‘?•?˘?•?Ş ?“?Ł ?œ"?” ?Š?‘?¤?¨?Š?Ş ?ž?™?›?” ?”? ?—?•?œ ?•?¤???§ ?›?Ÿ ?”?¨?ž?‘"? ?‘?¤?¨?§ ?•'
   ?ž?™???•?“?™ ?”?Ş?•?¨?” ?”?œ?›?” ?˜' ?˘?™?™?Ÿ ?‘?›???Ł ?ž?Š? ?” ?•?? ?›?Ÿ ?’? ?–?” ??™?Ÿ ?”?›?¨?— ?Š?”?•? ?œ?”?Š?
   ?ž?›?œ ?ž?§?•? ?œ? ?™?“?•?˘ ?–?” ?œ??™? ?Š?™ ?“?œ?›?œ ?”?˘?•?œ? ?™?“?•?˘ ?Š?Š? ?–?” ?ž?™?•?—?“ ?œ?”?§?‘"?”. ?•?œ?ž?˘?Š?”
   ?‘?˘?Ş?•? ?™? ??™? ?™ ?‘?•?“?§ ?œ?¨??•?Ş ?? ?™?Š ?Š? ?Š? ?ž?Š?•? ?Š?‘?›?œ ?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ? ?•?˜?” ?Š??™?Ÿ ?œ?—?•?Š ?œ?‘?“
   ?ž?”?•?™?” ?Š?œ? ?ž?Ś?•?™ ?›?œ?œ ?Š?™?“?¤?™???• ?‘?˘?Ş?•? ?™?. ??‘?œ ?? ?‘?“?¨?š ?ž?§?¨?” ?? ?™ ?¨?•??” ?‘?˘?Ş?•? ?™?
   ??Ł ??—?“ ?ž?–' ?”?Š?ž?•?Ş ?? ?™ ?ž?—?ž?™?¨ ?œ?§?¨?•?˘ ??•?Ş?• ?ž?§?•? ?ž?”?˘?Ş?•?Ÿ ?•?œ?”?Ś? ?™?˘?• ?œ?—?•?ž?¨?
   ?‘?˘?œ?ž? ?›?™?•?Ÿ ?Š?œ? ?ž?Ś??Ş?™ ?¨??™?” ?ž?¤?•?¨?Š?Ş ?œ???‘?¨?Ş?™.
   ?•?ž?” ?Š? ???Ş?¤?§?Ş ??™?–?” ?Š? ?œ?˘?– ??™?Ş? ?‘? "?™ ?“?’?•?˘?¨?™?Ÿ ?‘?• ?›?Š?ž?–?›?™?¨?• ?œ?‘?˜?œ?”. ?”? ?”
   ?‘?‘?¨?›?•?Ş ?“?Ł ?ž' ?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?‘?˘?•?‘?“? ?“?‘? ?™?ž?™?Ÿ ?¨?˘?™? ?“?ž?¨?™?” ?“?”??™ ?¤?™?Ş? ??™?Ÿ ?›??Ÿ ?Š?
   ?•?¨?—?ž? ? ?”?•? ?Š? ?•?œ?›??•?¨?” ??™?–?” ?—?œ?•?§ ?™?Š ?‘?–?”. ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ?ž?•?›?¨?—?™?Ÿ ?œ?•?ž?¨ ?“?¨?§ ?ž?” ?Š?§?‘?˘?•
   ?‘?œ?Š?•?Ÿ ?”?œ?˘?– ?Š?™?”?™?” ? ?—?Š?‘ ?œ?Š? ?”?•? ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Š? ?“?œ?˘?– ??‘?œ ?ž?” ?Š?œ? ?§?‘?˘?• ?Š?™?”?™?” ?–?”
   ?œ?”?Š? ??™? ?• ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Š? ??Ł ?Š?ž?Ş?›?•?™?Ÿ ?•?”?›?œ ?ž?‘?™? ?™? ?Š?”?•? ?œ?Š?. ?•?‘?œ?Š?•?Ÿ ??¨?ž?™?Ş ?§?‘?˘?•
   ?Ş?™?‘?Ş ?¨?—?ž? ? ?œ?—?Š?™?‘?•?Ş ?Š? ?Š?›?Ÿ ?§?¨??• ?œ?”' ?‘?Ş?¤?œ?•?Ş ?•?‘?›?œ ?“?‘?¨ ??‘?œ ?Ş?™?‘?Ş ?ž?¨?™ ?œ?
   ? ?§?‘?˘ ?œ?”?™?•?Ş ?Š? ?œ?›?Ÿ ??Ł ?Š?ž?Ş?›?•?™?Ÿ ?œ?”' ??™? ?• ?‘?“?™?Ÿ ?Š?. ?•?œ?›?Ÿ ? ?™?—? ?ž?” ?Š?¤?Š?•?˜
   ?Š?‘?œ?Š?•?Ÿ ?”?§?“?Š ?? ?‘?ž?§?•? ?”' ?™??ž?¨ ?‘?¨?•?š ??Ş?” ?¨?—?•? ?ž?œ?š ?”?˘?•?œ? ?œ? ?™?Ś? ?“?”?•? ?›?‘?¨?›?”
   ?‘?œ? ?”' ?Š??™? ?” ?‘?¨?›?”. ?•?˘?™?™?Ÿ ?‘??•"?— ???™' ?”' ?Š?ž?Š?ž?˘ ?˘?•?“ ?Š?”?Ş?§? ?” ?”?™?Ş?” ?‘?›?•?•? ?Ş ?Š?
   ?”?•?™?” ?•?§?¨?™??Ş ?Š? ??“' ?•?"?› ?”?™?” ?‘?”?›?¨?— ?ž?˜?‘?˘ ?Š?œ ?”?‘?¨?›?” ?‘?Š? ??“' ?“?•?§? ?•?‘?•?“??™ ?œ?
   ?™?Ś? ?›?Š?™??ž?¨ ?¨?—?•?, ?•?ž"?ž ?›?Š?ž?‘?¨?š ?‘??¨?ž?™?Ş ?™?Ś? ?‘?¨?—?ž? ? ?ž?Š?•? ?“?‘??¨?ž?™?Ş ?”?•?§?‘?˘
   ?¨?—?ž? ? ?œ?Š? ?•??Ł ?Š?‘? ??•?œ?™ ?ž?œ?Š?•?Ÿ ?¨?—?•? ?ž"?ž ?˘?Š??•?”?• ?§?‘?™?˘?•?Ş ?œ?Š? ?•?ž?ž?™?œ? ?˘?“?™?Ł
   ?ž?¨?—?•? ?‘?œ?”"?§ ?Š?˘?™?§?¨ ?”?Š? ?”?•? ?”' ?•??“'.
   ?˘?›"?¤ ?ž?¤?•?¨?Š ?“?ž?¨?™ ??™? ?• ?Š? ?“?œ? ?›?“?›?Ş?‘?Ş ?‘?Š? ?”?—?Ş"?? ?˘?œ ? ?“?¨?™? ?Š?ž?¨?™ ?›?•?œ? ?”?•? ?Š?
   ?“?–?” ?•?“??™ ??™?Ÿ ?œ?—?œ?§ ?‘?™?Ÿ ?ž?¨?™ ?›?•?œ? ?œ?ž?¨?™?” ?“?”??™ ?¤?™?Ş?. ?•?’? ?œ? ?›?“?›?Ş?‘?Ş ?“?œ? ?˘?“?™?Ł
   ?¨?—?ž? ? ?ž?¨?—?•?.
   ?•?"?› ?‘?Š?¤?•?Ş ?”?œ?˘?– ?”?ž?Ś?•?™?Ÿ ??Ś?œ?™? ?• ?¨?§ ?Š? ?’?˜' ?”?•? ?”?Š? ?•?œ? ?Š? ??•?™?‘?˘?¨?Š?˜?˘?¨
   ?•?›?“?•?ž?” ?•? ?•?’?˘ ?–?” ?œ?˘? ?™?Ÿ ?Š?’?•?˘?¨?™?Ÿ ?‘?ž?–?›?™?¨?• ?œ?‘?˜?œ?” ?¨?§ ?˘?œ ?Š? ?’?˜' ?•?›?Ÿ ?œ?˘? ?™?Ÿ
   ?‘?¨?›?” ?‘?œ?˘?– ?Š?”?•? ?“?•?§? ?‘?Š? ?’?˜' ?•?‘?? ?’?œ?™?Ş ?”?•? ?“?•?§? ?Š? ?’?“'. ?™?“?™?“?•, ?ž?Š?”
   ?¤?™?™? ?Š?˜?™?™?Ÿ
   Perhaps this is based on the Taz's sevara that there is no requirement
   that the persuasion be effective, see:
   ?¤?¨?•?Š ?”?˜"?– ?˘?œ ?”?Ş?•?¨?” - ?‘?¨??Š?™?Ş ?¤?¨?§ ?’ ?¤???•?§ ?™?’
   ?›?™ ?˘?Š?™?Ş ?”?™?” ?œ?• ?œ?”?Š?™?‘ ?“?‘?¨?™ ?”?¨?‘ ?›?•'. ?ž?Š?ž?˘ ??™?œ?• ?”?™?” ?ž?Š?™?‘ ?›?Ÿ ?”?™?” ?ž?•?˘?™?œ
   ?•?‘??ž?Ş ?›?œ ?”?ž???™?Ş ?—?™?™?‘ ?ž?™?Ş?” ??Ł ?? ??™?Ÿ ?”? ?™???Ş ?Š?•?ž?˘ ?œ?•, ?›?Ş?‘?• ?Š? ?”?Ş?•???¤?•?Ş ?‘?¤?¨?§
   ?–?” ?‘?•?¨?¨ (?“?Ł ?›"?˜) ?“?Š?? ?™ ? ?—?Š ?Š?œ? ? ?Ś?˜?•?” ??–?”?¨?Ş ?ž???™?Ş ?•?”?™?” ?ž?•?˘?™?œ ?œ?• ?Ş?Š?•?‘?” ?–?•
   ?ž?Š?"?› ?‘??“? ?”?ž???™?Ş ?Š?ž?•?–?”?¨ ?Š?œ? ?œ?”???™?Ş ?—?™?™?‘ ?ž?™?“ ?›?Š?ž???™?Ş ?•?œ? ?ž?•?˘?™?œ ?œ?• ?Ş?™?¨?•?Ľ

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 >