1)

TOSFOS DH DE'IKA DAYNA BE'AR'A

úåñ' ã"ä ãàéëà ãééðà áàøòà

(Summary: Tosfos Clarifies the statement.)

åáéîé ùøä äéä á"ã ùì ùí ÷ééí.

(a)

Clarification: And in the days of Sarah, the Beis-Din of Shem existed.

2)

TOSFOS DH ECHAD HA'TZO'EK VE'ECHAD HA'NITZ'AK

úåñ' ã"ä àçã äöåò÷ åàçã äðöò÷

(Summary: Tosfos cites and explains the Sifri, which has a different text.)

àåîø øáéðå ùîåàì ãáñéôøé îúðé áò"à: 'àçã äöåò÷ åàçã ùàéï öåò÷ áîùîò... '

(a)

Alternative Text: Rabeinu Shmu'el quotes the Sifri, which cites a different text - 'It implies whether one cries out or not' ...

ôéøåù áéï àåúå ùäòðé öåò÷ òìéå áéï àåúå ùàéï äòðé öåò÷ òìéå, ùðéäí ðòðùéí òìéå...

(b)

Clarification: In other words, whether the poor man cries out against him or not, either way, he is punished for what he did to him.

îñáøà ëéåï ùàéï îçæéø òáåèå æä ëîå æä

1.

Clarification (cont.): This is logical, seeing as either way, he did not return his pledge ...

àìà ãìäëé ëúéá "åäéä ëé éöò÷ àìé åùîòúé - " ùîîäøé' ìöåò÷ éåúø îîé ùàéðå öåò÷.

2.

Clarification (concl.): And the Torah only writes "And it will be, if he cries out that I will listen" - to teach us that the one that cries out is answered sooner then the one who doesn't.

åìôé âéøñà æå, ìà ðô÷ îùøä, ëîå ùôé' á÷åðèøñ ìôé âéøñú äñôøéí.

(c)

Extrapolation: According to this text, we do not learn it from Sarah in the way that Rashi explained according to the text in our Sefarim.

3)

TOSFOS DH MISHUM P'GAM MISHPACHAH

úåñ' ã"ä îùåí ôâí îùôçä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

åîùìí äëì àôéìå öòø.

(a)

Clarification: And he pays everything, even for the pain.

4)

TOSFOS DHVE'REBBI YOCHANAN AMAR YESH LA'AV SHE'HU KE'HEIN VE'YESH HEIN SHE'HU KE'LA'AV

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé éåçðï àîø éù ìàå ùäåà ëäï åéù äï ùäåà ëìàå

(Summary: Tosfos presents two interpretations of Rebbi Yochanan's statement.)

ìùðåéé îúðé' ÷àúé- î"ù øéùà åî"ù ñéôà?

(a)

Clarification: He comes to resolve the Mishnah, to explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa.

åôéøù á÷åðè' áéï øéùà åáéï ñéôà, àí à"ì 'ìàå' áúîéä äåé 'ëäï, ' åàí à"ì 'äï' áúîéä äåé ë'ìàå... '

(b)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains both the Reisha and the Seifa that if he says 'No?' in question form, it is as if he said 'Yes', and vice-versa ...

åäå"î ìîéúðé áøéùà úøåééäå ðæ÷é âåôå åîîåðå, åëï áñéôà...

(c)

Implied Question: And the Tana could have learnt both cases, both in the Reisha and in the Seifa, with regard to either Nizkei Gufo or Nizkei Mamono ...

àìà àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è ùãøê ìîçåì òì ðæ÷é îîåï, åàéï ãøê ìîçåì òì ðæ÷é âåó.

(d)

Answer: Only the norm is to forego damages to one's property, but not damages to one's body.

åãåç÷ äåà!

(e)

Refutation: But this a Dochek.

àìà ðøàä ìôøù ãðæ÷é âåôå àôé' à"ì 'äï' ùãåîä ëàåîø áðéçåúà, îñúîà áúîéä ÷àîø, åáðæ÷é îîåðà àîø ìéä 'ìàå' åãåîä ëàåîø áðéçåúà, îñúîà áúîéä ÷àîø ...

(f)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that by damages to his body, even if he says 'Yes' in a manner that suggests a statement, he probably meant it as a question (surprise), and likewise by damages to his property, where he says 'No' in a manner that suggests a statement, he probably meant it as a question (surprise) ...

ëéåï ùîúçéìä à"ì '÷øò àú ëñåúé' 'åùáåø àú ëãé'

1.

Reason: ... seeing as initially he specifically told him to tear his garment or to break his jar.

åé"ñ ùëúåá áäï 'ëéöã... '

(g)

Refute Text: There are some texts that read 'How is that?'

åì"â ìéä.

(h)

Refutation: But we do not have that text.

5)

TOSFOS DH U'RE'MINHI LISHMOR VE'LO LE'ABEID LISHMOR VE'LO LI'KERO'A

úåñ' ã"ä åøîéðäé ìùîåø åìà ìàáã ìùîåø åìà ì÷øåò

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not differentiate between the Shomer being negligent and actually destroying the article with his hands.)

úéîä, îàé ÷ôøéê? ðäé ãôèø ìéä ÷øà îôùéòä, ìà îöéðå ùôèøå àí ÷øò åàéáã áéãéí?

(a)

Question: What is the Gemara's Kashya? The Torah may well exempt him from negligence, but where does it exempt him if he tears or destroys it with his hands?

åé"ì, ããéé÷ îã÷úðé 'åìà ì÷øåò' ...

(b)

Answer #1: The Gemara deduces it from the Lashon 've'Lo Likro'a' ...

ãàé ìà áòé àìà ìôèåø ëùðàáã áôùéòä, îàé àøéà ãà"ì 'ò"î ì÷øåò' ,àôéìå ìà à"ì 'ò"î ì÷øåò' ,àìà ùìà àîø ìéä áìùåï ùîéøä, ôèåø...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): ... because if it was coming to exempt him when it is merely lost through carelessness, then he should be Patur even if he did not say 'al-M'nas Likro'a', as long as he did not tell him to look after it ...

ëããøéù áîëìúà "ìùîåø- " 'ø"ù àåîø òã ùéô÷éã àöìå åéàîø "äéìê åùîåø ìé" ,àáì àí àîø ìéä "òéðéê áå, " ôèåø' .

(c)

Precedent: ... as Rebbi Shimon (or Rebbi Yishmael) Darshens in the Mechilta ' ... until he deposits the article by him and says "Take it and guard it for me!"; but if he merely says "Keep an eye on it", he is Patur'.

åîùðé 'îúðé' áãàúà ìéãéä' ...

1.

Answer #1 (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers that the Mishnah is speaking where it came to his hand ...

åëé ÷úðé 'ò"î ìôèåø' ôèåø' , ä"ä áìà 'òì îðú' äå"î ìàùîåòéðï ãôèåø áãìà àúà ìéãéä...

(d)

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah continues 'In order to be Patur, he is Patur', it could have taught us that he is Patur even without 'the condition, where it did not yet come to his hand ...

àìà ëì òé÷ø äúðà ìà áà àìà ìäùîéòðå ãáðæ÷é îîåðå îäðé 'ò"î ìôèåø' ,åáðæ÷é âåôå ìà îäðé.

1.

Answer #1: ... only the Tana is currently specifically coming to teach us that by Nizkei Mamon the stipulation is effective, but not by Nizkei Gufo.

åø"é îô' ãä"ô- "ìùîåø" ' ,åìà ì÷øåò' -ôé' ëùðúï ìå ìùîåø åìà äøùäå ìà ì÷øåò åìà ìàáã, àæ çééá áëì ãéï ùåîø...

(e)

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri explains "Lishmor", 've'Lo Likero'a' to mean that he gave him the article to look after but not to tear or to destroy, in which case he has the full Din of a Shomer ...

àáì àí äøùäå ì÷øåò åìàáã àí éøöä, àéï òìéå ãéï ùåîø ìäúçééá áëìåí áîä ùî÷áìå ìùîåø...

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): ... whereas if he would authorize him to tear or to destroy it, he does not have the Din of a Shomer at all, merely because he undertakes to guard the article ...

ëéåï ùðåúï ìå øùåú âí ì÷øåò åìàáã àí éøöä.

2.

Reason: ... seeing as he gave him permission to tear or to destroy it should he so wish.

åàí ðúéðú øùåú ì÷øåò àéï ôåèøúå îï ä÷øéòä, à"ë äéä ìå ìéçùá ùåîø ëùðúï ìå øùåú âí ì÷øåò ëàéìå ìà ðúï ìå àìà ìùîåø ñúí.

(f)

Answer #2 (concl.): And if allowing him to tear it does not exempt him should he in fact tear it, then he ought to be considered a Shomer when he grants him permission to tear it as if he had only given it to him to guard S'tam (without stipulating).

'äà ãàúà ìéãéä - 'ôé' îúðé' ùðúï ìéãå åà"ì 'ùîåø, åàí úøöä ì÷øåò òùä ëøöåðê... '

(g)

Explanation #1 (Rav Huna): 'One speaks where it came to his hand' - This refers to our Mishnah where he gave it to him and said 'Guard it, and if you wish to tear it, then go ahead' ...

ãëéåï ùçñ òì äçôõ ùìà à"ì '÷øòå"! òã ùáà ìéãå, ùäô÷éãå àöìå úçéìä...

1.

Reason: ... because seeing as he is concerned about the object, since he did not not say directly 'Tear it!' until it reached his hand ...

îä ùðåúï ìå øùåú ì÷øòå áñéåí ãáøéå, àéï àåîø ëï ëãé ìôèøå, àìà ôèåîé îéìé äåà ãäåé ëãé ùéùîåø ìå áøöåï...

2.

Reason (cont.): ... when he subsequently authorizes him to destroy it, he does not do so in order to exempt him, but rather to convince him to look after the object willingly ...

åìà éãàâ ùîà éã÷ã÷ òîå éåúø îãàé àí ú÷øò åéòîåã áãéï äåà ã÷à"ì ...

3.

Reason (concl.): ... and to deter him from worrying that he might come down on him excessively hard and take him to court should he tear it.

åàò"â ãàúà ìéãéä áúåøú ÷øéòä, ùà"ì áùòú ðúéðä, çééá òì ä÷øéòä.

4.

Conclusion: Consequently, even though it came to his hand with a 'concession' to tear it, as the owner stipulated when he handed it to him, he is nevertheless Chayav should he actually do so ...

åáøééúà áãìà àúà ìéãéä, ùà"ì 'èåì çôõ ôìåðé äîåðç ùí úùîøäå ìé; åàí øöåðê, ú÷øòäå' ...

(h)

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas the Beraisa speaks where it did not yet come to his hand - where he said to him 'Take the object that is lying over there and guard it for me, and if you want, you may tear it' ...

åàç"ë ðèìå å÷øòå...

1.

Clarification (cont.): ... and he then took it and tore it.

ãëéåï ùàéðå çñ òìéå, àìà ùðåúï ìå øùåú ÷åãí ùéúðäå ìéãå, àí ëï àéï çåùù àí éàáãäå, åìôåèøå ìâîøé ðúï ìå øùåú.

2.

Reason: ... because, since he does not care about the object, but allows him to tear it even before it reaches his hand, he clearly does not mind if he destroys it, and the authorization was in order to exempt him.

à"ì øáä "ìùîåø" 'ãàúà ìéãéä îùîò... '

(i)

Question: 'Rabah asked him (Rav Huna) But "Lish'mor" implies that it has already come to his hand ...

ãäëé îùîò ÷øà ùðúï ìå øùåú ìùîåø áìáã; àáì ðúï ìå âí ìàáã, àéï òìéå ãéï ùåîø?

1.

Clarification: ... since the Pasuk implies that he granted him permission to guard it only, but that if he also allowed him to tear it, he does not have the Din of a Shomer?

àìà àîø øáä -îúðé' áãàúà ìéãéä áúåøú ùîéøä áìáã åùåá ðîìê åðúï ìå øùåú ì÷øåò...

(j)

Explanation #1 (Rabah): Therefore Rabah explains that the Mishnah speaks where it came to his hand only to guard it, and only afterwards did he change his mind and authorize him to tear it ...

ùëéåï ùîúçéìú ðúéðúå ðúðå ìå ìùîåø åìà ì÷øåò, åäðô÷ã ÷éáì òìéå, îä ùàåîø àç"ë ì÷øåò àí éøöä, àéðå àìà îùèä åôèåîé îéìé...

1.

Reason: ... because, since he initially gave it to him exclusively to guard, and not to tear, and the Nifkad undertook to do so, when he subsequently permits him to tear it should he do wish, he is merely pulling his leg and making small talk ...

åáøééúà áãàúà ìéãéä áúåøú ÷øéòä, ùîùòú ðúéðä à"ì ëï ...

(k)

Rabah's Explanation: ... whereas the Beraisa speaks where it came to his hand in order to tear it - where as he gave it to him, he permitted it ...

ãëéåï ùàåîø ìå ëï ÷åãí ùðòùä ùåîø, àéï çåùù àí é÷øò.

1.

Reason: Consequently, since he said it to him before he became a Shomer, he doesn't mind if he actually tears it.

åë"ù àí ìà òùàå ùåîø àìà à"ì '÷øò ëñåúé åùáåø ëãé äîåðç ìôðéê' ,ùäåà ôèåø.

(l)

Conclusion: ... and all the more so in the event that he doesn't even appoint him a Shali'ach, but just says to him 'Tear the garment' or 'Break the jar of mine that is lying in front of you!', will he be Patur.

93b----------------------------------------93b

6)

TOSFOS DH HA'GOZEL EITZIM: TANA DIYDAN TANA SHINUY DE'RABANAN

úåñ' ã"ä äâåæì òöéí: úðà ãéãï úðà ùéðåé ãøáðï

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles Rabah with our Mishnah.)

åà"ú, åìøáä ãàéú ìéä àôéìå ùéðåé äçåæø ìáøééúå äåé ãàåøééúà, ëãôé' áîøåáä (ìòéì ãó ñä: åùí), äéëé îùðé îúðéúéï...

(a)

Question: How will Rabah - who holds that even a Shinuy that can revert to its original state is d'Oraysa, as he explained in 'Merubeh' (above, on Daf 65b & 66a) - explain our Mishnah, seeing as ...

ëãàáéé ìà îöé ìùðåéé, åëøá àùé ðîé ìà...

1.

Question (cont.): ... neither can he cannot learn like Abaye, nor can he learn like Rav Ashi ...

ãøá àùé îå÷é ìä ãå÷à áùéðåé ùàéï çåæø?

2.

Reason: ... who establishes it specifically by a Shinuy which is irreversible?

åéù ìåîø, ãäåä îùðé ãîúðé' ìøáåúà ð÷è 'òöéí îùåôéí åòùàï ëìéí' ìàùîåòéðï ãàôé' ùéðåé äçåæø ìáøééúå ÷ðé...

(b)

Answer: Rabah will explain that the Mishnah mentions 'wood that has been planed and made into Keilim' to teach us that even a Shinuy that can revert to its original state acquires ...

åáøééúà ÷îùîò ìï ãùéðåé áòìîà äåé ùéðåé, àó òì ôé ùàéï ùí ëìé òìéäï.

1.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas the Beraisa teaches us that any Shinuy acquires, even if it cannot be classified as a K'li.

7)

TOSFOS DH EITZIN VE'AS'AN KEILIM BUCHNI

úåñ' ã"ä òöéí åòùàï ëìéí áåëðé

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara specifically mentions 'pestles'.)

ãå÷à ùéôåé ëé äàé ùðòùä áëê áåëðé, îåòéì...

(a)

Clarification: Specifically an improvement such as this, where he made it into a pestle, is effective ...

ãçùéá ùéðåé îòùä; åëï ëùåøà åòáãéä ðñøéí ðîé îäðé...

1.

Reason: ... because it is considered a Shinuy Ma'aseh; and the same applies to a beam which one made into planks ...

àáì ùéôåé ùàéï îùúðä ùîå áëê, ìà îäðé.

2.

Clarification (cont.): But an improvement where the name of the object does not change, is not effective ...

åëï àîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó öå.) 'âæì ãé÷ìà å÷èìéä, ìà ÷ðé; ãé÷ìà åòáãéä âåáé, ìà ÷ðé ...

(b)

Proof: ... as the Gemara states later (on Daf 96a) 'If someone steals a date-palm and chops it down, he does not acquire it; a date-palm and he chopped it into plain logs, he does not acquire it ...

ãâåáé ããé÷ìà î÷øé.

1.

Reason: ... since they are simply called 'logs of a date-palm'.

àáì 'âåáé åòáãéðäå ëùåøé, ÷ðé...

(c)

Proof (cont): ... But if he steals plain logs and manufactures them into beams, he acquires them ...

îòé÷øà 'âåáé' åäùúà 'ëùåøé'.

1.

Reason: ... since before they were called 'logs', and now they are called 'beams'.

8)

TOSFOS DH LO HISPIK LITNO LO A SHE'TZAV'O

úåñ' ã"ä ìà äñôé÷ ìéúðå ìå òã ùöáòå

(Summary: Tosfos refers to his explanation elsewhere.)

ôéøùúé áîøåáä (ìòéì ãó ñå.).

(a)

Reference: As Tosfos explained in 'Merubeh' (above, on Daf 66a).

9)

TOSFOS DH TAV'O VE'ARGO

úåñ' ã"ä èååàå åàøâå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why 'Argo' does not incorporate 'Tav'o'.)

åà"ú' àøâå, úéôå÷ ìéä îùåí èååéä?

(a)

Question: 'He wove it?' Why did he not already acquire it when he spun it?

åé"ì, îàé àøéâä, úéëé...

(b)

Answer: Because the weaving here was performed with un-spun cords.

ãëä"â îôøù áñåó îëéìúéï (ãó ÷éè:).

(c)

Precedent: ... as the Gemara explains at the end of the Masechta (Daf 119:).

10)

TOSFOS DH HA DE'CHAVREIH CHAVRI VE'HA DE'KAVREIH KAVRUYI

úåñ' ã"ä äà ãçååøéä çååøé åäà ãëååøéä ëååøåéé

(Summary: Tosfos elaborates (mainly) on the opinion of Rebbi Chiya bar Avin.)

åúøåééäå àìéáà ãë"ò, ã'çååøéä çååøé' àôéìå ìø"ù ìà äåé ùéðåé, å'ëååøéä ëååøéé' àôé' ìøáðï äåé ùéðåé.

(a)

Clarification: Both cases go according to all opinions: the former (where he bleached it), is not considered a Shinuy even according to Rebbi Shimon, whereas the latter (where he treated it with chemicals) is a Shinuy even according to the Rabanan.

åøáà ìà øöä ìúøõ ëï...

(b)

Clarification (cont.): Rava however, declined to learn like that ...

ã÷ñáø 'ëååøéä ëååøéé' ìà î÷øé ìéáåï àìà öáéòä.

1.

Reason: ... because, he maintains, 'Kavreih Kavru'i' is not called 'bleaching', but 'dyeing'.

åäà ãìà ð÷è øáé çééà áø àáéï 'äà ãðôöéä ðôåöé äà ãëååøéä ëååøéé... '

(c)

Implied Question: And the reason that Rebbi Chiya bar Avin does not answer that 'One speaks where he shook it, and the other, where he treated it with chemicals' ...

ãäà áðôéöä àôéìå ø"ù îåãä ãìà äåé ùéðåé, ëãîåëç áîéìúéä ãøáà ...

1.

Source: ... since even Rebbi Shimon concedes that shaking it is not considered a Shinuy, as is evident in Rava's answer.

éù ìåîø, àåøçà ãîéìúà ð÷è ëì çã åçã...

(d)

Answer: ... is because it mentions the normal case of each one ...

ã÷åãí ñéøå÷ òåùéï ðéôåõ åàéï îùäéï æä àçø æä, àìà îéã îñø÷éï å÷åãí ëååøéä òåùéï çéååøé

1.

Answer (cont.): ... since one shakes it immediately before combing it, without waiting between one and the other; one combs it straightaway and then before treating it with chemicals one bleaches it.

åäùúà áðôåöé åçéååøé ìë"ò ìà äåé ùéðåé, åáëååøé ìëåìé òìîà äåé ùéðåé, åáñéøå÷ ôìéâé.

(e)

Conclusion: It now transpires that shaking and bleaching are not considered a Shinuy, according to either Tana, and treating it with chemicals is; whereas their bone of contention is over combing.

åé"ñ ùëúåá áäï áîéìúéä ãøáé çééà áø àáéï 'äà åäà øáðï'

(f)

Alternative Text: There are some texts that read, in the answer of Rebbi Chiya bar Avin 'Both (the Mishnah and the Beraisa) go according to the Rabanan

åìâéø' æå öøéê, ìåîø ãáçéååøé ðîé ôìéâé ëîå áñøå÷é.

1.

Explanation #2: According to this text, we will have to say that they also argue over bleaching as well as over combing.

åúéîä, ìîä ìà äòîéã úøåééäå ëë"ò, åäà ãðôöéä ðôåöé åäà ãëååøéä ëååøéé?

(g)

Question: Why does he not establish them both unanimously, one where he shook it, and the other, where he treated it with chemicals?

åùîà ÷ñáø øáé çééà áø àáéï áãðôåöé ðîé ôìéâé.

(h)

Answer: Apparently, Rebbi Chiya bar Avin holds that the Tana'im also argue over where one shook it.

11)

TOSFOS DH HASHTA TZAV'O LE'REBBI SHIMON LO HAVI SHINUY

úåñ' ã"ä äùúà öáò ìø"ù ìà äåé ùéðåé

(Summary: Tosfos cites a question that the Gemara might well have asked on Rava.)

ìøáà ãùðé 'äà åäà ëø"ù' äåé îöé ìîéôøê î'öáò' à'öáò'.

(a)

Potential Question: According to Rava, who establishes both like Rebbi Shimon, the Gemara could have asked from 'Tzava' on to 'Tzava'.

12)

TOSFOS DH BE'KALA ILAN DE'LO AVAR

úåñ' ã"ä á÷ìà àéìï ãìà òáø

(Summary: Tosfos explains the different opinions regarding the difference between dyeing and bleaching.)

åäà ãîôìéâ áéï ìéáåï ìöáéòä, áöáéòä âåôà äå"î ìôìåâé áéï òåáøú ìùàéï òåáøú...

(a)

Question: And the reason that he differentiates between Libun and Tzevi'ah, when he could have drawn a distinction in Tzevi'ah itself between where it can be removed and where it can't ...

àìà ãòãéôà ìéä ìàéôìåâé áéï ÷ìà àéìï ììéáåï, ãúøåééäå ìà äãøé ìáøééúï.

(b)

Answer: ... is because he prefers to differentiate between Kala Ilan and Libun, which are both irreversible.

åìøáà, ìøáé ùîòåï òãéó ìéáåï ãìà äãø îöáò ãäãø...

(c)

Answer (cont.): According to Rava, on the other hand, Rebbi Shimon considers Libun, which is irrevesible, stronger than Tzava which can be reversed ...

åøáðï òãéó ìäå öáò àò"â ãäãøà...

1.

Answer (concl.): Whereas the Rabanan consider Tzava stronger, even though it is reversible, ...

ìôé ùäåà ùéðåé îøåáä, îìéáåï ùäåà ùéðåé îåòè, àò"â ãìà äãø.

2.

Reason: ... since it is a bigger Shinuy than Libun, which is a weaker Shinuy, even though it is irreversible.

13)

TOSFOS DH REBBI SHIMON BEN YEHUDAH HA DE'AMARAN

úåñ' ã"ä øáé ùîòåï áï éäåãä äà ãàîøï

(Summary: Tosfos explains why 'Amru Davar Echad' is La'av Davka.)

úéîä, äà 'áèååàå' 'åàøâå' îåãä, åìà ôìéâ àìà á'öáòå' îùåí ãìà çùéá ìéä ùéðåé, ìôé ùìà ðùúðä âåó äöîø?

(a)

Question: This is a Kashya, since he concedes by 'Tav'o' and 'Argo', and only argues by 'Tzav'o' because, since the actual wool has not changed, he does not consider it a Shinuy?

åé"ì, ãìàå ãå÷à 'àîøå ãáø àçã' àìà ëìåîø áùéèä àçú äï.

(b)

Answer: 'Amru Davar Echad' is not meant literally, only that they share a common opinion.

åëä"â àéëà áëîä ãåëúé.

1.

Precedent: And we find this idea in many places.