Is a car considered movable or immovable property?












2















The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):




נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:



Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.




Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.






halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?

    – rosends
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.

    – Salmononius2
    14 hours ago











  • @rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.

    – DonielF
    14 hours ago











  • @DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).

    – Lo ani
    11 hours ago











  • Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna

    – Dr. Shmuel
    5 hours ago
















2















The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):




נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:



Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.




Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.






halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?

    – rosends
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.

    – Salmononius2
    14 hours ago











  • @rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.

    – DonielF
    14 hours ago











  • @DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).

    – Lo ani
    11 hours ago











  • Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna

    – Dr. Shmuel
    5 hours ago














2












2








2








The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):




נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:



Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.




Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.






halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin







share|improve this question
















The Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:5) differentiates between how one acquires movable and immovable property (translation follows Yachin):




נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְזוֹקְקִין נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן:



Land is acquired with money, documents, or an act of ownership; movable property is only acquired by dragging it. Movable property can be acquired with land, with money, documents, or an act of ownership, and we stand up movable property with land to swear on them.




Ignoring Dina d’Malchusa considerations, how do things like cars factor into this? They can’t be picked up by ordinary means, but they can be driven. Is a car considered movable property, then, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered like dragging it? Or is a car considered real estate, and one can acquire a car by driving it, which would be considered an act of ownership? A practical difference between these approaches is whether one can acquire a car with a document or along with land.






halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin




halacha choshen-mishpat-civil-law maseches-kiddushin






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









alicht

2,6971634




2,6971634










asked 14 hours ago









DonielFDonielF

17k12689




17k12689








  • 1





    would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?

    – rosends
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.

    – Salmononius2
    14 hours ago











  • @rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.

    – DonielF
    14 hours ago











  • @DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).

    – Lo ani
    11 hours ago











  • Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna

    – Dr. Shmuel
    5 hours ago














  • 1





    would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?

    – rosends
    14 hours ago






  • 1





    I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.

    – Salmononius2
    14 hours ago











  • @rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.

    – DonielF
    14 hours ago











  • @DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).

    – Lo ani
    11 hours ago











  • Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna

    – Dr. Shmuel
    5 hours ago








1




1





would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?

– rosends
14 hours ago





would a car be equivalent to an animal that can be ridden?

– rosends
14 hours ago




1




1





I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.

– Salmononius2
14 hours ago





I'm certain that things like wagons are discussed in the Halachah. I'd assume that whatever the Halachah is for those would be the same for cars.

– Salmononius2
14 hours ago













@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.

– DonielF
14 hours ago





@rosends Not sure. The previous Mishnah gives different ways of acquiring animals; potentially they’re all forms of Meshichah and indicate that animals are no different than movable property, potentially they’re their own category, and potentially they’re considered immovable property and those are forms of Chazakah, not Meshichah. Gemara spends most of the time dealing with elephants, which certainly can’t be picked up, but I don’t see a clear proof one way or the other from them.

– DonielF
14 hours ago













@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).

– Lo ani
11 hours ago





@DonielF The case with the elephant is considering it a movable object, seeing as right at the end it suggests a form of hagba’a (which can only be used on movable objects).

– Lo ani
11 hours ago













Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna

– Dr. Shmuel
5 hours ago





Interesting yerushalmi sometimes quoted on this mishna

– Dr. Shmuel
5 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.

A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:





  • meshicha "pulling" from a property to another


  • mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.


In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:



Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):




הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.




Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):




הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:



It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.




Thus



By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.






share|improve this answer


























  • I will explain Gemara

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago











  • On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago













  • Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

    – kouty
    10 hours ago



















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.

A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:





  • meshicha "pulling" from a property to another


  • mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.


In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:



Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):




הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.




Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):




הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:



It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.




Thus



By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.






share|improve this answer


























  • I will explain Gemara

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago











  • On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago













  • Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

    – kouty
    10 hours ago
















5














We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.

A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:





  • meshicha "pulling" from a property to another


  • mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.


In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:



Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):




הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.




Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):




הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:



It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.




Thus



By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.






share|improve this answer


























  • I will explain Gemara

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago











  • On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago













  • Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

    – kouty
    10 hours ago














5












5








5







We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.

A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:





  • meshicha "pulling" from a property to another


  • mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.


In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:



Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):




הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.




Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):




הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:



It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.




Thus



By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.






share|improve this answer















We learn the halacha about a car by first looking at the halacha by a boat.

A boat is a movable property and is acquired by:





  • meshicha "pulling" from a property to another


  • mesira "transmission of an object" in the public domain and by schirut makom (leading its place) in the domain of the seller.


In Bava Basra (75b - 77a) there is a long discussion:



Rambam Hilchos Mechirah (3:3):




הספינה--הואיל ואי אפשר להגביהה, ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול, ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים--לא הצריכוה משיכה, אלא נקנית במסירה; וכן כל כיוצא בזה. ואם אמר לו המוכר לך משוך וקנה--אינו קונה הספינה, עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאה מכל המקום שהייתה בו: שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה.




Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (198:7):




הספינה הואיל וא"א להגביה ויש במשיכתה טורח גדול ואינה נמשכת אלא לרבים לא הצריכוה משיכה אלא נקנית במסירה וכן כל כיוצא בזה ואם אמר לו לך משוך וקנה אינו קונה הספינה עד שימשכנה כולה ויוציאנה מכל המקום שהיתה בו שהרי הקפיד המוכר שלא יקנה זה אלא במשיכה:



It's impossible to rise a boat. To drag it is very difficult because dragging it needs numerous persons. Chachamim required only mesira. The rule is the same for great objects. But if the seller want to buy by dragging only, the buyer needs to pull the boat on a length of an entire boat.




Thus



By extension a car can also acquired by these ways.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 11 hours ago

























answered 14 hours ago









koutykouty

15.5k32047




15.5k32047













  • I will explain Gemara

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago











  • On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago













  • Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

    – kouty
    10 hours ago



















  • I will explain Gemara

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago











  • On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

    – kouty
    11 hours ago











  • Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

    – Heshy
    11 hours ago













  • Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

    – kouty
    10 hours ago

















I will explain Gemara

– kouty
11 hours ago





I will explain Gemara

– kouty
11 hours ago













A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

– Heshy
11 hours ago





A car might not fall into יש במשיכתה טורח גדול because it's easy to drive. (A boat might also be easy to sail but sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.9b.7)

– Heshy
11 hours ago













On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

– kouty
11 hours ago





On the dock with a cord, you pull the boat along the dock #Heshy

– kouty
11 hours ago













Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

– Heshy
11 hours ago







Pulling a big boat is harder than driving a car. I don't think it's obvious that the טורח is comparable.

– Heshy
11 hours ago















Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

– kouty
10 hours ago





Maybe you are right. So you think that mesira isn't an appropriate kula bli neder tomorrow I will review the sugia

– kouty
10 hours ago



-

Popular posts from this blog

Ponta tanko

Image
Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
Read more

Tantalo (mitologio)

Image
Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,...
Read more

Erzsébet Schaár

Image
Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig...
Read more