Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd © Maymin Z. Philip does however, , The here. parameters. solution consists two complete only that the by decision offer described a we be example: solution; can possible complete that simplest a situation the provide a not with and starts values, it two of And only small. number on. of is large classifier observations a very of train a number to parameters, the require of would sets possible That of technique. number learning the to machine proportional some approximately observations, or analysis, a cluster such analysis, solve set. to unlikely and approach small right very the a is be that would But What parameters. of been set have decisions associated what an know we under which problem? for past parameters points the the reference all describe few in can a we raises. have made and We situation made situation. critical be certain critical can that a the decisions once identify possible predict corporation) that all a to of organization, want set We an the describe standard. person, can (a person we unit Suppose reasonable social the a as of such decision concepts major for a implications with others, of decisions work much as not here. is them it answer because to abandoned deemed not it is Or fruit? fruit? of of it? amount amount collect non-miniscule miniscule to a the is than it less even because is abandoned deemed not it is about? Or worry work? to more even miniscule is too it are fruit of pieces dozen two because have it to is deemed Or work? is feet square four specific over scattered the Paraphrasing fruit abandonment.) of of pieces law dozen abandoned. two the been law, become recorded has the this in (Modernly, given scattered. numbers sufficiently else is someone it eat if and it up pick you can When Introduction 1 DOI: problems. farmer unsolvable the by regarding related Keywords: assumption problems other sixth two the a solve allow solve also can We we we point. If wage, domain. one minimum that original exactly assumptions the fruit mathematical in at of and reasonable behavior eminently economic amounts their also natural given are five of for expressing aware and return we discussion would Talmudic if the they scattered area formalizing whether some land knowing left of cen- have of amounts the who impossibility given throughout farmers over alleged of analysis the decision-making and and implied behind, commentary the fruit continuous concern nearly problems and Talmudic massive The despite turies. years thousand half a two solve We 2 1 Problems Legal Millennium-Old Unsolved to Solutions New Talmud: the in Despair Behavioral Maymin Z. Philip GRUYTER DE Abstract: nvriyo rdeot rf colo uies rdeot T06472,UA -al [email protected] E-mail: USA, 06604-7620, CT Bridgeport, Business, of School Trefz Bridgeport, of University uniaieIvsmn evcs rewc,C 60,UA -al amngalcm [email protected] [email protected], E-mail: USA, 06807, CT Greenwich, Services, Investment Quantitative 07Wle eGutrGb,Berlin/Boston. GmbH, Gruyter de Walter 2017 nrcrigti nin a naadndfut h amdsget napoc htcnb ple when applied be can that approach an suggests Talmud the fruit, abandoned on law ancient this recording In answer. the discriminant know as we such analysis, which computer or for statistical of example kind an some use match to be to would solution happens possible Another it if see to be would solution possible One the about predictions general to apply and however, broader, even are answers our aim of We law. implications recorded original The the in unanswerable, and unanswered, as notated it were because questions abandoned, two deemed These be to also that Is feet? square two because over abandoned, fruit deemed of be pieces to dozen also one that about Is What feet? square much eight too over is fruit feet of square pieces more dozen or four four about over What fruit collecting because it Is abandoned? considered it is why But 10.1515/ajle-2016-0027 bnomn,acet eairl cnmc,fut rpry ouin Talmud solution, property, fruit, economics, behavioral, ancient, abandonment, stecrepnigauthor. corresponding the is “ unsolvable 1 ahrG Maymin G. Zakhar / ” ( teyku rbesfo h amdta a eandusle o bu n and one about for unsolved remained had that Talmud the from problems ) 2 iaN Maymin N. Zina / ’ ri?Teacetrcre a sta o a li tadeat and it claim can you that is law recorded ancient The fruit? s 2 Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy sa ora fLwadEoois 07 20160027 2017; Economics. and Law of Journal Asian Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM ’ s Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd ctee ri,qetosta h amdutmtl declares ultimately Talmud the that questions fruit, scattered an amah and quarts, two about of volume a is What and return to likely owner the the is of part when despaired the and has on it), owner despair abandoned the of intentionally that kind has infer it? properly (modernly: this collect how fruit behind represents asks, law, of Talmud it of finder the left matter the So and can a it. fruit when collect as specifically, to assume, More return we owner? never can the to land of choose much will how he over is, fruit it much where precisely know may he though law). common citing 2010, Strahilevitz ( is property doned it. finding ever of despaired scattered.) the considered that be of is cannot concept conclusion fashion the one ordered aside, an an in (As up scattered. piled considered fruit is random; area appear what must kept. over fruit be fruit may much it how when discusses and owner, then property its lost to on focuses returned 2 be Chapter must the property. law, or lost property may of specifically it question damages, when or the and law and tort lenders, call and modernly borrowers we of what responsibilities concerns Metzia Bava of tractate The 21a Metzia Bava 1.2 paper). this of authors the of two and of Chushiel), nick- ancestor ben abbreviated direct (Chananel by Chananel a Rabenu to Maimon, Reuven), ben referred ben (Moses (Nissim often RaN Rambam are Jehiel), and ben Talmud (Asher Rosh the c.f. of others, names, independently among exist great-grandchildren, codifiers and and countless the commentators grandchildren, of include in-laws, Talmud, 1000 subject his about the the from and of been stretching printings and traditional commentator editions in French innumerable included famous now through commentaries, gone standard has The Talmud commentaries. The publication. its longer no since are of problems particular meaning these the so, clear do problems is actually to these it way solve context, connected that and our is come In interpretation will definition. Another as Eliyahu by read Messiah. prophet balanced the Biblical equally of the are coming that situation the meaning of phrase time a the for at acronym an is of it meaning The (1981). to Jacobs . akin by (2006) listed Steinsaltz including are c.f. debate, Talmud, and the the Talmud of of sides history all and recording information in more In unique For Talmud. is opinions. the Talmud of rejected core the and the ruling, minority became accepted eventually the and down recording written to finally addition was Typically, it until subjects. generations broad by down six passed covering tractates (the sixty (the cited recorded about first and is comprises the memorialized between It is spanning era. law discussion common oral associated an the and of law century Jewish fifth of and compendium a is Talmud Babylonian The Talmud The 1.1 et eto 1 fBv ezalsssvrlraoal usin eae oti uniaiedfiiinof definition quantitative this to related questions reasonable several lists Metzia Bava of 21a Section Next, amot. four of area an over kav One said: Yitzhak area)? R. much them]. how keep over may scattered finder (fruit [the much fruits” How scattered found part: he relevant “If in records: reads Mishna the The of text the where Yitzhak, R. from comes pronouncement specific first The even fruit: the disowns owner the means essentially despair of concept the fruit, scattered of Aban- case intent. of the one In is issue critical the where abandonment, of concept legal on modern rests the owner to original similar is the This or finder the to belongs fruit the whether of question the behind principle The cited The 15 the in solved be to Talmud the in problems unsolved first the are these knowledge, our To as listed explicitly are and ruling a have not do situations Some saotasur otadahl otosur feet. square two to half a and foot square a about is amne al. et Maymin “ “ unsolvable tstands, it kav Mishna n htare what and “ despair Gemara ” “ ” esnlpoet etb nonrwoitninlyrlnuse l ihst t control. its to rights all relinquishes intentionally who owner an by left property personal nohrwrs h rbe suslal.O h te ad nte rdto suggests tradition another hand, other the On unsolvable. is problem the words, other in u oaseigiaiiyt rdc person a predict to inability seeming a to due oe ht mn te things, other among that, notes ” .Taiinhlsta h rllwwsgvnaogietewitnlw( law written the alongside given was law oral the that holds Tradition ). rls oe n ril scniee rpryo h ne fteoiia we has owner original the if finder the of property considered is article Any hope. lost or – 20C.Adtoa omnaisas yial ieteTlu,admn other many and Talmud, the line typically also commentaries Additional CE. 1200 amot ed o nwfrsr u tnadtogti hta that is thought standard but sure for know not do We ? amah snua)or (singular) Mishna ,adte eeatdsuso bu t enn n scope and meaning its about discussion relevant then and ), “ amot ctee fruit scattered teyku pua)rfrt egh r norcnet ra An area. context, our in or, length, to refer (plural) teyku sntdfiiieykon t iea enn is meaning literal Its known. definitively not is Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy ’ eair ic enwpoiealogically a provide now we Since behavior. s novdadprasunsolvable: perhaps and unsolved , teyku ” a ekp ytefidr The finder. the by kept be may uhpsae cu 1 ie nthe in times 319 occur passages Such . teyku teyku en h rsadcn fthe of cons and pros the means Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM – hyaesolved. are they teyku kav sms naturally most is samaueof measure a is – 0centuries 20 EGRUYTER DE n was and ) Gemara ” Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd hti o opiae o h ilad lyrt eivbyflo,ytwihpeit i eairaccurately. behavior his predicts player which billiards yet the follow, believably of to model player modeling the billiards of of the question example for his philosophical complicated in age-old too (1953) the is Friedman on it. by that touches answered report famously question to most this now economics, obligated to of in answer view thereafter the The followed not had behavior? who collector is his fruit change hypothetical one the 24a, should it, Metzia return, Bava not take will in owner to Chananel the Rabeynu happen of does ruling one a unknown. one that is suggests extending law if argument, the speculative though when more do fruit, another to the Meanwhile, what the in of law take that of states not body example a should is for there 1170) hand, (c. one Maimon the On ben all? at if change, behavior their makes that problems fact open solved the most an itself; than knowledge that remarkable. longer of more answer magnitude sake the of academic the orders all standard for several it interesting the for and open is notable been One have is problems answers. this these and of solved, kinds been different has two problem open are There consider. principles to economic question to conform respectively, damages, fire and theft (2010) incentives. Rosenberg to optimal and relating (2010) of laws Rosenberg Talmudic and Katz the of oriented. that insights market and show economic economy the both were described scholars ancient (2003) the Kleiman Talmud strategy. the management applied in analyzed be portfolio problems can law, parity three bankruptcy Talmudic risk the modern on commentary an the how his to showed in (2013) Maimonides, Maymin of and Maymin algorithm the games. allocation in coalitional estate described of problem nucleoli bankruptcy the a to to To precisely answer Talmud. corresponds the Talmud the that to showed (1985) related Maschler issues and Aumann with all famously, a Most dealing among solved papers debate have academic continuing none several and knowledge, been centuries, have our the there over today, even commentaries it written read its who itself, Talmud the to addition In Review Literature 3 point the reject must line the And something. do Yirmiah require and R. people above bed lie because of must origin line out the the above get Therefore lie Talmud. to also the reward must in line potential given That specifically of area. kind land between the some case. tradeoff of least linear second size a at the have the ultimately in and must fruit not person any of but this: amount case is the answer first the the behind intuition in all the below, finder for out the laid answer to definite belongs a fruit have the of questions is: depiction answer both graphical the that a that show on and We with based owners, Extensions constraints. problem conditions mathematical the the natural implied with visualize in combined and We owner, questions argument) setting. the his by formal faced of more choices problem more a decision the of the in some assumptions problem natural address intuitively the we the of analyzing though some and explicitly here, stating by answer them answer to We Yirmiah. below.) attempt section R. not of questions do two we first which these answer we paper this In Results 2 GRUYTER DE h te nwri n fpatclipr.Frtoewolv yTlui asadpicpe,hwshould how principles, and laws Talmudic by live who those For import. practical of one is answer other The a for mean it does What is theorem hyperplane separating a and rules decision of convexity the on based approach formal the While renounce not amot does owner is four the rule certainly per (and amot is square significant kav four area _are_ per kavs the amah kav two eight Is the but an perhaps amount, law? Or in insignificant the finder). ownership)? effort an the simply is collection to is the belongs what kav it case a – (and which because it area in abandons great, amah owner too the eight and is excessive, an effort collection over the kavs because Two rule kav question: a second because _does_ Yirmiah’s rights owner is the his R. ruling and abandon insignificant, amot certainly it)? not four case is claim does kav per the can half kav owner in finder a the the that, case, the work, which for (and so in much rationale ownership – – belongs the so renounce with stuff) amot involve concerned perhaps the be four not Or to over abandons does grain? enough spread isn’t owner the which kav simply the area, claim a cannot that amah that finder two (so case the great a the and it too over Is kav is area. a effort amah half collection two of the a because over kav finder a the half to of What asked: Yirmiah R. can olc.O h te ad o htw nwfrsr htw a esnbycnld that conclude reasonably can we that sure for know we that now hand, other the On collect. teyku ob ovd sti stefis nw solved known first the is this As solved? be to teyku – ulcgos neetrts n opnainfrpain for compensation and rates, interest goods, public eoe oee,svrlhv drse aiu emn puzzles. seeming various addressed have several However, before. teyku ae fR ima htw r icsighr,one here, discussing are we that Yirmiah R. of cases 1 NB:R ima se diinlquestions, additional asked Yirmiah R. (N.B.: Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy ’ rtpitadblwhssecond. his below and point first s Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM teyku a va-chomer kal faltm,i sarelevant a is it time, all of amne al. et Maymin – a fortiori a (an oso that show to Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd amot Yitzhak R. to corresponding five. point in red one dark or the four, and of in one-half fruit of less despair to he one correspond will than so that less more values is much other there how four, if any despair for will despair owner also the amot that will know owner we Specifically, the area. that more know we then levels, f 1: Figure at point red dark Yitzhak The R. 1. Figure per in depicted y-axis the up must questions these therefore and questions, these to be answers different have may individuals different words, answers. multiple of four possibility over no and ground, middle no is There not. will he or of fruit, values his given function collect any the for to individual, one return given or will any zero for However, either another. of for value it a worth has be not would person one for must owner to belongs rightfully still fruit the function meaning despair, the no of nature the know to it. keep can it square finds four whoever of Yitzhak and area R. fruit, an that over questions, scattered his is in Yirmiah fruit R. does as Solution assume, its We and Problem the of Statement Formal 4 is doing are we What be. to ought this now to law answer the The anyway? paper. what predictions this to of these as scope with decision the the accordance a to in to solution to the act obvious basis out to not the putting logic. tended was form precise people paper help this that following would this were case question in people the that discussion assume it the reasonably is cannot presumably we But here: so years, addressed of be thousands for to anybody needs question similar A i ( k teyku * 2Asmto fMonotonicity of of Assumption right ownership A2 assert and to bottom continue the you if to despair, region not red do you lighter if the that know as we Similarly, 1A Figure in depicted is despair of region additional This will owner the that Note area with plot two-dimensional the Consider Yirmiah R. Yitzhak R. from know We Decision of Assumption A1 owner individual every that Note By are there if despairs owner an if know to want we general, In , o uhmr oi hr smr ri,o fi so mle area. smaller a on is it if or fruit, more is there if so more much how , a ri one if or fortiori a * amne al. et Maymin ) o va-chomer kol

= novbe e snwslethem. solve now us Let unsolvable. , osbecletv.dsardcso uvsfrsm ri vrsm area. some over fruit some for curves decision despair vs. collect Possible

o oeseicaon ffruit of amount specific some for 0 amot ’ aedsardfraylse muto ri,o o n rae muto area. of amount greater any for or fruit, of amount lesser any for despaired have . ’ kav w usin ml htw ontncsaiyko either know necessarily not do we that imply questions two s statement. s ffuti ipre nmr hnfu square four than more on dispersed is fruit of ecnceryseta nonrta epie fone of despaired that owner an that see clearly can we , 푓 푓 u� u� (푘 (푘 also ∗ ’ ∗ ttmn that statement s 푎 , teyku 푎 , : epi fteei esfutadmr rat oe.I eea,i eko that know we if general, In cover. to area more and fruit less is there if despair ∗ ∗ f = ) i = ) ( k h liaedcso fwehrtecd flwsol hnei beyond is change should law of code the whether of decision ultimate The . f i , ( i : a k implies 1 ih aeadffrn function different a have might implies 0 ) , ∈ a ,wihcntk h au eoidctn epi,o n indicating one or despair, indicating zero value the take can which ), 0 }frall for 1} {0, amot k * 푓 푓 f u� u� i n adarea land and 푘 )= 푎) (푘, (1,4) 푘 )= 푎) (푘, a h we speue ohv epie frcvrn the recovering of despaired have to presumed is owner the , ’ statement. s unn ln h -xsadteqatt ffruit of quantity the and x-axis the along running

= k

o ahindividual each for 0 k , o all for 1 a and o all for 0 k .

=

1, a. a i a o ow nwti?Bcuea we either owner an Because this? know we do How . * 푘 ≥ 푘 = 푘 ≤ 푘 enn htteonrwl epi tthose at despair will owner the that meaning , ’ kav k ttmn stu o l wes fone if owners: all for true is statement s

ersnsteonrdsarn fhsfruit his of despairing owner the represents 4 Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy amot ∗ ∗ f ffutover fruit of and i and ota htmgtb ot recovering worth be might what that so , h?Bcuei edsar foein one of despairs he if Because Why? . 푎 ≤ 푎 푎 ≥ 푎 f i i 122 or (1/2,2) kav l niiul bno one abandon individuals all : ∗ Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM ∗ . ffutoe orsquare four over fruit of a square kav kav k f i 28 o each for (2,8) ffuti orsquare four in fruit of amot ffuton fruit of hsw want we Thus . f i ( k EGRUYTER DE , k i a nother in ; a running always ) square kav amot kav of Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd htsae paddw rprintl mre ytesldrdln rgntn rmteai) n htis that one one axis), examples: the possible from three originating shows line 1C red Figure solid 4.0. the below by axis (marked x proportionately the down along and or up 1.0 scales below that axis Yitzhak y R. line. through the straight go along a must either is line curve straight concave Each a choices. and their point. convex explains every a at of intersect must intersection curves only two The the fruit gaps. that of no know amount be now possible we can every Therefore, There for neither land. obtain to of owner must an amount conditions for possible those possibility every of no over one is exactly there and above, of One discussed not-despair. As each nor there? for despair happens boundary what the curve; red is the line and that curve other, the there of complement 2009), Vandenberghe a is and set Boyd one (c.f. As theorem them. them. Minkowski separating the line to a be according should therefore of and ease sets for convex are in it left have we but A4, and orem, A3 from follows A2 assumption that also exposition.) (Note purposes. our for claim any be cannot and there continuity counterarguments. and similar small, or arbitrarily numbers be large to at points hurdles two psychological between (2,13). any distance at of not the but restricts (3,14) it and since (1,12) justify, at despair you Maybe concern. legitimate a point. average be might their tionality at collect) respectively, (or, despair also would you points, two at collect) ( between segments the of length with [( points two these ( ( pairs pairs all all let of owner, of set individual set the each a For set, bounds. despair finite to the relaxed as naturally be also can assumption This that: assume reasonably can we problem, the of formulation the or on right based the to anywhere despair must you then the curve, to red anywhere the despair along not despair must curve. you you the if then and of curve, curve, bottom green the the of along top despair or not left do you if graphically, closed: despair curve. be not red will the individual along an Perhaps despair examples. will of but couple curve, despair a green would shows they 1B the where Figure along areas not. between right; would separation top they a where just the areas is not and it Ultimately, but context? this section in another, left from bottom making the of bottom the despair of will not but insignificant section is right seems, top quantity it the hence, the of despair whom will for great too those is left; effort collection the whom for Those differ. Yitzhak R. to corresponding point red dark critical the above and left amot Yitzhak R. GRUYTER DE hrfr,teol osbedcso aigdffrnito mn niiul swa ido tagtline straight of kind what is individuals among differentiation making decision possible only the Therefore, green the between gap a is there 1B, Figure In curves? two D the and between C area that potential fact the the about from what follows So That line. straight a on lie therefore must D and C of boundary The called is continuity midpoint satisfying set Any to equal or than less those into segment length arbitrary an separating by show to easy is It irra- concern, or possible psychology of this aspect address some To points, (or between despair distances would large very you for if that that argue being might idea one However, the setting, original the in reasonable seems continuity Midpoint A4b assume: equivalently can We Convexity convexity: or equivalently, Continuity, or, Midpoint continuity, A4a midpoint is assumption main Our Scale: of Assumption A3 sets. convex represent each must curves With those assumption, reasonable one With must out draw curves the areas the Further, non-decreasing. be must curves these above, from know we As actually we However, can individuals imagine we where is This right? top and left bottom the in areas empty two the Yitzhak about R. What represents graphically 1A Figure Thus, nonrwill owner an , ipitcneiyi qiaett ovxt,s esCadDaeconvex. are D and C sets so convexity, to equivalent is convexity midpoint ϵ k Mdon Continuity -Midpoint ’ stenme of number the as ttmn mle eaain aeyta o oeta one than more for that namely separation, a implies statement s ϵ mdon otniyaeeuvln.I te od,ete supinAao 4 ssufficient is A4b or A4a assumption either words, other In equivalent. are continuity -midpoint teyku k k 1 , not

eseigycno aeasnl a o l people. all for law single a have cannot seemingly We . + a hr h we ilclettefruit. the collect will owner the where )

k )2 ( 2)/2, epi.Ti otnigonrhpcami eitda h ih re eint the to region green light the as depicted is claim ownership continuing This despair. can kav aesm ttmnsaotalpol.Wa itnuse n person one distinguishes What people. all about statements some make h e falpsil ar of pairs possible all of set The y 1 ie small a Given : ffutand fruit of

+

y k )2 loblnsto belongs also 2)/2] , ϵ a k mdon otniyi nee ekrasmto n vnese to easier even and assumption weaker even an is continuity -midpoint hr h we ilntclettefut and fruit, the collect not will owner the where ) 1, 푅 2 + a )ad( and 1) (,푎 ≥ 푎 ∶ 푎) {(푘, = f( If : a stenme of number the as ϵ k

> 1,

,temdon otniyasmto od o l segments all for holds assumption continuity midpoint the 0, k a “ )ad( and 1) 2, ipitconvex. midpoint ’ a ttmn n t oia implications. logical its and statement s )ls than less 2) D 0 ≥ 푘 , k 2, (or k and a )bln to belong 2) C 0 amot } respectively). , Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy a ϵ . ne osdrto is: consideration under ’ on ihdsar n tms intersect must it and despair, with point s vrwihtefuthv enscattered, been have fruit the which over ’ statement. s ” codn oteSierpi the to According D kav (or Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM ffuto esta orsquare four than less on fruit of C ,te h ipitbetween midpoint the then ), C

=

D ’ ′ amne al. et Maymin define s t complement, its ϵ ń k 13)the- (1934) ski htmidpoint that ’ decision- s 푅 ⊂ 퐷 2 + Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd eerltvl tbeadwdl nw,a eedsacst te on rmres o xml,Mai- example, For markets. or towns other to distances were as known, widely and stable farmer relatively the were in area, for land distance reasonable zero the a is over express fruit it the can then collect we back, is, come where to he farmer, threshold. hour where the an farmer to from the return take distance would and certain it If a time. at roundtrip of scattered terms was fruit the Suppose at not or despair will he whether predict correctly to able be and line, fruit exact point. the his two infer collect the specifically to answer more them can can motivate we to Yitzhak means needs R. This person connecting land. a Yirmiah line of profit straight area much a negligible how as a for over represented point be threshold can minimum maker some decision and every that shown have We Extensions 5 amot square two on kav of amount. amount minimus minimum de the the of collect, half to minimus plus order de half in one the and be of amount, should value minimus precise de the the minus on two depend R. not intersect does also result and this origin And the point. above higher slightly amount. the least at at despair cross not will and line the that line, Yitzhak a by represented be always for A5 assumption by return follows minimus this de Indeed, the ownerless. because definition not, by will is they and that owner, contend a an again we motivating Here of area? short land falls of amount minimus de a just not point, lower nearly-diagonal the or line will red they light thick dotted 1C. nearly-horizontal Figure the in line either red as dark such thin one, and 1C. zero Figure between in line nearly-vertical dashed the like be may positive them but of small none sufficiently a minimus. exists de there be area: to land something of for amount means it the what of of definition by not, will they that contend We penny individual area? one approximately single Talmud, a the for by way worthless deemed no is there Yirmiah Certainly R. other. of the both in not no ownership but made assert point, have to one we at if despairs Yirmiah as one R. appears decision-maker, of it both So below. on go despair will some discussion. and Talmudic the point depict lower visually the to above except Yitzhak go progress, R. will on some pivot below; will go lines all while that, pears person. nearly effort-centric is the that of one decision-making and the person, significance-centric approaches the and of vertical decision-making the approaches and horizontal nearly

= ∊ lhuhmdrl ae r e ymre rcsadcnflcut,i amdctms ae n prices and wages times, Talmudic in fluctuate, can and prices market by set are wages modernly Although Wage: Minimum A6 of amount maximum the despair, to order in that, shown easily be can It can making decision their but making, decision their in differ may owner origin. every the at that originating shown line thus straight have the We out rule can we Therefore, over fruit of amount minimus de a collect to effort of the amount with minimus origin. origin de the a the through spend pass connecting person lines reasonable segment whose a the people Will on are again, points exception, all only for The true are statements same the course, of And will they that means This Yitzhak R. through passes that line a situation, this choose in individuals choices all their Therefore, represent to use could decision-maker a that lines possible the all of Therefore, Fruit Negligible Over Despair A5 ( minimus de to a or line zero single collect a person for reasonable way a Will one only is there that Notice breakthrough. a made already have we fact in But Yirmiah R. to corresponding 1C, Figure in points red dark additional two the Note . amne al. et Maymin ’ ’ eta on,adtherefore and point, central s ons u o eesrl te ons fw nwtemnmmwg ftepro,hwvr we however, person, the of wage minimum the know we If points. other necessarily not but points, s never epi tR Yirmiah R. at despair a

=

2, vr esnhsteronmnmmwg hti omnknowledge: common is that wage minimum own their has person Every k

=

/,adsmlryfralpit ntecniuto fti ie o just not line, this of continuation the in points all for similarly and 1/2, always ∀푖∃푤 ’ ons aey h tagtln mntn rmteoii.Freeyother every For origin. the from emanating line straight the namely, points, s u� ’ epi tR Yirmiah R. at despair ihrpito two of point higher s 푓 ∶ l weswl epi vrad iiu muto ri regardless fruit of amount minimus de a over despair will owners All : every u� (푤 ’ onswiedsarn tR Yitzhak R. at despairing while points s u� , 0 eiinmkrwl lasdsarfrR Yirmiah R. for despair always will maker decision = ) and 0 ’ on,sm ilg bv h ihrpitadsm will some and point higher the above go will some point, s 푓 u� (푢, ’ kav 0 oe on fhl a half of point lower s hvhperutah shaveh = ) ’ ot)aon ffutoe oennzr land non-zero some over fruit of amount worth) s negtsquare eight on ’ for 1 potnt ott ersn i minimum his represent to cost opportunity s Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy teyku 푤 > 푢 ϵ rbesi h amdrgrigR. regarding Talmud the in problems uhthat such i. h au ftemnmmcoin, minimum the of value the lit., , ’ on n oepito h y-axis the on point some and point s u� kav amot Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM negtsquare eight on ’ point. s kav f . i (, ntosquare two on a ) ’

w usin.I ap- It questions. two s =

o all for 0 amot ’ oe point lower s a ∈ EGRUYTER DE a hudbe should amot

= R

’ 8, point s + . and , k

= any

2. Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd hlr(98 xedteisgt fbhvoa cnmc obhvoa a,avniga praht h eco- choice. the and to of Sunstein, approach conception an aversion Jolls, that accurate advancing law, law the (2014). behavioral to of Kahn to economics similar analysis and behavioral half-finished, nomic Sevilla and of target insights job in a the a objects to extend leaving shaped up (1998) work of Thaler incompletely only labor, hurdle against drivers of psychological taxicab consumers amount City given the by York a New is expressed than that heuristic more (1997) Another for al. work quit. et to Camerer then refusing of is findings mentions the it to heuristic similar such One heuristics. simple to The logically. or consistently gues act always not do People Economics and Law Behavioral to Relation 5.2 marginal per the above, terminology our In farmer Every product. marginal and farmer wage each A6, assumption With Economics Traditional to Relation 5.1 it. take to wish can they the four. should fruit all that them, any solve extent to we finds belong A6, the who to person to it any only for that then enough result scattered even the is more and have it or known, now whether known, we and tell farmers and estimated, definitively fixed grain reasonably fixed are or were be fruit wages wages can of such wage such kinds can minimum where when certain it if times situation things: wage Talmudic any two minimum In view in the or costs. we generally affect one opportunity can if affect lower it so can or and types, gathered, higher made; have various be be to of to needs seeds change fruit to no the or then another, of to value answered. fruit be the now of can affect type Yirmiah R. one by questions from additional change those of The both wage, minimum of assumption the With answer complete additional and this specific With more on. are a farmer, so fruit the and cases. the of varieties, all event cost various in the opportunity of reached, in the be grains calculate happens can are to what fruit ability including the the questions if of other assumption or several apples, asked of Yirmiah instead R. pomegranates fruit. the farmer of the know time can he Therefore, be. to likely is he away far how and fruit exact the owned who farmer the of wage being prices to refers later, years of hundreds borrowing “ of laws the on commenting monides, GRUYTER DE set, hs ihu supinA,w ov h rttwo first the solve we A6, assumption without Thus, amah four a over pomegranites of or dates them? Teyku. of answers: abandon kav gemara not a The does or but reason owner amot the great, the four perhaps so is over Or collect, effort dates them. to collection of abandon difficult the kav will not that a owner is is the so, area Mishna’s and grain if the inexpensive, on – for also reason inexpensive? ruling is the is the amot Is grain for law? four the the over because is pomegranites ruling what of – amot kav area square a amah four four per a grain over of dates of kav seeds kav sesame A and them? not question: – fourth abandon would great Yirmiah’s would owner too R. certainly is the owner grain that the the so so collect Mishna’s to collect, valuable, the effort to more Is the difficult are law? that more seeds the is even is reason sesame are Mishna’s what but the – inexpensive, perhaps area is Or amah them? four grain abandon a because over amot spread four seeds sesame per of kav kav A question: third Yirmiah’s R. above: from Talmud the of quotation the continuing Specifically, rotting the also but wage, the and distance the including factors, several on typical depend the will both calculation know This to expected be also could fruit scattered some upon happened who one Therefore, ” 2 eiinln,adko ihrltv etit hte h amri ieyt epi rntoe h fruit. the over not or despair to likely is farmer the whether certainty relative with know and line, decision eadn aaMti 1 ht setal,pol a alt c pial u a nta c according act instead may but optimally act to fail may people essentially, that, 21a Metzia Bava regarding lal mligta hywr sal ut stable. quite usually were they that implying clearly amot . “ eet etrudrtnigo ua behavior human of understanding better a reflects ” b h eut fti ae a epifr hsteda well. as trend this inform help can paper this of results The shsfie otmnmmwg and wage minimum cost fixed his is ’ eiinbcmsavr ipecmiaino h farmer the of combination simple very a becomes decision s ’ episa rblw n olcsaoe oeline: some above, collects and below, or at despairs s 푎+푏 + 푚푎 = 푘 teyku kav eivleacmetr nteTlu,ar- Talmud, the on commentary medieval-era a , nti oto fteTlu;wt assumption with Talmud; the of portion this in samaueo au n o ipyvolume, simply not and value of measure a as Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy m shsmnmmnme fmarginal of number minimum his is Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM ” and “ sifre yamore a by informed is amne al. et Maymin “ established ’ minimum s ” kav or ’ s Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd amn hlpZ,adZka .Myi.2013. Maymin. G. Zakhar and Z., Philip Maymin, 2003. Ephraim Kleiman, 2010. Rosenberg. Jacob and Eliakim, Katz, 1998. Thaler. Richard and Sunstein, R. Cass Christine, Jolls, 1981. Louis Jacobs, 1953. Milton Friedman, 1997. Thaler. Richard and Loewenstein, George Babcock, Linda Colin, Camerer, 2009. Vandenberghe. Lieven and Stephen, Boyd, 1170. c. Torah. Mishneh Moses Maimon, ben 1985. Maschler. Michael and J., Robert Aumann, References 2 of area despair. an in about results asking always is also Yirmiah hence R. and that Yirmiah, is Tosafot R. of the for area of comment an second to The equate despair. would this terminology, our In for. credit given typically 4 are Yitzhak's they than case, valuable present more the In been have (1964). Steinsaltz may c.f. general minutiae, in seeming questions on his focused questions were or questions answer Yirmiah's no R. with however, questions or questions many too either Notes to grateful extremely also are conversations We useful many comments. for and helpful topics. problems Talmudic these their these about to for us AJLE introducing for the Feldman M. of Menachem referees anonymous the thank We Acknowledgments return. to has owner the time of amount fixed the involving fruit. redefine dimension simply the third the can of we if quality, value what of market questions Or the such apples? represent For of are? to instead they fruit seeds pomegranates of of are amount kind fruit what the matter the it if does happens seed; what are fruits is, Yirmiah R. by solved raised question been not had that Talmud two-millennia-old as nearly marked The indeed the Talmud. were in the and problems in since open discussed two solved and have raised we cases. domain, both these are solving in that been ones has the paper person this exactly the of are for contribution cases prediction main important exact an these make and sets. can cases, we decision boundary, the the of on boundary point the on convex points are two value know we decision if specific individual one every the to of of corresponding decision values space two this the in between sets boundary the information on most lies the entity provides or that individual point given observation decisions. a the possible of that making is decision Talmud, the the about by provided insight, major One Conclusion 6 2 1 h oao ffr w omnso h su thn.Frt h oao lista .Yrihsqeto saothl fteae fR. of area the of half about is question Yirmiah's R. that claims Tosafot ask the First, to hand. propensity at issue his the of on comments because two presumably offers Tosafot study, The of house the from expulsion his is Talmud the in legacies Yirmiah's R. of One n Economics and 29 Levine, Aaron by edited 1471 Time. Theory a to 1 Figure and analysis the extend could we fruit, the of rotting of speed the as such questions, other For Another approach. this through addressed be also could section original Talmud this the in in commentary implicit related and Other reasonable also are that assumptions formal natural of handful decision a one using just Thus, know we if even that is Talmud the in discussed example the of beauty surprising The assumptions additional of couple a Under amne al. et Maymin – 1550. ” 6 195 36: × urel ora fEconomics of Journal Quarterly 4 amot – vial rm http://www.biu.ac.il/soc/ec/jlwecon/wp/3.%20Kleiman%20EcMan.pdf. from: Available EK:TeUsle rbe nteBblna Talmud Babylonian the in Problem Unsolved The TEYKU: 213. nohrwrs htR ima sakn hte esnwudrtr oclethl a vra rao 4 of area an over kav a half collect to return would person a whether asking is Yirmiah R. that words, other in ; sasi oiieEconomics Positive in Essays “ a hr an There Was – 1 xodUiest rs:UK. Press: University Oxford 41. exactly ‘ 1:407 112: cnmcMan Economic “ “ h ih oRtr:TeBbia a fThe昀tt. of Law Biblical The Return: to Right The unsolvable. h ih nst s,adi nwrn hm ehp opoiea es oeeiec that evidence some least at provide to hope we them, answering in and ask, to ones right the “ “ – S:Uiest fCiaoPress. Chicago of University USA: . ovxOptimization Convex aeTertcAayi faBnrpc rbe rmteTalmud. the from Problem Bankruptcy a of Analysis Theoretic Game amndsRs Parity. Risk Maimonides 441. √ 8 ’ nAtqiy oeEiec rmteTalmud. the from Evidence Some Antiquity? in ≈ “ eairlApoc oLwadEconomics. and Law to Approach Behavioral A ” 2 – . 83 eiini aea vr on nstainsae n the and space, situation in point every at made is decision a ntegah hc,frhl a,w aesonwudawy eutin result always would shown have we kav, a half for which, graph, the in K abig nvriyPes eet Printing. Seventh Press, University Cambridge UK: . onalBooks. Cornwall . ” uniaieFnneLetters Finance Quantitative “ ao upyo e okCt adies n a ta at Day One Cabdrivers: City York New of Supply Labor Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy ” In ’ × eiinmkn nsm important some in making decision s h xodHnbo fJdimadEconomics and of Handbook Oxford The 2 – amot ti la htw a rdc the predict can we that clear is it Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM hsi h aepita eassumed we as point same the is This . :55 1: ” eerhBlei eiso eihLaw Jewish on Series Bulletin Research ” – tnodLwReview Law Stanford 59. ” ora fEconomic of Journal EGRUYTER DE 50: × 2 amot ., . Automatically generated rough PDF by ProofCheck from River Valley Technologies Ltd taieiz irJcb2010. Jacob Lior Strahilevitz, 2006. Adin Steinsaltz, 1964. Adin Steinsaltz, Sierpi 2014. Kahn. Barbara and Julio, Sevilla, 2010. Jacob Rosenberg, GRUYTER DE n Consumption. and 146 Levine, ń k,Wac ski, – ł w1934. aw 6.Ofr nvriyPes UK. Press: University Oxford 167. “ h seta Talmud Essential The ” h a .Yrihrmvdfo h os fStudy. of House the from removed Yirmiah R. was Why “ ora fMreigResearch Marketing of Journal pia rcuin n h a fFr Damage. Fire of Law the and Precautions Optimal nrdcint eea Topology General to Introduction “ h ih oAbandon. to Right The “ h opeeesHuitc rdc hp opeeesIflecsSz ecpin,Preference, Perceptions, Size Inflluences Completeness Shape Product Heuristic: Completeness The S:BscBos 0hAnvrayEdition. Anniversary 30th Books, Basic USA: . ” 1 57 51: nvriyo enyvnaLwReview Law Pennsylvania of University aaa h nvriyo oot Press. Toronto of University The Canada: . – 68. ” In ” h xodHnbo fJdimadEconomics and Judaism of Handbook Oxford The Sinai Authenticated |[email protected] author'scopy 4 339 54: 5:355 158: – 341. – 420. Download Date|10/9/17 3:18PM amne al. et Maymin ,eie yAaron by edited .,