אין היתר להזכיר שמות של ע"ז כמבואר בשו"ע יו"ד סי' קמז ס"א וכדברי ספר החינוך שהבאת, מלבד שמות ע"ז הכתובים בתורה (ראה שם ס"ד). ומ"מ לענין שמות עבודה זרה שלא נתקנו דרך כבוד אלא נשתרבבו משמות שקראו האנשים את הע"ז ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

אין היתר להזכיר שמות של ע"ז כמבואר בשו"ע יו"ד סי' קמז ס"א וכדברי ספר החינוך שהבאת, מלבד שמות ע"ז הכתובים בתורה (ראה שם ס"ד).

ומ"מ לענין שמות עבודה זרה שלא נתקנו דרך כבוד אלא נשתרבבו משמות שקראו האנשים את הע"ז עד שנקבעו להיות שמות הע"ז, יעוי' מה שכתב בביאור הגר"א (שם סק"ג בשם הגהות מיימוני סוף פ"ה מהל ע"ז בשם היראים סי' רמה), שאינו אסור אלא שם שניתן לה לשם אלהות, אבל שם הדיוטות, אע"פ שעשאוהו אלוה, כיון שבזה השם אין בו אלהות ואדנות וגם לא ניתן לו לשם כך מותר, דכתיב ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו, בשם אלהות הקפיד הכתוב, וכן תנן בע"ז (ח ע"א) אלו וכו' קלנדא סטרנורא וקרטסים, שאלו שמות הדיוטות הן, ובכמה מקומות הוזכר אותו האיש ותלמידיו בש"ס וכו', וכן כתב המרדכי (רמז תתט) עכ"ל הגר"א.

ומ"מ צריך שלא יקראם כמו שמזכירים אותם הגוים לשון חשיבות, עי"ש בשו"ע ס"ב ובבהגר"א שם.

ומ"מ בכל שם של ע"ז אפי' שם שנקרא על ידיהם לשבח אם רוצה להזכירו מה שיהיה מותר לו לעשות וגם יקיים מצוה בזה הוא להזכיר שם הע"ז בצורת גנאי, כמ"ש בתמורה טו שמקיים בזה ואבדתם את שמם, וזה מותר בכל שם ע"ז.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The result of a stuffed animal is that there was actually a thing here that did not have the shape of an animal, and they restored the shape of an animal by re-planning the shape of the skin, how it would stand and sit, and here below there is another way to prepare this thing. Here...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The result of a stuffed animal is that there was actually a thing here that did not have the shape of an animal and they restored the shape of an animal by re-planning the shape of the skin how it would stand and sit, and here below there is another way to make this thing.

Here there is a prohibition of making shapes, and there is a dispute in the former regarding the shapes that were not interpreted to be made in the Gm that are forbidden whether they are forbidden or not, and it is also discussed in the answers of the judges of our time whether in our time the prohibition is easier since today there is no doubt about it, and as will be explained 27 later.

And here is Yaoi' in the Rama'a and in the Shach Damboar there from the conclusion of the things regarding the forms mentioned in the Gm' to prohibit a model in the ways that are permitted with pleasure mentioned there, but it is forbidden to suspend because of suspicion (I mentioned the main points of the things in another answer), and at this time we enter into the discussion of whether there is a suspicion of foreign worship here or Suspicion Dashaya, and as I suppose the simplicity of things according to the Shach that the suspicion is the one who did it, and in any case it would be forbidden even in our time.

But Dashma must still be discussed in such a way that there is no fear of work at all, but only a ban on doing it for some of the former (doing live animals and poultry) in case the suspicion is easier.

And here it should be noted, according to what we see from the naturalists, that there are two main ways to carry out the process of creating a stuffed animal. it to wither by any process that turns it from a living animal into a stuffed animal.

And here, in the first way, it turns out that there is a form here made by a person and therefore it is judged as a form bought from a gentile, since there are animals here in the Bible according to some of the methods Rad, and Shi' Rabbino Eliakim in Mordechai ZA Remez t'm, and the Rika also took it in Shu'at Pavkat Rochel 33, [and we have already discussed the last ones, apparently the Pokat Rochel himself contradicts his words and the N.D. from Kopi'' it seems as if the quill in the embroidery is because he added an opinion Some of the first ones to lighten with a color that is more sunken, and in any case there was no doubt that it was enough to be careful, but I did not look into it, and from what I wrote below at the end of the answer, the Shu'a thought to lighten with a hawker's powder, apparently he did not think so], and I. "A from the Maharam's answer, which apparently depends on the excuses there) and not according to the BHAG C. Ned and the Rambam HL 17 PG 111 (and A. Yod C. Kama S4) which they believed to facilitate In other forms, as well as the opinion of Rabbi Ephraim in Mordechai Shem ACP in such a way that it is known that these forms are not worshiped, and thus the simplicity of the issue of the GAM according to what the Toss in Yoma Shem explained.

(And there is no division between the Ari form purely and the other forms as long as there are no 4 living together, cf. Batos Yoma ned 1a and 25 Lahdia in the Shhota Hashba 6a Siman Ksu, as well as 1. in 2. Kama s) Animals that are not together are not forbidden, and in the way that the husband is alive it symbolizes luck such as Ari which is the form of Ari, EI 16 SKL, which he made easy by one sign by itself, 16 16 SK 13, and I have taken from his words in a different answer).

And I cannot decide one way or the other, only to say that if it is a stuffed animal, if it is made in the first method, the punishment is equal to dolls, and those who are in the habit of being harsher with dolls (as it was harsher in the tribe of Levi, Chaz C. Keled) will be harsher in this as well, and those who are lenient with dolls have something to rely on, and as is clear that most sides are on this To make it easier, since many latter have eased the suspicion of the Idna (Yaoi' HCCA included here 6 and Shu'at responds to the Natziv HC 3.11), and we must also add the opinion of the BHAG that there is no prohibition at all in these forms (and apparently so The main opinion of the Toss comes from the Ram, and so does the simplicity of the Hag', and also in the Shoa 3. Kama 66 ruled that other animals and poultry, etc. are permitted, and regarding how to rule when there are contradictions between the Shoa and Rochel's powder, according to what the latter , and E. wonders from your Torah what brought mm in this.
), and from the simplicity to get worse in this, and if made in the second method of the process in this it is easier and as explained.

And the above is clear evidence that a dead person who remains in his form is not at all the form of a person to be prohibited by the Act of the Jewish Law in the Rash in the Hapoalim chapter.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Since, regarding medicine, a woman is allowed to be treated by a doctor in the exiled places because of her servitude, therefore God is also in a way that is another necessity of her servitude, p. ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Since, regarding medicine, a woman is allowed to be treated by a doctor in the exiled places because of her servitude, therefore God is also in a way that is another necessity of her servitude, p. A woman for whom the boundaries are easier, since seeing women in people is easier from the legal boundaries, and this time I found a writing in the name of the Garsha Stern (regarding such treatment of a woman by a man).

And of course, in terms of the compilation, it is certainly better to have a male rather than a female therapist, as long as there is no concession etc., also from the point of view that in medicine there are some arbitrators who have mentioned to prefer a therapist like him, and also from the point of view that in practice there are many minor and serious obstacles in medicine, as the eyes of the witness warned in several opportunities.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

You can enjoy the book and also look at the picture. Sources: here the picture itself was not made for the tz and therefore it is ruled as the Rama's C. Kama SA on two and an evening made for remembrance which is permitted with pleasure, and see Kashsha'a in the omissions of the censorship (and it should be noted in a way that it is known that he did not bow down would be permitted Efi'. ..!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

You can enjoy the book and also look at the picture.

Sources: here the picture itself was not made for the tz, and therefore it is ruled according to the Rama's C. Kama SA on two and an evening made for remembrance which is permitted with pleasure, and see Kashsha'a in the omissions of the censorship (and it should be noted in a way that it is known that he did not bow down would be permitted afi' for the opinion The last one brought by the author in Sos B regarding the image of the worshiper who is on a vessel that is not used for their work in the secret that it is not known whether they were worshiped or not, and there is no need to say to the Rama's decision that there is an epic name in the secret if they are worshiped, anything is allowed on vessels that are not made in an honorable way as here ), but the apparent view was in the A. Masad Do not turn to the idols as the Mash of the Education, and also the books of the 17th, the A. Sanhedrin K. 12 and in the Roshoniim there, and the Shu'a and the Rama and the Shach and in the Hagra C. Kelt Set 6 A.S., but it must be discussed from the law A.S. Shatla.

And here is a verse in the Shu'a in the 17th chapter of the 17th century that was invalid in the 19th century. They stood up and said that if they put the ez in time of peace and went, it is permissible for them. These tz were forgotten in the haze of the ages and it was due to the disillusionment of the tz workers in the dangling of the generations and times, Yao' Mishka Rambam the end of the Laws of Kings, so it is explained in such a way that it is allowed.
[In this section of the answer to the form of two and Arab, the reference is not to various unknown photographers found in archaeological excavations of places such as Egypt and Assyria, etc.].

And from the form of heath and white and dragon, it is possible that it is more severe according to the last opinion in Rama C. Kmet 3G, and in another answer I expanded on whether it is necessary to make it worse in color only and as to what is included in the form of heath and white.

And in the body of what I brought in the name of the education about the prohibition of looking again, it is possible that David David will be allowed since the 20th Shechach SS Kamb Skalag in the name of the Tus' and the Rashash forms that were made for decoration and not for work, it is permissible to look at them to see a nayin.

And my brother Rabbi Eliezer commented that there is a matter of a sacred addition to keep away from the form of two and one evening even when it is not forbidden according to the law (and here below his comment in detail), and it should be noted what was brought up in the book Toldot Ya'akov about the stapler that he requested from a notebook The electricity to change the threads so that it does not have the form of two and one evening, and it should also be noted what the B.I. brought in the O.C. note to be careful not to have the shape two and one and one evening in the connection of tefillin, and who in the name of the Chazoa was brought [as I imagine in the thanksgiving] that here in the B.I. I want to be very careful about distancing myself from two and one evening at random which is not the name of God, but the main points in this answer belong to ancient God, which today are unknown, but some of the things also belong to the image of two and one evening, as I mentioned according to the Rama's in the name of the first And the Ktsha'a with omissions regarding the Worat Shatti and Arab which was not done for the TZ.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is a special intention that must be aimed at putting on tefillin to enslave our thoughts, etc. as the text in the Siddurim states, and this is the main form and purpose of observing this mitzvah, and in hindsight even if he did not think anything, a simple intention to fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin came out legally, and everyone who puts on tefillin is proven by his actions...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There is a special intention that must be aimed at putting on tefillin to enslave our thoughts, etc. as the wording in the Siddurim states, and this is the main form and purpose of observing this mitzvah, and in retrospect even if he did not think anything, a simple intention to observe the mitzvot of tefillin came out legally, and anyone who puts on a tefillin is proven by his actions that he intends to observe the mitzvah of tefillin.

Sources:
In the Shoah Reish Halkhut Tefillin [O.H. C. Kaha 95] it was brought forth in their supposition that the Holy One, blessed be He, placed these four verses that contain the unity of His name and the Exodus from Egypt on the arm against the heart, and on the head against the brain, so that we would remember the miracles and wonders that He did with us , that they are teachers of his uniqueness, and that he has the power and the government at the top and at the bottom to do with them as he wishes.
And the soul that is in the brain will be enslaved to God, as well as the heart that is the main source of desires and thoughts, and in this the Creator will be remembered and His pleasures will be diminished forever.

And in the siddurs a special wording is printed that some used to say so as not to forget the main purpose and form of fulfilling this mitzvah.

And the expansion of Devarim in the 19th century and in the 19th century (Skat5) that the main mitzvah of tefillin and its existence depends on the fact that one will dwell during the fulfillment of the mitzvah, as it is written so that the Torah of God will be in your mouth, etc. And that in retrospect, even if not for reason but only for the sake of a mitzvah, he left.

And the 5th Efi' did not specifically refer to anything that the Gach came out, according to what he wrote in the 12th century (S. S. S. K. 66) in the name of the living person, if it is proven according to the matter that the thing is done for the sake of a mitzvah, it came out.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Within thirty days he comforts him according to his custom, and after thirty days he can say console him without mentioning the name of the dead, and regarding mourning for his father and mother the division is between the first 12 months after the 12th month when he only says console him without mentioning the name of the dead. about but...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Within thirty days he comforts him according to his custom, and after thirty days he can say console him without mentioning the name of the deceased, and regarding mourning for his father and mother the division is between the first 12 months after the 12th month when he only says console him without mentioning the name of the dead.

Regarding mourning for his wife, the restriction is until three legs have passed or until he carries another woman, whichever comes first, and then he can tell him to console him as above, and in the event that he carries someone else, he cannot tell him to console him in his home, but only if they find him in the market, telling him to console him in soft and serious language head.

Sources: Mok 1 EB and Shu'a Yod C. Shepa Sab.
And as for the condemned man, how long after his wife's death can he marry a wife, and if he belongs to marry a wife with a permit within three legs, ref.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

A full sun is allowed with pleasure and it is forbidden to stay half a sun is allowed, and in the sources there are more opinions on this. The law is that pleasure is allowed and it is forbidden to linger.!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

A full sun is allowed with pleasure and it is forbidden to stay half a sun is allowed, etc. in the sources there are more opinions on this.

Sources: Ya'oi' in the Shoah C. Kama S3 and S4 and according to what is explained there from the words of the Rama according to the custom mentioned there in section C, the judgment is that it is permitted at pleasure and it is forbidden to delay it.

And as for the fact that there in the SAG Meiri regarding the form of AZ that is used in honor of Hamma and not Meiri to make light on the form of Hamma, the MM Shu'a there at the end of the sd for this matter Meiri is used on the form of Hamma which is one of those used in Marom Aish.
And also there Efi' in things that are not mentioned in the Psalms are permitted only for pleasure but are forbidden to linger as explained there in Sh. In these forms in our countries it is possible, due to the Rama's miri, to get worse in heat and white more than other forms used in the mountains).

And in the event that there is only half a form of the sun, it will be in the well-known skit that he made light of it, and Ish in Shoa 67 and in Shoa above at the end of Sakho.

And from Mm there are two voices that can be mentioned also regarding the actual painting of the sun, the first voice is the opinion of the 16th in the Skig that renewed that with regard to heat and whiteness only their special forms are prohibited in staying, but the forms of hotness and whiteness themselves are prohibited only in doing and not in staying, and Dadin that he was because of the appearance of the Shach in the Shach, and in fact the Shach took the Skhah that the form of the heat itself is forbidden to stay and was not allowed except with pleasure if it found.

And the second Kola is what Hand Ephraim brought there in the name of the loan Ya'avz Ha C. Ka Drov, who rule in the color and did not forbid except with a seal, even though he wrote there that the sage Zvi did not agree to trust it.

And for the body condemned in the ways of Moses, it means that he thought yes in the name of the Rabbi to lighten the color, and so he took the 16th, and the Shachak in the NKAC part of it, and there are more opening passages of tshuva there in the SKO and SKAZ and SKAH what he brought to this.

And Mm, even though the 16th עם כליכל in the color MM did not actually lighten but in that he does not mean the shape of the zodiac as the Mash there, and is not relevant to our matter, and also the rabbi of the Kop who brought the Patash Sqz DSL to lighten it up , and also the Rabbi DSL for the main rule of making it easier in fact brought it from his father who made it worse, so he says that the permit is not from a khor, and the same in the Yoma Ned answer from the Rabbi regarding the matter of paintings in cycles.

And from M.M. since Div. these voices are not of color, if there is room to depend on them, the 16th verse concerning the form of Hema is an innovation in the subject and is not agreed with the Shekh and is not the meaning of the Shu'a, and the second 16th verse concerning color The 16 Gofia did not ease in the 23rd.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The arbitrators of our time disagreed on this and I am not aware of any clear agreement and decision on this, and in the name of the Gerish Elyashiv I saw a statement that it is forbidden to do so. .!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The arbitrators of our time disagreed on this and I do not know that there is a clear agreement and decision on this, and in the name of the Gerish Elyashiv I saw a statement that it is forbidden to do so.

And from Mm it should be noted after studying this law that there is enough evidence to explain to the ear that even if there is a Mm prohibition in it according to some of the former, it is not a Dauriita prohibition but a Darbanan ban and afi' Teri Darbanan or Talat Darbanan, because there is no form of letters and there is no idolatry in it , and also it does not remain forever, and it will be in the answers of our times that extended on this matter.

And in the event that there is a special great need or the dignity of mankind as well as a sick place, some have ordered to make it easier according to the details of the matter and the case, and if there are special details in the question, he will make a wise question.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The general answer is that it is not allowed, but in fact there are ways that it is allowed according to certain needs or at certain stages of the wedding subject to certain conditions, according to the Shu'a and Rama'a in the Yod C. Shazat. Therefore, I would suggest detailing the sides of the question as much as possible, such as for what purpose the visit And do you mean...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The general answer is that it is not allowed, but in fact there are ways that it is allowed according to certain needs or at certain stages of the wedding subject to certain conditions, Ya'ov' in the Shu'a and Rama'a in the Yod C. Shazat.

Therefore, I would suggest detailing the sides of the question as much as possible, such as what is the purpose of the visit and whether the intention is to be at the entire wedding, or to visit for a few minutes, and whose wedding it is, if you want to eat, and if it has already been 4 days, and the rest of the relevant details, then we will be happy to answer in detail More according to the words of the arbitrators in the matter.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I was asked here by a person who is afraid of tarnishing and asks to do the advice explained below letter 7, and first before I come to discuss his proposal, I will discuss the simpler proposal, for the person who comes to give his garment to another in order to get rid of tarnishing but wants it to be his so that if he...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I was asked here by a person who is afraid of perishability and asks to do the advice explained below letter 7, and first before I come to discuss his proposal, I will discuss the simpler proposal, for the person who comes to give his garment to another in order to get rid of perishability but wants it to be his own so that if he is exempt from perishability it will come out The mitzvah, and in this one should pay attention to several details:

A. that he does the property in a manner that is beneficial as in an orderly property with the buyer's tool with a raised taph and a tool appropriate for an orderly property and in the details of the laws explained in the C. end of the foreign trade.

B. It should be noted that Kanin is also not exempted for a period of time, because a tallit borrowed is only exempted every 4th day as explained in the Ordinance C. Yad 33, and the solution to this is to return it every 4th day and borrow it again according to the Rama'a there.

And regarding the matter of if he asked more than a letter whether it is obligated immediately or not, it is stated in the Shu'a there in the sg that if a question is asked that is performed, he blesses it immediately, and this statement means a prayer that is not performed daily, in which the witness of the shatha does not bless it immediately, but the rahid does." 1 In Yosef Omtz C. L. brought in the name of the New Testament and the Meiri Debashala to more than the L. immediately obliged, and in the main points of the DT HL Mezuza C. not the letter A. brought a dispute about this, and in the beginnings of Tshuva [Yod C. Rafo end of Ski ] He brought that so the owner of the Hantaham and parted with it, and from MaM there is a place to settle the Lord Shu'a also according to the Rahida and the Hantaham, not exactly, but Ral even if she asked to use it immediately and return it, and urges.

D. Regarding what you mentioned in your question that he would buy for his friend, etc., it seems that he is allowed to do this whole process, since what he buys once for his friend is enough, if he violates a prohibition or goes beyond the meaning of wearing this garment, then he will give it as a gift to his friend.
And from M.M. there is a bit of a side to say that there is priority provided that you mentioned from a certain direction Yaoi' in the letter 7.

C. Regarding the condition that he wants to make, it seems that if it is a light blue, then he assigns it to his friend, since there are several sides that even if it is a light blue, he does not fulfill the mitzvah (the number of threads, the laws of dyeing and the color) in it, as Biarti in his place and Kms the Grisha in his letter It is known that it is printed in a file of answers, in any case such a condition does not belong to the Nidad, but rather the condition that is made that if a prohibition is violated or something inappropriate is done by the wearer of this garment without the teklat aliba dahlakta then he gives it to his friend.

If G-d does not want to give the garment as a gift to his friend, apparently he can leave the garment, and the garment of the leaver is exempt from tzitzit kamsh on Shabbat kala abba Davido for the leaver and in the Rashba there and Iash in the Ramban and Sha'ar (and see Katzah C. Reg. SKA), they gave it to them and made them their own (i.e. Sukkah 9 A.A. that it is his in general, and there is a special plural in it, but if it is not his it is not in general the above scripture, and also the Mishnab C. 13 end of Skat5 according to Ha'ertzah took the place that the pakkar is exempt from tzitzit, and it is in the p.m. "third.

And as for whether when he enters someone's house he buys the clothes (and then there is a fear of theft), the answer is no, he does not buy the clothes, because he has no intention of buying them, and it is a thing that he does not infer from his knowledge that he does not have his hay bought for him against his will, as "A Bhum C. Rasach SG, and regarding whether the wearer himself buys the garment out of necessity, the answer is no, since no one buys something out of necessity in any way it is his responsibility.

And on the matter of whether it is necessary in front of C. Yeovi' in HOM C. Reg. 7 and a source of life for the owner of the NTHAM O.H. Notes C. Tamach SKT.

And even when the Mishnab and latter were worn, they took it that it was possible to leave it even when they were worn as the Mishnab and the above-mentioned Nokh, and so it is taken into account in the words of the Gm' Shabbat there according to what some of the first there explained But in the clothes they wore and in the simplicity of God when they abandon the time they were actually wearing.

6. Regarding if he buys the garment for his friend unconditionally, it should be noted that it is a serious claim (on the side of canceling the white on the side that we don't have light blue) Dish Diot in the Poskims (see Mishnab C. Hand Skatt in the name of the Maga and Olat always) which upholds this Gach mitzvah tzitzit even though it is not required, and we were just following the practice of the Ashkenazic people who bless women for a mitzvah that the time has caused as they are not a mitzvah and do.

And there are 2 degrees in this, DA who fulfills a complete mitzvah in this as women who are not mitzvot and do, which is the words of the Mishnav Skat, and VA who fulfills it on the part of his friend gives him which is the opinion of the Shu'a there and the opinion of the majority of the latter in the Mishnav there SKI, (and there are those who disagree with this as well), and here there is a 11 that his friend does not give to him because he does not want to commit to the blue, because his friend wants to find a remedy for him and he also does not intend to buy an Ish following the words of the Mishnab SKI, and For you, opinions that his friend buys for him do not belong here, since he will also be obligated in a kilt if his friend buys for him [and I. below near the 16th], but for opinions that previously there will be a solution that he will not buy for him and fulfill as it is not a mitzvah and he does if he is from the Ashkenazi tribe that women bless.

And from the beginning it is appropriate to be wary of the simple opinions and not to give completely unconditionally, even if the rule of the Halacha that can come out of this is not clear, since there are opinions that an afi' who asked for a fringed tallit cannot bless because he did not give it as a gift, as the Mishnav brought there Saki, and also The majority of the latter that he brought there who do not agree to this is on behalf of the one who gave a gift as a mash there, and to begin with, the Mishnab Afi' is afraid of the previous opinion, and also according to the Haga and the Aot, the blessing is as if it is not a mitzvah and a doer, and the great mitzvah is a doer, and another model for women in person That blessings in the knowledge of the ways of Moshe C. Tkaft brought by the BHL C. Tchab 72 is only that there is no brain in them, so it is certain that this solution is not one of the best if there is another solution.

G. Regarding the condition that you apparently proposed, there is a benefit in this since there is no concern here that the mitzvah is not performed on the weekend.
But it should be pointed out that there is simply an exemption for this, since the exemption is from rape, after all, he himself asks his friend to tell him not to cast blue, and what is the rest for him to do such a thing, since we will take a more distant case, who asks my grandson to tell him that if he does not desecrate the Sabbath, they will kill us , there is a law for a person who goes through it with ease, and also according to the law of a chaser if he asks his friend to kill so that it is permissible to kill, there is a law of one who can save him from his limbs, and one who cannot ask for it, and also regarding impurity in the public DKIL impurity is rejected in the public that does not permit him To defile in order to allow impurity in public, and here too Gabi Takhlat if he can find a solution to cast azure on this garment in such a way that his friend will allow him to cast azure on this garment, then he is obligated to do so, so what is the use of asking his friend to tell him not to cast azure on this tzitzit.

H. Regarding what you asked if it belongs to a property when the buyer is not in front of us, it is covered by the laws of the property owners in Hal Eruvin, however, if you want something beyond the jealousy itself, such as agreeing with him on question AA without his presence, a purely questionable duff did not allow the mitzvah judges to use it in such a way that the person taking the garment regularly.

And it should be mentioned in this the words of the Hag'm regarding Malacha Darev Katina in the offerings of LT TA Davidan Ritcha Anshi even when he is exempted from the punishment in the 19th and 29th of the Nidad that the above doubt should be added, and according to some of the former, I shoot there with a tzitzit that was already in it for a white man and was condemned Hi only on light blue.

And there is another point to be made, Duffy', if you want to say that this questioner himself who wants to make this solution will indeed be exempted from taluk according to the law, but what is the permission for his friend to tell him that he is not allowed to put taluk there, and if this questioner himself fears that taluk is an obligation then he is also forbidden cause his friend to do something that is not decent, although this argument must be discussed with regard to the friend himself who is not considered to be failing him since he has a reason why he should not throw blue in this tassel, and he is not obligated to lend his friend the tassel, and so on.

Therefore, one must pay attention when making a condition to do it in a beneficial way.

I wrote all of this to the questioner of Degli Adaiah who is strict about himself by wearing a white man's Idna tassel without the light blue of the day, and in accordance with the Halacha I wrote in another answer that there is no obligation at all to be afraid of the light blue of the day for several reasons and combinations as I explained there.

 

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen