כן משום שתענית אסתר אינו יום הפוטר בנפילת אפים אלא רק כשהוא סמוך לפורים אין אומרים בתענית אסתר במנחה נפילת אפים משום שהוא סמוך לפורים (ראה או"ח קלא ו ומשנ"ב סקל"ג, ויש לציין שבמאירי כ' שתענית אסתר היא תענית של ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

כן משום שתענית אסתר אינו יום הפוטר בנפילת אפים אלא רק כשהוא סמוך לפורים אין אומרים בתענית אסתר במנחה נפילת אפים משום שהוא סמוך לפורים (ראה או"ח קלא ו ומשנ"ב סקל"ג, ויש לציין שבמאירי כ' שתענית אסתר היא תענית של שמחה, והיינו שהיא ג"כ זכר לנס).

ולא נכנסתי בזה למנהגים מקומיים וחריגים.

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

You must not do that. Rather, he will let them know at a distance so that he does not come and take it from them, and then it is permissible to begin with. Sources: Yaoi in Rashi Bizza 23 EB and in what the Tosh brought his words there and it is not clear there all the necessity from his language that there is a prohibition of tyracha unnecessarily...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

You must not do that.
Rather, he will let them know at a distance so that he does not come and take it from them, and then it is permissible to begin with.

Sources: Yaoi' in Rashi Bitza 23 EB and in what the Toss brought his words there and it is not clear there all the necessity is evident from his language that there is a prohibition of tirkha without the necessity of a madauriyata, and it is not clear where we find a prohibition of a tiraha of a daurita, and indeed Yaoi' in a mikhilta in P. Bua and Baramba" And in what I mentioned in my commentary to the Darshbi's michilat in another place according to the Ramban in the Makkah, but even if he stated as the simplicity of the matter, it is correct that it is a prohibition of drabnan and a tkun of rabban as a kind of dauriyta to also forbid for the purpose of eating the soul of an animal [Ral thus must interpret Rashi there ], apparently he is even if he does it for his own pleasure, and it is true that there are things in the Holy Spirit that are allowed if he derives pleasure from it, as well as the tyracha of eviction from house to house was permitted in the Spirit if it is his own home because he guaranteed a person a transmission within his own as the rulings in the name of the Jerusalem , MM there is a reason to say that the limits of the permits are different, that the prohibition is only when the definition of the act is that it is not necessary, but on Shabbat and Yot everything that was prohibited on behalf of Tirkha, we did not find that they allowed what was not permitted according to the limits of the law, such as shilling fruits, etc. [Rafa Davitza] and such as Meninin 4 and 5, etc. [Shabbat 26], and anything from which there are ways that were forbidden because of a tirkha that was not necessary today was not allowed even if he claimed that he enjoyed it very much, and the

And here is also the opinion of Rashi Devitza. "According to their words, it would be forbidden even in Nidad who enjoys it.

And it should be noted the opinion of the Toss in Bizza 23 EB [Dala Krashi there] as well as the opinion of the Toss on Shabbat Ko and 25 Barshi there [Dela Kmash Rashi in Bizza there] as well as the opinion of the Rashba and Ra'a and Hr. "N [as brought out in the explanation of the halachic Rish C. 133] that he is on the side lest he side with them [and in the Shu'a there are contradictions in this whether he ruled that he is an assigned state or a side state, and I. from 1923. The Tos' that is out of fear of side, but also the other side in the opinion of the Shu'a is only that it is on behalf of Moksha as above and not purely on behalf of Tirkha], and if so according to the Rambam's method that it is on behalf of Moksha and Shi' The Tos' and the majority of Rishonim that it is on behalf of Zida, of course there is no permission feed animals on Shabbat even if he says he enjoys it.

And indeed I have seen in the name of the Garnak [Torat al-Malachot p. la] a dachsh that is done for the purpose of catching and killing the Be'ah of which I do not consider that it is done for the sake of the animals the prohibition is only when it is done for the sake of the animals, and there is only a prohibition of hunting and not a prohibition of placing food in front of animals, and I. Shaari Tshuva C. Shatz 16 SKG in the name of the Maharittz C. Ramah was brought in the Torah of the Crafts there, and here it really is a very new thing, (and it should be noted that the Dagoff discussed there belongs to the one currently discussed in the Rabbi Rish C. Paz does it belong Durbanan's prohibition on the prohibition of Dauriyta, but perhaps we should learn from this (in other ways that the prohibition of Dauriyta is not), but even after renewing it, you do not want to add a leaf, you have no choice but to renew it in a way that does harm to the animals next to them and not to their benefit at all, but In a way that does the best for the animals and also means for their benefit and that's what makes him feel good, this is not Meiri Garnak, and it must be said that it is included in the words of the decree that the definition of the decree is in a way that does for the benefit of the BAH and that is included in this decree.

And the advice to do in the permitted way is to give in a way that is distant from them in a way that there is a recognition in which there is no fear that he will come to take from them as the Maga C. 136 and was brought in the 20th century, the name of the SKA.

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

Seemingly the simplicity of the judges that is impossible. The Rauni Hall in Or Lezion allowed. Sources: Begum and Shu'a I. that it is possible to mix with salted fish even though they were eaten as they were alive, and the Mishnab Dahua believed that since they were eaten as they were alive, there is no significance in them to cooking them with salted water, and we were...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Seemingly the simplicity of the judges that is impossible.
The Rauni Hall in Or Lezion allowed.

Sources: Begum and Shu'a I. that it is possible to mix with salted fish even though they are eaten as they are alive, and the Mishnab has believed that since they are eaten as they are alive, there is no significance in cooking them. And apparently something that has no meaning for cooking is the opinion of the Mishnav that it is not considered cooked and it is a very understandable opinion, and for the PZ it will not be possible to mix a dish with pasteurized cheese because apparently pasteurization has no meaning in the taste and shape of the cheese and the reality is that this is the case.

And it should be noted that there is a distinction between vegetables that are praised by cooking and vegetables that are depreciated by cooking, and that there is an idea that cooking is not beneficial to the vegetable, and it is there that the cooking made a change in the vegetable, and there is also a side of superiority to the one who cooked it and waves of ignorance. Who wishes in this way (and there are many people who use cooking so it is not appropriate to say that his opinion is idle), but here we do not make any change by cooking from Man Lima to Len that this cheese has a virtue in what it is cooked.

And Yaoi' in Barash Yosef in Bizza 16 AA who was content with the matter of fruits that are better when they are alive than cooked, and in Bishol, is it considered a stew, and there is the doubt because Daikha dedifa liya in boiled, and the evidence that Bishol and sometimes they are cooked, but something that cooking does not detract from it, does not add to it, and does not change it Nothing, he apparently wasn't satisfied with that at all.

And what was brought up in the name of the Maharashem (Deat Torah 31366) to permit cooked cheese, it is possible that the term for a hard cheese such as yellow cheese as well as our salty cheese is certainly changed by cooking.

However, the Raoni Shavuot Or Lezion HC 1752 Tshuva 2 also allowed to use pasteurized cheese in our time.

And Yaoi' in the Rashba's Shu'at 24 C. R.N. not cooked, what is the rule, and since nothing can be proven from there, Dehri did not mention at all that with regard to cooked cheese it is permissible, and rather that only by salting he had a side to allow because the salting changes the taste of the cheese and its shape after cooking, and if we are correct in his words that cheese It is allowed to garnish a dish when it is cooked, but hard cheese must still be interpreted as above, and in any case, his words are no evidence for our case.
However, the Maharashem also called Meiri to heal the cheese that was cooked and his words 36 have no rai' for our case as we will explain.

And let's see more like the answer of the Rashiba itself. It is possible to bring evidence to our words from what is explained there in the Rashiba that salt is not a dish, and it is proven from his words, that is, that it is cooked is not a stew, after all he did not mention in his words that it is because the salt is void, in the world the salt is not void just as the egg is not void for the fish as explained there according to the mishna and the gm, but it should be said that it is because of the taste as above since there is no significant and substantial change by cooking salt, the is not a stew.

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

הנה מאחר שאם נר המערבי היה כבה היה בזה סימן קללה, עי' ברפ"ד דיומא דף לט, א"כ לא מסתבר שהיה סימן קללה בימים אלו, שהרי כל ענין השמן היה הארת פנים מיוחדת, שהרי טומאה הותרה בציבור וכמו שהעירו המפרשים, ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

הנה מאחר שאם נר המערבי היה כבה היה בזה סימן קללה, עי' ברפ"ד דיומא דף לט, א"כ לא מסתבר שהיה סימן קללה בימים אלו, שהרי כל ענין השמן היה הארת פנים מיוחדת, שהרי טומאה הותרה בציבור וכמו שהעירו המפרשים, א"כ לא מסתבר שהיה אז סימן קללה, ומידי דברי ראיתי בכמה ספרים (ומהם אגודת אזוב, אור תורה, אהל תורה, אור עולם - מאיר נתיבים ועוד) שנקטו בפשיטות שבחנוכה הי' ג"כ נס של נר מערבי, והיינו דלא מסתבר להם שנעשה נס בשאר הנרות ולא נעשה נס בנר מערבי שיהיה יותר משאר הנרות, ויש להטעים בזה ברמז דענין נר מערבי בגמ' נזכר בסוגי' דנר חנוכה וכן הפסוקים בר"פ בהעלותך שמשם נלמד שם בגמ' ענין נר מערבי נקראים אצלינו בחנוכה.

ומצאתי דבר חדש בצפנת פענח הל' חנוכה פ"ג ה"ב שכל ענין נס חנוכה נעשה בנר מערבי שדלק הוא לבדו בכל יום ונעשה בו נס שדלק ונותר בכל ז' מים עד למחר וביום הח' שוב דלק עד למחר, והחליפו בכל יום לנר חדש, וא"כ בדבריו נזכרה תשובה לשאלתך.

ומ"מ יש מקום לומר שסימן קללה הוא רק כשכבה בקביעות כמו שהי' מ' שנה סמוך לחורבן, שיש בזה חריגה מדרכי הטבע כמו שאר סימני קללה שהיו אז, אבל אם לפעמים כבה לפי דרכו אין בזה סימן קללה, וכן בבנין שלמה למהר"ש מו"ץ דווילנא [מהדו"ח עמ' שנד] משמע שנסתפק בזה.

ומ"מ כפי שהערתם כל הנידון רק לפי הצד שחלקו את השמן והדליקו בכל יום מחדש ולא לפי הצד שכל השמן נשאר מיום לחבירו ויעוי' בב"י הל' חנוכה, והמג"א בספרו זית רענן על הילקוט ריש פרשת בהעלותך נקט שדלקו הנרות ח' ימים ברצף בלא שכיבום כלל ודלא כהב"י.

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

No need to ten. Sources: It is stated in No. Damai and Ho' in PK Dholin that taking oil for a candle is exempt from the Damai, and Yaoi' in the Matani' of PG Dasukah that an offering of Damai is kosher for taking Lulav, and eating in the Datz of our times is better than Damai that the Chazoa in times of need allowed to set aside Of which tithes on Shabbat...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

No need to ten.

Sources: It is stated in No. Damai and Ho' in PK Dholin that taking oil for a candle is exempt from the Damai, and Yaoi' in the Matani' of PG Dasukah that an offering of Damai is kosher for taking Lulav, and eating in the Datz of our times is better than Damai that the Chazoa in times of need allowed to set aside Tithes from it on Shabbat unconditionally on the grounds that it is better than blood.

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

If it has not been 24 months and there is considerable food from her for the baby or if the milk may stop, it can be relieved, and if she feels weak, she does not need to fast at all. Sources: This should be preceded by the principle that a breastfeeding woman is exempt from fasting, because she does not have to fast and there was no requirement at all...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If it hasn't been 24 months and there is considerable food from her for the baby or the milk may stop, it can be relieved, and if you feel weak, you don't need to fast at all.

Sources: This should be preceded by the principle of law that a breastfeeding woman is exempt from fasting, because she does not have to observe fasting and there was no regulation for fasting at all, only that they used to observe fasting (see Rama 3:19 1961 and Shnab Skav in the name of the arbitrators), but in the case of breastfeeding today, Some of the arbiters of our time instructed that since today the need of the nursing woman is very great as will be explained, therefore she can eat, according to the MS Mishnab SKA that if they are weak they should not get worse.

And the issue of the exemption that a breastfeeding woman has while fasting is not from the main point of the custom mentioned in the Rama, since the Rama took that they used to make it worse on themselves, but today some of the arbitrators eased this is because the condition of the breastfeeding woman today should be considered as weak or because of the small necessity that she is a little sick.

However, in the event that many months have passed since the birth and besides that, the main part of the child's eating is not from the mother and is not consumed by her at all, he strongly urges to make it easier, (and according to Solomon's Walks between the Egyptians 57 regarding the Halacha what he ordered after 9 months).

And it is true that if the woman feels weak and it has not yet been 24 months after giving birth, there is room for relief (cit. Khot Shani Shabbat 44 p. Res and Hagg Laws in Hagg 1512), and likewise if a significant part of the baby's nutrition comes from the mother (cit. second thread there), or ACP in the event that there is a fear that if the woman fasts her milk for the baby will stop, in such a case one has to weigh it (Shumoot Purim rulings, p. 11 in the name of the Garchak).

And it is true that with regard to the laws of Shabbat, there are those who have taken the view that all small needs are considered as the needs of a sick person (i.e., what we brought in the name of the Gra in one of the adjacent answers), and there are also those who have taken with regard to ablution in the Hohamim, as well as regarding the issue of ablution among the Egyptians according to the custom mentioned by the Rama (Takna SS hand), but for our purposes the boundaries are not clear in this and we recall that those who are weak will not comply with the lesser known boundaries to consider what is considered a minor necessity, but there is indeed logic that if there is one of the above conditions mentioned in the name of the second thread and the Garhak, it should be considered the minor necessity for the purpose of permitting a woman .

And it should be noted that the permission to breastfeed in our times in such a way that there is no obvious and known weakness is not simple and is not agreed upon (see the examples of places in the comments and addendums to Rish C. 19), and that several instructions were brought forth in the name of the Garshaza on the matter, according to which it seems that he ordered in any case according to the matter of The same case, and in fact it seems that since the main thing discussed about milking is a custom, and it should be mentioned that the law of these fasts in our time is also a law that Israel accepted for them and they do not have a Durbanan rule like other regulations such as Ma'o in Gm and Ramban and Tor, and they did not accept about milking and so on, therefore there is more There is room to ease this, and also in the second thread it is seen from his words that he eased the instructions in this regard.

Therefore, in NIDD, if it has not been 24 months and there is considerable food from her for the baby or the milk may stop, she can make it easier, and if she feels weak, she does not need to fast at all.

Regarding what is allowed to be eaten by those who eat while fasting, they shall not eat except for the necessity of the baby's sustenance (see Shua Takand Saha).
But you don't have to eat lessons like in the Bible (see the second thread there, p. Ranach).
And you will eat in Sinai (see Meta Ephraim 3. Tarev Sakhab).

In the framed article it should be noted that now in this period there is war in the USA and not peace, therefore there is a question about all of our public fasts in any case if they are a complete public fast, and for our purposes also regarding breastfeeding since the obligation is complete anyway it should be made less easy, but in fact it seems that the custom that they were not afraid of it, even during the first times when there were persecutions and exterminations, they did not state that they practiced on every 4th day of fasting as in the matter of the other laws of public fasting, except for Ba'al Nefesh mentioned in the NKJV Shu'a according to the arbitrators, regarding the matter of locking the sandal, And I heard that Gerash Devlatsky practiced a complete fast during the war, and if from the above-mentioned country or from a country accepting fasting he accepted a public fast, however, the established custom from generation to generation is not like that, and therefore I did not bring the body of the matter in this regard.

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

Yes. Sources: Yaoi' MB C. Ta'a Sof SKO.

The children surely light the fire according to the Ashkenazi custom and the mother will light the light if there are no children who have reached the age of mitzvah (see Mishnah Berura 13), and if there is a child who is bar mitzvah the mother lights the light, the mother is exempt from the light, and according to the prevailing custom girls do not light the light (see Ibid Skat) for any reason ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The children certainly light the fire according to the Ashkenazi custom, and the mother will light the light if none of the children have reached the age of mitzvah (see Mishnah Berura 13), and if there is a child who is bar mitzvah, the mother is exempt from lighting the light, and according to the prevailing custom, girls do not light the light (see Ibid Skat) for any reason Honorable Bat Melech Penima (Ein Hatsah Shabbat 21 EB), she also will not light a bar mitzvah lamp in this case.
And the custom is that girls light the fire (and thus the simplicity of the Mishna is clear 31 Skat), the mother will also light the fire in this case, and of course the man who does not live there does not go out lighting the household members.
In the case of the Sephardi, since they do not have a clear custom that women do not light candles, since in most cases there is no one who lights a candle except the owner of the house, therefore in this case the mother can do the lighting even when there is a Bar Mitzvah if she wishes, and on the other hand if she wishes to follow the custom of the Chas that a woman does not light a candle with her own hand Vidalik built in its place, and a blessing will come upon them who maintain a leadership that the spirit of the sages favors, and from what the BHL Sos wrote, a warning will come that a woman will come to a man whose wife brings him out with a Hanukkah candle. that there is no one in the Hebrew Bible but a woman, that the main responsibility for the house rests on the woman and the man is only a caretaker for the responsibility.

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

Here it is explained in Rama S. Tera that whoever says service and praises at the Hanukkah meal is beneficial to the meal in that it is considered a mitzvah meal. And as for those who say about the meal, the laws of Hanukkah turn out to be useful as well, as we found that the Shu'a in Hal' Pesach in the name of the Tosefta that obligates a person to engage in the story...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Here it is explained in Rama S. Tera that whoever says service and praises at the Hanukkah meal is beneficial to the meal in that it is considered a mitzvah meal.

And as for those who say about the meal Hanukkah Laws, it turns out that it is also useful, as we found that the Shu'a in the Pesach Hall in the name of the Tosefta requires a person to engage in the story of Exodus and the Pesach Hall all that night until we fall asleep, and it states the story of the Exodus from Egypt, as Remember this day, Ya'oy' in the Sah'am to the Rambam in the name of the Darshbi'a and the Ha'anuchin, and so on that is attributed to the Harabad on the Tu'k for the purpose of studying God's Megillah which in it fulfills the mitzvot of the life of Amalek, and in any case God's for our purpose the Hanukkah It has praises for Hanukkah and Nisa publications such as a service and praises for Hanukkah, and this is without going into the issue of whether the Rabbis of the Jewish Community of Israel can rule a Mitzvah meal even without Hanukkah.

And it should be noted that the source of this principle is from the Mordechai Pad Dafashim [Remez Tara] who was asked by Rabbi Meir how do we eat at the marriage of a priest to Israel or a daughter of the 18th century to the Holy Spirit? And praise him for the kindness he did with Adam and Eve. If so, it is not the feast of the Lord and the feast of the Lord seems to be accidental, but rather a feast without a mitzvah, such as in Simchat Meriyot or Hanukkah, where these feasts are multiplied for those and those for those Akal, and it is made clear from his words that there is no mitzvah at all, but "E with God's alleged holly the meal of the mitzvah."

And perhaps this should be doubted. Dahana Mordechai mentioned in his words the issue of praise of Adam and Eve and of May who hated praise of Adam and Eve Danket, and in the latter cases it was difficult that May hated the marriage feast of Bat 18 to the year and the Hanukkah feast Danketo, A. PMG Tera, and there was a place to settle Dakhion There is a little mitzvah in this, and there is a little mitzvah in this, in addition to the service and praise, it is considered a complete mitzvah meal, but for the meal of the pure authority, I am not, but the language of Mordechai in the Paz is difficult, which Derek mentioned, if a mitzvah is not a mitzvah meal, it means that if there is service and praises also in the permission of this meal A mitzvah, and why is this law said only with regard to these two laws, and there was a place to say that it also belongs to the authority's feast and the word of the Lord has taken, since according to the law two are regular and regular laws to make a feast in them, but it is possible to say in a different way, according to them, a feast that the form of the feast Pronounce the service and praise, so that it is clear from the meal that it is directed to the purpose of what is said in the service and praise, and for the Hanukkah people who say that Hanukkah's yuot and wedding ceremony took Adam and Eve's yuot, and according to this side the rest of the OT will not turn the meal into a mitzvah meal .

And the 20th chapter of the Rashel is the sense that the feast is to recount the graces of God above, a feast of mitzvah, and it was brought up in the 20th century in the 19th century, and similar to this in the 20th chapter of the 16th century, that if one makes a feast, it is a miracle to show the graces of God above. Mitzva meal, and we were as above that the point is that the praise comes from the meal.

However, the M.B. in C. Tera there mentions a combination and this belongs more to the previous way that the matter is a combination of the two flavors that together create a situation of a mitzvah meal.
And perhaps it should be emphasized that the combination is fun only in a way that will be explained.

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

will turn off what was lit and turn it on again. Sources: The judges differed on whether or not KL mitzvot require intention, and many of the latter took the view that a mitzvot does not require intention, and I extended it in another answer (regarding two biblical and one translation) to bring the opinions on this. And MMM in our case does not belong...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

will turn off what was lit and turn it on again.

Sources: The arbitrators differed on whether KL mitzvot require intention or not, and many of the latter took the view that a mitzvot does not require intention, and I extended it in another answer (regarding two readings and one translation) to bring the opinions on this.
And MAM in our case does not belong to this law, since he did not intend to light it at all, and it is explained in Gm. Bara, a model for MAD Mitzvot that there is no need to be called in Daoriyata, but if he heard the sound of a trumpet and had a serious opinion about the Alma, he did not go out at all, and it is also explained there in DLMAD the "L that the commandment of the OT intended MM if plug and ka from a barking Nabochi did not come out at all in Rashi and Toss, therefore in our case there was no action on his part here at all and after all it is a self-lit violin that does not come out by him in a mitzvah.

And a model should be added if we were to consider here what he lit as an act, MM KEL as the judges (the 2nd Behal, the Rabbi brought the company of the judges in this) if we meant not to go out, surely he did not go out, and here if he turns off immediately there is perhaps a place to say that his thought is evident From his actions that we do not mean by igniting this error to the commandment that he put an end to and taught about its beginning [cited by Zebhaim 2 EB, and Yaoi'' in Mashnab 31 SQU of the halachah there is doubt whether I said this sabra and when he is in Daurita I add to it another doubt whether there is There is another doubt for the sake of a doubt, and here he is spurned], and in this context we must look, and we must also discuss the issue of revealing his opinion in such a way when it was unintentional 124, and Akmal, AJG, which is not a matter of speech here), and it should be discussed in the way that the Danan Sahdi does not have the opinion to leave since he entered into doubt by this, but this last discussion is not valid as such because they believe that Mitzvot 1 "He did what was right, and if they believe that commandments should be done, he didn't do anything and surely he can turn it off, but only if he has doubts, he doesn't want to come out with what he did, it's something that needs to be discussed anyway.

However, the first sabra can actually be relied upon to extinguish the candle and to light it as above, which is a clear sabra, and even if there was no clear sabra, there would be room to add to it the opinions of the great rabbis that a mitzva should also be intended in Darbanan, as I brought in the answer that talks about this, and in any case it is not a mitzvah candle rule, and it should also be added to this that the EKL from Ikra Dedina does not need it, so that there is no loss from the principle of the law in extinguishing the candle on the part of his duty regarding the lighting (but on the part of his duty towards not to extinguish, and it is to be trusted if he wants to extinguish that he can extinguish, since the worst is the worst doubt) , and also have to attach more opinions that I wrote as above.

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