If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer. Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving and after all he was appointed as Kishoin custodian...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

If the employer transfers sick pay money to the employee, the injured party will pay the sabbatical pay to the employer.

Sources: Here it is clear that the employee does not receive Shabbat payments together with the sickness payments, since he is not exempt from the financial income he is currently receiving, and he was appointed as a Kishoin guard who already paid him his wages and his wages and appointed him as an idle laborer, etc., but if he actually earns exactly the same At the moment there is no reason according to Halacha to pay Shabbat to an employee on sick days.

But it is necessary to discuss Shabbat payments to the employer, whether the employer can demand this, since according to the standard the employer should have received work at that time and paid for it, and in practice he is paying normal wages without actually receiving work, and all of this was caused by the tortfeasor, and there was room to discuss the arguments of Physical in such a way that the damage is certain if you defined it as physical according to the definitions of physical explained in the arbitrators.

However, there is a place to bring a rai' different from the law of a Hebrew slave who harms his body, he pays Shabbat to his Lord [Bk 16:11] and if you say because a Hebrew slave his body is bought [Kiddoshin 16:11] MM, then also with regard to his daughter I say In the B.C. there [Paz 12] the person who has the bond pays Shabbat to her father, and it is also ruled in the Shoah C. Takhd 66 [ACP in the way that the deeds of her hands belong to her father] and the reason is because the deeds of her hands belong to her father According to Parash'i there, and not because of his right to be known [Ya'oi' there in the Gm that it is proven that it is not because of her right to be known, since the sentence there is also for the days between girlhood and matriculation, and it is also proven from the sentence in the Rama'a in Houm there in a way that is not close to the sending of Her father, since God is in his hand for the known, and yet I have run out of other works of hands, and also for such things, evidence must be brought from what the law is also in this 7, and who is Yaoi' Kiddoshin 4 12 and Dok, however the above evidence is clear that what vindicates The Shabbat for her father is his right for her handiwork], so it turns out that the person who pre-purchased another person's handiwork for a period of time and then harmed that worker, the harming person will have to pay Shabbat to the employer and pay for it.

And I looked at the book Pethai Hoshen 11:10, Damages, Chapter 11, Section 10, and in the comment there and brought up there several sides and options in the form of payment, but the main points of his words are as I wrote that the tortfeasor shall pay the employer for the damage he caused, and when the tortfeasor directly pays the Shabbat payments to the employee, the employer shall pay The employee only has the difference in this, and in his conclusion it seems to him that the main thing is that it is like an insurance company that the employer pays the salary to the employee as insurance premiums and the injured party pays the employer what they damaged as they decide on an insurance matter and we were like that.

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

יש הרבה דעות בפוסקים לגבי הגדרת האסור והמותר בזה, ויעוי' בשו"ת עם סגולה שהבאתי מ"מ מדברי פוסקי זמנינו בזה. ומ"מ יש לציין שבמקרה שמצלם רק כמה עמודים בלבד באופן שאי אפשר לומר שגנב יצירה הנמכרת ומצלם רק דברי תורה בלבד ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יש הרבה דעות בפוסקים לגבי הגדרת האסור והמותר בזה, ויעוי' בשו"ת עם סגולה שהבאתי מ"מ מדברי פוסקי זמנינו בזה.
ומ"מ יש לציין שבמקרה שמצלם רק כמה עמודים בלבד באופן שאי אפשר לומר שגנב יצירה הנמכרת ומצלם רק דברי תורה בלבד ושלא לצורך מסחרי אלא לשימוש עצמי בלבד ולא היה לו כל כוונה לקנות את הספר בכל מקרה, במקרה זה יש דעות שמתירים, וביתר הרחבה ניתן לעיין בתשובות שם.

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

הנפק"מ בזה הוא לענין אם מחוייב המכה מיתה (מלבד באופן שהיה המוכה עבדו שאז ישנו בדין יום או יומיים, עי' ב"ק צ ע"א), וכן יש בזה עוד נפק"מ לענין אם נימא קלב"מ לענין לפטור את המכה מתשלומין. והנה רש"י בב"ק ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

הנפק"מ בזה הוא לענין אם מחוייב המכה מיתה (מלבד באופן שהיה המוכה עבדו שאז ישנו בדין יום או יומיים, עי' ב"ק צ ע"א), וכן יש בזה עוד נפק"מ לענין אם נימא קלב"מ לענין לפטור את המכה מתשלומין.

והנה רש"י בב"ק שם הזכיר הלשון אפילו אם מת מחולי זה לסוף ג' שנים וכו' (שחשיב כמת מחמת המכה) וברשב"ם ב"ב נ ע"א הזכיר לסוף שנה וכו', ונשאלתי האם לשונות אלו דוקא או לאו דוקא.

ולכאורה אין חילוק לאחר כמה שנים מת אלא שאינו מצוי שימות לאחר הרבה שנים באופן שיהיה ברור שמת מחמת המכה, ובדוחק רב מצוי לאחר שנה או לאחר ג' שנים, ונקטו לשונות אלו של שנה וג' שנים מאחר שהם לשונות המצויים הרבה.

וברמב"ם פ"ד מהל' רוח ה"ג ואם אמדוהו למיתה אוסרין את המכה בבית הסוהר מיד וממתינים לזה וכו', ומקורו מסוגי' דכתובות דף לג, ולא הזכיר שיש קצבת זמן לזה כמה ימים או שנים אומדין אותו.

ויעוי' בגיטין ע ע"ב והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שחט בו שנים או רוב שנים וברח מעידין עליו וכו', שחט בו שנים או רוב שנים ה"ז אינו גולה וכו', חיישינן שמא הרוח בלבלתו אי נמי הוא קירב את מיתתו וכו', איכא בינייהו דשחטיה בביתא דשישא ופירכס אי נמי דשחטיה בברא ולא פירכס ע"כ.

וא"כ לפי דברי הגמ' הללו האופן שיהיה נהרג המכה על מעשהו לכו"ע הוא רק באופן ששחטיה בביתא דשישא ולא פרכס כלל, ובאופן זה לא אמרי' שהרוח בלבלתו ולא שהוא קירב את מיתתו.

ומ"מ דברי הגמ' הללו אמורין באופן של שחט סימנים אבל באופן שהמכה היתה באופן אחר הגדרים ישתנו בזה מתי יש לחשוש לא מחמת המכה הכהו, וכנראה שבאמת אינו מצוי שאם ימות המוכה אחר שנים רבות שיהיה אפשר לייחס את המעשה למכה, ואולי זהו הטעם שלא נקטו רש"י ורשב"ם באופן של עשר שנים.

אמנם אחר העיון נמצא שלכאורה נחלקו בזה הרמב"ם והראב"ד, שהרמב"ם בהל' רוצח פ"ה ה"ב כתב וז"ל, אין הרוצח בשגגה גולה אלא אם כן מת הנהרג מיד אבל אם חבל בו בשגגה אף על פי שאמדוהו למיתה וחלה ומת אינו גולה שמא הוא קירב את מיתת עצמו או הרוח נכנסה בחבורתו והרגתהו, אפילו שחט בו כל שני הסימנים ועמד מעט אינו גולה על ידו, לפיכך אם לא פרכס כלל או ששחטו במקום שאין הרוח מנשבת בו כגון בית סתום של שיש הרי זה גולה, וכן כל כיוצא בזה עכ"ל.

וכ' עלה הראב"ד, נמצא לדבריו מה שאמרו (כתובות לג) חובשין אותו דאי מיית קטלינן ליה לא אמרו אלא במכה שאין בה חבורה ולא מחוור כלל, ואומר אני שלא אמרו הרוח בלבלתו או פרכוסו הרגתו אלא בששחט בו שנים או רוב שנים אבל חבורה אחרת אין הרוח ופרכוס מקרבין את מיתתו עכ"ל.

והמעיין בל' הרמב"ם יראה שהבין בל' הגמ' ששחט בו שנים או רוב שנים לרבותא נקטו כן שאפי' שחיטה מפורעת כזו ג"כ לא אמרי' בבירור שמת מחמתו ואפי' שודאי ימות אם מחמתו ואם מחמת קירוב מיתה באיזה אופן שיהיה.

ומ"מ לכשתמצי לומר שאין הכל תלוי במחלוקת בין הרמב"ם להראב"ד, שהרי במכה שאין בה שום חבורה שניהם מודים ובשחט בו שנים או רוב שנים ג"כ שניהם מודים, ולא נחלקו אלא במה שבא לכלל חבורה ועדיין לא בא לכלל שחט בו רוב שנים.

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

It should be noted that according to some of the scribes it is even possible to desecrate the Sabbath for a child even within a month, and there is a prohibition of murder by the hand of heaven to kill an unborn fetus within a month. And the new soul of Avraham, HoM p. Kenz, regarding the severity of the prohibition in this, as well as in the Torah of the fetus...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It should be noted that according to some of the scribes it is even possible to desecrate the Sabbath for a child even within a month, and there is a prohibition of murder by the hand of heaven to kill an unborn fetus within a month.
And the new soul of Avraham, HoM p. Kenez regarding the seriousness of the prohibition in this, as well as in the Torah of the Embryo, chapter 7, p. Kenav and onwards who extended this a lot, and the essence of the matter which brought many methods there at the level of the seriousness of the matter, but simply that it is a complete prohibition for the Dina, whether it is a Dauriita or Darbanan prohibition And whether it is a prohibition of murder or another prohibition.

And regarding the specific case that she does not want a child because he is a terrorist, this guilt must be reassured according to Torah and Halacha, he does not refer to his father but to his mother only, and he is a kosher Israel, and he should not be kept away because of his lineage.

And if there is no opinion on whether the mother agrees with this, the foster care organization operating according to the Torah should be instructed to raise the child, and there is no prohibition in this at all, and of course it should be preferred to murder.

Regarding the teaching of one rabbi that the fetus has the din of a stalker since the mother will enter into a severe mental crisis because of it, the Anad AA said yes so quickly, that this needs a clear examination, what is the likelihood of this fear permitting murder, that if this child If he is born and goes to foster care, will he lose his mind, and if this fear is a clear fear, and that if a person says that his friend is causing him an irreversible mental crisis, his friend will be judged by a stalker, even though a fetus that has not been exposed to the world is easier, mm very narrow To take opinions and inventions to the sides of voices and allow murder because of this, and therefore the Anad AA apparently does not allow any murder here, and we must go into the details of the laws here, and I will not prolong this further since the books are already full of what was discussed on the previous day, and also on the unique question This has already been discussed by wise men greater than me.

ובהשלמת הדברים יעוי' עוד בתשובתי לענין הנידון על סיגריה בשבת במקום פקו"נ, שם הרחבתי עוד מראי מקומות לענין הברור שלא כל דבר שיכול קצת לסייע נחשב פקו"נ ולא כל מה שטוענים שיביא לחולי מותר על ידי זה, וכמו שדן החתם סופר בענין דומה וציינתי בתשובה שם.

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

Since the heirs do not give permission to live there, therefore it is forbidden to live there, and even any use for which rent would not be paid (i.e., a man from a servant to a migrant) is prohibited by law, this dedin is enjoyed and it is not lacking. It is not said about coercion, that as long as he has something...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Since the heirs do not give permission to live there, therefore it is forbidden to live there, and even any use for which he would not pay rent (i.e., a freeholder from a servant to a migrant) is prohibited by law, this dedin is enjoyed and it is not lacking. It is for money and he is not renting it out for reasons of convenience, aa he is obliged to give it for free because of a coercion on the level of Sodom since even in payment he does not want to give the apartment, and as explained in 27 of the Rama'a Hom C. Shaseg Sou.

And I will not say, except that it is convenient for him to broadcast it in his house (Sam'a, Ibid., 25, according to Hagm', B.K. 21:11), but when he stands and shouts, "I have no choice."

And if a person has already lived there retroactively without permission, and the heirs come to ask for payment for it, and he claims that he does not want to pay because due to the relationship between the heirs it was not possible for them to rent the apartment to anyone, and they claim that they would like to but they cannot, but if someone already comes to live there They ask for the rent.

There was room for sidestepping in this way that since, if it were possible for each of the heirs separately to rent the apartment under the conditions suitable to him, he would rent it out, therefore if a person used a stipulation as existing to Agra, since Delanin owed a stipulation as existent to Agra, and so on.

And in the Rama'a there is a dam road to rent it, except that now I will not work for Migr Bater Shta Azlinan, but there is no evidence from there for our matter, Dish to say Dharmama does not rent it except in such a way that he really has no point and need and desire and interest to rent it now and KML Despite the fact that most of the time he does court tenants, from now on since that's how he considers himself not a slave to a migrant.

And maybe there was a place to hang things in the first dispute regarding the matter of a permanent courtyard for Agra, but the 72 is not here, Dalharabi (quoted in the OZ C. Kakad) considered it a non-sustainable courtyard for Agra, and the OZ put a part on it, and so did the Maharshall [yes] Q. B. K. P. B. SS.

And yet for the majority of the judges who think that a yard whose owners are not in front of us for rent is considered a sustainable yard for Agra because if he could rent it, it is possible here since if they could they would rent it out it is considered sustainable for Agra, and there is some room to divide this between an external situation that interferes To maintain the lease and the actual situation of the authority and power of the apartment at the moment.

And after thinking about it, it seems that there is no need to discuss this matter, nor is it necessary to bring imagination to say that this apartment is considered sustainable for Agra at all, since even if it is not considered sustainable for Agra, all the condemned who enjoys it and this is not lacking is in a way that he enjoys it, it turns out that there is no rabbi who is careful about it, But in the way that he was told in the 19th century, he left and did not come out, not only is he not allowed to donate there as above in the name of the Rama, but he also has to pay if he continues to donate there according to the Shu'a C. that closed section 6, and we were a C Damiri in an unsustainable yard for Agra, in the SMA and in the Bihagra.
(And I.S. in the issue of Maharash Eiger what was discussed by the PZ regarding the intention of the Rama there later in the section on issued by B.A.B.

And we can also add that since it is explained in the Sama according to the arbitrators that this law is enjoyed and it is not lacking, it is a law based on an estimate on the part of Umadana that it does not interfere with the Bhab, and anything that the Bhab is not comfortable with is not this law at all, so that is the law in the way that is clear to us Shevab did not allow her to do so, and therefore as it is known and clear that Shevab does not agree, it is forbidden to enter Dor Shem, and the Lord who transmits Shem will have to pay.

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

Exemption for many reasons, even though there are those who require it, and the Chazoa also took an exemption. Sources: in Gm' Bk Leh apparently means that there is no difference in the matter, because the Lord there Gabi stood and allowed his money to Israel, where in the later part of the sermon Shafi' upholds them No one gets paid for them...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Exemption for many reasons, even though there are those who require it, and the Chazoa also took an exemption.

Sources:
In Gm BK Leh it apparently means that there is no difference in the matter, because the Lord said there Gabi Amed and allowed the money to be paid to Israel, where later on in the sermon that Afi preaches them, they do not receive a reward for them unless it is not a mitzvah and does, and this is said there regarding the sermon of Amed and allowed the money to be paid to Israel , and this means that this law of the permitted person is also a Gentile who fulfills the 7th commandment of the sons of Noah.

And Yaoi' further in Ritba Makhot 9 11a which is explained by Hadiya in his words Damshak in Sogein Shafi' from Kayimin etc. Meiri Begar Toshav, and also explained in a happy light in Hal' Isuri Biya Pid 77.

Likewise, a second piece of evidence must be cited from the Yoma here, a.a. Dai', where the person who is a gentile doubter, a doubter of Israel, who has gored an ox belonging to Israel, the Israelite is exempt because the one issuing the evidence is against him, and apparently, if he does not fulfill a mitzvot, then by no means even if he is an Israelite is exempt from paying If they gored his ox, Damshomed is not better than a Gentile for this matter, (and there is an opinion in the Rama that even harming him with the hands is permissible and the last MMs did not apply that to the Halacha, Dilma Nefki Minya, etc. in the B.K. And if they forget that the unmarried are taken down and the gentiles are not taken down) I am sure that Miri is fulfilling a mitzvah and yet because he is a supplier of a gentile, he is exempt from paying him.

And there was a place to reject and say dain rai'a from there, dish to say Demeiri in a small way that in this he should be paid even if he does not fulfill a mitzvah, since the beginning of the issue there is in doubt created by the fact that he was a discarded baby, etc.

However, instead of rejecting this rejection, Dehari Meiri also mentions in this account personally the matter of the doubter's bull that was gored by Israel's bull, and by the same token, Meiri is also in a big way, since a small person is exempt from payments for damages to his bull.

And urges to say that it is worth it, and it is worth it', that is, the bull of Israel that gored a bull of a doubt, but the doubt is only small, and the bull of a doubt, that gored a bull of Israel, says that the doubt is great, and of course there is a great urge to state yes.

Likewise, a third proof should be cited for this, Dahana means that Rambam's conclusion (Hell. Nazki mamon 58 55) and Shu'a (Hom C. 10) means that all the Gentiles of the Law do not share their part in this.

It should also be said that there is a fourth rai' in this from what the Rambam put a sleep on behalf of the GAM, and the AIS in the LHM that changed on behalf of the GAM or that it is included in the taste, etc. Reasons for reasons brought up in the GM, and like MS the Toss and the first ones in many places also in the GM did not make sure to bring studies from the readings to the Dinim even when in the sogyin dalma it is explained that the study is from another place for the conclusion.

Moreover, the fact that he did not take care to bring the opinion of the High Court apparently means that he believed that there is no law that follows the Halacha from the reason brought forward in the High Court.

It should also be said, apparently, another fifth point in this, Dahari Din as a kind of dina dagoi, icha dina dahkadesh yaoi' in B.C. Goy's bull.

However, this claim is not true, according to the conclusion of the High Court on page 10, 11, 14, "Reho" if it is not specifically said that only a Gentile, as the Maharsha, there, in any case, there is no evidence to condemn Didan from the writings of Reho.

But there is still room to argue a little, and we can learn from the conclusion, that according to the Hoa, he was a party to it, and from that, a Gentile was reduced. From this point of view, see, this is what was learned in the light of the conclusion of the High School, which is something that depends on the fulfillment of the mitzvot Bnei Noach, according to the High School, and was brought up briefly above (and according to what I wrote above, according to the calculation on behalf of the High School, it comes out as we said, but If there is no reason to say, on the other hand, Gisa Damshak in Gm' Efi' Makayimin RL in a Gentile who does not observe and once exists a davaza, it will not be considered as charity for him, nor in a Hasid of the United Nations who has accepted that he must fulfill the obligations that he has, according to some of the opinions, he lives a resident In B.C. Lech 11, the model of Israel who has lifted the burden of a mitzvah does not receive a reward for his mitzvahs as a mitzvah and does it, and according to the account here we find Dabgoi Afi' accepting the mitzvahs which he is bound by and upholds their law as it is not a mitzvah and does it).

And I looked further into the interpretation of the Hag'm's words to the conclusion there and I found that the first ones were divided on whether the conclusion was precisely his fellow or not precisely, Darbino broke from a commentary like the Maharsha, while our Rabbi Yonatan (Bashtamak) and the Nemuki Yosef interpreted the judgment regarding a gentile ox that gored an Israeli ox, but A bull of Israel that gores a bull of a gentile, a pashita deftor, this delanin is indeed his mate, and it also means in the Toss Minachot sez 1a 4h Had, and so on in the Marsheal on the words of the Toss in the bak there (Dala as the Maharsha), And I. in Tos. Reka on the Mishniyot there.

Therefore, everything that is judged, whether there is a rai' or not, is only according to Shi' Rabbi Peretz and the Maharsha, but according to many of the commentators, it is less than the conclusion that a bull of Israel that gores a bull of the sanctuary is also in the conclusion that a Gentile who observes a commandment that falls short of this is not his neighbor.

It is true that I saw in the reprinted book of the key book on the Rambam there (and in the book of the key book an old print is not) in the name of Merkavat Mishnah that he learned from the Rambam.

And although the book Merkavat Mishnah is not in front of me now, but it should be looked at, apparently, on the other hand, it will be on behalf of the Rambam, Gopa Rai', that according to us, the obligation to observe laws in Gentiles by virtue of the 7th Mitzvot does not specifically discuss the laws of Israel, and here the Rambam, there 20, is the reason to exempt Shor of Israel goring a Gentile's ox because they are exempt in their laws, and we do not oblige Israel to pay to the Gentile what was exempt in the Gentile's laws, and here is a Gentile who fulfills 7 mitzvot is not one of the obligees that will accept him to discuss the laws of Israel, and if the Gentile accepted he should discuss this matter according to the laws of Israel (as which is mentioned as such in the Gm' in the 20th century) isn't it all like that and is it meaningless and why would Israel be bound by this, after all every Gentile will claim that he wants to discuss this matter according to the laws of Israel, and perhaps the Marqam Meiry in a Gentile who has accepted that he should discuss everything in the laws of Israel, and needs to be studied and clarified.

And Yaoi' in the Haza B. K. C. Y. S. K. Damboar in his words about the raids which he believed according to our words that even a resident adult is exempt who harms the ox of a resident resident, and according to his words I will also consider the words of the Ritba and the above-mentioned Or Shim Kafstan that a resident resident is exempt A bull of Israel that rammed his bull is exempt.

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

You don't have to pay her, that's what most of the arbitrators did, and that's how it turns out, and what's more, there's no doubt about it. Sources: It seems that the definition of the woman's belonging in the provision of challah is forward to the husband, and the Shu'a C. Raseg sag that women are warned about it more than the men, and for the reason that the Shu'a is busy with the needs of the home...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

You don't have to pay her, that's what most of the arbitrators did, and that's how it turns out, and what's more, there's no doubt about it.

Sources: It seems that the definition of the woman's belonging in the provision of challah is forward to the husband, and in the Shu'a C. Raseg sag that the women are warned in it more than the men, and for the reason that the Shu'a is busy with the needs of the house and for the reason that the Shu'a the Mishnav names the skiv of his bed Neru of Olam and so it is in the column there, and LPFZ 55 a shell that is impure, the shell of Olam as the Mishnav C. Rambam SKO, and it is from B. R. P. 17 and Nachuma R. P. Noach (and O. Shabbat not EB), and as we noted that the ruling is valid, we learn from the Mishnah together with the lighting of the candle that the women are warned about it more, as is proven in the Rec'a in the second chapter of Rasag there, Iash, and it is also proven in the GCC already in Raban Shabbat 13 A that women are warned More so in the case, but not that the duty was forfeited from the husband and given to the wife, and in any case since the husband also belongs positively and only has a future for his wife, we do not find that it is possible to claim ten gold pieces.

And even though there are those who took the Hala Vanda and lighting the candle as a part of the customs of her father's house and not a part of the husband's customs, namely because she is supposed to do it, but when the husband does it, it is considered a complete obligation for him and as a commandment that he is bound by from all the obligations imposed on him because of his possessions and food.

And once again I saw that at the opening of the Devir Och C. Rasg S.A. he brought in the name of the Yabetz that one who steals a Shabbat candle from his wife should pay her ten gold pieces, except that indeed in the offering that H.G. Now that in the 28th century, in the name of the holder, there is a letter C that does not need to be paid 10 gold coins.

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

Yeovi' in Gm Barchot and Aa what is Datima Dina Shlama Belma is KML Dina Nami Haino Torah, and it is explained that answering questions in Halacha is GK in the scope of Talmud Torah. And Yeovi' in Nefesh Ha'im Shear 4 he wrote about devotion during Torah study whenever he needs to While studying...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

Yaoi' in Gm. Berchot 6a what is datima dina that the mother of the lam is the kmal dina nami haino torah, and it is explained that answering questions in halacha is a gach in the scope of Talmud Torah.

And Yaoi' in Nefesh Ha'ayim chapter 4 he wrote on the subject of devotion while studying the Torah, sometimes during the study he would have to reflect on the claim of a deceiver such as Migo's claim that seems to contradict the matter of devotion according to the simplistic understanding of it and because of what he wrote about it.

However, Yaoi' in Gm' Shabbat 11 AA and that it occurs to you that Moshe sits and discusses all day long his Torah is done, etc., and it means there that it is not appropriate to discuss all day long and it means that it is not really Torah.

And Ish in Parashi on Shabbat for a weak matter for Leviahoo that B brought interpretations on this from the first commentary is that Leviahoo was weak for what they did not deal with the Torah at that time, and for the second commentary he did not interpret it that way.

And while there was a place to discuss this whether the law is according to the Torah (or even better than it) or not, it is left in the second part of the commentaries in Rashi, where in the first comment it is recalled that you are sorry, you sages, who did not deal with the Torah and let him, etc. "For the conclusion, the law is according to the Torah (or more), but for the interpretation in Tara Shem, Rashi, they labored a lot until they became weak, and for that, He said to him, that grandfather, even if they debated for one hour, I would be considered for them. For this interpretation, rather, the conclusion is that one should not discuss at the expense of the business of the Torah all day .

However, in truth, the L. Hagm' regarding the above-mentioned Moshe is sustained in the conclusion there, meaning that Nami is not a true practitioner of the Torah, and even the Lishna Kama Darshi only comes to make them hear that the practitioner of the law has a great reward, and not that he is a true practitioner of the Torah, only that it is a great thing And it is imposed on the greatest of the generation and of the city like Moses in his time, and who in any case did a great thing in what they labored for and this is a beautiful crown for them.

And yet one must say Duff to the pre-interpretation of Rashi what they regretted not dealing with the Torah is viable also to the conclusion that it is not a real Torah business only that they should not have regretted it on behalf of the above, and also to the interpretation of the Batra both to the Hoa and to the conclusion is not as a real Torah business, and what What Rashi did not interpret in the second comment is weak to his liviyahu because they did not deal with the Torah, not for the reason that he disagreed with the first interpretation regarding the matter of Danima Deshikhin as dealing with the Torah, but for another reason he did not interpret Yesh.

And in truth, the Rabbin will come on Shabbat, where he studied Dadarba, so that they would not have the Torah annulled for the Amorites mentioned on Shabbat, that is why that grandfather told them to deal with the law for one hour and the rest of the day to deal with the Torah, and Rashi's words are also apparently not necessary not to be interpreted as Rabbinical (and I am the little Before I learned the words of the Rabbinate and the words of the Pani Gach, I was used to interpreting the words of the Hag'm as the words of the Rabbinate.

However, Yaoi' in the Peni in Berchots there, which Dafi' wrote on the contrary, for Lishna in Tera Dershii on Shabbat, where he admits to the conclusion a great ruling from the Torah, which he extended a lot on it, and it also appears there in some of the latter, and it appears in the HaRatz Hayut and Zechar Yehosef.

And in truth it will also be carried out in Toss on Shabbat where they understood in the words of the Hag'm that a law is greater than the Torah (and the Ze'ak who were precise from the Hoa of the Hagm and made it difficult from the words of the Hagm Damok and MT believed that the Hoa of Hagm' on Shabbat would not contradict the words of the Hagm in "K, and perhaps 11 Damshom Dahanach Amorai on Shabbat there were actually latecomers in the Mok there and it was difficult for them to learn from it, but still Tsav Damsh means that the conclusion of the Tossh on Shabbat there that Dina is better than the Torah is still valid, and apparently it changed between The Hoa, why do you have a religion for him, he is a grandfather, and as the words of the Rabbi are quoted in the vicinity, and more it seems that they learned as the Hanni that the conclusion is a great law from the Torah).

And yet, according to the Rabbinical Law, which is the simplicity of the L. Hagm' on Shabbat, there (in the case of Moses) it is explained that with all the merit of the one who sits in judgment, but it is not the same as the merit of the one who deals with the actual Torah, and Tsa from the Gm' of the above-mentioned Shabbat.

And it must be said that in law, there is a shortcoming in that one does not study Torah properly, and it is not enough as one would like, since it is necessary to hear the arguments of the litigants a lot, as well as to hear the details of the act, some of which do not really concern the types, and after all, if one studies Torah properly, it can be more than that, but no There is no Torah in this, and that there should be no division on the church in the blessings there, it must be reconciled as above.

And it is also possible to say that in the law there is a time that does not deal with the Torah, then when he hears the arguments of lawyers in matters that do not belong to the judgment itself, and in the Baruchot Law there he did not say that all the law is Torah, but that the law has Torah in it and that is why it is not in the law, and on the other hand in the Shabbos Law there is no He said that the law does not include Torah words at all, but it does not deal with Torah then, R.L. that there is a preoccupation with things between human beings even with things that are not Torah words.

Therefore, there is reason to say that if the rabbi only answered the questions in Halacha only and also in the meantime between questioner and questioner when he was free, because he was dealing with the Torah, he was judged as dealing with the Torah, but if there were other things in the questions that are not really Torah, then the main questions are based on questions in the OT , there is reason to say that he cannot make a claim to the donor if the conclusion was about Torah business only, and as implied in the above-mentioned L. Rashi Shabbat, and from M.M. a great right for the donor to participate by virtue of answering the answers, and as K.S. Truth be told, for one hour it is as if we became a partner with G-d in the act of Genesis.

(Al. in the book to hear as studies in blessings there that the model of hearing the compromises and arguments of those who have the laws are the same as in general Talmud Torah, and still it must be said that not all the things said in the state of law are in general Torah, and there should be a little division between that and the person sitting in a teaching house to answer questions brevity and everything according to the matter and the heart knows).

And although it is true that if the law of a contribution agreement is like an agreement between Issachar and Zebulon, if it seems that this matter is related to the law of the hiring of laborers, the law regarding the hiring of laborers is a matter of conditions that everything according to the state's custom, as in the case of the BAM, has expired, and the HOM of the RS does not, but there is no I know that there is a clear custom in the country to say that the one who sits in a house of instruction and answers questions in Halacha and does not talk about other matters would be a custom for one who does not practice the Torah.

From 27 it seems that not only in the opinion of the Tos and the Pani, but in the opinion of the Rabbi, it must be said that if the rabbi puts his heart into studying the Torah and the teaching when he was sitting in a teaching house and not to be distracted by things that are not really Torah or by occasional claims and details In the questions that arise that are not Torah, apparently he is included in the condition that he undertook to engage in Torah for five hours, and in cases where it is necessary to check what the fence of what was was, the answer is that everything depends on the case.

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

To the Honorable Rabbi Ben David Shalita regarding the issue of the definition of the law of special testimony regarding the signature of the hands of witnesses on the bills, once again it seems to me that there is clear evidence for this regarding a separate signature, there is no special law of testimony regarding them signing together, MPK Digitin page 10, I mean ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In honor of Rabbi Ben David Shalita

With regard to the issue of the definition of special witness laws regarding the signing of witnesses' hands on bills, once again it seems to me that there is clear evidence for this in the case of a signature, no special witness law is stated regarding them signing together. This and what is explained there are the remaining sealed notes, and a special testimony in Gitin Dina as the laws of soul and soul, and as I mentioned then when we were talking from Ktsvah C. L. S. K. H. (and ref. 'Let them say as one and see as one that Man Dait Lia is a special testimony Damkshi' Haggadah for evidence from the Sanhedrin to the OT, and yet all that was consumed in the marriage is only to be in front of each other as explained in Gm' there is a decree on behalf of all of you, but a joint signature of 124 Lika Clal, And I'm another end of the 8th there of the Skat and the innovations of the Garach 22 Kassa 1a.

And it is true that the BH at the end of C.L. brought a contradiction as to whether Makhmari' is a special testimony in Gitin or not and he took to lighten it up because of the fact that the laws of souls are really not Makhmari'.
And if so, according to the BH, there is absolutely no evidence from the GM there because there is no special testimony in Gitin.

And it is true that Yaoi' in Camp Ephraim 28 of the 18th century divorce that brought the words of Rambam the late Rambam who grants a divorce to his wife A.T. that she should give him two hundred zoz, etc., a witness and there is no witness A from the first and A from the last join the same, And he wrote a leaf, ps.
Wila Daha gave a special testimony in Gitin Makhmari' Datalia in Ashli Rebarbi as above, but on the part of Daha Lia special testimony in the alleged deed is hardened from the aforementioned Gitin.

However, there is a place to reconcile the Dagm' Shem Atia as a special testimony in Gitin is invalid and the 33 Dagm' Shem means Demeiri' to the Pom Halkata, and urges to say that there is no Nafkam to the Halacha if it is prohibited because of a decree or because of a special testimony, the decree means that it is to the Pom Halkata They were consumed by cutting and also a peshita dish, whether the prohibition is on the part of cutting or not.

And if he is trustworthy in law, there is no special testimony in Gitin, and therefore special testimony in the Gitin deed is not invalid. And afi' in Mammoni because it is a special testimony invalid, it is found that this deed is not in front of the other in the bills, which is explained in Gitin, where he is Milta Datlia in the Philogta in the Sanhedrin there, and in Shlama, if he is a special witness in the deed, and as above at the beginning of the words, Niha.

It is true that the grammarian will see that the words of the camp Ephraim there are said only in the manner spoken there in Dish 2 of the kinds of oral witnesses, and that there is no connection between the 2 witnesses, such as the signature of the 14th century, but only the fact that the first and last oral witnesses do not join at all, and simply and "To.

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

The majority of the judges agree that such a vagrancy is not the vagrancy and does not apply at all, although it is not clear to the Supreme Court that such a vagrancy does not apply, and there are also other cases to be attached here, so it cannot be taken out of his hands since he has several matters that he can claim and rely on. Sources: ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The majority of the judges agree that such a vagrancy is not the vagrancy and does not apply at all, although it is not clear to the Supreme Court that such a vagrancy does not apply, and there are also other cases to be attached here, so it cannot be taken out of his hands since he has several matters that he can claim and rely on.

Sources: In the Mishna Pafa and A. I. the paqar for the poor of Beit Hillel is not the paqar until it is also paqar for the rich, and the simplicity is that he is not the paqar and nothing applies, and also in Gm. And so the eloquence of the judges, and so on in the Rash on the Mishnah there that if a poor person came before and was successful and did nothing, and it was brought in the Sma'a and well well C. Reg. And by way of faith PV Datromoth brought the words of the Sma'a and added that the winner is usurpation in his hands.

And the words of the Levite are known from the DK AHA C. Net, which he extended in that there is no property in the manner of the freedman who is not a rabbi.

However, this law is a tzak because a demokha milta wants to transfer his ownership after a tak to something that he can't in any way, and while it is true that the owner's right will not be for this, but why not have a gift in it.

And in truth, in some of the interpretations of the Mishnah in Paa, there means that it is not the pakar for the purpose of Paa, and not that there is no giving or forgiveness in the world at all, Yaoish in their tongues.

And also see in the way of faith PB from Tarumot Skafo according to the Radbaz there Damboar that when the foreigner gave, he gave it to the poor for the poor and the law of a gift applies, and perhaps it should be divided between usurpation from Israel and usurpation from a Gentile that the fence of the usurpation from a Gentile has other fences in it, or so Damokha Milta He who said that he is like a pah of Israel, we have to compare him to a pah in any way that can apply in a way that is close to a pah, and so it is a gift, but the language is strict that he is the poor man's for the poor and therefore must tithe more than the meaning of the Radbaz opinion that the poor man's poor man is not the poor man's only for the sake of a pah.

And Yaoi' in Shu'at Ong Yot C. Tsa who wrote in his words and in any case also what the Levite, according to his way of charity, admits the Rabbi Damanhi that the tax collector did not benefit from the Torah of the prodigal because he was not present and in their eyes that he would be a prodigal for all this is not Danhi dela hoi the pakar, if the pakar is for the poor, the tax collector won a gift because he gave it to the poor, and the law of the pakar does not belong here at all, and all the words of the Levites about this do not make sense to me, and it means that the pakar is not here, but there is a gift Here, and perhaps he is a special judge in charity.

However, even if it is interpreted that there is property here that is not a gift and yet is liable for tithes, it still does not settle at all, and yet it should also have been disposed of from tithes that are exempt from tithes, not in the name of the pakar and in the Torah of the pakar at all. He does not have a share and an inheritance with you, the poor person who has a share in it, and therefore everything that has a share in the poor person, whether it is the state of the free person or whether it is the state of forgiveness or a gift, will be exempt from tithes.
And after all, for the sake of this opinion in Yerushalmi, there is no deserter for a heathen or for an animal.

And it is also proven in the rabbinate that the hand of everything is used in it and you say you will be obligated to pay tithes, and it was assumed in the manner explained there that you will hang it in the flag because there are ways and opinions that there is no permission to do it, but in the way that there is permission to do it, it will have to be the law that gets rid of the tithe There, and why would there be a hanging in the name of the nomad.

And PA ordered the Rabbi Lubin regarding a certain legal matter that does not have an exemption from tithing because if they do not pay it at the end it will not have the name of the pakar [this is about something that if they collect it only in the eighth year it will become clear in retrospect that it does not contain the Holy One and is not the pakar] God forbid It is exempt from tithing, and I made it difficult for the above-mentioned Sabra Duba Halevy, etc., DSOS because it has permission to take it, it has a complete exemption since everything was included in it, and I heard that he retracted his instruction because of this.

And perhaps it should be settled on the difficulty' in the Nidd a deptor share and inheritance with you is only in such a way that everyone has a share and inheritance with you, and in any case, everything that is not a pauper for everyone is not exempt from tithing, but it is not less than that, but from other studies as explained in the interpretations.

And Yeo'i in the clothing of Mordechai in the BMC 2 who extended Toba on this matter and did not want to interpret that there is no forgiveness for the object, Yao'sh according to his own way, and Yao' that Toba was repressed in the words of the Gam' in the BM there, and one must add to his words Dahan although the sabra That there is no provision here needs clarification, but also to interpret the words of the Gem' as a very narrow interpretation, and I would have insisted that there was room to press in a different way. Ishmael, etc., and it is possible to interpret in the words of the Gam. Delmaskana, Rabbi Ishmael does not rule against the law of the poor at all, but only from the law of forgiveness or a gift, and what about the obligation of the Gam, did the Gam believe that nothing applies. But the most unsustainable conclusion.

And from the fact of the matter AA to move from the ruling of the majority of the arbitrators and Sugein Delma that the non-exemption does not apply at all.

And M.M. must be discussed for another reason, since there are opinions in the scribes [Sh. Ch. Hom. Shanah 1] that if one takes something of his friend in a certain way, he will be willing when he takes it, it is not robbery, however, the Kzachh there part 17.

Likewise, in our case, it is necessary to discuss on a different basis the manner in which the desertion to the person before us, according to the Navov Taninya Yod C. Kand, the desertion applies, however the Hatas Yod Shiz disagrees with it, as well as in Tash'' RA Gordon HB C. A.

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