B. K. Sa. A. This is how I accept all the morals, etc. They do not say a word of Torah on his behalf, and it is difficult since he commanded them to go and take risks. A response to the language of King David begins with the word "Who shall I drink water" etc. will go...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

B. K. Sa. A. This is how I accept all the morals, etc. They do not say a word of Torah on his behalf, and it is difficult since he commanded them to go and take risks

Answer

The language of King David begins with the word who in our Hebrew is known as I ask you that one of you will go and drink water, etc., although when we look at the Aramaic letter, the meaning of the letter "mi" means something that is avoided, such as who you thought, etc. And in a similar usage, we also find in some readings that used the language of who to express something that is forbidden, such as who knows the strength of your spirit (Psalms 36:11) and who knows the wise man will be, etc. For many others, the so-called question language is nothing more than a matter of prevention and the absence of reality.

And it must be interpreted with the taste of what God simply says in the interpretation of "Who will draw water" in this way, since this is how it is explained at the end of the things and he attributes them to God, who did not say their names, and it does not appear that He sent them.

And it should also be added that it does not appear that what David meant when he said "Whosoever will draw water" is for them to go and water him, it is the way of a king to reveal his opinion in this way but to command and command, and from what he said in this language, he did not mean that they should go and water him but as above.

And it must also be said that the GAM must interpret it as such, since it does not appear that David asked that for the sake of his studies and his Torah they risk being monitored, since according to Halacha one should not risk for the sake of clarifying Halacha or Din, and this is what David meant by what he said, who is my old man in the above manner.

BK Set AB Gabi Measer AAG Dammon is high, etc. Gabi Kerem Rabi AAG Dla Mamon Didia is, etc., and why did the language change between Mesher and Karam Rabai?

Answer

There was a place to say Dashigra Dalishna in the Alma is because of the issues of Dobpaschim and in the Sukkah on the tithing of a high amount of money is to Rabbi Meir, but from the change of the language pedia and profanity it seems that there really is a different definition in the tithe which is a definition of holiness and in Karam Rabi which is a definition of prohibition, and most of all remember about the tithe of the language pedia which was taken from another authority , and on the back of the tongue, blasphemy is mentioned, and it is easy to understand.

And M.M. in the question 22 about the language of the variable in the Gm, I would suggest to Katar to look at manuscripts and books that I have collected, such as the book grammars of Maharrab Neta Rabinovitz and the complete grammars of writers, as well as the Friedberg project.

BK AA AA, why is the word Emeri mentioned several times in the subject

Answer

It is known that there were many Amorites from the order of the Gam' after it was written, and therefore there are tractates and issues that are written in the special language, like the first ones regarding tractates, and also 20 a few other first ones on a number of vows whose language is different, and also 20 on a number of a monk, and the things are known, and I. In the order of Kabbalah for the Harabad, it took many years for Rabbi Ashi's students to get the Gam' in order, and it is known that some of the issues of the first 20 are from Rabbi Saburai and Achmal.

BK AA AB, and I did not say to you in the Orta, I ate in Shara Datorah, and the verse there (DA DLA) wrote that it was Rui in the fast.
Why don't they interpret it literally?

Answer

A. in Shovat Shlomat Chaim Yod Sacha who had a hard time with this, and T. Shem Dakhion Daran was married to Debi Nashirah A.K. He must have had meat every day, and in Shovat Aterat Paz HA volume 3 set "7 20 Yes and he further added that this is what was difficult Gach Rashi that Gach did not interpret as simply, and A. Yahbetz who expanded on it.

And perhaps it should be said in another way that Rabbi Nachman believed that he had an educational benefit in the Torah, of course, that G-d would let him eat it, and as Ihu Gofia said about wine in Erobin, 1900, before he repeated his words that he would like to drink wine first, so that it would be reserved for him, 17 Da'ta Tsiluta, A.S. (and A.A. in the words of his rabbi in the Bible on the issue of wine), and A.C. the reason he did not eat meat even though he thought it was good to eat it was because he was fasting.

Because of Sumachus, they said that they pay double payments and he pays three times for a month and two years for a ram, why didn't Shar and Sheh take a lickshana dekra.

Answer

The answer to this is clear, that since it is about payments of two years and three years, they took the Ishaq that speaks of two years and three, which is the written two tithes for a cow and two tithes for a ram, and they took a silent sign of Damanchot just as we found that they took a silent word that is similar to it in many places, the Ishak regarding theft payments that speaks About four past five does not belong here because there is no four past five here.

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

It is not permissible to prepare money after the majority to spend money, and we have found exceptions in several places, such as spending money according to the opinion of the majority of the judges, as well as in the loss of a person who is found in a city that is the majority of Israel, as well as 11 who doubt it is useful to spend money according to existing ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is not permissible to prepare money after the majority to spend money, and we have found exceptions in several places, such as spending money according to the opinion of the majority of the judges, as well as in the loss of a person who is found in a city that is the majority of Israel, as well as 11 who doubt it is useful to spend money according to existing It is said that it is on behalf of the majority, and there are also those who believe that the custom against possession of money is a majority rule.
And in other places, and the commentators wrote reasons for the above exceptional things.

Sources: See Thos. 22 Kg. Rish AB, Tefa'i B. K. G. B., Tarohad S. S. Shemet and S. Shekhg. The value cannot be compared to the majority that brought dozens of mm in this regard.

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

No. Sources: In Gm' Varshi and Rag' Sof Arakhin it is explained that it is not, and also some of Rambam's commentators understood Rambam's 11 to be a murderer, and on the other hand in Yerushalmi it means that all the cities listed in the Bible were surrounded, and on this Jerusalemi it seems that the Babylonian in the scroll 5 2 and Shem 11 11 and also another Shem 4...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

No.

Sources: In Gm' Varshi and Rag' Sof Arakhin it is explained that it is not, and also some of Rambam's commentators understood Rambam's 11 to be a murderer, and on the other hand in Yerushalmi it means that all the cities listed in the Bible were surrounded, and on this Jerusalemi it seems that the Babylonian in the scroll 5 2 and Shem 11 11 and also another Shem 4 11 disagrees with this.
And in the latter, concerning the Levite cities, it seems that there is a disagreement between the A'ralan and the Hazo'a and the Wil'a about the words of the Aralan.

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

Disagreement of terms and halacha which is not discrimination. Sources: Sacrifices 20 AA and more on the subject of something that has no way to eat, and it is proven that there is a dakai also on meat that is raised and everything that is included in this name Iash, and see the language in the Great Midrash on meat that is raised and Leviticus 7:18.

Disagreement of terms and halacha which is not discrimination.

Sources: Sacrifices 20 AA and more on the subject of something that has no way to eat, and it is proven that there is a dakai also on meat that is raised and everything that is included in this name Iash, and see the language in the Great Midrash on meat that is raised and Leviticus 7:18.

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

There seem to be contradictions in this. Sources: In the Michilta Darshbi that God in Rambam's slaves and Ramban's laws are that there is no handover to one slave, this means that it is not permissible unless he hands it over to him, and this is what the rabbis of morality used everywhere, and the Maharashal of Rambam was also precise there, but in C Dakidushin means...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There seem to be contradictions in this.

Sources: In the Michilta Darshbi that God in Rambam's slaves and Ramban's laws are that there is no handover to one slave, this means that it is not permissible unless he hands it over to him, and this is what the rabbis of morality used everywhere, and the Maharashal of Rambam was also precise there, but in 3 Dekidushin means that there is no such condition in Ish and Bethos, and the same was stated by the CP for Tamura 4, and the same was stated by the salvation of David according to the Rambam in another place, meaning that it does not depend on the opinion of his rabbi.

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