בלב דוד להחיד"א פרק יט יש משמעות קצת שגם באופן זה חוזר בגלגול (ולפי מה שכ' הגר"א במשלי שגם הנגזל חוזר א"כ גם הגוי יחזור ואה"נ מצינו הרבה גלגולים בגוי בשער הגלגולים להאר"י ובשאר ספה"ק ועי' בספר גלגל החיים). אולם ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

בלב דוד להחיד"א פרק יט יש משמעות קצת שגם באופן זה חוזר בגלגול (ולפי מה שכ' הגר"א במשלי שגם הנגזל חוזר א"כ גם הגוי יחזור ואה"נ מצינו הרבה גלגולים בגוי בשער הגלגולים להאר"י ובשאר ספה"ק ועי' בספר גלגל החיים).

אולם מסתבר דזה רק לדעת השו"ע בחו"מ סי' שמח ס"ב שסובר בפשטות שהוא איסור מן התורה, ובבהגר"א שם ציין לדברי התוספתא ב"ק פ"י ה"ח חמור גזל הגוי מגזל ישראל וכו', אבל להרמ"א באה"ע ר"ס כח שהוא רק משום קידוש השם מסתבר שאינו חוזר בגלגול (ועי' תוס' חגיגה יח ודוק).

ואמנם כבר הקשו הנו"כ (הש"ך והגר"א בחו"מ שם והח"מ באה"ע שם) על הרמ"א שבמהר"י ווייל לא נמצא כדברי הרמ"א, אבל כבר ציין בבהגר"א שם שברש"י סנהדרין נז ע"א נקט בפשיטות שאיסור גזל מגוי הוא רק מדרבנן, וכן הכריע היש"ש פ"ק פ"י סי' כ' וכן הביאו הש"ך סי' שנט סק"א ועי"ש בהגהות רע"א.

והדעות ברמ"א חו"מ שם שסוברות שמותר להטעותו לכתחילה במקום שאינו יודע ניחא ג"כ אם סוברים שגזל גוי הוא דרבנן מחמת קידוש השם.

וכן לפי שי' הנתה"מ שם שאיסור גזל גוי מדאורייתא הוא רק בגזילה אבל לענין ההשבה ההשבה רק מחמת קידוש השם פשיטא שאינו חוזר בגלגול.

ומשמע שיש דעות בראשונים שסוברים שגזל גוי הוא מדאורייתא ומכללם הרמב"ם כמ"ש בבהגר"א שם (ומה שציין שם טור צע"ק לענין להטעותו דעת הטור ואכמ"ל).

ויש לציין דברמב"ם (פי"ג מה' גניבה הי"ג) כ' שהגונב את הגוי אינו נמכר לעבד עברי מחמת כן, ויעוי' באבן האזל שם שכ' שאין זה דין גניבה אלא מחמת שלקח ממונו צריך להחזיר, אבל אין להביא ראיה משם לדמות משכון עצמו על ידי מכירה לעל ידי גלגול, דגלגול נאמר גם על גניבה ולא על כל גזילה מסוג אחר, וגניבה מגוי אינה מוגדרת כגניבה אלא כגזילה (משא"כ בישראל מישראל שגניבה כוללת גם גניבה וגם גזילה כמו שהרחבתי בתשובה אחרת).

ומ"מ יש שלמדו אחרת בדעת הרמב"ם, יעוי' בש"ך סי' שנט שם שהרחיב בזה.

לסיכום הדברים, להסוברים גזל גוי מדרבנן מפני קידוש השם מסתבר שאינו חוזר בגלגול, וגם להנתה"מ שסובר שהוא מדאורייתא אבל ההשבה רק מפני קידוש השם מסתבר כנ"ל, אבל להסוברים שגם ההשבה מדאורייתא יש משמעות קצת בחיד"א שחוזר בגלגול, וכך משמע מסתימת הגר"א במשלי יד, כה שתלה זה בהעדאת עדים ובהוצאת הב"ד הגזילה מידו, ואינו כ"כ תמוה שהרי יש כמה חטאים שבאים עליהם בגלגול כמבואר בזוהר (פ' משפטים) ובמקובלים (שער הגלגולים ושבחי האר"י) וגזל הגוי הוא חטא גדול כמשנ"ת, ועדיין צל"ע בזה.

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

לענין שאלתך על דברי הצל"ח מצוי כה"ג לרוב שינויים כאלה מחמת צנזורה, דהרבה פעמים אי' כותית או כנענית במקום נכרית וע"ז הדרך, ושלא כהסבורים שצנזורה היא רק בהעתקות ובדפוסים אלא גם בכת"י מחבר שייך צנזורה כידוע שיש הרבה צנזורה בכתבי ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

לענין שאלתך על דברי הצל"ח מצוי כה"ג לרוב שינויים כאלה מחמת צנזורה, דהרבה פעמים אי' כותית או כנענית במקום נכרית וע"ז הדרך, ושלא כהסבורים שצנזורה היא רק בהעתקות ובדפוסים אלא גם בכת"י מחבר שייך צנזורה כידוע שיש הרבה צנזורה בכתבי המאירי, וכן בהקדמת ערוך השלחן, וכך נהגו בכל הדורות להעדיף הרע במיעוטו, ולקבל שיבושי הצנזורה בהערמה כדי להתיר הדפסת התורה, [ודלא כמהרש"ל שסובר ששינוי בדברי תורה הוא ייהרג ואל יעבור, ויש קצת סמך למנהג המקילים בזה מהא דרב שילא בסוגי' דברכות נח ע"א (אלא שאין ראיה מהגמ' שם נגד המהרש"ל אלא יש להעמיד רק בדבר המשתמע לב' פנים)], ואם תמצי לומר שזה לא צנזורה, וכך היינו אומרים אם המחבר היה במקום של ערביים שלא כתב ערביה מחמת צנזורה, א"כ היינו אומרים שנקט הכי משום שהיה דורו פרוץ בזה ודברו חכמים בהוה, אבל מכיון שמדובר בצל"ח שהי' במקום שאין ערבים אלא רק משאר אומות, לכן פשיטא שמה שכתוב ערבית הוא מחמת צנזורה.

לגבי מה ששאלת על מה שמצאת בכתבי חכם אחד המספר ענין הגן עדן שבחלום הופיע באופן אחר ממש"כ בחז"ל, דבמד"ר בראשית פמ"ח אות ח ומעי"ז בגמ' אי' בעירובין יט ע"א שאברהם יושב על פתחו של גהינם ובחלום הופיע שהוא בגן עדן, איני יודע אם כוונתך שהיה בחלום ממש או שעשה משל כאילו היה חלום (ואחר שראיתי דבריך בפנים, יותר נראה שהתכוונת שמשל הוא, ויש לציין דבמשל אין כל הפרטים צריכים להיות מתאימים לנמשל כמ"ש הר"מ בהקדמת המו"נ), דאם כוונתך שמדובר בחלום ממש, איני יודע כמה מצווין אנו לטרוח ליישב כל כגון דא, דהרי כבר אמרו בגמ' ברכות נה חלומות שוא ידברו, ובאיזה חלום אמרו, אפילו בחלומו של שמואל ירחינאה חבירו של רב, כמבואר בגמ' שם, וכבר אמרו כשם שא"א לבר בלא תבן כך א"א לחלום בלא דברים בטלים, ומאן לימא לן דחלום שעל ידי מלאך הוא, ואפי' אם כן הוא הא הגר"א אמר כבר לגבי זמנו שרק עד זמן הב"י היו מגידים נקיים משא"כ עכשיו שיש בהם תערובת רע, וכ"ש לגבי חלומות, והחזו"א כבר אמר על זמנו שעל חלומות שלנו כבר א"צ להתענות, כי כהיום כבר אין כ"כ ממש בחלומות, וא"כ אין עלינו חובה לטרוח כ"כ ליישב החלום, ומ"מ לרווחא דמילתא אמינא שאין כאן סתירה גם בלאו הכי דגם הגמ' בעירובין יט ע"א אין כוונתה שאין אברהם נמצא בגן עדן דהרי כבר אמרי' שכל צדיק יש לו עולם בפני עצמו וה"נ אמרי' שכל צדיק יש לו עדן בפני עצמו, ואברהם אבינו יושב בגן עדן עם כל הצדיקים כמש"כ באותיות דר"ע ופשוט, אלא הכונה שיש לו כח ורשות לבקש על הנכנסים לשערי גהינם שלא יפלו לשם אם הם בניו ומהלכים בדרכיו והוא יושב ומשמר בשערי גהינם יתכן לפרש במובן שהוא בודק ויודע תמיד מי עומד להכנס שם.

ומה שהקשית שיש סתירות במאמרי חז"ל אם אברהם זה שעומד בפתחה של גהינם ומציל את בניו או יצחק לכאורה הוא מדרשות חלוקות או דבחינות יש בזה דאברהם מציל באופן של דין כדמשמע בגמ' שם ויצחק מציל באופן של תפילה (והוא היפך הנהגתם בעוה"ז).

וצריך לידע גם בענין זה וגם בענין דלעיל דהגוף שהוא מוגבל הוא רק בעוה"ז אבל לעוה"ב עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך, וכמו שדנו כבר על נשמת אליהו מה גדרה וכו', ובמציאות הוא בא לכל ברית מילה גם כשיש כמה בריתות, וגם אברהם יוכל לישב בגן עדן וגם בפתח גהינם באותו הזמן וגם בברית מילה כמ"ש התוס' בפ"ד דקידושין.

והנה באמת אם נאמר שיש מדרשות חלוקות יש לך תירוץ גם על מה שהקשית לענין החלום אבל כבר בלאו הכי צריך לתרץ כמש"ל דזה פשיטא דלכו"ע אברהם מקומו בגן עדן וקל להבין.

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

כן אם הוא בפרהסיא. מקורות: ב"י אה"ע סי' טז אות ב ד"ה ואם בא בשם הארחות חיים הל' ביאות אסורות אות ח בשם הרמב"ן תורת האדם שער הסכנה עמ' לו, ורמ"א על השו"ע שם. ועי"ש בביאור הגר"א שם סק"ט שנחית ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

כן אם הוא בפרהסיא.

מקורות: ב"י אה"ע סי' טז אות ב ד"ה ואם בא בשם הארחות חיים הל' ביאות אסורות אות ח בשם הרמב"ן תורת האדם שער הסכנה עמ' לו, ורמ"א על השו"ע שם.

ועי"ש בביאור הגר"א שם סק"ט שנחית לבאר החילוק בין גויה שבא עליה נכרי ששם אפי' בפרהסיא אינו ביהרג ואל יעבור משא"כ הכא.

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

ואע"פ שעיקר הדעה להלכה שהדין של כיון שהגיד לא נאמר בעדות חוץ לב"ד, כדמשמע במתני' דמס' שבועות וכמ"ש בשו"ע אה"ע סי' יז ס"כ, וכמ"ש כמה ראשונים ושכן מוכח מתוספתא כמ"ש בביאור הגר"א שם, מ"מ מאחר שיש בזה פלוגתא כמ"ש שם ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

ואע"פ שעיקר הדעה להלכה שהדין של כיון שהגיד לא נאמר בעדות חוץ לב"ד, כדמשמע במתני' דמס' שבועות וכמ"ש בשו"ע אה"ע סי' יז ס"כ, וכמ"ש כמה ראשונים ושכן מוכח מתוספתא כמ"ש בביאור הגר"א שם, מ"מ מאחר שיש בזה פלוגתא כמ"ש שם בראש פינה בשם תשובות האחרונים מכיון שהנידון כאן במקום פקו"נ ואפשר להחמיר כמבואר בדברינו הפתרון לזה, הלכך לא נימא שאין ענין להחמיר.

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

יעוי' בסמ"ע חו"מ סי' תכה סקי"ב שהביא דעת הטור שאפי' באופן שאינה חוששת על פגמה ג"כ הורגין את הרודף, ונקט שם שמלשון הגמ' סנהדרין עג ע"א והרמב"ם והשו"ע שם ס"ד משמע שאינם סוברים כן, ועי"ש שלכאורה משמע בדבריו שסובר לעיקר ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יעוי' בסמ"ע חו"מ סי' תכה סקי"ב שהביא דעת הטור שאפי' באופן שאינה חוששת על פגמה ג"כ הורגין את הרודף, ונקט שם שמלשון הגמ' סנהדרין עג ע"א והרמב"ם והשו"ע שם ס"ד משמע שאינם סוברים כן, ועי"ש שלכאורה משמע בדבריו שסובר לעיקר דלא כהטור, אבל גם בדעת הטור הביא ל' הב"י שפירש את כוונת הטור שגם אם אינה מקפדת למראית עין אבל באמת מקפדת רק שאינה רוצה שייהרג הרודף על ידה עכ"ד, אבל באופן שאינה מקפדת כלל אינו נהרג.

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

I haven't seen Lahdia in the A.A. judged on this in the arbitrators, but it should be noted that according to the Rama, they used to make light of it when there was a reason to die, such as during a war or an epidemic, and it means there that even if it is still a time of war or an epidemic, it should still be lightened because it has to be hanged...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I haven't seen Lahdia in the A.A. discussed this in the arbitrators, but it should be noted according to the Rama that they used to make light of it when there was a reason to die, such as during a war or an epidemic, and it means there that even if it is still during a war or an epidemic, it should still be lightened since the death must be attributed to the thing, And ei' in the types of the bivms in the matter discussed if Ma'aina Grimm, etc. and the Nfkam in this, and ei' in the name of the Mahari and Weil Dam were 2 times because of a thing that must be hanged on it again one must fear the fatality and it should not be lightened according to his opinion but only in the way that once Once he was killed by his people and once he was killed by a thing.

And here, Annan Damboar predicted in Digit's type, and it was also ruled in the Shu'a Deed Gil that there is a lifetime right of eighty, and after eighty there is no life right of way (and how long does this time last), and so apparently if one of the first owners dies at eighty, and so on in such a way that only one Of the first husbands and not both of them (for fear of the above-mentioned Mahari and Weil) perhaps there is a place to say Dish to hang the dead on the one who did not have the right to life and was about to die as a blessing in blessings 17. In the possession of life and after eighty he is about to die.

However, one must distinguish between the death of an epidemic and the death of one's self at the age of eighty, a devastation has no reason to live but also has no reason to die, Dain Din is sick and not dying and not dangerous, and yet finally it must be said that Damzala Dida caused his death, and that fate may cause Even in a young person.

And it is also necessary to discuss Dashma Gifpa Meiri in such a way that now there is no fear of an epidemic, and SAL'A in this regard, in such a way that the third husband is not the son of F and is in the future to be the son of F, then he will be in danger, even if it is said that this luck is only dangerous from the age of F, and who is If he has passed the sailing age explained in Gitin there and Shu'a 21 according to his method, this doubt does not belong.

And because of its anchoring, perhaps it should be made easier, in particular what is explained there in the NKJV that the main reason for the permission in this is because it was trampled on by many, and this reason is mentioned in the GM in other places (i.e. Shabbat Kecht), but even there it is only in combination with what we found to heal Opinions in the rulings on alleviating the epidemic, and in the above-mentioned Gm Yavmat, and in the 18th century, in the name of the Hardbaz, it only mitigated the lethality of D. and not the lethality of D. Only in B. it mitigated with the addition that the fear of lethality of D. provides a risk, and so for our purposes we must discuss In all of this, and the closure of the judges apparently, we did not find that they mentioned this permit.

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

There are some judges who have taken the view that there is no prohibition of slander at all, and that is the main rule of law, and since there is a degree of Hasidicism in this, of course to keep away for fear of touch and sight, and in fact there are different customs, and slander of use is condemned differently, and slander of words of affection is more severe for some...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

There are some umpires who have taken the view that there is no prohibition of slander at all, and that is the main rule of law, and since there is a degree of Hasidicism in this, of course to keep away for fear of touching and seeing, and in fact there are different customs, and slander of use is condemned differently, and slander of words of affection is more severe for some of the rascals, etc. P for the people of Sephard, and the Ashkenazi people even relax the gesture of affection with additional combinations and there are opinions among the Ashkenazi scribes (from the opinions presented in the Rama'a and Noach) that completely relax.

Sources:
In the opinion of the Rashba [Shut Ha C. Alef Kafah] the prohibition in his wife is only Nada, and thus the meaning of the Gm' in Berchot 9a and Irubin 18 is that only in a looker there is a prohibition and in the Parshii there it means Demeiri Akaf Afi' in a man's wife, (wm) There is no difficulty from the G.M. Dahari Afi' the prohibition of hoshta banda, which was practiced throughout Israel, its prohibition is not determined by the state of the Dgm 64 and 66. Complete and yet also the use of a woman is prohibited in the Kiddoshin of the Holy Bible and there is a place to include hoshta in the laws of the use of a woman, but it is the same in the Meiri Kiddoshin for the purpose of watering which is the use of affection as explained in the case of Neda in the inscriptions, but from the meaning of the third part of Dekidoshin there it means a rightful act on the part of affection but on the part of all Use, and perhaps it should be divided between the extension of use, such as the one that raises a land registry for him, to the extension of giving from his permission to her, and according to the Shu'a [which will be cited below] use of a woman is prohibited only in the use of affection as explained in the language of Hedia), however due to " 5 [The Hour of the Letters Shear Kof Kedushot HaZivg] 20 to renew the prohibition even in one's wife, and who is the Shela at the end of his words, it is possible that he agreed to the Rashba Aish.

And in the language of the Samak, the commandment of the Lord is not to lecture from his hand near the woman, and there are those who have pointed out according to Rashi Erubin 18, 18, that he recited, we were appointed, and we were the one who looked, as the words of the Hagami, and the Saamik shortened the words of the Hagami, and therefore there is no rai' for our matter. ' Not for the matter of AA (as Parashi who interprets part of the Su' there in the AA) and KS for the matter of a vacant post.

According to the Halacha Shu'a and the Rama'a in Aha 3:16, we discussed some matters of affection, what are their rulings regarding a woman who is not his wife, and the author was stricter than the Rama'a, in all the details of the laws, but even the author there did not mention at all the prohibition of lying, but Only the prohibition of words of affection, and even though the Rama'a brought in his words the above-mentioned words of the Rashba, and there it is mentioned that it is also permissible to reach out. However, the language of the House of Shmuel there on the Rama (in the part where the Rama brought the opinion of the Rashba) that in this he came to allow eating from a bowl and a hand, and the language of the Rama "in all these things" is really a tsa that ends with the L. of the House of Shmuel means that until now he was a party to forbidding hoshta, and a shout that it was not mentioned either in the language of the author or in the language of the Rama, until now he was a party to prohibit hoshta in a woman who is not his wife, but only mentioned things about affection (according to the author) and eating from one bowl (in the first opinion presented in the Rama, which is The opinion of Benjamin Ze'ev and apparently even in Benjamin Ze'ev's face he did not remember to forbid hoshta, [and Shur Bagan Na'ul 13 p. Tia which he brought from some of the latter who learned in Binyamin Ze'ev to forbid hoshta as well, and perhaps this is how the Bish learned as well, and this is the darkest of all]) , and C.E.
And in a hurry it is necessary to say Derek Lafaha Damilta in the explanation of the Rashba's method, even though the main part of what was brought in the RMA was not brought to the matter of this detail of Hushta and M.M. even in the RMA itself it was taught in the MACHSH.

Regarding the custom of the Sephardi today, in practice I have heard different customs regarding this, and even among the Ashkenaz it seems that there is no absolute custom to make it completely easy in raids, and 11 will ask his rabbis.

And Yaoi' in the book makes sense of the parable in the wilderness that brought many sources to this discussion (and many of the sources in this answer are according to what was brought there), and what he brought there in the name of some latter (the thousand shields recited in the name of a greedy and pleasant field for the sight of the firstborn a leaf of Katsag) who commented on the custom that the sun revolves With the fourth species and the women take from his hand and bless, above, there is no evidence from there that the latter prohibited handing at random, it is discussed there about a duty whose essence is to hand to women regularly and continuously and this is a derogatory thing as explained in the Mishnah at the end of Kiddoshin and in the commentaries there, and in particular when it is desired and intended for the sake of a mitzvah that we must inform who does not do a commandment in this but the opposite, so that he does not toil for the sake of heaven in a thing that is the opposite of the honor of heaven.

And Yeovi' to Harb from Butshatash in Ezer Mekodesh AHA C. 122 Delphi the explained in Shoa Yud C. Kase S.D. A handa is allowed to be handed over with her left hand to hand to her husband on the table. Hushta and also belongs to the Hasidic tradition to be careful when it is easy even when there are many people there (A.H., R.L. and in particular when there are many people there then there is no fear of convergence of opinion according to the Mishka who rule on the matter of eating from one bowl where many are eating, but because there really is no convergence there that many people eat, and perhaps from the point of view of convergence, it was touched upon that when there are many there is not so much fear that it will come to convergence of opinion and it is a kind of law of singularity, and the main issue of many is noted in the above-mentioned Rama, and here it was brought to the Torah Zirof), and with the left hand, perhaps a keel in Hasidism well (Eh, and these last two words are not at all clear what he means, and perhaps he means that the one who reaches out with his left hand is a keel for the purpose of those who want to behave according to Hasidism who can rely on it, and he is a keel "well" meaning that he is heard with a margin that can be trusted, and this is the context at the beginning of his words, and perhaps a connecting word is missing at the end of his words, such as "Vodok well" or "Va'inah well" etc.)

And it seems that some have learned in his words that he is talking about the prohibition of handing out right next to what is explained here, but the reference at the beginning of his words will show that the whole thing discussed is about handing out food and drink on the table, what is prohibited in Banda Bedaut Madina, eg. It was understood why the left is allowed since it has no affection for such a change as in Nida, and for the welfare of Damilta mentioned that there are many for whom there is no fear that they will come close after this.

And I. in the book Gan Na'ul, chapter 16, which brought many sources to this matter, and I. I. also what he expanded on the opinion of the Meiri in Barakat there which is fundamental in his opinion as one of the ancient sources that may have prohibited Hoshta AKP in the first place, and I. To allow this

And just to pay things off, I will point out that what is said that the Shua is stricter on this than the RMA is not agreed upon and quite simply because the author is clear in his words that only the deception of affection explained there is prohibited, and the RMA brought several opinions on this and as stated in the title of the book Gan Neul there are a few recent ones who studied the opinion of the Benjaminites Ze'ev (which is the first opinion brought forth in the Rama'a) to forbid all hoshta, but it is really not clear in Benjamin Ze'ev's opinion that eating together from a bowl is a way of affection more than hoshta and has a source in the Gm' to forbid ai' on Shabbat 11 and in Tos' there, and hoshta Afi' banda in This is the agreed upon source from the Hag'm, and in particular that Benjamin Ze'ev's company was destroyed by the Rashba Darev Govria, and in particular that the Rama'a itself does not mean that the custom as Benjamin Ze'ev in his language 2 times what he mentioned regarding the custom, so in fact it is true to the Dina that the Rama'a does not exist More severe than the author.

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

In the latter (Hamakana and Rosh Pina) it means that God made it easier for him, and it also seems from the reasons given in Rashi and in the former concerning his sister, therefore, in fact, ACP should be permitted according to the details of his sister's law, and indeed in question and answer books from our time I found several opinions on this. Sources: The answer to this question...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the latter (Hamakana and Rosh Pina) it means that God made it easier for him, and it also seems from the reasons given in Rashi and in the former concerning his sister, therefore, in fact, ACP should be allowed according to the details of his sister's law, and indeed in question and answer books from our time I found several opinions on this.

Sources:
The answer to this question depends on whether the teaching that a son unites with his mother is a finished sermon and then here since it is not his mother it will be forbidden, or if he has an opinion and then here it will be permitted since it is practiced by his mother, and indeed one should say on the other hand Gisa Dafi' if it is a finished sermon mm in his mother Panuya Nima is correct, but this is not a dabamu aa mai ika to a mimer and it does not appear that they said their words to the chaplains, and more Dlagbi Aryot find that there are things that are not correct to be considered as a finished mother, Yaoi' Yavmot Daf Tzah aa, however there is a place to say on the other hand a gisa model If it is not a finished sermon, it should be prohibited, because in matters of marriage we find that there are things that are not suitable for consideration as his mother and 11, and apparently it turns out that it is a finished sermon. According to Rashi's opinion, that his sister is taught from a tkanta Danshi called 13 Delhalan etc. means that it is appropriate to permit a daurita from a sabra, and although in the case of his mother there is a rule that she is a daurita, but from his sister after the regulation of anchana 3 apparently we learn to permit his mother to convert, and here is what is written below in the words of the Makkanah in this), and the calculation of the things in the Gm' means that it is a finished sermon according to the words of the Gm', and

And ei' in Shu'at Bezal Hachacham 44 C. Yad who extended this tuba and brought several mm from Marshi (Kidoshin Pa 12 45 and Dar with his daughter) and Meiri (Kidoshin Pa 12) and Prisha (C. 22) SKA) and OAS (same SA) that it is a matter of detakif ytzaria according to the Hagm on the day of dela magri inish in her relatives and concluded that A to permit on the basis of this a dasma is gazach and the same, and what Rashi mentioned there The words of the Gam' Datkanta Danshi as 33 dela magri anishi in her relatives, the rai' rejected from there Dashma what dela magri inish in her relatives is only in a way that they judge them as definite relatives but in the case of magri in hu yitzhar, and with this last claim I do not understand his words, I am sure that the rules are an egg" They are according to reality, and the only reason for this is the regulation of the people of the 19th century. Each other in the manner of his mother, ready for everything.
And Ish who extended a great deal and tended to make it easier and mentioned there that in the matter of the halakhic halakhic halachah 37 skit we will be content with this, and also in the shunt Mishna halakhot Hiz 3 we are not satisfied with this and he made it much longer and tended to make it worse.

And whereas Dathan to this Yaoi' in Rosh Pina in Aha C. 22 what is said regarding the one who was sentenced for a privity with his sister Gabi Ma Damari' in the Gm at the same time they ruled on the privity Dafoya after the act of Amnon and Tamar etc. where they preceded the correction of the people of Kanha 3 was his sister as a rest Nuvaya, and his words require a Talmud Dam Hetam Kaimi' when his sister was left naked, so he was forbidden to David's court to decree a Nuvaya because of his sister's nakedness, and why else would he rule at all since the distinction of being a Nudity was forbidden before them, and especially the definition of Tamar and Amnon that is where his sister was from his father Tsa Dahari, daughter of Yaph Tavar, was a Damari' in the Sanhedrin 21 AA and in the Tos' Kiddoshin 22 AA, and she was permitted to sing, according to Hara Mizrahi A't in P. Shofitim 21 11.

And who in Rashi Sanhedrin 1111, and Radak Shmuel 2111 20 that David's daughter was the first to bring forth, and the PZ is truly condemned whether it is permissible to unite with Amnon or not (the main thing condemned in Rosh Pina there) is whether his sister Dagiot is lawful His sister is Dihadot, and if the head is Pina, learned Karshi Wardak A.K. understood in the raids that his dahut Dagiot is like his sister Dihadot for a single matter but not for the matter of marriage because of his sister from his father Eski' which is allowed as a masha in Yavmat Tzach and Shu'a Yod C. Rest (vaa "P there is an opinion in the Rama'a in the name of the OZ to forbid in the 23rd that the son was born in Judaism, but the simplicity is to allow it and I wrote about it in a different answer), and in this the rest of the difficulties on the head Pina are settled, for the sake of the uniqueness of his fear was not prohibited by the prohibition of pubic hair and only on the part of To permit that there is no suspect on his sister, the Lord is a place to permit and the OT excuses what is excused, and after an obstacle has occurred in a matter that is not a prohibition of nudity, they decree an exception also in a matter that is not a prohibition of nudity.

And I found in the mentioned answer books (in the shadow of wisdom and the Mishna Halkhot) that in the words of the Mkannah in the Kiddoshin Pa AB Shagak it is explained in the idea of the words that Amnon was his sister in the matter of Tiknta Danshi as the 3rd and not in the matter of a naked woman as if what I explained in the words of the head Pina above (and from the Mishna I also copied The opinion of the aforementioned Rashi Sanhedrin, after looking at his words internally, it seems that he understood in all his words that his sister's conversion is considered a matter of uniqueness, (we were from the beginning of his words that it is hard for Dakyon that David ruled for silence Damnon ak nima that ruled also for his mother Gamora ak "4, and there is no difficulty, after all his mother is his real mother, but Hazi' did not disagree with this, and also from the continuation of his words, that he came to settle that there was a stricter because it was not a complete virginity, (meaning thus he does not withdraw and is not afraid because it is not a complete virginity), and why did not Tefi settle From this, Desham is stricter since she is not his sister by law and not on behalf of her virginity, and also from the continuation of his words that the Yishuv rejected and brought evidence from a pervert 7 Model in 203 Shargilin 177 should be stricter in virginity, and why not the same as above here not only that she is not naked but she is not His sister included, and also what Demsaim the grantee, after Tkanta Danshi as 33, does not draw inish from her relatives and Ral Dehashta Sheri in his sister as Parshii [Sha'az Kai the grantee] ak then I will anoint you with a bodily form that he brought from Amnon and Tamar [according to It means that his sister was a convert who is the Rashi of the Sanhedrin and the above-mentioned Radak] that in this way the body of the Idna after Takneta Danchana 3 Shari), and it is true that in the books of the above-mentioned answers Mishka in the opinion of the Makana, and from the Mishnah the Laws there on the words of I didn't understand the reason.

And in the name of the AGM and the Grisha, I have heard to allow this, and the closing of the rumor means, that is, like his actual mother and not like the legal restrictions that his sister has, and the sla'ah in the sources of the things.

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

It was a matter of showing God's leadership with Israel in the wilderness that is supernatural, and as explained in the Samor Kaha 5 and in the Psikta Drach Pisca and in the Shelah, where they refer to Hadi's diagnosis that you noticed that the leadership with the manna and the light of Miriam was the opposite and as you put your mind to this. And the reason ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It was a matter of showing God's leadership with Israel in the wilderness that is supernatural, and as explained in the Samor Kaha 5 and in the rulings Dr. K. Pisca and in the Shelah, where they refer to Hadeeth for the diagnosis that you noticed that the leadership with Haman and Miriam was the opposite and as you put your mind to this.

And the reason is because the entire leadership of the desert was forty years ago, O God, your God is with you, nothing is lacking, which was a natural leadership for the recipients of the Torah, as in Michilta, Rabbi Beshelach Gabi did not give Torah except to the eaters of manna, as in Jeremiah, the generation, you see, etc. .

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

forbidden. Sources: In the rulings it is proven that a sheet or a blanket is considered as clothing (see the rulings of Mishna Halkhot p. Mo, Suga in Shoshans PG 66, and A.E. The prohibition of touching her clothes, which is forbidden according to the Shabbos!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

forbidden.

Sources: In the rulings it is proven that a sheet or a blanket is considered as clothing (see the rulings of Mishna Halkhot p. Mo, Suga in Shoshans PG 66, and A.E. The prohibition of touching clothes, which is forbidden according to the Shabat Ha'Batz (Heg C. Noah Skat 9 and is brought up in the beginning of Tshuva at the end of Skaj), as well as explained in many rulings on the prohibition of touching clothes (I. Hayim Asal Lahida 17 6 Mag, Aruch HaShalchan Sach, and more).

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